Welcome to the SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue #68
December 2, 2003

Read this issue online

Objection-reply:  Whether OA-promoting policies must "wait until the infrastructure is ready"

There are large reasons to launch open-access journals and archives.  But here's a smaller one that might be overlooked in the discussion of the larger ones.

Some institutions that support OA are torn by the decision whether to go beyond encouraging it to requiring it.  For example:

* Funding agencies might want to require OA to the results of the research they fund.

* Legislatures might want to require OA to the results of the research funded by taxpayers.

* Universities might want to require that faculty (especially those undergoing promotion and tenure review) deposit their research articles in the institution's OA repository or archive.

I've been in several conversations with funders and university administrators who are considering these steps.  One objection that always comes up is that the OA infrastructure isn't ready.  "We can't require OA," the argument goes, "or even encourage it very strongly until the OA infrastructure can accommodate the resulting flood of literature."

In responding to this objection, let's first distinguish the archive infrastructure from the journal infrastructure.

The archive infrastructure is either ready or very close.  There's ample unused capacity, and archives scale up without problem.  But even if there aren't enough archives to hold *all* the literature that would flow toward them if governments, foundations, and universities began to require OA, they are inexpensive and easy to launch.  If major institutions adopted policies encouraging or requiring deposit in an OA archive, you can be sure that more than enough universities, libraries, labs, departments, and private researchers would launch new archives before the week was over. 

Moreover, funding agencies should appreciate that they can host their own archives.  Last month, for example, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched its own archive, Science Inventory, to hold EPA-funded data and research papers.  Even if all these files could be archived in various institutional and disciplinary repositories outside the EPA, using its own archive lets EPA monitor compliance with its OA requirement, facilitate discovery and retrieval, assure long-term preservation, and of course guarantee the sufficiency of the infrastructure.

The journal infrastructure is different.  When foundations and legislatures worry about insufficient infrastructure, they're really worrying about OA journals.  This is clear from their conversation.  It's important to respond to this worry about journals with two very different considerations.

First, it's true that there aren't enough OA journals.  We should have many more in every discipline.  All OA proponents admit this.

Second, it would be a mistake for a funding agency to require OA through journals alone.  If it wrote its policy properly, it would require OA, period, and leave the researcher some choice about how to achieve it --in particular the choice between archives and journals.  OA through archives is just as useful and just as genuine as OA through journals. OA archives could take the flood of new OA literature without delay.  Archives could continue to fill this role even after we have many more OA journals. 

Bottom line:  the OA infrastructure *is* ready.  We realize this as soon as we remember that OA isn't limited to journals.

Some funding agencies and universities will never be comfortable requiring OA.  But my distinct impression is that some would go beyond encouragement to requirement if they believed that the OA infrastructure was ready to accommodate the resulting surge of articles.  I invite these institutions see that the infrastructure is ready, to cross that objection off the list, and continue their deliberations where they  left off.

Sometimes infrastructure leads content, and we must work on getting people to submit their content and take advantage of the existing capacity.  This is roughly the situation today with archives.  But sometimes content leads infrastructure, and we hope it will nudge or inspire people to create infrastructure.  This is roughly the situation today with journals.  The motive force may shift back and forth, just as software makes demands on hardware, which manufacturers eventually satisfy, and hardware creates opportunities for software, which programmers eventually exploit.  We can ride this dialectic by pushing more content into existing archives, and launching more journals to take up the building demand.  The first step will answer the objection that scholars show little interest in OA.  The second step will answer the objection that the journal-infrastructure isn't ready.

There are many unfilled archives today.  So I know better than to claim that "if you build it, they will come."  Infrastructure alone is insufficient.  We need infrastructure plus policies (from funders and employers) to encourage its use, and we need education (from friends of OA) to show why using it is in the interests of scholars themselves, both as authors and readers.

But for the same reason --there are many unfilled archives today-- no one can say that the OA infrastructure isn't ready for a big bump in demand.

* To launch new OA archives see the BOAI Guide to Institutional Repository Software.

* To launch new OA journals, or convert conventional journals to OA, see the BOAI Journal Business Guides.

