[A2k] SPARC Open Access Newsletter, 4/2/08
Manon Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org
Wed Apr 2 11:54:05 2008
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
FYI: Implementing the new NIH policy (many, many helpful pages
below), announcements re important OA-related events coming up in
April etc.
Manon
The SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue #120
April 2, 2008
by Peter Suber
Read this issue online
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/04-02-08.htm
----------
SOAN is published and sponsored by the Scholarly Publishing and
Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC).
http://www.arl.org/sparc/
Additional support is provided by Data Conversion Laboratory (DCL),
experts in converting research documents to XML.
http://www.dclab.com/public_access.asp
----------
Implementing the new NIH policy
The new OA mandate at the NIH will kick in for most grantees next
week, on April 7. The threshold condition is not whether a researcher
is funded on or after April 7, but whether a researcher has an article
based on NIH-funded research accepted for publication on or after
April 7. The mandate already applies to NIH employees and researchers
in its intramural program.
The policy makes compliance the responsibility of investigators and
their institutions. Since it was announced on January 11,
universities across the country have been gearing up help their
faculty comply. At the same time, individual scholars like Mike
Carroll and Kevin Smith, and library associations like ARL and SPARC,
have been gearing up to help universities help faculty.
I will leave the implementation advice to the many experts who are
compiling it. In this short piece, I'm simply collecting links to
their work. For my comments on the policy itself, see SOAN for
February 2008.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/02-02-08.htm#mandates
* First see the many helpful pages from the NIH itself:
The NIH policy home page
http://publicaccess.nih.gov/
The text of the new NIH policy
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-033.html
The NIH FAQ on the new policy. The first place to look for
implementation advice.
http://publicaccess.nih.gov/FAQ.htm
The NIH manuscript submission home page. Don't overlook the links to
online help.
http://nihms.nih.gov/
The NIH manuscript submission tutorials (slides, video, and PDF)
http://nihms.nih.gov/web-help/index.html
The NIH manuscript submission help desk
http://nihms.nih.gov/db/sub.cgi?page=3Demail&from=3Dhome
The NIH FAQ for the manuscript submission process
http://nihms.nih.gov/faq.html
The NIH FAQ for publishers wishing to submit work on behalf of authors
http://nihms.nih.gov/publishers.html
The NIH Public Access Communications and Training resources
http://publicaccess.nih.gov/communications.htm
* Some of the most useful pages were put together by library
associations:
The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) Guide for Research
Universities
http://www.arl.org/sc/implement/nih/guide/
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/02/guide-to-implementing-nih-public=
-access.html
ARL-NASULGC webcast: Institutional Compliance with the NIH Public
Access Policy: Ensuring Deposit Rights
http://www.arl.org/sc/implement/nih/webcast/
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/webcast-on-implementing-nih-poli=
cy-now.html
SPARC page on implementing the policy
http://www.arl.org/sparc/advocacy/nih/
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/02/helping-to-implement-new-nih-pol=
icy.html
SPARC Author Rights discussion forum, moderated by Kevin Smith. A
good place to ask and answer questions about compliance.
http://www.arl.org/sparc/media/08-0205.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/02/new-mailing-list-on-author-right=
s.html
Michael Carroll, Complying with the NIH Public Access Policy -
Copyright considerations and options, a white paper from SPARC,
Science Commons, and ARL, February 2008. http://www.arl.org/sparc/advocacy=
/nih/copyright.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/02/white-paper-to-help-universities=
-help.html
Kevin L. Smith, Managing Copyright for NIH Public Access: Strategies
to Ensure Compliance, ARL Bimonthly Report, June 2008. A preprint.
http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arl-br-258-copyright.pdf
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/helping-authors-comply-with-new-=
nih.html
* Some universities have created their own web sites to help NIH-
funded authors.
