Israel Scholar Communication Scrolls

Reshaping academic communication. Liberating the scholarship from commercial publisher cabal. Uniting global Jewish scholarship

April 23, 2005

Searching Corporate Contracts

"From a Nextance/Oraclce press release (April 5, 2005): 'Nextance Support of Oracle XML Database Gives Visibility into Key Unstructured and Structured Data Found Only in Contractual Agreements. Nextance Inc... today announced working with Oracle to accelerate the industry's adoption of XML databases as the only technology standard capable of managing the intrinsically complex mix of both structured and unstructured data within contractual agreements -- the cornerstone of all business relationships. The advantages that XML delivers are most pronounced in Enterprise Contract Management solutions, with contracts containing a significant and untapped reservoir of unstructured language -- such as revenue sharing models, exclusivity rights, intellectual property ownership, fees and penalties -- which are essential in properly measuring the risk and reward potential of customer, supplier and partner relationships. "There is a tremendous wealth of business-critical information hidden in contractual agreements, but it is complex, highly variable from business unit to business unit and will change over time," explained Donald Feinberg, vice president and distinguished analyst of Gartner's data management and integration group. "Therefore, to conduct business with both eyes open, you need an architecture that can capture and harvest this complex data more effectively than the traditional relational databases in production today.'

PS: Nextance and Oracle say this service provides "open access" to corporate data, but it's not clear what they mean by the term. The service will certainly provide more intelligent searching of contract terms, but it probably won't be free of charge. In any case, think of how useful it would be to search across journal copyright transfer agreements looking for journal policies on self-archiving, author re-use, and rights retained by authors."

Source: Peter Suber. Searching corporate contracts. OA News (18 April 2005) [FullText]

April 22, 2005

National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine Begin Public Access Policy

"Greg Rienzi, NIH Begins Public Access Policy, The Johns Hopkins University Gazette, April 18, 2005. Excerpt: 'The published findings of some of the nation's leading health researchers will soon be a click away for the masses... A chief aim of this new public access policy, announced on Feb. 3, is to make NIH-funded research more readily accessible to the public and to scholars. It is also intended to create a stable, searchable and permanent online archive of peer-reviewed research resulting from NIH funding, of which Johns Hopkins is the largest recipient... While the scientific publishing community has concerns about how this will impact journal viability, many groups have hailed the policy's ratification as a historic step in giving taxpayers free access to discoveries for which they paid... "I, for one, will be very interested to see how the system works and the level of participation," said [Chi] Dang [vice dean for research at the School of Medicine and The Johns Hopkins Family Professor in Oncology Research], who has five manuscripts on track to be published in the next six months. "Ultimately, frankly, it's a laudable and honorable thing to do. Information should be made as freely accessible as possible. What will go online is not someone's opinion. It's real peer-reviewed science."...Timothy Hays, NIH's project manager for the public access policy implementation, said that both author and publisher will hold copyrights of the manuscripts and that use terms will be clearly stated on the PMC. As to the long-term economic impact of the policy, publishers are making individual assessments and will likely retool their business models accordingly, according to [Kathleen] Keane [director of the JHU Press]. The JHU Press, which publishes more than 50 journals, has followed this issue very closely. Keane adds that the Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division of the Association of American Publishers, of which JHU Press is a member, has been working with officials at the NIH to have their concerns addressed. Hays said that NIH will be listening to all "stakeholders" in the coming months in an effort to further refine the policy.'"

Source: Peter Suber. More on the NIH policy. OA News (18 April 2005) [FullText]

April 21, 2005

Israel Scholar Works Basic Info Page Launched

Israel Scholar launched today Israel Scholar Works home page. Israel Scholar Works is a digital archive for creative work by the faculty and staff of Israel Academic Institutions and Jewish scholars all around the world. Israel Scholar Works aims to unite Israel and Jewish scholarship, to make it Open Access, and to help assure its long-term preservation. Getting Ready To Archive Your Works Page is also available.

Israel Scholar will gladly consider grant support (by any interested party) and cooperation to help developing Israel Scholar Works.

April 20, 2005

Scholarly CommunicationResolution from the University of California

"On March 10, 2005, the University of California Systemwide Library and Scholarly Information Advisory Committee adopted a Resolution on The University?s Role in Fostering Positive Change in Scholarly Communication. Here it is in its entirety:

Scholarly communication is in a state of crisis that threatens to compromise the University of California's core mission. The crisis reduces the UC community's access to scholarly materials and limits the dissemination of UC's scholarship. A failure to respond will jeopardize UC's pre-eminence, its contributions to scholarly inquiry and the progress of knowledge, its effectiveness in teaching and learning, and its service to the citizens of California.