* I've drafted a model policy for funding agencies showing one way to require OA to the results of the funded research by giving the researcher the choice between OA archives and journals.  This or some variation on this method lets funding agencies require OA now, without waiting for a huge wave of new journals to launch.  It also allows authors to meet the OA requirement without giving up their freedom to publish in conventional, toll-access journals.

* The EPA's Science Inventory


Open access when authors are paid

In November, I was in Croatia speaking on OA and talking about OA issues with scholars, librarians, and government officials.  In preparing for my talk, I learned that some Croatian scholars are paid for their journal articles and some are not.  After I arrived, I learned that Croatian journals typically pay for articles in law, economics, agriculture, and the humanities, and typically do not pay in medicine and the natural sciences. 

In most countries and most disciplines, scholarly journals never pay authors for journal articles.  In the countries where the OA movement arose, OA to journal articles is compelling in part because authors are giving them away and looking for ways to disseminate them to the widest possible audience.  We stop short of calling for OA to books partly because authors can earn royalties from their books.  OA is about giving readers barrier-free access to what authors are giving away, not about taking from authors what they are not giving away.  OA works best when it requires no sacrifice from authors that they are not already making. 

So how do we advocate OA for journal articles in countries and disciplines where authors are paid for them? 

Fortunately, in Croatia a second scholarly tradition offsets the tradition of paying authors and makes this question easy to answer.  Authors of journal articles typically retain copyright. 

If an author is paid for her article and also retains the copyright to it, then she can let a conventional journal publish it and then deposit the postprint in an OA archive.  She has the best of both worlds --payment and permission.  She also has the freedom to publish in conventional journals without giving up the possibility of OA. 

So far, postprint archiving is rare in Croatia, but that is changing.  It's possible that as this practice grows, journals will reconsider the tradition of paying authors for articles or the tradition of leaving copyright in the author's hands.  It's too early to tell. 

What about countries that pay authors for journal articles but also ask authors to transfer copyright?  (Are there such countries?  I don't know of any, but I can try to answer in the abstract.)  Authors in these countries are still free to deposit their preprints in OA archives, since that requires no permission from the publisher.  But postprint archiving will be more difficult.  OA journals might exist, but the processing fee might be neutralized by the author payment.  Does that mean that authors would neither pay nor be paid and still have an open-access publication?  If so, most scholarly authors would jump at that deal. 

Even when journals don't pay authors, they have other expenses.  Hence, they still need a revenue stream or subsidy.  If they pay authors, then the revenue stream or subsidy must simply be a little larger.  So the custom of paying authors doesn't break the logic of OA; it merely increases the degree of difficulty. 

The chief danger where journals pay authors is (1) that the payments are large enough to matter and (2) that journals will stop paying authors who provide OA to their articles.  Where these conditions hold, scholarly authors will lose their distinctive immunity to markets and suddenly have the same interests as musicians and novelists.  The size of their payment may not depend on the popularity of their work, but its existence will depend on limiting access to paying customers.

* Postscript.  I understand that in Russia scholars are also paid for their journal articles, at least in some fields.  I'd be interested to hear from readers about other countries and disciplines where this tradition is followed, and how those countries and disciplines are accommodating the growing demand for open access.

* Many people helped me understand the Croatian tradition of paying some scholars for their journal articles and not others.  But I'd especially like to thank Zorana Gajic, Omer Hadziselimovic, and Iva Melinscak Zlodi.


Advice to a student

Last month I received a letter from Michael Long, a philosophy major at Edinboro University of Pennsylvania.  I reproduce it here with his permission.

I am an undergraduate philosophy student, interested in entering a doctoral program in philosophy.  I understand that you are a serious advocate of open access to academic scholarship, and so I think you might be able to give me some advice.  I oppose almost all intellectual property rights, and to legally restrict or to allow anyone else to legally restrict access to any writings I produce would violate my ethical standards.  At the same time, I understand that it is very important for a scholar to publish in peer-reviewed journals.  Are there any philosophy journals that do not demand an exclusive copyright and yet are prestigious enough that I might establish a reputation while only publishing in them?  Can you imagine any way in which I might succeed in this field without compromising my integrity? 

