From harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk Fri Jul 1 07:58:30 2005 From: harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon Jan 2 02:09:41 2006 Subject: [Journal-notes] Re: Brewster Kahle's Internet Archive as OA Back-Up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Tim Gray wrote: Re: RCUK policy on open access http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4613.html > For institutions without an OA Institutional Repository, could not an > alternative requirement be to self-archive in a central (subject-based) > repository? > > Ideally, it would be best if some funding could go towards setting up IRs > and I agree that the introduction of the author-pays method 'muddies the > waters'. > > But using a central repository could be a short-term stop-gap to avoid the > 'easy opt-out' scenario that seems to present itself in the current proposal. Yes, using a central repository *is* a short-term stop-gap to avoid the 'easy opt-out' scenario, and there exists an all-purpose one available for all: "Thanks to the efforts of Peter Suber in collaboration with Brewster Kahle, the Internet Archive http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.archive.org%2F will now begin serving not only as a back-up for institutional OA archives worldwide, but also as an OA archive for those researchers who are not affiliated with universities or research institutions with OA archives of their own." http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_04_03_fosblogarchive.html#a111297430877667121 But please let us not consider this stop-gap as a final resting-point for those whose institutions do not yet have an OA Archive! http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?action=browse Institutional OA archives are quick and inexpensive to create: http://www.arl.org/sparc/pubs/enews/aug01.html#6 Institutional archives are the natural and universal solution for OA provision in the OAI-interoperable age: Institutions, the primary research-providers, self-archive their own research output, to the co-benefit of their own researchers and themselves, maximizing the visibility, usage and impact of that joint research output. Institutions are also the ones best placed to measure their own research output, to mandate its self-archiving, and to monitor compliance with the mandate. Institutions also benefit from self-archiving not only in the record-keeping for their own research assets, but in the evaluation and rewarding of their own researchers' performance, productivity and impact. Their archives' OAI-compliant metadata can then also be harvested into central archives based on subject-matter or other classification criteria thanks to their OAI-interoperability. Apart from research-funders, there is no central "entity" that is in a position to mandate or monitor self-archiving, or to co-benefit with researchers in their research impact. Central archiving is hence merely a provisional stop-gap measure, in order to ensure immediate 100% compliance with the RCUK mandate, plugging the potential "no local archive" loophole and opt-out clause. Here is how Swan et al. summarised the advantages of institutional self-archiving: Swan, A., Needham, P., Probets, S., Muir, A., Oppenheim, C., O?Brien, A., Hardy, R. and Rowland, F. (2005) Delivery, Management and Access Model for E-prints and Open Access Journals within Further and Higher Education. Technical Report, JISC, HEFCE. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11001/ http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11000/ "This study identified three models for open access provision in the UK: (a) the centralised model,where e-prints of articles are first deposited directly into a national archive and then madeaccessible to users and service providers; (b) the distributed model, where e-prints are depositedin any one of a distributed network of OAI-compliant institutional, subject-based and open-access journal archives, whose metadata are then harvested and made accessible to users and serviceproviders; and (c) the model we have termed the 'harvesting' model, a variant of the distributedmodel in which the harvested metadata are first improved, standardised or enhanced before being made accessible to users and service providers. In considering the relative merits of these models, we addressed not only technical concerns but also how e-print provision (by authors) can be achieved, since without this content provision there can be no effective e-print delivery service (for users). For technical and cultural reasons, this study recommends that the centralised model should not be adopted for the proposed UK service. This would have been the costliest option and it would have omitted the growing body of content in distributed institutional, subject-based, and open-access journal archives. Moreover, the central archiving approach is the 'wrong way round' with respect to e-print provision since for reasons of academic and institutional culture and so long as effective measures are implemented, individual institution-based e-print archives are far more likely to fill (and fill quickly) than centralised archives, because institutions and researchers share a vested interested in the impact of their research output, and because institutions are in a position to mandate and monitor compliance, a position not enjoyed by centralised archives. The study therefore recommends the 'harvesting' model [(c) above], constituting a UK national service founded upon creating an interoperable network of OAI-compliant, distributed, institution-based e-print archives. Such a service, based on harvesting metadata (and, later, full-text) from distributed, institution-based e-print archives and open access journals would be cheaper to implement and would more effectively garner the nation's scholarly research output. The model also permits further enhancement of the metadata to provide improved features and functionality. Pertinent Prior AmSci Topic Threads: "Central vs. Distributed Archives" (1999) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0293.html "PubMed and self-archiving" (2003) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2973.html "Central versus institutional self-archiving" (2003) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3205.html http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4016.html "A Simple Way to Optimize the NIH Public Access Policy" (2004) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4091.html "Brewster Kahle's Internet Archive as OA Back-Up" (2005) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4485.html Stevan Harnad From harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk Fri Jul 8 13:38:37 2005 From: harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon Jan 2 02:09:42 2006 Subject: [Journal-notes] International Open Access Conference, Beijing China: Papers Online Message-ID: The PDfs for the International Conference on Policies and Strategies for Open Access to Scientific Information