It is critical that the University, and the worldwide academic community of which it is a part, regain control of and strengthen scholarly communication processes. In these pursuits the committee:

Calls upon the University to continue and extend its efforts to:
  • lead the academic community in its work toward effective and sustainable scholarly communication systems;
  • support publications and publishing innovations that disseminate scholarship to the broadest set of readers at the most affordable cost;
  • establish and sustain repositories and alternative publishing mechanisms that enable the broadest dissemination of UC's scholarship;
  • develop incentives and support for faculty use of effective, sustainable scholarly publishing mechanisms;
  • leverage its libraries' buying power to break the cycle of hyper-inflation in the cost of scholarly material by refusing to pay unsustainable prices.
Calls upon the University's faculty to continue and extend their efforts to:
  • seize every opportunity to regain control of and maximize the impact of their scholarly communication;
    manage their intellectual property in ways that allow retention of critical rights, in order to ensure the widest dissemination of UC's scholarship and its unfettered use within the University to support teaching and research;
  • recognize and value their colleagues' use of any venue for scholarly communication that meets standards of excellence in selection and peer-review;
  • eliminate affiliations with publishers whose publishing and pricing practices reveal a focus on profits at the expense of open scholarly publication;
  • support library actions that attempt to break the cycle of hyper-inflation in the cost of scholarly material even when such action reduces access to material."



Source: Peter Suber. Resolution from the U of California . OA News (18 April 2005) [FullText]

April 19, 2005

Open Access and the "Fertile Soil of Dissatisfaction"

"Charles Greenberg, Good old days? Biomedical Digital Libraries April 13, 2005 (provisional text).

Abstract: 'Alternative models of subsidizing scholarly publishing and dissemination have germinated and gathered momentum in the fertile soil of dissatisfaction. Like the stubborn spring dandelion that needs but a small crack in the sidewalk to flower boldly, the first flowers of Open Access in library literature, including Biomedical Digital Libraries, have sensed their opportunity to change the existing paradigm of giving away our scholarship and intellectual property, only to buy it back for the privilege of knowing it can be read. Will biomedical digital library and informatics researchers understand their role in a new era of Open Access simply by desiring an immediate uninhibited global audience and recognizing the necessity of open access peer-reviewed literature to become self-sufficient?'"

Source: Peter Suber. OA and the "fertile soil of dissatisfaction. OA News (16 April 2005) [FullText]

April 18, 2005

Interview with one of PLoS Founders

Interview with Mike Eisen by "Spencer Reiss, Science Wants to Be Free, MIT Technology Review, May 2005. An interview with Mike Eisen, Berkeley biologist and co-founder of the Public Library of Science.

Excerpt (quoting Eisen): 'Depending on who's counting, 95 percent of research papers in the life sciences are still locked up by the big commercial publishers - Elsevier, Springer, and the rest. It's ludicrous at a time when the Internet has pushed the actual cost of distributing a research paper close to zero... [I]f research were freely available, people would build better tools to sift through and dig things out. And what if you're Joe Guy whos just been diagnosed with cancer? It's ridiculous that you can't read papers that your tax dollars have paid for that might be pertinent to your condition. And often your doctor can't either - we won't even mention the doctor in Uganda. In the first issue of the Lancet - Elsevier's prime medical journal - there was an editorial stating that the aim of the publication was to communicate the findings of science to the widest possible audience. Somewhere along the line, they became a business and lost touch with why they exist... [Question: Why was the NIH policy weakened?] The forces of darkness surprised us... What we have now is an egregiously subsidized industry --they're given content for free and then paid tremendous amounts of money to process and distribute it. Peer reviewers mostly aren't compensated. In a lot of fields, even the people who oversee the peer-review process are volunteers. And of course, the research that went into the papers is already paid for. And then the publishers have the gall to insist that they own a copyright on the results.'

Source: Peter Suber. Interview with Mike Eisen. OA News (16 April 2005) [FullText]

April 17, 2005

US Scholar recommends Re-Writing the Tenure Review Criteria to Favor Open Access Publications Over Pay-for-Access Journals

"Trebor Scholz, Interview with Joline Blais and Jon Ippolito, Institute for Distributed Creativity, April 2, 2005. Excerpt (quoting Ippolito): 'A new initiative we are working on, the Maine Intellectual Commons, is exploring this question. One of our University of Maine colleagues, Harlan Onsrud, has recommended re-writing the tenure review criteria to favor open access publications over pay-for-access journals... Prioritizing open access publications is a hard thing to push through a university, however, because of all the bureaucratic hoops you have to negotiate, from the administration to the faculty senate to the unions. So Harlan suggested the short-term goal of simply re-writing the forms on which people submit their tenure applications. The top slots would be filled with open access categories. This would essentially not change the criteria but would make professors think twice when they realize that they do not have anything in these first four slots for open access books or articles.'"

Source: Peter Suber. Choosing OA and getting tenure too. OA News (11 April 2005) [FullText]

April 16, 2005

Think Why Leading Cell Biology Journal Fakes Out NIH Policy on Public Open Access

The Journal of Cell Biology (JCB) says:

"To ensure that the final, published version of a paper is what is included in such an archive, we are willing to give the NLM all of our content as pdf files. This would prevent any problems of quality control related to html interpretation across platforms. We have been told by the NLM, however, that they want our complete html content, because they want to build a full-text search engine. "

The fact is: HTML content is not wanted by NLM PubMed Central. The PMC format for article submission is the XML format. For greater details see below the specific NIH Public Access Plan Wording.