I wrote Michael a reply that drew in part on our common field, philosophy.  But here let me generalize for undergraduate and graduate students from all fields who might be planning an academic career that combines open access with career advancement.  How can you have both?

(1) First, the narrow question about journals that don't demand copyright and yet have enough prestige to help your career must be answered differently in different fields.  Even for experienced scholars, the question will be difficult, since the answer depends on the copyright policies of each of the first-rate journals in the field, and most scholars don't know most of those policies.

I recommend the Project RoMEO table of journal policies on copyright and self-archiving.  There's no substitute for reading a given journal's submission requirements and publishing contract.  But this table gives the basic policies of the major journal publishers.

(2) The best way to provide open access to your work is to cooperate with the copyright system to some extent.  When you write an article, you are the copyright holder and you should use your rights intelligently to get the result you want.  You can waive all these rights and put the work into the public domain.  Or you can waive most of these rights, provide open access to the article, and retain just the rights (for example) to block the distribution of mangled and misattributed copies.  Either way, you get these results by using the power that the law gives to copyright holders.  It's true that you could get the same results if the law gave less power to copyright holders, and I want to get there as much as anyone.  But in the meantime, copyright law is only a problem when the copyright is held by someone who wants to restrict access.

(3) While most journals will ask you to transfer copyright, some will accommodate you if you refuse or if you want to negotiate.  Nobody really knows how many journals will be flexible this way, since journals don't advertise their willingness to negotiate.  Anecdotally, we know that some are willing and some are not.  So the lesson is to try.  If you try to retain copyright, you'll succeed more often than you thought, even if that's not often enough.  Moreover, if more and more authors try, then more and more journals will feel pressure to shift their policies

(4) There are still things you can do if the journal wants a substantial bundle of rights.  You can transfer most rights to the journal but retain the right to put the postprint (the version that was approved by the peer-review process) in an OA archive or web site.  Or, you can offer to transfer to the journal just the right of first print and electronic publication.  Many journals think that's enough. 

(5) If there are OA archives hosted by your institution or discipline, then you can deposit your preprints there, regardless where you publish the postprints.  A growing number of publishers will let authors deposit their postprints in these archives as well.  That gives you open access without limiting your freedom about where to publish.

(6) All the while, of course, you can work to create more OA options in your field --primarily, journals and archives.  Then they'll be there when you need them.

(7) Conference presentations are usually OA.  Make a name for yourself by presenting your work at conferences.  Over time, can you wangle invitations to increasingly prestigious conferences.  You can then either publish the results in OA journals (no matter what their degree of prestige), directly to the web, or in books.

(8) A related strategy is to make your name through books.  It's customary for book authors to retain copyright, the reverse of the situation for journal articles.  On the other hand, it's rare for book publishers to provide OA to full-text books, although it's now being done for a growing number of titles at California, Illinois, Columbia, MIT, and the Brookings Institute, and since 1994 it's been done for all the titles at the National Academy Press.  If you have important books to your name, it may matter less whether your articles are OA in less prestigious journals or even non-OA.  Note that this strategy will work better in the humanities than the sciences, and that there is a "monograph crisis" in the humanities making it increasingly difficult there as well.  As the prices of science journals rise into the stratosphere, libraries cope in part by cutting into their book budgets, which leads university presses to accept fewer book manuscripts. 

(9) Your preferences won't be the only ones that matter here.  If you become a university professor, your publishing decisions will be influenced by the criteria of the committee that decides your hiring, promotion, and tenure.  This committee may not respect the OA journals on your list and may expect a very conventional kind of publishing career with traditional journals.  However, even when this is the case, you can still deposit your preprints in OA archives, and often your postprints as well.  Beyond that, I can recommend that you push for changes now so that the situation will improve for your successors.  That means work to create high-quality OA journals, work to close the gap between an OA journal's quality and its prestige (so that the good ones are both good and prestigious), and work to make the criteria used by promotion and tenure committees more sensitive to changing circumstances.