Beijing, China June 22-24, 2005 http://libraries.csdl.ac.cn/Meeting/MeetingID.asp?action=skin&language=Eng&MeetingID=7&MeetingMenuID=39 are now online at http://libraries.csdl.ac.cn/Meeting/MeetingID.asp?action=skin&language=Eng&MeetingID=7&MeetingMenuID=51 [There are some real gems among them -- SH] Opening Ceremony Chair: Xiaolin Zhang, Library of Chinese Academy of Sciences Welcome Jinghai Li, Vice President of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Academician Opening Remarks Melissa Hagemann, Open Society Institute (OSI) Rima Kupryte, Electronic Information for Libraries (eIFL) Keynote Speech Qiheng Hu, Vice Chair of Chinese Association for Science and Technology Session 1: National & Funding Agency's Strategies and Policies on OA-Part I Chair: Melissa Hagemann, OSI Open Availability of Scientific Information: An Overview of Policy and Practice at the U.S. National Academies Paul Uhlir, Director of the Office of International Scientific and Technical Information Programs at U.S. National Academies Open Access Policy in Finland Sakari Karjalainen, Director of Science Policy Division of Ministry of Education, Finland Why European universities and funding agencies are committing to open access Fred Friend, Honorary Director Scholarly Communication University College London Session 2: National & Funding Agency's Strategies and Policies on OA-Part II Chair: George Strawn, National Science Foundation (USA) Open Access - the next steps from a funder's perspective Robert Terry, Senior Policy Adviser of the Wellcome Trust The way to Open Access - French strategies to move forward Herbert Gruttemeier, Project Manager, International relations officer of INIST-CNRS Suggested policy framework for open access in scientific research in developing countries Xiaolin Zhang, Director of Library of Chinese Academy of Sciences Session 3: Institutional Strategies and Policies on OA Chair: Paul Uhlir, the U.S. National Academies The Open Access Agenda of the Max Planck Society Georg W. Botz, Max Planck Society Open access policy and strategies of Lund University and DOAJ Lars Bjornshauge, Director of Lund University Libraries Mandates and Benefits in Open Access Policies Leslie Carr, University of Southampton Session 4: Scientific Publishing's Strategies and Policies on OA: Part I Chair: Georg Botz, Max Planck Society Open Access publishing - What do authors want Matthew Cockerill, Director of Operations, BioMed Central Ltd Implementing a New Model for Scientific Publishing Helen Doyle, Director of Development and Strategic Alliances, Public Library of Science Enabling Open Access: Publishing Cooperatives Raym Crow, Senior Consultant for the SPARC Consulting Group Session 5: Scientific Publishing's Strategies and Policies on OA?Part II Chair: Jan Velterop, Velterop von Leyden Open Access Consultancy Open Access Repositories in China: a Case Study on qiji.cn Yanjiang Ji, Beijing Science and Technology University How open access journals and institutional repositories can work together Jean-Claude Guedon, University of Montreal Access To Scholarly Literature: Network Effects and Unintended Consequences John Wilbanks, Executive Director of Science Commons Session 6: Effects of OA on Information Service Agencies Chair: Jean-Claude Guedon, University of Montreal Open Access and the Transformation of Science Jan Velterop, Velterop von Leyden Open Access Consultancy Authors' perspectives on open access: effective ways to achieve OA Alma P Swan, Director of Key Perspectives Ltd Chinese Scientists' attitude toward open access Jingli Chu, Head of the Department of Education and Research of Libary of CAS Citation Analysis of Open Access Journals Allen Yeo, Lead Manager, Global Sales Support, Asia Pacific, Thomson Scientific Session 7: Digital Divide and Open Access Chair: Sakari Karjalainen, Science Policy Division of Ministry of Education, Finland Open access and the developing world Subbiah Arunachalam, Swaminathan Research Foundation, India Maximizing Research Impact of Scientific Publications from Developing Countries through Open Access: Experience from Bioline International Leslie Chan, Associate Director of Bioline International The SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library on Line) Program. An Initiative of Open Access to Scientific Journals in Latin America, Caribbean and Iberian countries. Rogerio Meneghini, SciELO Scientific Coordinator Closing Ceremony Xiaolin Zhang, Director of Library of Chinese Academy of Sciences Session 8: Invitational Meeting for a draft policy recommendation Chair: Jingli Chu, Library of Chinese Academy of Sciences Policy Recommendation Proposals Xiaolin Zhang, Library of Chinese Academy of Sciences From harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk Thu Jul 14 12:51:17 2005 From: harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon Jan 2 02:09:42 2006 Subject: [Journal-notes] SPARC Europe Firmly Supports RCUK Access Policy Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:24:38 -0400 From: David Prosser To: SPARC Open Access Forum Apologies for Cross Posting Press Release Leading European Library Organization firmly supports Research Councils UK new open access policy Policy that requires UK-funded research be deposited in openly accessible archives will strengthen increased investment in research. July 14, 2005 For more information, contact: David Prosser, david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk Oxford, UK ? SPARC Europe (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition), a leading organization of European research libraries, calls for wide support for the proposed policy released by Research Councils UK (RCUK), the main public investor in fundamental research in the UK. The policy, announced in June, requires Research Council grantees to deposit the resulting research reports into openly accessible repositories in order to speed and widen dissemination. David Prosser, Director of SPARC Europe, commented: "We are currently in the position where UK researchers cannot get easy access to all the work of their peers, despite the vast majority of it being published online. So, while the UK Government has greatly increased research spending, to ?2.4B for the Research Councils, the return on this investment is not maximized. If implemented, the RCUK policy would rectify this." RCUK spent over a year consulting universities, academic libraries, researchers, and publishers to develop a fair, well-balanced policy that covers research outputs in the form of journal articles or conference proceedings. SPARC Europe encourages submission of favourable comments that support the draft during the public comment period set to end August 31st. According to RCUK, one of the policy's cornerstones is that "ideas and knowledge derived from publicly-funded research must be made available and accessible for public use, interrogation, and scrutiny, as widely, rapidly and effectively as practicable." The Research Councils will therefore require grant holders to deposit