The Journal of Cell Biology (JCB) says:

"It is a useless duplication of effort for the NLM to host html (or SGML, or XML, or whatever comes next) simply for the purpose of full-text searching—Google and other search engines are currently indexing our full text, and already far more users arrive at our content via Google than via PubMed. If, despite the duplication, the NLM goes ahead and develops a full-text search engine, we have offered to allow them to index our text by crawling our website. In addition, the text content of pdf files can be indexed for searching, which is how full-text searches of our content from before 1997 are done on our website.

The current NIH policy is a misguided attempt to achieve laudable goals. We hope they can be convinced to reconsider how to achieve those goals."

NIH New Public Access Policy Says: "The primary purpose of the NIH Public Access Policy is the creation of a stable archive to ensure the permanent preservation of vital, peer-reviewed research publications resulting from NIH-funded research findings now and for future generations. While links exist to journal articles that are publicly accessible, these are not sufficient because publishers' websites are not permanently available nor consistently maintained. Additionally, the formatting of journal articles may vary significantly among publishers' websites. The Policy addresses this deficiency in that all articles in PMC, regardless of their original format, are converted into a single, explicit, and well-specified data format. This format is known as the NLM Journal Article Extensible Markup Language (XML) Document Type Definition (DTD). Further, as new needs arise, and as technology and applications change, there is a single, uniform base upon which to build."

The Journal of Cell Biology (JCB) does not cite NIH Open Access Plan despite of its' public access with just a mouse click.

Is this because the sad fact isthat the leading Cell Biology Journal distrorts the truth about NIH New Policy on Public Access? Think about it.

References:

Rossner R. The NIH policy on enhancing public access to publications resulting from NIH-funded research : Can we streamline the process for our authors? JCB 168 (7): 991 (28 March 2005) [FullText]

Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research. Public Notice Number: NOT-OD-05-022 National Institutes of Health. (3 February 2005) [FullText]

April 15, 2005

OA Resolutions by the University of North Carolina Faculty Council

"On March 4, 2005, the University of North Carolina Faculty Council adopted two resolutions in support of open access. Here they are in their entirety.

Resolution 2005-7.

On Faculty Ownership of Research. Be it resolved that, to the extent permitted by law, UNC-CH faculty are the owners of their research and should retain ownership, or use other means to foster open access publication wherever possible.

Resolution 2005-8.

On Scholarly Communications. Be it resolved that the Faculty Council encourage the Provost to:

create a task force on scholarly communications to continue the work of the Scholarly Communications Convocation and to report back on the issues, problems and an on-going mechanism to propose and implement solutions,

create a task force on establishing an institutional repository to determine the feasibility of such and to outline potential contents, indexing, etc.,

work with department chairs to review tenure and promotion standards to recognize publishing in non-traditional sources, and

urge department chairs to discuss the problems in scholarly communications with their faculties.

Some of the Faculty Council discussion of the resolutions is included in the minutes of the March 4 meeting.

Excerpt: 'Prof. Laura Gasaway (Law) reported on the Scholarly Communications Convocation that took place at the Friday Center, January 27-28, 2005. She said that the planning committee's report (attached to these Minutes) [PS: not yet online] is preliminary; the committee intends to prepare a full, comprehensive report that should be ready in April. She said that is likely that the full report will contain recommendations in addition to those included in the preliminary report. Prof. Gasaway singled out for special praise the disciplinary white papers that were presented at the Convocation by Professors Robert Peet (Biology), Frank Dominguez (Romance Languages), Jack Snoeyink (Computer Science), James Peacock (Anthropology), and Jocelyn Neal (Music). She said that papers of this nature have not been done elsewhere in American higher education... Prof. Richard Weinberg (Cell & Developmental Biology) said... that he could not imagine why his work, which had been supported by federal funding, should become the property of a privately-owned journal.'"

Source: Peter Suber. OA resolutions at the U of North Carolina. Open Access News (11 April 2005) [FullText]

University of North Carolina Faculty Council Passed a Resolution Asking Professors to Publish their Research in Open-Access Journals

"OA at the University of North Carolina Greg Steen, Faculty touts online journals, The Daily Tar Heel, April 11, 2005. Excerpt: 'The UNC Faculty Council recently passed a resolution asking professors to publish their research in open-access journals that offer articles free of charge, another unique spawn of online innovation. By doing so, researchers say, they would save money and win back the rights to their own work. "You don?t have to be a Marxist to figure out that the workers are getting screwed," said Paul Jones, a clinical professor in the schools of Information and Library Science and Journalism and Mass Communication. "If I was a publisher and I could say it with a straight face, I would say I add value at every step." A paper written by Sarah Michalak, head University librarian, and Research and Special Projects Librarian Judith Panitch states that the cost of physics journals has risen 36 percent in the last five years to an average cost of $2,543 per subscription. Such numbers make Jones a proponent of open-access publishing. He said he hopes it will force the major journals to be more reasonable in their pricing. In addition, most traditional publications require researchers to give up the rights to their work, in effect preventing their universities from using the work without paying royalties. The Faculty Council passed two resolutions March 4 that show its intentions to circumvent traditional avenues of research publication. The resolutions call for professors to publish in open-access journals whenever possible and to form a task force to study the issue.'"