(10) Finally, educate your peers and professors about open access --and one day, your students.  Don't let misunderstandings circulate without challenge.  Don't let another generation of scientists and scholars become publishing authors ignorant of the profound changes that have taken place in making research literature useful and accessible.  Swap tips with your friends and spread the word.  Your success in relying on OA journals and archives depends on a community of like-minded scholars who build, maintain, edit, and submit their work to these resources.  It will take more than a village.  One cause and one effect of your activism should be the community that will build the superior publishing model of the future.


Coming up later this month

Here are some important OA-related events coming up in December

* On December 10-12, 2003, World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) will finally take place in Geneva.

The Scientific Information Working Group has been the main locus of effort to write meaningful endorsements of open access into the final WSIS documents.  The working group is very ably chaired by Francis Muget.  (Disclosure:  I'm on the steering committee for this working group.)

The documents most relevant to open access are the Principles and Plan of Action of the Scientific Information Working Group.  Here are the latest drafts:

   Declaration of Principles (November 14 draft)

   Plan of Action (November 14 draft)

For some background on why open access may be mentioned in the final documents less prominently than you'd like, and less prominently than it was in earlier drafts, see Francis Muguet's Activity Report of October 24, 2003.

* On December 31, 2003, the ERIC clearinghouses will either go offline or continue without ERIC funding. 


The ERIC Clearinghouses

Plans for the Clearinghouses without ERIC funding

For background see my ERIC story in SOAN for 10/2/03,

* Notable conferences

Information and Access: improving communication between publishers and academic users (sponsored by BIC, NISO, and the PA)
London, December 4, 2003

The role of science in the information society (sponsored by CERN, UNESCO, the International Council for Science, and the Third World Academy of Sciences)
Geneva, December 8-9, 2003

Digital Libraries: Technology and Management of Indigenous Knowledge for Global Access (6th International Conference of Asian Digital Libraries)
Kuala Lumpur, December 8-11, 2003

Focus on Access: a Workshop on Building Digital Collections and Services
Cape Town, December 10-12, 2003

CODATA / ERPANET Workshop on the Selection, Appraisal, and Retention of Scientific Data
Lisbon, December 15-17, 2003

* Other OA-related conferences


Best of the blog:  new developments

A selection of open-access developments since the last issue of the newsletter, taken from the Open Access News blog, which I write with other contributors and update daily.  I give both the item URL and blog posting URL so that you can read the original story as well as what I or another blog contributor had to say about it. 

* The boycott and cancellation of Elsevier journals continued and widened.  Here's some news coverage of the new developments.

Jonathan Knight, Cornell axes Elsevier journals as prices rise, Nature, November 20, 2003 (accessible only to subscribers).

Paula Hane, Cornell and Other University Libraries to Cancel Elsevier Titles, Information Today, November 17, 2003.

The Cornell University Library is cancelling several hundred Elsevier journals and has explained the reasons why in a public letter

Nigel Hawkes, Boycott 'greedy' journal publishers, say scientists, The Times, November 10, 2003.

Jeanne Lenzer, Scientists call for a boycott of Cell Press, BMJ, 327, (2003) p. 1070-b.

Jondi Gumz, UCSC faculty threaten to boycott publisher over journal subscriptions' costs, Santa Cruz Sentinel , October 31, 2003.

Jennifer Murphy, Library struggles to fund access, Daily Bruin, November 17, 2003.

Jeffrey Aguero, Libraries to Cut Academic Journals, Harvard Crimson, November 24, 2003.

* On November 25, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that a database company that mixed copyrighted and public-domain information in one of its databases could not block customers from sharing the public-domain information with the public.

* Japan's National Institute of Informatics is offering non-Japanese students, scholars, and organizations free online access to two of its large academic databases (NACSIS-IR and NACSIS-ELS).

* While there are many opportunities for African universities to receive free or discounted electronic subscriptions to scientific journals, many universities are unaware of them or prevented from taking full advantage of them. That's the result of a recent INASP survey conducted by Sara Gwynn.