copies of any resultant published journal articles and conference proceedings in suitable open access institutional or subject-based repositories. These repositories are online databases that provide an electronic archive of the research that is immediately and openly available over the Internet. To further improve access to publicly funded research, the Research Councils will also make funds available for researchers to pay open access journal publication fees. While encouraging the practice of publishing articles in open access journals, the policy preserves academic freedom by not mandating submissions to such journals. The academic libraries represented by SPARC Europe look forward to the challenge of working with their academics, the Research Councils, and publishers to maximize research impact by implementing the policy. David Prosser said: "Many of our members, especially in the UK, already have great experience with running institutional repositories and there is a strong commitment to further develop these repositories as research tools. Ensuring access to high-quality, peer-reviewed research is one of the central remits of the library and the new policy will enable greater access to a wider range of research, so benefiting researchers, students, and society in general." The full RCUK policy, together with details of the consultation process, can be found at http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/access/index.asp SPARC Europe http://www.sparceurope.org/ is an alliance of 110 research-led university libraries from 14 European countries. It is affiliated with SPARC http://www.arl.org/sparc/ based in Washington, D.C., which represents over 200 institutions, mainly in North America. SPARC Europe and SPARC work to develop and promote new models of scholarly communication that increase the access to and utility of the research literature. http://www.sparceurope.org/press_release/RCUK.htm From harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk Fri Jul 15 10:27:35 2005 From: harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon Jan 2 02:09:42 2006 Subject: [Journal-notes] Re: "Disaggregated Journals" In-Reply-To: <003901c58942$a33fc740$d95d7d9e@lboro.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, J.F.B.Rowland wrote: > To call John Smith's thought experiment 'untested' is fair and factual. To > call it 'incoherent' is totally unfair. John has developed his ideas, and > published them, over a number of years, and in my opinion they are well > thought out. The question 'How do we get there from here?' does of course > remain, but his ideas are an interesting contribution to the debate. The bottom line is this: JS's are untested speculations. Neither their viability nor their coherence is clear until and unless they are tested. More important, they are not relevant to the immediate concern of the Open Access Movement, which is Open Access, Now. Testing speculative hypotheses about ways of reforming the publishing system is a long-term task. Open Access to research is something that is already long within reach and long overdue. Self-archiving is a solution that has been tested and demonstrated to work. It merely needs to be done. John Smith (and many others) were speculating in 1999 (when the first AmSci exchanges on publishing reform proposals began) and they are still speculating today. Meanwhile precious time is being lost in actually achieving 100% OA -- which is reachable today and was reachable in 1999 and earlier too, via self-archiving. And daily, monthly, yearly research impact and progress continued to be needlessly lost. My critique of the SPARC position paper on "The Case for Institutional Repositories" http://www.arl.org/sparc/IR/ir.html was that it conflated the very simple and straightforward case for IRs -- which is that authors need to self-archive their traditional-journal articles in IRs in order to make them OA so as to maximise their usage and impact -- with JS's (and others) untested speculations about various ways to reform traditional journal publishing. As a result, a clear picture of institutional self-archiving was not presented by SPARC, and the research community lost yet another three years of research usage and impact (though certainly not just because SPARC didn't get it right!). John Smith's AmSci postings and the comments on them can be reviewed in the AmSci Forum Archive (see below), but please note that this Forum is no longer the locus for speculation and counter-speculation about untested hypotheses for reforming publishing (or peer review, or copyright, or digital preservation or any of the other distractions that have vied for our attention all these years). AmSci is now only accepting postings on practical, implementable policies, resources and tools for achieving OA, now. (There are other lists and Fora where thought-experiments can continue to be debated.) J.W.T.Smith AmSci postings: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/author.html Re: How to compare research impact of toll- vs. open-access research (Fri Apr 16 2004) Re: Prospects for institutional e-print repositories study (Tue Jul 15 2003) Re: Prospects for institutional e-print repositories study (Tue Jul 15 2003) Re: Top 10 reasons why print journals have a future (Sat Apr 07 2001) Re: Workshop on Open Archives Initiative in Europe (Tue Oct 31 2000) Re: Workshop on Open Archives Initiative in Europe (Tue Oct 31 2000) Re: Etymology of "Eprint" (Tue Aug 22 2000) Re: Etymology of "Eprint" (Tue Aug 22 2000) Re: Separating Quality-Control Service-Providing from Document-Providing (Thu Dec 02 1999) Re: The True Cost of the Essentials (Implementing Peer Review) (Mon Jul 12 1999) Re: The True Cost of the Essentials (Implementing Peer Review) (Wed Jul 07 1999) Re: The True Cost of the Essentials (Implementing Peer Review) (Tue Jul 06 1999) Re: The True Cost of the Essentials (Implementing Peer Review) (Tue Jul 06 1999) Re: Central vs. Distributed Archives (Tue Jun 29 1999) Re: Central vs. Distributed Archives (Tue Jun 29 1999) Re: Are things otherwise in France? (Tue Jun 01 1999) Alternative publishing models - was: Scholar's Forum: A New Model... (Sun May 02 1999 From harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk Mon Jul 11 07:10:38 2005 From: harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon Jan 2 02:09:42 2006 Subject: [Journal-notes] Announcing: New Open Access Archivangelism Blog Message-ID: ** Apologies for Cross-Posting ** This is to announce a new blog (weblog) called: Open Access Archivangelism Maximizing Research Impact by Maximizing Research Access http://openaccess.eprints.org/ As of this date, I will begin branching my own substantive American Scientist Open Access Forum postings http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html to the OAA blog as well. I may also blog selected AmSci comments by others there too, but OAA is not meant to replace the AmSci Forum by any means, only to mirror it. 