Source: Peter Suber. OA at the University of North Carolina. Open Access News (11 April 2005) [FullText]

April 14, 2005

The Transplantation Society Journal Demands Public Access to the Published in Transplantation Drug Trial Data

"Transplantation, the journal of The Transplanation Society, has joined other journals calling for open access to clinical drug trial data. From yesterday's press release: 'The editors of Transplantation, the official journal of The Transplantation Society, have announced that Transplantation will join with other leading kidney journals and the major general journals -- such as New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet-- in establishing a policy that clinical research studies involving trials will only be considered for publication if they have been submitted to a free, electronically searchable clinical trial register. The new policy is outlined in an editorial [PS: access limited to subscribers] to be published in the April 15 issue of the Transplantation... By requiring advance registration of clinical trials, the editors seek to ensure that full information on these studies will be freely available to the general public. The policy is intended to address the problem of "selective publication" -- studies yielding negative results are often not submitted for publication, and thus not included in the body of available research evidence on a given treatment... Under the new policy, all studies to be submitted for publication in Transplantation or the other kidney/transplantation journals must be listed in a public trials registry....The editors do not stipulate any specific trial registry, but the registries must be available to the public without charge and electronically searchable, among other requirements.'"

Source: Peter Suber. More on OA to drug trial data. Open Access News (8 April 2005) [FullText]

April 13, 2005

Australian Government Wants More Research on Improving Access to Research Information

"The Government is interested in seeing
publicly funded research being publicly
available rather than being restricted"

"The Australian Research Information Infrastructure Committee (ARIIC) has issued a call for proposals for improving access to research information.

Excerpt: 'In this call for proposals the Australian Government is looking to provide funding for collaborative projects that bring together consortia to improve accessibility to Australian research... Projects may address research information outputs such as research publications, and/or research inputs such as infrastructure to deal with research data and analysis. In accordance with the Accessibility Framework, this is in order to provide access to data and research which has been produced and/or published.' Excerpt from the white paper accompanying the call for proposals (same link): 'Advances in online communication tools and electronic publishing, open access storage and the international standards will greatly enhance the discoverability of information... The project should expose research resources, data and results through well managed open access institutional repositories. There is now consistent evidence that this behaviour results in significantly improved exposure with consequent improved citations for research... One of the best ways to make available the results of public investment in research is to make research outcomes as accessible as possible, and the best way to do this is to expose research output through open access repositories. We are looking for projects which will work towards providing innovative and practical solutions to which make open access to research results a reality. This will need to take into account many complexities, for instance copyright legislation, university policies and funding provider policies. We are also interested in projects that explore and attempt to solve some of the barriers to establishing open access archives and building national platforms for acquiring, sharing and integrating research data. The Government is interested in seeing publicly funded research being publicly available rather than being restricted.'"

Source: Peter Suber. More Australian funding for OA. Open Access News Blog (8 April 2005) [FullText]

April 12, 2005

Forty Four Years of Man in Space: Remembering Ilan Ramon, First Israeli Astronaut

44 years ago on April 12, 1961, the Soviet Union launched the first man into space, just four years after the Cosmic Era began with the launching of the first man-made satellite. Since then, all satellites have been universally called "Sputnik" the Russian word for satellite. The name of the first man in space, Yury Gagarin, who was at that time a Major and a fighter pilot in the Soviet Army, and designer of the Vostok rocket, Sergei P. Korolev, will always be remembered in association with the triumph of science and technology that made human space flight possible.

Since then, more then 400 people of different nations have visited the Earths' outer space, including many women and several cosmic tourists, who paid millions of dollars for a 1 week's tour aboard Russia's Mir Space station, a parental model of the International Space Station presently in orbit.

Among the space explorers, heroes of mankind, is the name of the first Israeli Cosmonaut, Ilan Ramon, whose life abruptly ended when his spaceship, the US Shuttle Columbia, exploded two years ago - just minutes before landing - on February 1, 2003. Ilan Ramon and the six other American astronauts aboard were killed.

Ilan Ramon (1954-2003)

"Ilan Ramon was born June 20,1954, in Tel Aviv, Israel. Ramon graduated from High School in 1972, and received a bachelor of science degree in electronics and computer engineering from Tel Aviv University in 1987.

In 1974, Ramon graduated as a fighter pilot from the Israel Air Force (IAF) Flight School. From 1974-1976, he participated in A-4 Basic Training and Operations. The years 1976-1980 were spent in Mirage III-C training and operations. In 1980, as one of the IAF's establishment team of the first F-16 Squadron in Israel, he attended the F-16 Training Course at Hill Air Force Base, Utah. From 1981-1983, he served as the Deputy Squadron Commander B, F-16 Squadron. From 1983-1987, he attended Tel Aviv University. From 1988-1990, he served as Deputy Squadron Commander A, F-4 Phantom Squadron. During 1990, he attended the Squadron Commanders Course. From 1990-1992, he served as Squadron Commander, F-16 Squadron. From 1992-1994, he was Head of the Aircraft Branch in the Operations Requirement Department. In 1994, he was promoted to the rank of Colonel and assigned as Head of the Department of Operational Requirement for Weapon Development and Acquisition. He stayed at this post until 1998. Colonel Ramon has accumulated over 3,000 flight hours on the A-4, Mirage III-C, and F-4, and over 1,000 flight hours on the F-16. Ramon also served in the Yom Kippur War and Operation Peace for Galilee. He was reported also to be one of the pilots involved in the raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981 (Jerusalem Post, January 17, 2003).
In 1997, Colonel Ramon was selected by NASA to serve as a Payload Specialist on the Space Shuttle Columbia. In July 1998, he reported for training at the Johnson Space Center, Houston. The seven member crew of STS 107, including Col. Ramon, successfully launched aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia at 10:39 a.m. EST from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida on January 16, 2003, for a 16-day mission. During the mission, Ramon conducted a number of experiments and the flight was considered a great success.

