Guide for the Perplexed: Re: UK Select Committee Inquiry
harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Tue Nov 9 06:38:12 EST 2004
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Julian Newman wrote:
> V useful stuff! But here's a thought: OK, 92% of *Journals* have given
> green light to self-archiving - but what about *conferences* and
> *workshops*? Given the propensity of many in Computing to regard
> refereed conferences as their main publication medium, it seems even
> more important that conference papers should be covered by the
> self-archiving policy.
> It would be a mammoth task to cover every possible conference, but given
> that a very high proportion of Computing conference proceedings are
> published by ACM / Elsevier / IEEE / Kluwer-Springer, it might be
> possible to get statements of policy wrt conference/workshop papers from
> those four.
Peer-reviewed conference proceedings (and even unrefereed ones) are of course
naturals for Open Access (OA) (and some already are OA). Computer scientists are
especially good about self-archiving their papers (which are mostly conference
papers), but usually just on their own websites, not in OAI-compliant archives.
This is remedied in part by Citeseer http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cs which
harvests all those computer science papers self-archived on arbitrary
websites and makes them jointly searchable. With over 750,000 papers,
Citeseer is in fact the second-biggest ("virtual") OA Archive in the world.
RepEc http://repec.org/ a harvested and federated virtual archive of
economics papers is the biggest of all, with 140,000 pre-refereeing
preprints and 144,000 refereed postprints. The biggest non-virtual
central archive is, I believe, the Physics ArXiv http://arxiv.org
with over 300,000 papers.
But I think the OA way of the future is neither central harvesting of
of papers self-archived on arbitrary websites, nor self-archiving
in OAI central OAI Archives, but self-archiving in distributed
institutional OAI Archives http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?action=browse
which are then harvested by OAI harvesters like OAIster
http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/ and Citebase
What all of these are in turn waiting for is the implementation of the
mandatory self-archiving policies that have lately been recommended in
the UK, US and elsewhere:
The Romeo listing of green publishers and journals does include
some conference proceedings too, but not many.
AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:
A complete Hypermail archive of the ongoing discussion of providing
open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2004)
is available at:
To join or leave the Forum or change your subscription address:
Post discussion to:
american-scientist-open-access-forum at amsci.org
UNIVERSITIES: If you have adopted or plan to adopt an institutional
policy of providing Open Access to your own research article output,
please describe your policy at:
UNIFIED DUAL OPEN-ACCESS-PROVISION POLICY:
BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access
journal whenever one exists.
BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable
toll-access journal and also self-archive it.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Council of Professors and Heads of Computing in UK
> > universities [mailto:cphc-members at JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf
> > Of Stevan Harnad
> > Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 05:10
> > To: cphc-members at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> > Subject: Re: Guide for the Perplexed: Re: UK Select Committee Inquiry
> > On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Ralph Martin wrote:
> > > Stevan
> > >
> > > Thanks for your excellent summary.
> > >
> > > On 8 Nov 2004, at 3:37 pm, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> > >
> > > > (3) The Committee's formal report in 2004 accordingly only
> > > > recommended one mandatory step and that was that all UK funded
> > > > researchers should be required by their funders to
> > self-archive all
> > > > their published journal articles on their own institution's
> > > > websites, thereby making them free for all users, worldwide.
> > >
> > > Can you summarise, for those of us who are short of time to
> > read all
> > > the lengthy reports, how this was supposed to be squared up
> > with the
> > > current arrangement which usually requires authors to sign
> > a copyright
> > > transfer form, and that some (but not all publishers) do not allow
> > > republishing on the authors' own website (or his employers)?
> > >
> > > And what about work that is done outside a specifically
> > funded grant?
> > Ninety-two percent of journals have already given their green
> > light to all their authors to self-archive. Of the remaining
> > 8%, many will likewise agree if asked, and all will have to
> > agree if the author's research-funder and/or employer mandates it.
> That means 92% of unfunded research too, is already covered, and can
> already be self-archived. The remaining 8% of unfunded research can
> either go ahead and self-archive too (I recommend the Dutch "post and
> tell" strategy, below), or wait until the worldwide groundswell from the
> mandated and spontaneous OA growth reaches them too.
> Stevan Harnad
> AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:
> A complete Hypermail archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open
> access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2004) is
> available at:
> To join or leave the Forum or change your subscription address:
> Post discussion to:
> american-scientist-open-access-forum at amsci.org
> UNIVERSITIES: If you have adopted or plan to adopt an institutional
> policy of providing Open Access to your own research article output,
> please describe your policy at:
> UNIFIED DUAL OPEN-ACCESS-PROVISION POLICY:
> BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access
> journal whenever one exists.
> BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable
> toll-access journal and also self-archive it.
More information about the Jrnlnote