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 (1998-2005) is available at: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/ To join or leave the Forum or change your subscription address: http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html Post discussion to: american-scientist-open-access-forum@amsci.org Open Access Archivangelism Blog is a partial mirror of the AmSci Forum http://openaccess.eprints.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: http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php UNIFIED DUAL OPEN-ACCESS-PROVISION POLICY: BOAI-1 ("green"): Publish your article in a suitable toll-access journal http://romeo.eprints.org/ OR BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a open-access journal if/when a suitable one exists. http://www.doaj.org/ AND in BOTH cases self-archive a supplementary version of your article in your institutional repository. http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/ http://archives.eprints.org/ From harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk Mon Jul 18 16:48:03 2005 From: harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon Jan 2 02:09:42 2006 Subject: [Journal-notes] Promoting Institutional Self-Archiving In-Reply-To: <1687.193.51.120.70.1121705228.squirrel@webmail.centre-cired.fr> Message-ID: On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Minh Ha Duong wrote: > I want to sell to the higher-ups at my national research institution > the idea of an open evangelization mission to promote open archiving. I > think that just saying "now everybody on the payroll SHOULD archive" > is likely not to be efficient. We are especially interested in the > department of Social Sciences and Humanities, which comprises a few > hundred lab or research teams. Do not under-estimate the potential impact of a mandate: "[This] international, cross-disciplinary [author] study on open access had 1296 respondents:.. The vast majority of authors (81%) would willingly comply with a mandate from their employer or research funder to deposit copies of their articles in an institutional or subject-based repository. A further 13% would comply reluctantly; 5% would not comply with such a mandate." Swan, A. (2005) Open access self-archiving: An Introduction. JISC Technical Report. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11006/ But it would also help to show researcher *why* they should self-archive (to maximise research usage and impact): http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/openaccess.pdf See especially the findings in Social Sciences (Sociology, Economics): http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/graphes/EtudeImpact.htm > What do you think? Do you know of any instances of such institutional > effort to promote OA? How did they go about it, and with what results? How institutions *promote* OA self-archiving, I don't know. Postings from those institutions that do, to let us know how they are promoting it, would be most welcome. The OSI Eprints Handbook http://software.eprints.org/handbook/ as well as the Self-Archiving FAQ http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/ suggest ways. But it is the mandate itself that is the most effective way of generating self-archiving, as can be seen by comparing archive growth and size for those institutions that have no institutional self-archiving policy (1), a policy of recommending but not requiring self-archiving (2), and a policy of requiring self-archiving (3): The only two institutions in the world so far that have a policy of requiring self-archiving (3) -- Southampton ECS and CERN in Switzerland -- have achieved a >90% self-archiving rate for current research output, exactly as the above JISC Survey findings indicated. The archives of institutions with only recommended self-archiving (2) are filling less, and less quickly; those of institutions with no self-archiving policy at all even less so. For (2) and (3) see: http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php For (1) see: http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?action=browse Stevan Harnad > Thanks for your attention, > Minh > -- > Minh Ha Duong, Charg? de recherches au CIRED, CNRS > http://hal-shs.ccsd.cnrs.fr/aut/ha-duong > From harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk Mon Jul 25 08:35:08 2005 From: harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon Jan 2 02:09:42 2006 Subject: [Journal-notes] Apriori Peer Review vs. Post Hoc Comments and Citations Message-ID: Pertinent Prior Amsci Topic Thread: "Self-Selected Vetting vs. Peer Review: Supplement or Substitute?" (began November 2002) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2340.html Although clinical medical research is not a representative model for research in general (and has led to the wrong-headed idea that the only research that needs to be Open Access (OA) is what concerns our tax-payers' health) it is an instructive model for giving us a gut sense of the importance, even the urgency, of OA. It is in this light that it is a good idea to ask ourselves, when weighing the adequacy or even the sense of yet another "reform" proposal, to try it out first on articles that concern our health: We have many times heard the hypothesis that post-hoc vetting by self-selected commentators on the web can serve as a substitute for the pre-evaluation and certification of specialized work by qualified specialists that we call "peer-review." The question to ask yourself is whether, if you need to have a loved one treated today, you would like the treatment to be on the basis of (1) unrefereed preprints posted on the web, and possibly/eventually evaluated by possibly-qualified experts -- or you would rather have them treated on the basis of (2) refereed articles that have already been evaluated by qualified experts, and certified by the quality-standards and track-record of the journal that is answerable for having published them? I take it that when it comes to loved ones who need treatment today, there is no contest in the mind of anyone who reflects seriously on this question that (2) is the right answer, with (1) at most only a welcome supplement to, but certainly no substitute for (1). That was the rather shrill family-health version of the question, but it does not require much imagination to see that the answer is the same if we ask it from the viewpoint of a researcher: If you need to decide what finding to invest your limited earthly research time and resources into trying to build upon, is it (1) unrefereed findings posted on the web, possibly/eventually evaluated by possibly-qualified experts, or is it (2) refereed findings already evaluated by qualified experts and certified by the known quality standards of an established journal? Once again, (1) seems welcome as a supplement to (2), but certainly not as a substitute for it. I leave it as a lemma for the reader to repeat this exercise, but this time with respect to what papers the overloaded scholar or scientist can afford to spend his finite time reading-time reading, (1) or (2). Well if it is transparent that anarchic post-hoc self-selected online commentary (1) is not and never will be a substitute for systematic and answerable peer review (2), but only a welcome supplement to it, it should not take much more reflection to realize that the most minimal and uninformative aspect of self-selected vetting, namely citation, is even *less* suited to take on the a-priori quality-assurance role of peer review. Again, citation-counts (and other measures of research usage and impact) are welcome post-hoc *supplements* to research evaluation, but they are certainly no substitute for peer-review itself and its all-important filtering function, certifying in advance what is "safe" for reading, using, applying, consuming. Not being infallible, peer review can use all the extra help it can get from pre- and post-refereeing commentary and citations, but there is no way to bootstrap any of those into performing peer-review's essential and indispensable function. (Please note that the possibility of posting unrefereed preprints has already made "gate-keeping" an obsolete misnomer for journals: The "gates" they guard are those to their established quality-certification tags, not to access to the texts themselves.) Peer review should never even have come up in the OA context -- except tautologically, in that it is the 2.5 million peer-reviewed articles published in the planet's 24,000 peer-reviewed journals to which OA is meant maximize access. But somehow, ideas about OA have managed to get entangled with (untested) speculations about peer-review reforms and substitutes. The result is that misconceptions about peer review have been among the panoply of misconceptions that have already delayed OA (and hence research impact and progress) by at least a decade more than necessary, since the time the online medium has put 100% OA fully within reach. To show that these misconceptions are alive and well in 2005, I quote from an article that appeared today (July 25) in "The Age": To publish - or to e-publish? By Leslie Cannold http://www.theage.com.au/news/education-news/to-publish--or-to-epublish/2005/07/22/1121539155820.html The argument seems to start off well, correctly pointing out that: "The truth is that academics and universities hold most of the cards in the scholarly publishing game. This is not just because they do the research, write the papers and do the unpaid work required to provide quality assurance by reviewing the work of their peers. It is also because their primary objective is not to profit from the distribution of their work, but to have it read and cited by others." We expect that the article will now go on to recommend that, with the advent of the electronic age, reading and citation can now be maximised, by self-archiving the text online. But instead we read: "In the new electronic age... both the organising of and participation in peer reviews may soon become a thing of the past. Instead of relying on the publisher's reputation and peer review as quality indicators, future scholars may depend on electronic citation counts. So instead of OA to the peer-reviewed articles, we have OA to unrefereed articles and their citation counts. And now comes the coup de grace: self-publishing, instead of the self-archiving of peer-reviewed publications; and somehow, out of this vanity press plus citations, something like peer-review is somehow meant to emerge anew: "[E]very university should have its own serial e-press that would be the first place of publication for first-rate work. Perhaps this press would develop into a number of disciplinary-specific, peer-refereed electronic journals." We have alas already heard all these ungrounded, untested speculations aired before, and they do not improve with repetition. In essence we are asked to assume -- for no earthly reason -- that the path to OA is to renounce journals, self-publish unrefereed papers in our own institutional vanity presses, count citations, and wait for peer-review to somehow re-evolve out of all this. That would already be empty, evidence-free (and almost certainly incoherent) speculation even if there were not a coherent, evidence-based and well-tested alternative staring at us as plainly as the noses on our faces: "You wanted OA to peer-reviewed journal articles? Self-archive them! No need to tamper with either peer review or publication. And self-archiving is not self-publishing; it is just access-provision -- to one's own published articles." Stevan Harnad Harnad, S. (1998) The invisible hand of peer review. Nature (on-line) and Exploit Interactive. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/2622/ Harnad, S. (2005) Fast-Forward on the Green Road to Open Access: The Case Against Mixing Up Green and Gold. Ariadne 43. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10675/ Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Yves, G., Charles, O., Stamerjohanns, H. and Hilf, E. (2004) The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access. Serials Review 30 (4) http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10209/ From harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk Mon Jul 25 09:18:48 2005 From: harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon Jan 2 02:09:42 2006 Subject: [Journal-notes] Re: Promoting Institutional Self-Archiving In-Reply-To: <42E10824.6060909@univ-lyon2.fr> Message-ID: First, to translate the essence of the message below from Jean-Paul Ducasse at l'universit? de Lyon 2 (France): (1) Lyon 2 has had an Institutional OA Eprint Archive for articles and dissertations since February 2003. (2) Lyon 2 also produced and hosted the French-language version of the BOAI site as well as the self-archiving FAQ and the GNU Eprints software (v. 2 and lately also v. 2.3.12). (3) Lyon 2 has recently proposed an institutional self-archiving requirement, which is now under consideration (and about which Jean-Paul Ducasse will be reporting progress to this Forum). (4) Jean-Paul Ducasse also notes that self-archiving especially needs promotion in the humanities and social sciences (HSS) (partly because these disciplines are less article- and citation-based and more book-based). This is excellent news, and I hope Jean-Paul will arrange to have an official of Lyon 2 sign the Registry of Institutional OA Self-Archiving Policies as soon as Lyon 2 has committed itself to implementing its policy. http://www.unites.uqam.ca/cnc/declaration.fr.html As to the purported "special case" of humanities and social sciences (HSS): (i) For those who self-archive, the same citation advantage is present in social sciences as in all other disciplines tested so far: http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/ch.htm (ii) There is no reason why books' metadata and reference lists cannot be self-archived too (even if the author prefers not to make the full-text OA); book impact is of no less interest and importance than article impact. (iii) OA itself -- and the enhanced usage and impact it vouchsafes -- may