"Being the first Israeli astronaut -- I feel I am representing all Jews and all Israelis," Ramon said. Referring to his mother and grandmother, who both survived imprisonment in Auschwitz, he added, "I'm the son of a Holocaust survivor -- I carry on the suffering of the Holocaust generation, and I'm kind of proof that despite all the horror they went through, we're going forward."

Although Ramon described himself as a secular Jew, special kosher meals were made for his journey and he consulted with rabbis before leaving about the proper way to observe Shabbat from space. Ramon carried several personal souvenirs with him into space. His wife gave him four poems and his father gave him photographs of the family. His 15-year-old son, Assaf, and Ramon's brother, Gadi, both gave him letters to be unsealed and read only after he was in orbit. Israel's president, Moshe Katsav, gave him a credit card-size microfiche copy of the Bible. He also took a pencil drawing titled "Moon Landscape" by a 14-year-old Jewish boy, Peter Ginz, who was killed at Auschwitz.

Ramon's journey into space occurred as Israelis continued to suffer through a horrendous period of violence and helped lift the nation's spirits. Ramon was a national hero and a symbol of hope.

Tragically, just minutes before landing on February 1, the Columbia exploded; Ramon and the six American astronauts aboard with him were killed.

Ramon leaves behind a wife, Rona, and four children."

Quotation source: Ilan Ramon, 1954-2003 Jewishvirtuallibrary.org [FullText]

April 11, 2005

Open Access to UK Theses and Dissertations

"From a JISC press release, today: 'Around 14,000 academic theses are produced in the UK each year, representing perhaps the richest resource of primary research in fields ranging from molecular chemistry to medieval history. Today, [UK] JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee), CURL (Consortium of Research Libraries in the British Isles) and the British Library announced the development of a new national framework for the provision, preservation and accession of theses – both printed and electronic – to help researchers in higher education, science and industry to tap this currently underused resource. Electronic Theses Online [PS: sometimes called EthOS, for Electronic Theses Online Service] aims to offer full text access via the web to all theses electronically stored on a central host at the British Library via the British Library’s developing access and delivery infrastructure. It will also offer access to information about other theses held in institutional and consortial repositories in the UK, while a single interface will enable cross-searching across both nationally- and institutionally-held theses. Procedures to address all aspects of intellectual property rights (IPR), royalties and permissions will be fully integrated into the service....Research in the US has shown that the use of theses increases spectacularly with electronic access. Electronic Theses Online will also pursue an advocacy programme, targeting academics, senior administrators and information professionals, helping to transform the use of theses in learning, teaching and research, and ensuring a far greater national and international visibility for UK research.' "

Source: Peter Suber. More on OA to UK theses and dissertations. Open Access News Blog (7 April 2005) [FullText]

April 10, 2005

University of Kansas Faculty Senate Adopted a Resolution Supporting Open Access

"On March 10, the University of Kansas Faculty Senate unanimously adopted a resolution supporting open access.

Excerpt: 'The business practices of some journals and journal publishers, moreover, are inimical to scholars' interests and threaten to limit the promise of increased access inherent in digital technologies. Development of university collections of scholarly material is more and more constrained by the rising costs of journals and the databases that index and aggregate those journals.

Faculty, staff, students, and university administrators must all take greater responsibility for expanding access to scholarly information and ensuring its long-term accessibility while maintaining scholarly standards of quality. Therefore, the University of Kansas Faculty Senate:...

[3] Calls on all faculty of the University of Kansas to seek amendments to publisher's copyright transfer forms to permit the deposition of a digital copy of every article accepted by a peer-reviewed journal into the ScholarWorks repository, or a similar open access venue;...

[5] Encourages tenured faculty in particular to support journals (and their publishers) whose pricing and accessibility policies are consistent with continuing access to this literature through the choices faculty make in the submission of papers, the allotment of time to refereeing activities, and participation in editorial posts;

[6] Calls on University administrators and departmental, school, college and University committees to reward efforts by faculty, staff, and students to start or support more sustainable models for scholarly communication, and to provide financial and material support for organized activities initiated by faculty, staff, and students that will ensure broad access to the scholarly literature;...

[8] Also calls on the University, professional scholarly associations, and professional organizations of university administrators to establish clear guidelines for merit salary review, peer evaluation on federal grants, and promotion and tenure evaluation of faculty and staff that will allow the assessment of and the attribution of appropriate credit for works published in such venues....'