U of California at Davis
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/Animal_Alternatives/publicaccesscompliance.ht=
ml
U of California at San Diego
http://www.ucsd.edu/portal/site/Libraries/menuitem.346352c02aac0c82b9ba4310=
d34b01ca/?vgnextoid=3De2c2d349f2688110VgnVCM10000064b410acRCRD
and
http://ocga3.ucsd.edu/Proposal_Preparation/Federal/NIH/Grants/Proposal_Prep=
aration/NIH-Public_Access_Policy.htm
U of California at San Francisco
http://www.library.ucsf.edu/research/scholcomm/nih.html
Cornell U
http://www.library.cornell.edu/scholarlycomm/nihmandate.html
Duke U Medical Center Library
http://www.mclibrary.duke.edu/about/news/newsletter.html#nihpolicy
Georgetown U
http://www1.georgetown.edu/dml/5803.html
U of Illinois at Chicago
http://tigger.uic.edu/depts/ovcr/research/proposals/policies/NIH_Public_Acc=
ess_Policy.shtml
Indiana U Medical Libraries
http://www.medlib.iupui.edu/nihopenaccess/nihopenaccess.html
U of Iowa, Division of Sponsored Programs
http://research.uiowa.edu/dsp/main/?get=3Dpubmed&q=3D&action=3D
U of Iowa Libraries
http://guides.lib.uiowa.edu/content.php?pid=3D6167
Johns Hopkins U
http://openaccess.jhmi.edu/nih_policy_faq.cfm
U of Michigan
http://copyright.umich.edu/nih.html
U of Minnesota
http://www.lib.umn.edu/scholcom/NIHaccess.phtml
U of Missouri
http://library.muhealth.org/resourcesfor/faculty/NIH.htm
MIT
http://info-libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/open-access-initiatives/nih-2/
U of North Carolina Population Center
http://www.cpc.unc.edu/services/infoserv/library/nih_public_access_mandate
U of Pittsburgh Health Sciences Library System
http://www.hsls.pitt.edu/guides/nihpublicaccess/
Purdue U
http://scholarly.lib.purdue.edu/complying-with-the-nih-public-access-policy=
-mandatory-reporting-requirements/
U of Rochester
http://www.urmc.edu/hslt/miner/research_and_publishing/NIHPublicAccessPolic=
yMinerLibrary.cfm
http://www.urmc.edu/hslt/miner/research_and_publishing/PublishersPolicieson=
PubMedCentralMinerLibrary.cfm
Rockefeller U
http://www.rockefeller.edu/sr-pd/index.php?page=3DNIH_PublicAccessPolicy
U of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
http://www.library.uthscsa.edu/scholar/nih_policy.cfm
U of Virginia
http://www.virginia.edu/sponsoredprograms/NIH_Public_Access_Requirements.ht=
m
Washington U in St. Louis, Becker Medical Library
http://becker.wustl.edu/services/scholarly/nihpolicy.html
http://becker.wustl.edu/pdf/NIHChart.pdf
http://becker.wustl.edu/pdf/NIHComplianceFlowchart.pdf
U of Wisconson - Madison
http://library.wisc.edu/scp/nih-policy.html
(For leads to the university pages, thanks to Charles W. Bailey, Jr.,
Greg Grossmeier, Karla Hahn, Ann Campion Riley, Luke Rosenberger, and
Dorothea Salo.)
* Postscript
The NIH held an open meeting on the new policy, March 20, 2008. It
solicited comments in advance of the meeting, posted them online, and
aired selected comments at the meeting itself.
Open meeting on public access (Bethesda, March 20, 2008)
http://publicaccess.nih.gov/agenda_20080320_meeting.doc
Home page for comments elicited by the meeting
http://publicaccess.nih.gov/open_meeting_march_2008.htm
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/nih-comments-online.html
Statement by NIH Director Elias Zerhouni on the comments elicited by
the meeting. ("Preliminary analysis indicates over 60% of these pre-
meeting comments expressed support of the Policy as implemented, but
approximately 15% thought the 12-month delay period was too long and
15% had concerns that a mandatory policy will be detrimental to
scientific publishers.")
http://www.nih.gov/about/director/03262008statement_publicaccess.htm
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/statement-from-nih-director-zerh=
ouni.html
After the meeting, the NIH announced yet another round of public
comments on the policy from March 31 to May 31, 2008.