very will tilt the balance somewhat more toward articles (as well as toward OA versions of monographs) in HSS, as OA grows. Right now, HSS journals are often merely preliminary trial-media for material destined for books. But as the impact of OA HSS articles becomes more apparent, impact will also become more important, perhaps even changing the weighting of rewards for research productivity in these disciplines to bring them more in line with other disciplines. No discipline is likely to be knowingly indifferent to the degree to which its work is used and built upon by other researchers. Hence all disciplines will be motivated to maximize access. Stevan Harnad On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Jean-Paul Ducasse wrote: > Bonjour ? tous, > L'universit? de Lyon 2 (France) s'est fix?, depuis plusieurs ann?es, > comme objectif de favoriser l'acc?s ouvert et l'archivage des travaux > des chercheurs. En m?me temps que nous avons pr?n? le d?p?t ?lectronique > obligatoire, l'archivage et la diffusion des th?ses universitaires en > un format structur? qui repose sur XML, nous avons produit la version > fran?aise de la BOAI ainsi que la FAQ associ?e > http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/ > et nous avons ?galement produit la francisation du logiciel Eprints en > version 2.1 > http://wiki.eprints.org/uploads/EPrints2/eprints-2.1-translation-fr.tgz > et r?cemment en version 2.3.12 : > http://wiki.eprints.org/uploads/EPrints2/eprints2.3.12-translation-fr.tgz > Notre archive existe depuis f?vrier 2003. > Dans le m?me temps nous avons, dans la perspective d'une action sur le > long terme, organis? un s?minaire sur la diffusion des r?sultats de > recherches au premier semestre 2003 avec Jean Claude Gu?don, qui ?tait ? > cette ?poque professeur associ?. > La situation en Sciences Humaines et Sociale est particuli?re en ce qui > concerne la publication des travaux des chercheurs. Le public vis? est > souvent extr?mement r?duit : on s'adresse ? une communaut? que l'on > estime facilement accessible et tr?s souvent, d'apr?s les enqu?tes que > nous avons pu mener, le chercheur ne per?oit pas le besoin de diffuser > largement et longtemps ses travaux. De plus, l'objet "publication" n'a > pas la m?me signification que dans les sciences dites STM. Tr?s souvent, > la publication principale d'un chercheur va ?tre plus proche de > l'ouvrage que de l'article de revue. > A partir de ce constat, on comprend qu'il est difficile de susciter un > mouvement de grande ampleur sur l'auto archivage et l'acc?s ouvert. > Nous avons d?cid? de jouer la carte de la proximit? entre les ?quipes de > recherche et les moyens d'archivage mis ? leur disposition. Notre > politique est donc "institutionnelle" dans un sens qui pourrait paraitre > ?troit, mais qui vise a constituer une base de chercheurs et de > documents visibles sur l'internet. La compliance OAI leur donnera la > visibilit? recherch?e. > Il ne faut pas se cacher que les r?ticences des chercheurs en tant > qu'individus sont grandes : les changements d'habitude sont perturbants. > sur ce point, les conclusions de l'?tude de H?l?ne Bosc : > http://cogprints.org/4408/02/Ouvragearchive.htm > correspondent ? la r?alit? du terrain. > Nous sommes en train de r?diger une charte interne ? l'universit? qui > sera soumise au conseil scientifique, comme c'est le cas dans des > universit?s espagnoles, italiennes pour ne citer que quelques exemples > et qui proposera que tout chercheur de l'institution Universit? de Lyon > 2 devra d?poser un exemplaire de ses travaux dans l'archive > institutionnelle. Un plan g?n?ral de publication et d'?dition > scientifique doit ?tre r?dig? qui s'appuie sur l'acc?s ouvert et > l'archivage. Nous informerons la communaut? des r?sultats obtenus. > Nous sommes conscients qu'il s'agit d'un changement important de > mentalit? de la part des chercheurs et que tout ne changera pas en un > jour. Il nous parait surtout important de laisser s'exprimer le plus > possible d'initiatives diff?rentes plut?t que d'imaginer que l'on > pourrait privil?gier un mod?le plut?t qu'un autre. > C'est en marchant que nous avancerons, mais peut-?tre ? des vitesses > diff?rentes. > > Bien cordialement > JPD > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Minh Ha Duong a ?crit : > > Dear all, > > > > I want to sell to the higher-ups at my national research institution > > the idea of an open evangelization mission to promote open archiving. I > > think that just them saying "now everybody on the payroll SHOULD archive" > > is likely not to be efficient enough. We especially interested in the > > department of Social Sciences and Humanities, which comprises a few > > hundred lab or research teams. > > > > What do you think ? Do you know of any instances of such institutional > > effort to promote OA ? How did they went about it, and with which results > > ? > > > > Thanks for your attention, > > Minh > > -- > Jean Paul Ducasse > Responsable scientifique du programme francophone Cyberth?ses > Service g?n?ral des Publications de l'Universit? Lumi?re Lyon2 > 86 rue Pasteur, 69007 Lyon > 33 4 78 69 74 25 > http://theses.univ-lyon2.fr > http://sourcesup.cru.fr/cybertheses > http://cyberdocs.univ-lyon2.fr > From harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk Mon Jul 25 16:13:40 2005 From: harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon Jan 2 02:09:42 2006 Subject: [Journal-notes] Re: Skywritings: Scholarly and Leisurely Message-ID: The second of an occasional column series called "Skywritings: Scholarly and Leisurely" has appeared on Haworth Press's Website: Harnad, S. (2005) The Green and Gold Roads to Maximizing Journal Article Access, Usage and Impact Haworth Press, July 1, 2005 http://www.haworthpress.com/library/StevanHarnad/07012005.asp From harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk Wed Jul 27 13:45:44 2005 From: harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon Jan 2 02:09:42 2006 Subject: [Journal-notes] Re: UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Weighing Articles/Authors Instead of Journals in Research Assessment The United Kingdom ranks and rewards the research productivity of all its universities through a national Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) http://www.rae.ac.uk/ conducted every four years. If, as lately proposed, the "RAE shifts focus from prestige journals" http://www.thes.co.uk/current_edition/story.aspx?story_id=2023494 (THS, 22 July 2005) as a basis for its ranking, what will it shift focus to? An established journal's prestige and track-record are correlated with its selectivity and peer-review standards, http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4075.html hence its quality level, and often also its citation impact. http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html What would it mean to ignore or de-emphasise that? The correlations will be ignored, all articles will be given equal weight -- and then what? What gain in accuracy and fairness of research assessment is to be expected from ignoring the known predictors -- for correlation is predictive -- of research quality? Are all articles to be re-peer-reviewed by the RAE itself, bottom-up? Is that efficient, desirable, realistic? The most prestigious international journals draw upon international expertise in their peer review: Is the UK to reduplicate all this effort in-house every 4 years? Why? Isn't our time better spent getting the peer-reviewing done right the first time, and then getting on with our research? Research assessment used to be publish-or-perish bean-counting; it is now weighted by the quality level of the journal in which the bean is planted. RAE outcome is already highly correlated with counts of the citations that articles sprout, even though the RAE never actually counts citations directly. That's because a journal's prestige is correlated with its articles' citation counts. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/ So if we're going to start ignoring journal prestige, shouldn't we begin to count article (and author) citations directly in its place? http://citebase.eprints.org/ 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 (1998-2005) is available at: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/ To join or leave the Forum or change your subscription address: http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html Post discussion to: american-scientist-open-access-forum@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: http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php UNIFIED DUAL OPEN-ACCESS-PROVISION POLICY: BOAI-1 ("green"): Publish your article in a suitable toll-access journal http://romeo.eprints.org/ OR BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a open-access journal if/when a suitable one exists. http://www.doaj.org/ AND in BOTH cases self-archive a supplementary version of your article in your institutional repository. http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/ http://archives.eprints.org/ From harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk Sun Jul 31 09:32:37 2005 From: harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon Jan 2 02:09:43 2006 Subject: [Journal-notes] Re: Open Access Trade Page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Sherif Masoud wrote: > I have created an electronic resource list for the open access movement: > the Open Access Trade Page http://www.geocities.com/sxm418/oa.htm. It > contains links to case studies, databases, e-forums, experts, news sources, > organizations, and more. I hope that you'll find it useful, informative, > and error-free, and I welcome any suggestions or comments. The page is a very promising start, but at the moment its coverage of the the two roads to Open Access is very uneven. What is well-covered is: Open Access Journal- Publishing (Gold). But there are many important omissions from the coverage of the other road to Open Access: Open Access Self-archiving (Green). I would like to suggest the following additions: Case Studies University Actions for Open Access or Against High Journal Prices Journal Declarations of Independence *ADD: Institutional OA Self-Archiving Policy Registry http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php Conferences Peter Suber's List on Conferences and Workshops Databases Peter Suber's List of Open-Access Archives and Repositories University of Cincinnati Journal Policy Database Publisher Copyright Policies & Self-Archiving - SHERPA *ADD: Directory of Journal Self-Archiving Policies http://romeo.eprints.org/ Institutional Archives Registry and List http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?action=browse Institutional OA Self-Archiving Policy List http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php/ Bibliography of OA Impact Advantage http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html Southampton database of OA citation findings http://citebase.eprints.org/isi_study/ Universite du Quebec a Montreal database of OA citation findings http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/ch.htm OpCit: The Open Citation Linking Project http://opcit.eprints.org/ E-Forums American Scientist Open Access Forum BOAI Forum SPARC Open Access Forum Discussion Forums Devoted to Open-Access Issues Experts Peter Suber David Goodman David Prosser *ADD: Les Carr Bill Hubbard Alma Swan Paola Gargiulo Helene Bosc Subbiah Arunachalam Leo Waaijers Derek Law Andrew Odlyzko Arthur Sale Lars Bjornhauge (plus your humble archivangelist!) General Books Open Access Bibliography: *ADD: Scholarly Journals at the Crossroads http://www.arl.org/scomm/subversive/toc.html Archives Ouvertes et Edition Scientifique http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index.asp?navig=catalogue&obj=livre&no=18744 Magazines D-Lib Magazine Open access, focusing on digital library research and development News Open Access News A popular blog that is updated daily *ADD Open Access Archivangelism Blog http://openaccess.eprints.org/ Newsletters SPARC Open Access Newsletter Archive of Open Access Now Organizations Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) Public Knowledge Open Society Institute SPARC Europe Professional Associations in the Information Sciences *ADD Berlin Declaration Signatories http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/signatories.html BOAI Signatories http://www.soros.org/openaccess/view.cfm Open Archives Initiative http://www.openarchives.org/ Scholarly Journals Ariadne Learned Publishing Journal of Electronic Publishing portal: Libraries and the Academy Serials Review Software & Services SPARC Resources GNU EPrints Archive Software *ADD: OSI EPrints Handbook http://software.eprints.org/handbook/ Citebase citation-based research engine: http://citebase.eprints.org/ Download/Citation Correlator/Predictor http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php Paracite: Citation-seeker http://paracite.eprints.org/ Citeseer http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/ Standardized OAI CV for harvesting and impact assessment http://paracite.eprints.org/cgi-bin/rae_front.cgi OAIster http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/ Dspace http://www.dspace.org/ Subject Guides Key Open Access Concepts Excerpt from C. Bailey's Book A One-Page List of OA Resources Peter Suber's Page for the SPARC Open Access Newsletter Open Access Overview Guide to the Open Access Movement Peter Suber's Lists Timeline of the Open-Access Movement What You Can Do to Promote Open Access Biomed Central PowerPoint Presentations Biomed Central Resources and Links PLoS Page on Open Access DOAJ Questions & answers Public Knowledge Open Access Resources *ADD: Self-Archiving FAQ http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html Self-Archiving Wiki http://selfarchive.org/ INRA Time-Line of OA (Helene Bosc, France) http://www.tours.inra.fr/prc/internet/documentation/communication_scientifique/comsci.htm UK Select Committee OA Policy Recommendation