In a March 25 memorandum explaining the resolution, Provost David Shulenburger urged Kansas faculty to deposit their research output in the institutional repository, ScholarWorks.

Excerpt: 'KU ScholarWorks, a digital repository, is now available as a convenient site in which to place your published work, working papers, datasets, and other original material. Items placed in KU ScholarWorks will be archived permanently and will be available to search engines like Google and Google Scholar. Many studies demonstrate that articles that are available electronically are cited in other publications at four or more times the frequency of works that are not available electronically. It is in your interest and the University's to populate KU ScholarWorks with a complete set of KU faculty's scholarly output.' Shulenburger also suggests language to use in a copyright transfer agreement to reserve the right to deposit work in ScholarWorks."

Source: Peter Suber. University of Kansas resolution on open access. Open Access News Blog (6 April 2005) [FullText]

April 09, 2005

PNAS Editor-in-Chief Calls to Urge NIH to Adopt the More Progressive Public Access Policies, Fully Supports Present Federal Open Access Plan

"In an effort to establish a "searchable, electronic comprehensive, resource of NIH- funded research results and provide free access to all, " NIH has unveiled its long- awaited public access policy. The policy, which goes into effect May 2, 2005, requests, not requires, that NIH- funded investigators submit to PubMed Central (PMC) their accepted, peer reviewed manu-scripts for posting at PMC within 1 year of publication in a journal. This policy will ensure that publicly funded research is publicly accessible. The authority and influence of NIH will encourage further progress in this important area.

PNAS complies with the NIH public access policy, and our journal policies extend public access even further. The PNAS copyright policy gives authors permission to deposit their manuscripts in PMC upon acceptance. Authors can request public access to their manuscripts either 6 months after print publication or immediately upon publication publication if they have paid PNAS the open access fee. However, under the existing partnership between PNAS and PMC, authors can rely on PNAS to provide PMC with the official publisher version of their papers. The publisher version will, according to the new NIH policy, supersede any unformatted version deposited by the authors. PNAS automatically deposits the final, copyedited and formatted version of all its content, regardless of funding, in PMC and makes it free at both PMC and PNAS just 6 months after publication. Authors who choose the PNAS open access option have their final, copyedited and formatted papers made available for free at PMC and PNAS immediately upon online publication. Currently, the PNAS open access surcharge is $750 for authors from institutions with a 2005 site license/open access membership and $1,000 in the rare cases when an author's institution does not have a site license.

Although the NIH policy has been significantly scaled back from the one initially proposed in late 2004, I commend NIH Director Elias Zerhouni for taking an initial step toward a more accessible scientific literature, and I encourage him to do even more. The 2004 draft NIH policy indicated that NIH-funded authors would be required to provide a final version of their paper within 6 months of publication. The Council of the National Academy of Sciences unanimously endorsed this more comprehensive public access plan (1).

I hope the scientific community will urge Dr. Zerhouni to adopt the more progressive policies proposed in 2004 as part of the next step in ensuring increased public access to research. Authors can make the new NIH policy more effective by submitting to journals that participate in PMC and by deposition and public release requesting of their papers well before 1 year after publication. I hope that NIH will encourage authors to take advantage of open access by explicitly providing grant funds to pay for it. We look forward to partnering with NIH to achieve the widest possible dissemination of scientific research.

Nicholas R. Cozzarelli,

Editor- in- Chief

1. Cozzarelli NR, Fulton KR, Sullenberger DM. Editorial. From the Academy: National Academy of Sciences endorses National Institutes of Health plan for enhanced access to research information. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101(42), 14991 (12 Ooct 2004) [FullText]"

Source: Cozzarelli NR. Making research accessible: National Institutes of Health (NIH) public access and PNAS open access policies. PNAS 102(15) 5303 (4 April 2005) [FullText] [OANews Record]

April 08, 2005

The Legacy of John Paul II

Remember John Paul II,
Think of Science Exploitation by Commercial STM Publishers,
Witness Open Access Messiah

"One of the most striking aspects of John Paul II's papal leadership has been his frequent and outspoken forays into science, especially the life sciences. His positions on abortion, sexuality, and contraception have alienated vast numbers of Catholics and non-Catholics. Many people had seen his tenure in the Vatican as an opportunity for progressive leadership on issues ranging from AIDS in Africa to the reproductive rights of women. They have been disappointed. But his staunch orthodoxy has had one unexpected, and some would say beneficial, consequence - a decisive opposition to the commercial exploitation of science.

In a letter to the apostolic nuncio in Poland on March 25 2002, John Paul II condemned the "overriding financial interests" that operate in biomedical and pharmaceutical research. These forces, he wrote, prompted "decisions and products which are contrary to truly human values and to the demands of justice". His particular target was "the medicine of desires", by which he meant those drugs and procedures that are "contrary to the moral good", serving as they do the pursuit of pleasure rather than the eradication of poverty. In an especially thoughtful passage, he wrote thatthe pre-eminence of the profit motive in conducting scientific research ultimately means that science is deprived of its epistemologicalcharacter, according to which its primary goal is discovery of the truth. The risk is that when research takes a utilitarian turn, its speculative dimension, which is the inner dynamic of man's intellectual journey, will be diminished or stifled..."