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-060.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/call-for-additional-comments-on-=
nih.html
----------
Three principles for university open access policies
On March 17, Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society hosted
a workshop on university OA policies and asked each participant to
write a position statement.
I was a participant and began writing out detailed model university
policies on OA repositories, OA journals, university presses, theses
and dissertations, and promotion and tenure criteria. Although I knew
what I wanted to say under each head, the draft quickly grew large and
ungainly. I changed course and decided that it would be easier to
read and write a small number of principles than a large number of
policy details. In the end I was able to say all that I wanted to say
as consequences of just three principles.
I limited myself to OA for peer-reviewed journal literature. It's my
top priority and already a very large topic. With regret, therefore,
I omitted OA to data, monographs, and courseware.
The other position statements were first-rate and I hope they will be
distributed soon. Here's a slightly revised version of my own.
.....
* Principles
1. Universities should provide open access (OA) to their research
output.
2. Universities should not limit the freedom of faculty to submit
their work to the journals of their choice.
3. Universities now pay most of the costs of peer review, through
subscription fees and faculty salaries. They should continue to bear
the costs of peer review, in order to assure its survival, while
recognizing that the forms and venues of peer review are changing.
.....
* Annotations
1. Universities should provide open access (OA) to their research
output.
1.1. Universities should launch OA institutional repositories (IRs)
and adopt effective policies to fill them with their research output.
That is, they should actually provide OA to their research output, not
just wish for it, request it, encourage it, settle for ineffective
policies to provide it, or sign statements calling for it elsewhere.
1.2. There is good evidence that merely requesting or encouraging
faculty to deposit their work in the IR has little effect. By
contrast, there is good evidence that mandates work. However, the
word "mandate" may be misleading; there is good evidence that
successful policies use mandatory language but rely on expectations,
education, assistance, and incentives, not coercion. (If there were a
better word than "mandate", I would use it.) There is also good
evidence that the overwhelming majority researchers would willingly
comply with an OA mandate from their funder or employer.
1.3. The OA mandate should require OA through the IR, not through OA
journals. See Principle 2.
1.4. The OA mandate should apply, at least, to the peer-reviewed
manuscripts of faculty journal articles and the theses and
dissertations of grad students. It should make exceptions for royalty-
producing books and should be open to other exceptions.
1.5. Universities have roughly two options for creating a legal basis
to distribute OA copies of peer-reviewed manuscripts by their
faculty. First, they can seek permission from publishers, and only
distribute OA copies when they succeed in obtaining it. Second, they
can ask faculty to retain the right to provide OA on the university's
terms (and grant the university non-exclusive permission to provide
that OA), even if faculty transfer all their other rights to publishers.
The second option can support OA for 100% of the faculty research
output, while the first option would support much less. According to
SHERPA (March 10, 2008), 57% of surveyed publishers currently give
blanket permission for postprint archiving. Even if half the
remaining publishers permit it on request, the second option would
still fall 20% short of the first option. Principle 1 requires the
approach that yields the highest rate of OA. See the Appendix for
more detail.
1.6. To help faculty who may not understand copyright law, or who do
not want to negotiate with publishers, the university should adopt an
author addendum which allows the author to retain the rights needed to
implement the university policy. (An "author addendum" is a lawyer-
written document that authors sign and attach to a publisher's
standard copyright transfer agreement. It modifies the publisher's
contract to allow authors to retain some rights which the default
contract would have given to the publisher.) The university needn't
write its own addendum; there are already good ones from CIC, JISC/
SURF, OhioLink, SPARC, three from Science Commons, and a handful of
others from individual universities. After adopting or recommending
one, the university should allow faculty to use any author addendum
which enables them to retain the same or larger set of rights.
1.7. When universities need to see a list of a faculty member's
recent journal publications (e.g. for promotion, tenure, or post-
tenure review), they should either draw up the list from the IR or
request the list in digital form with live links to OA copies in the
IR. They should tell faculty that they will limit their review of
journal articles to those on the list, unless the faculty member
writes a special justification for the Dean. Policies along these
lines are already in effect at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven,
Labortoire de Psychologie et Neurosciences Cognitives (at the
University of Paris - Descartes), Charles Sturt University, and the
National Research Council Canada.