http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm RCUK OA Policy Recommendation http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/access/index.asp Berlin-3 OA Policy Recommendation http://www.eprints.org/berlin3/outcomes.html For Whom the Gate Tolls? http://cogprints.org/1639/ Self-Archiving PowerPoint Presentations http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/openaccess.ppt http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/openaccess.pdf Stevan Harnad From harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk Sun Jul 31 11:13:35 2005 From: harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Stevan Harnad) Date: Mon Jan 2 02:09:43 2006 Subject: [Journal-notes] Re: Open Access Trade Page In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Apologies for three glaring omissions! Here they are, and they are among the most important of all: (1) JISC Open Access Briefing Paper (Swan): http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/JISC-BP-OpenAccess-v1-final.pdf and here in several languages: http://www.keyperspectives.co.uk/www/openaccessarchive/briefingpapers.html (2) JISC OA Self-Archiving Author Survey (Swan & Brown): http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11006/ and (3) JISC Technical Report on Central vs. Institutional Archiving (Swan et al.) http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11000/ Stevan Harnad On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Stevan Harnad wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Sherif Masoud wrote: > > > I have created an electronic resource list for the open access movement: > > the Open Access Trade Page http://www.geocities.com/sxm418/oa.htm. It > > contains links to case studies, databases, e-forums, experts, news sources, > > organizations, and more. I hope that you'll find it useful, informative, > > and error-free, and I welcome any suggestions or comments. > > The page is a very promising start, but at the moment its coverage of the > the two roads to Open Access is very uneven. What is well-covered is: > Open Access Journal- Publishing (Gold). > > But there are many important omissions from the coverage of the other > road to Open Access: Open Access Self-archiving (Green). > > I would like to suggest the following additions: > > Case Studies > University Actions for Open Access or Against High Journal Prices > Journal Declarations of Independence > *ADD: Institutional OA Self-Archiving Policy Registry > http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php > > Conferences > Peter Suber's List on Conferences and Workshops > > Databases > Peter Suber's List of Open-Access Archives and Repositories > University of Cincinnati Journal Policy Database > Publisher Copyright Policies & Self-Archiving - SHERPA > *ADD: Directory of Journal Self-Archiving Policies > http://romeo.eprints.org/ > Institutional Archives Registry and List > http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?action=browse > Institutional OA Self-Archiving Policy List > http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php/ > Bibliography of OA Impact Advantage > http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html > Southampton database of OA citation findings > http://citebase.eprints.org/isi_study/ > Universite du Quebec a Montreal database of OA citation findings > http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/ch.htm > OpCit: The Open Citation Linking Project > http://opcit.eprints.org/ > > E-Forums > American Scientist Open Access Forum > BOAI Forum > SPARC Open Access Forum > Discussion Forums Devoted to Open-Access Issues > > Experts > Peter Suber > David Goodman > David Prosser > *ADD: Les Carr > Bill Hubbard > Alma Swan > Paola Gargiulo > Helene Bosc > Subbiah Arunachalam > Leo Waaijers > Derek Law > Andrew Odlyzko > Arthur Sale > Lars Bjornhauge > (plus your humble archivangelist!) > > General Books > Open Access Bibliography: > *ADD: Scholarly Journals at the Crossroads > http://www.arl.org/scomm/subversive/toc.html > Archives Ouvertes et Edition Scientifique > http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index.asp?navig=catalogue&obj=livre&no=18744 > > Magazines > D-Lib Magazine Open access, focusing on digital library research and development > > News > Open Access News A popular blog that is updated daily > *ADD Open Access Archivangelism Blog > http://openaccess.eprints.org/ > > Newsletters > SPARC Open Access Newsletter > Archive of Open Access Now > > Organizations > Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) > Public Knowledge > Open Society Institute > SPARC Europe > Professional Associations in the Information Sciences > *ADD Berlin Declaration Signatories > http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/signatories.html > BOAI Signatories > http://www.soros.org/openaccess/view.cfm > Open Archives Initiative > http://www.openarchives.org/ > > Scholarly Journals > Ariadne > Learned Publishing > Journal of Electronic Publishing > portal: Libraries and the Academy > Serials Review > > Software & Services > SPARC Resources > GNU EPrints Archive Software > *ADD: OSI EPrints Handbook > http://software.eprints.org/handbook/ > Citebase citation-based research engine: > http://citebase.eprints.org/ > Download/Citation Correlator/Predictor > http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php > Paracite: Citation-seeker > http://paracite.eprints.org/ > Citeseer > http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/ > Standardized OAI CV for harvesting and impact assessment > http://paracite.eprints.org/cgi-bin/rae_front.cgi > OAIster > http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/ > Dspace > http://www.dspace.org/ > > Subject Guides > Key Open Access Concepts Excerpt from C. Bailey's Book > A One-Page List of OA Resources > Peter Suber's Page for the SPARC Open Access Newsletter > Open Access Overview > Guide to the Open Access Movement > Peter Suber's Lists > Timeline of the Open-Access Movement > What You Can Do to Promote Open Access > Biomed Central PowerPoint Presentations > Biomed Central Resources and Links > PLoS Page on Open Access > DOAJ Questions & answers > Public Knowledge Open Access Resources > *ADD: Self-Archiving FAQ > http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html > Self-Archiving Wiki > http://selfarchive.org/ > INRA Time-Line of OA (Helene Bosc, France) > http://www.tours.inra.fr/prc/internet/documentation/communication_scientifique/comsci.htm > UK Select Committee OA Policy Recommendation > http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm > RCUK OA Policy Recommendation > http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/access/index.asp > Berlin-3 OA Policy Recommendation > http://www.eprints.org/berlin3/outcomes.html > For Whom the Gate Tolls? > http://cogprints.org/1639/ > Self-Archiving PowerPoint Presentations > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/openaccess.ppt > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/openaccess.pdf > > Stevan Harnad > > >