Source: Richard Horton, The Lancet Editor. The Dawn of McScience [Book Review: Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research? by Sheldon Krimsky, Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 247] The New York Reviewer of Books 51 (4) (11 March 2004) [Free FullText] [FullText]

Also see: Editorial and Publisher Corruption. Science and Technology - Tenth Report, Volume II, Oral and Written Evidence. UK House of Commons Publication HC399II pp. 394-404, Ev386 (20 July 2004) [FullText] [Also available as a .PDF imprint of original submission]

April 07, 2005

US Science Policy Board Recommends Open Access

"Long-Lived Digital Data Collections: Enabling Research and Education in the 21st Century, National Science Board, March 30, 2005. The U.S. National Science Board (NSB) is an independent body established by Congress to set policy for the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Excerpt from the Report: 'The term 'data' is used in this report to refer to any information that can be stored in digital form, including text, numbers, images, video or movies, audio, software, algorithms, equations, animations, models, simulations, etc... This report adopts the definition of 'long-lived' that is provided in the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) standards, namely a period of time long enough for there to be concern about the impacts of changing technology... The Board task force held two workshops to hear the opinions of relevant communities. These workshops have shaped the Board's analysis of issues. The first workshop focused on the experience of the NSF and other Federal agencies with digital data collections. The second workshop provided a forum to gather the views of the NSF grantee community... Long-lived digital data collections are powerful catalysts for progress and for democratization of science and education. Proper stewardship of research requires effective policy in order to maximize their potential... In pursuing their respective interests in data collections, each actor in the data collection universe has a distinct set of responsibilities, which are outlined in the paragraphs that follow. In addition to their separate responsibilities, the groups must also act collectively to pursue some of the higherlevel goals important to the entire fields. Examples of such goals are the following:.. [3] work towards interoperability between communities and encourage cross-disciplinary data integration;... [5] encourage free and open access wherever feasible; and [6] provide incentives, rewards, and recognition for scientists who share and archive data... Data authors... [should] allow free and open access to data consistent with accepted standards for proper attribution and credit, subject to fair opportunity to exploit the results of one's own research and appropriate legal standards for protecting security, privacy and intellectual property rights.'

The NSB invites public comments on its report, which should be sent to NSBExecOfficer@nsf.gov by May 1, 2005.

Source: Peter Suber. US science policy board recommends OA. Open Access News Blog (5 April 2005) [FullText]

April 06, 2005

Open Access: Helping scholars and helping libraries

Quoting Peter Suber latest Newsletter on Open Access: "Scholars and librarians are close allies in the campaign for open access (OA), but they pursue OA for different reasons. For scholars, the primary benefit of OA is wider and easier access for readers and larger audience and impact for authors. or librarians, the primary benefit of OA is saving money in their serials budgets... We like to say that OA is a goal to which there are many means. But scholars and libraries in effect treat it as a means to their separate but related, professionally-specific goals.

It's not surprising that some OA initiatives help scholars more than they help libraries, or that some OA initiatives help libraries indirectly but don't help them save money in their serials budgets...

I want us to achieve the kinds of OA that help scholars *and* the kinds of OA that help libraries. I want to help libraries in part because I'm in a symbiotic relationship with them. Healthy libraries are necessary to support healthy research and education. I want to help libraries because they are committed allies in the campaign for OA. More importantly, I want to help libraries because the best source of funds to pay for the long-term sustenance of OA is the savings from library serials budgets. If the rise of OA literature lets us spend less on priced literature, then the best way to spend the savings is on the OA alternative that made the savings possible....

I want to help libraries because we can't take the last steps toward helping scholars without helping libraries as well. For example, low-volume self-archiving may help scholars without helping libraries, but high-volume self-archiving will help both, at least in fields where the experience in physics does not transfer. I want high-volume self-archiving. I want OA to 100% of research literature, through some combination (it doesn't matter what combination) of OA archiving and OA journals. The inevitable question is whether I, and all others who want to help libraries, want to harm publishers. The answer is no. That is not the goal.

The goal is OA to 100% of the research literature. Achieving that goal is compatible with subscription-based access to some considerable percentage of the same literature. (These percentages can add up to more than 100% because some literature can be both free and priced, such as an article in a subscription journal deposited by its author in an OA repository.)

Progress toward the goal of OA to 100% of research literature will eventually help libraries reduce their serials expenses. It may create the quality and quantity of OA literature that justifies them in cancelling some subscription journals. Or it may persuade some subscription journals to convert, e.g. by answering fears about conversion or by changing market conditions so that conversion becomes a survival strategy. Or both..."