* _Pitch_ is a new open-access journal on "open source" (or open access) content in education.  Pitch uses an open peer commentary system for quality control.

* Project Figaro is shutting down. It lost its EU funding after Utrecht University, a major partner, withdrew from the project. The remaining partners hope to pursue the original project goals without EU funding.

* The SciX Project launched an online survey on scientific publishing, including attitudes toward open access.

* On November 24, Sara Kjellberg sent out an update on the Lund Directory of Open Access Journals announcing some new features and services.

* Red Hat has applied for a trademark on the term "Fedora Project", even though the term has named an important open-access project from Cornell and the University of Virginia for over five years.   The universities are considering legal action to stop Red Hat from enforcing restrictions on the use of the term.

Also see David Becker's short coverage of the controversy in News.com for November 21.

* The Electronic Mathematical Archiving Network Initiative (EMANI) now has a web site.

* On November 19, Dan Hunter of the Wharton School wrote an open letter to the California Law Review (CLR), protesting its policy that articles must be removed from preprint exchanges and eprint archives once they are published in the CLR.

* On November 18, the US Environmental Protection Agency launched Science Inventory, an open-access repository of EPA-funded research. The repository is several years old, but until now access was limited to EPA employees. The November 18 ceremony opened it to the public.

* The ARL posted a November 2003 update on the Scholars Portal Project.

* Starting in January 2004, CrossRef will drop its DOI retrieval fees for members and affiliates.  BMC and PLoS already use DOIs, but CrossRef's decision should make it easier for other open-access publishers and journals to use them.

* INASP has adopted the open-source software, Open Journal Systems, for the 100+ journals in its African Journals Online program.

* The Digital Library Research Group at Old Dominion University and the Research Library of the Los Alamos National Laboratory have released an alpha version of an OAI harvester plug-in for DSpace.

* The Lucy Maud Montgomery bill in Canada, which would have extended the term of copyrights on a certain class of works, is probably dead.

* A working group of delegates to the ninth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA-9) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) endorsed open access.

* On November 14, the US Government Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report recommending "that the Department of Education post the final technical reports of the research it funds on its Web site" and the Department of Education agreed.

Also see Eugene Russo, Uniform conflict rules needed, The Scientist, November 19, 2003.

For background on why this OA recommendation was limited to the Department of Education, see the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002.

* On November 14, the largest science funder in Austria, the Austrian Science Fund, signed the Berlin Declaration on Open Access.

On November 18, the National Hellenic Research Foundation has signed.

* A November 13 posting to PAMnet summarized a presentation by Greg Schwartz at the November 3-4 meeting of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) Publications Board, in which Schwartz presented data showing that astrophysics papers on deposit in arXiv are cited about twice as often as astrophysics papers that are not.

* OCLC has launched Extensible Repository Resource Locators (ERRoLs) for OAI Identifiers. ERRoLs provides cool URIs (roughly, permanent or persistent URLs) to metadata, content, or services in registered, OAI-compliant archives.

For more on persistent identifiers to free online content, see the PURL Project from the Library of Congress' CONSER program,

* PubMed Central launched an About Open Access page drawing attention to the journals that provide open access to their contents through PMC. The page also announces an important new policy: "[I]n October 2003, PMC began accepting individual open access articles from journals that do not participate in PMC on a routine basis."

* BioMed Central launched a page of author profiles in which BMC authors speak in their own words about their experience with an open-access journal --and a BMC journal in particular.

* The Ohio Library and Information Network (OhioLINK) bought institutional memberships in BioMed Central for 84 institutions of higher education in the state of Ohio.

* SPARC and PLoS entered a partnership "to broaden support for open-access publishing among researchers, funding agencies, societies, libraries, and academic institutions through cooperative educational and advocacy activities".

* The Erasmus University of Rotterdam (EUR) has added to its library catalog all the open-access journals from the Lund Directory of Open Access Journals, as well as the Lund Directory itself.

* The UK has created an open-access national archive and adopted a new "legal deposit" law requiring UK creators of new digital content to put copies into the archive.

* The November 6 issue of Nature raised the possibility of a libel suit against arXiv based on the defamatory content of an article on deposit there.

Anon., Defamation, online, Nature, November 6, 2003.  An unsigned editorial on the possibility of a libel suit against arXiv.

Anon., Perishing publishing, The Economist, November 13, 2003.

* The same issue reported that 22 papers were recently removed from arXiv when they were discovered to be plagiarized.

Jim Giles, Preprint server seeks way to halt plagiarists, Nature, November 6, 2003. 

* The UNESCO Social and Human Sciences Documentation Centre maintains a directory of open-access journals in the social sciences. It currently lists 367 journals.

* The OAI Registry at the Grainger Engineering Library at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has added an RSS feed.

* Sally Morris of ALPSP would like to hear from any journals willing to share data on their open-access experiments or operations.

* On November 5, SciDev.Net  launched a new special section called Open Access and Scientific Publishing. It includes links to news, opinion pieces, articles, conferences, reports, and discussion, most of it with SciDev.Net's distinctive emphasis on the interests of the developing world.

* On November 4, the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers issued a statement on open access. The group includes all the major commercial publishers of scientific journals, such as Elsevier, Wiley, Springer, Kluwer, and Blackwell.  (My blog posting includes a short reply.)

* Alastair Dryburgh has launched a new discussion forum, Economics of Open Access. Free registration is required for access.

* On October 28, the U.S. Copyright Office approved four narrow exemptions to the DMCA anti-circumvention clause and denied dozens of others.  My proposal was among those denied.  It would have permitted circumvention to gain access to works for which the copyright holder has consented to provide open access

Copyright Office ruling

My proposal

* On October 21, the Scottish Archive Network (SCAN) officially launched its online catalogue.

* On October 9, in preparation for its participation in the conference that released the Berlin Declaration, INSERM issued a public statement on open access.

*  In October, ACRL, ARL, SPARC, and SPARC Europe updated the Create Change brochure and posted the new text to its web site.


Best of the blog:  new bibliography

A selection of articles on open access published since the last issue of the newsletter, taken from the Open Access News blog. 

* Anon., The Future of Scientific Publishing: Open Access to Scientific Research or Business as Usual?  Focus, Fall, 2003.  On PLoS and OA.  _Focus_ is the newsletter of the Burroughs Wellcome Fund.

* Anon., Opening Access to Science, The Hindu ("India's National Newspaper"), November 8, 2003.  An unsigned editorial endorsing open access.

* Anon., PR Wars Heat Up in Open-Access Publishing, Outsell e-Briefs, November 14, 2003.

* Richard Atkinson, A New World of Scholarly Communication, Chronicle of Higher Education, November 7, 2003.

* Emma Beer, Changes at the Arts and Humanities Data Service, D-Lib Magazine, November 2003.

* Stefan Blaschke, Die Informationsexplosion und ihre Bewältigung: Gedanken zur Suche nach einem besseren System der Fachkommunikation, Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis, 54, 6 (September 2003) pp. 329-334.

* Valerie Bross and Naomi Kietzke Young, The PCC/CONSER PURL Project: Improving Access to Free Resources, The Serials Librarian, 45, 1 (September 2003), pp. 19-26 (accessible only to subscribers). On CONSER's Persistent URL (PURL) project for free online resources.

* Brian Crawford, Open-access publishing: where is the value?  The Lancet, November 8, 2003.

* Walt Crawford, Feedback, Cites & Insights, December 2003.

* Paul David, The Economic Logic of "Open Science" and the Balance between Private Property Rights and the Public Domain in Scientific Data and Information: A Primer, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, March 17, 2003.

* Michelle Delio, Where Sharing Isn't a Dirty Word, Wired News, November 15, 2003. A profile of Ibiblio.

* Steven Dickman, Tough Mining: The challenges of searching the scientific literature, PLoS Biology, November 17, 2003.  Concluding that open access will open up the potential of text mining.

* David Dickson, Communicating science in an electronic era, SciDev.Net, November 3, 2003.