Source: Peter Suber. SPARC Open Access Newsletter No. 84 (2 April 2005) [FullText]

April 05, 2005

Open Access Breaks Scientific Feudalism, Liberates Scholars and Brings Freedom

Abstract: "The present debates about open access slowly bring about the need to look beyond the simply functional dimensions of self-archiving or open access journals to reach the level of what might be called a new "political economy" of knowledge. The complex, mixed roles of scientific publications are not there by chance. Instead, they represent the difficult materialization of protracted negotiations between various types of players beyond publishers and authors: librarians, research administrators and granting agencies are also involved in this process. Furthermore, none of these categories are homogeneous and, in particular, publishers act on behalf of extremely diverse crowds: scientists, of course, but also stockholders, and mixed, hybrid organizations abound. One of the more interesting facet of this whole debate, in the recent past, has been the question of how to build an open access world and why it has turned out to be more difficult than initially envisioned. The thesis of this talk will be derived from the fact that the real motivation behind publishing, from the perspective of authors, is visibility, authority, prestige, etc. The peacock-scientist wants to be nicely branded through journal titles. Out of this has grown a rich evaluation culture whose only flaw is that it is deeply ... flawed. To make open access work, the scientist-as-peacock has to be taken seriously and one must respond to his/her desires. A number of tactical and strategic recommendations will be made in this regard. The final result will be the vision that science as a competitive sharing of minds, as a system of distributed intelligence, will be much enhanced by open access even as individual scientist will find themselves leaving scientific feudalism to enter a true Republic of science at long last."

Source: Jean-Claude Guédon. Beyond Open Access: The Political Economy of Knowledge. A public lecture at the University of Toronto, lecture series on Open Source and Open Access (to be held 7 April 2005) [FullText][Lecture series home][Lecture Web Cast Link][OANews Record]

April 04, 2005

Columbia University Senate Supports Open Access

Columbia Spectator Excerpt: Columbia University "Senate ... passed a resolution composed by the Committee on Libraries and Academic Computing, putting on record its support of “open access.” “Open access” asserts the right of the public to use scholarly works for any responsible purpose so long as it properly attributes authorship. The resolution also urged Columbia scholars to aid the advancement of “open access” by allowing their published works to be subject to responsible use by the public..."

Senate Resolution excerpt: "WHEREAS the principle of open access to the fruits of scholarly research is increasingly being adopted and pursued by universities and in the scholarly community at large, and...
WHEREAS technological, legal and economic barriers continue to be erected to obstruct or limit open access, and WHEREAS the availability of the fruits of scholarly endeavor ought to reflect the conditions of cooperative endeavor and common resources under which scholarly work is produced, Therefore BE IT RESOLVED

1. That the Senate put on record its support for the principle of open access to the fruits of scholarly research;

2. That the Senate urge the University to advance new models for scholarly publishing that will promote open access, helping to reshape the marketplace in which scholarly ideas circulate, in a way that is consistent with standards of peer review and scholarly excellence;...

4. That the Senate urge the scholars of Columbia University to play a part in these open-access endeavors in their various capacities as authors, readers, editors, referees, and members of scientific boards and learned associations etc., (a) by encouraging and collaborating with publishers' efforts to advance open access, (b) by retaining intellectual property rights in their own work where this will help it become more widely available, and (c) by remaining alert to efforts by publishers to impose barriers on access to the fruits of scholarly research."

Source: Lisa Hirschmann. U. Senate Passes Grievance Procedure. Columbia Spectator (4 April 2005) [FullText] [OANEws Record 1] [OANEws Record 2]

April 03, 2005

News Story on The Directory of Open Access Repositories

Excerpt: "A new service is being developed to support the rapidly emerging movement towards Open Access to research information. The new service, called DOAR - the Directory of Open Access Repositories - will categorise and list the wide variety of Open Access research archives that have grown up around the world. DOAR will provide a comprehensive and authoritative list of institutional and subject-based repositories, as well as archives set up by funding agencies - like the National Institutes for Health in the USA or the Wellcome Trust in the UK and Europe. Users of the service will be able to analyse repositories by location, type, the material they hold and other measures. This will be of use both to users wishing to find original research papers and for third-party service providers, like search engines or alert services, which need easy to use tools for developing tailored search services to suit specific user communities."

Source: The Directory of Open Access Repositories - DOAR. Access (March 2005) [FullText] [OANews Record]

April 02, 2005

Blackwell Offers Open Access Plan at a cost of $2500 per Published Article

Excerpt: "Blackwell Publishing, the leading publisher of society journals, has announced an open access publishing experiment, Online Open, to operate through 2006. Like Springer's Open Choice program, announced last year (see News, LJ 8/04, p. 16ff.), Blackwell's plan will create a hybrid system, in which open access articles are included in print subscription journals, with subscription prices adjusted, and Online Open articles will be freely available via the publisher's online journals platform, Blackwell Synergy.

During the trial period, the Online Open fee will be fixed at $2500 or £1250. Blackwell officials say that Online Open submissions will be treated in the same way as any other article. Unlike Springer's Open Choice program, however, authors participating in Blackwell's Online Open program will not be required to sign over copyright to their articles, a key issue to supporters of open access.

"We expect the medical and biology journals to be involved in the trial, subjects where there is likely funding for 'author pays,'" said Dawn Peters, Blackwell public relations manager. The $2500 fee—less than Springer's $3000 and more than pioneering open access publishers Public Library of Science ($1500) and BioMed Central ($525)—is also experimental. "The fee is only a figure for the trial," Peters said. "It is not based on cost, but at $2500 it is within what some funding bodies have indicated they are prepared to pay."

Source: Andrew Albanese. Blackwell Offers Open Access Plan. Library Journal (1 April 2005) [FullText] [OANews Record]