* Alastair Dryburgh, Open access --time to stop preaching to the converted?  A preprint of an article to appear in Learned Publishing, January 2004.

* Martin Dufva, Ope access will deter illegal file-sharing, Nature, November 6, 2003. 

* Frederick J. Friend, Improving access: is there any hope? Interlending & Document Supply, 30, 4 (2002) pp. 183-189.

* Gustavo Fonseca and Philippa J. Benson, Biodiversity Conservation Demands Open Access, PLoS Biology, November 17, 2003.

* Thomas Goetz, Open Source Everywhere, Wired Magazine, November 2003.  On a handful of movements related to open source, including open access.

* Philipp Grätzel von Grätz, Wissenschaftliche Verlage in Bedrängnis, Telepolis, November 10, 2003.

* Dinah Greek, Copyright law could hurt crypto research, VNUNet.com, October 31, 2003.

* Klaus Graf, Open Access in Frankreich, Archivalia, November 27, 2003.  On some recent French articles and statements on open access.

* Paula Hane, Stable and Poised for Growth, Information Today, November 3.  An interview with ingenta CEO Mark Rowse, including his views on open access

* Stevan Harnad, Self-Archive unto others..., University Affairs, December 2003.

Also see his Self-archive unto others as ye would have them self-archive unto you, Jekyll, September, 2003.

* Richard Horton, Commentary: 21st-century biomedical journals: failures and futures, The Lancet, November 8, 2003.

* Travis Hunter, Digital Library Publishes UC Books Online, Daily Nexus, November 25, 2003.  On open-access ebooks from the University of California Press and the California Digital Library.

* Till Jaeger and Axel Metzger, Open Content --Lizenzen nach deutschem Recht, MMR, 7 (2003) pp. 431-438.  On open content licenses under German law.

* Hamish James, Raivo Ruusalepp, Sheila Anderson, and Stephen Pinfield, Feasibility and Requirements Study on Preservation of E-Prints, JISC, October 29, 2003.

* Maggie Jones, Archiving E-Journals Consultancy --Final Report, JISC, October 2003.

* Heather Joseph and Adrian W. Alexander, Two years after the launch: An update on the BioOne electronic publishing initiative, College and Research Libraries News, November 2003.

* Jean Kumagai, Will U.S. Sanctions Have Chilling Effect on Scholarly Publishing? IEEE Spectrum, October 15, 2003.

Also see the open letter from the IEEE President, Michael Adler, on the IEEE response to the Treasury Department ruling that trade sanctions against Iran prevent IEEE journals from editing papers submitted by Iranian nationals.

The American Chemical Society is following the example of the IEEE and refusing to publish papers in its journal by authors from Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and the Sudan.  However, it is applying for a license from the U.S. Treasury Department that would permit it to publish these papers.

* Derek Law, The eIFL Project: Sustainable Delivery of Electronic Information to Libraries in Developing Countries, D-Lib Magazine, November 2003.

* Rowland Lorimer, Online Social Science and Humanities Journal Publishing in Canada and the SYNERGIES Project, The Serials Librarian, 45, 2 (December 2003) pp. 61-86.  Only the abstract is free online.

* Declan McCullagh, Treaty could cast shadow on Webcast rights, News.com, November 6, 2003.

* Gerry McKiernan, Invisible Hand(s): Quality Assurance in the Age of Author Self-Archiving, Jekyll, September 2003.

* Eva Müller and three co-authors, The DiVA Project - Development of an Electronic Publishing System, D-Lib Magazine, November 2003.

* Robin Peek, NLM Proposes New Journal Standards, Information Today, December 1, 2003.

* A.R.D. Prasad, A Digital Library of Library and Information Science, D-Lib Magazine, November 2003.

* Patricia Reaney, Scientists Push for Open Access, Reuters, November 24, 2003.

* Victoria Robertson, The impact of electronic journals on academic libraries: the changing relationship between journals, acquisitions and inter-library loans department roles and functions, Interlending & Document Supply, 31, 3 (2003), pp. 174-179.

* Anna Salleh, Push to free up biotech tools for all, ABC News in Science, December 1, 2003.

* Gloriana St. Clair, Million Book Project Today, a public lecture at OCLC, October 24, 2003.  Her PPT slides and an audio file are available online.

* Peter Suber, Open access: other ways, Nature, November 6, 2003.  A short answer to John Ewing's objection to OA journals in the October 8 issue of Nature.  I have a longer answer to the same objection in SOAN for 11/2/03.

* Peter Suber, Open Access to Science and Scholarship, InfoPaper, World-Information, 2003.

* Pritpal S. Tamber, Fiona Godlee, and Peter Newmark, Open access to peer-reviewed research: making it happen, The Lancet, November 8, 2003.

* Sam Vaknin, The Future of Online Reference (Part I, Part II), United Press International, November 11, 2003.
Part 1, http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031110-121313-6810r
Part 2, http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031111-112843-9065r

* Ajit Varki, Open Access: The JCI has already shown it works, Nature, November 27, 2003 (accessible only to subscribers). A letter to the editor pointing out that the Journal of Clinical Investigation has been free and online since 1996.

* Dan Vergano, Upstart science journals take on the powerhouses, USA Today, November 19, 2003.

* Jina Choi Wakimoto, Electronic Resources: Approaches in Providing Access, Journal of Internet Cataloging, 6, 2 (March 2003) pp. 21-33.  Only the abstract is free online.

* John Willinsky, The Nine Flavours of Open Access Scholarly Publishing, Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 49, 3 (2003) pp. 263-267.

* Kate Worlock, Open Access: A step back in time? IMI Insights, October 2003, pp. 5-7 (accessible only to subscribers).  An interview with Arie Jongejan, CEO of Elsevier's Science & Technology Division.

* Catherine Zandonella, Open access: Will it spell the end of the medical library? Medicine on the Net, November 11, 2003.

* Hans Zell, Digital Media and African Publishing, The Book and the Computer, November 12, 2003.

* Open Access Now published issues on November 3, November 17, and December 1.

* The presentations from the session on the Scholar's Portal at last summer's IFLA Meeting (Berlin, August 1-9, 2003) are now online.

* The presentations from the conference, The radical library: taking up the challenge (London, November 13), are now online.

* Many of the presentations from the conference, Trusted Digital Repositories for Cultural Digital Heritage (Rome, November 17-19, 2003) are now online, and it appears that the others will be coming soon.

* Videos of some of the presentations at the Educause conference (Annaheim, November 4-7, 2003) are now online. Unfortunately, the presentations from the panel on institutional repositories are not yet online.



* I've added 28 new conferences to my conference page since the last issue.  Tomorrow I'll delete the second asterisk marking them and the new entries will blend into the rest of the collection.

* Bloglet is down again.  I've contacted the Bloglet maintainer but haven't heard back yet. 

Meantime the blog is still available on the web,

or by RSS syndication,

Because Bloglet has provided flaky service in the past, I'm looking for an alternative.  Can any of you suggest a good blog-to-email or RSS-to-email service that I should investigate?  I know about the Blogstreet RSS-to-email service, but I can't recommend it because it doesn't let users sign up under their own preferred email addresses.  I welcome your thoughts and suggestions. 


This is the SPARC Open Access Newsletter (ISSN 1546-7821), written by Peter Suber and published by SPARC.  The views I express in this newsletter are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of SPARC.

To unsubscribe, send any message to <SPARC-OANews-off@arl.org>.

Please feel free to forward any issue of the newsletter to interested colleagues.  If you are reading a forwarded copy of this issue, see the instructions for subscribing at either of the first two sites below.

SPARC home page for the Open Access Newsletter and Open Access Forum

Peter Suber's page of related information, including the newsletter editorial position

Newsletter, archived back issues

Forum, archived postings

Conferences Related to the Open Access Movement

Guide to the Open Access Movement

Timeline of the Open Access Movement

Sources for the newsletter and blog

Open Access News blog

Peter Suber

SOAN is an open-access publication under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.  Users may freely copy, distribute, and display its contents, but must give credit to the author.  To read the full license, visit

Return to the Newsletter archive