1.8. Once a university has an IR, it may want to fill it with many
kinds of digital content other than its research output, e.g.
courseware, conference webcasts, digital collections from the library,
and administrative records. That is desirable, but should not delay
progress toward the goal of providing OA to the institution's research
output.
1.9. Universities should encourage peer institutions to provide OA to
their research output. Every university gains from every other
university's OA policy. Universities should talk to their consortial
peers, their regional neighbors, and their associations. There are
already provost initiatives centered at the U of Liege, the U of
Brasilia, and SPARC, to spread the message to other provosts, and
there are OA initiatives from associations as varied as the Committee
on Institutional Cooperation, Conference of Italian University
Rectors, Council of the Rectors of Portuguese Universities, European
University Association, Finnish Council of University Rectors, German
University Rectors' Conference, Irish Universities Association, the
New England Council of Presidents, Norwegian Association of Higher
Education Institutions, the Oberlin Group, Southern African Regional
Universities' Association, and Universities UK.
1.10. OA here means at least removing price barriers (making content
free of charge). But when possible, the policy should remove
permission barriers as well (making content free of unnecessary
copyright and licensing restrictions). For example, the U of Auckland
not only provides free online access to student theses and
dissertations, it also releases them under Creative Commons licenses.
2. Universities should not limit the freedom of faculty to submit
their work to the journals of their choice.
2.1. If it weren't for Principle 2, universities could require
faculty to submit their articles to OA journals rather than deposit
them in an OA repository (a gold OA mandate rather than a green OA
mandate). But there aren't yet enough OA journals; there aren't yet
first-rate OA journals in every research niche; and even one day when
there are, a university policy to rule out submission to a journal
based solely on its business model would needlessly limit faculty
freedom. Even the urgent need for OA makes that kind of restriction
unnecessary, as long as we can achieve OA through OA repositories.
That's why all university and funder OA mandates focus on green OA
(through OA repositories) rather than gold OA (through OA journals).
But of course OA journals still deserve support. See Principle 3.
2.2. If annotation 2.1 doesn't stand on its own, it may be because it
presupposes another premise. As I put it elsewhere: "The purpose of
the campaign for OA is the constructive one of providing OA to a
larger and larger body of literature, not the destructive one of
putting non-OA journals or publishers out of business. The
consequences may or may not overlap (this is contingent), but the
purposes do not overlap."
2.3. If it weren't for Principle 2, universities could require
faculty to deposit some version of their peer-reviewed journal
articles in the IR, for OA, with or without an embargo, and faculty
would have to avoid journals that did not allow OA archiving on those
terms. But that would needlessly limit faculty freedom to submit to
the journals of their choice. To respect faculty freedom,
universities must allow exemptions (waivers, opt-outs) for faculty
submitting to journals that do not allow OA archiving on the
university's terms. However, when enough universities adopt OA
mandates, then all journals would have to accommodate them, and
therefore the first type of policy (no opt-outs) would no longer limit
faculty freedom or violate Principle 2. But until we approach that
point, Principle 2 requires the second type of policy (with opt-
outs). Moreover, allowing an opt-out on OA is compatible with not
allowing an opt-out on IR deposits themselves. See the Appendix for
more detail.
2.4. The strategy to require OA archiving, and to require researchers
to avoid publishers that will not allow it, was pioneered by the
Wellcome Trust. The WT's example has been followed by some other
funding agencies, most notably the UK Medical Research Council and the
US National Institutes of Health. I support these policies, as well
as annotation 2.3, I should therefore point out that Principle 2 is
designed for universities, not funding agencies. Funding agencies are
essentially charities, spending money on research because it is in the
public interest. They have an interest in making that research as
useful and widely available as possible, and virtually no competing
interests. Universities have the same charitable purpose but many
competing interests, such as nurturing researchers more than research
projects, nurturing them over their entire careers, and erecting
bulwarks of policy and custom to protect academic freedom.
2.5. If we hasten the day when all or most journals allow postprint
archiving, then we hasten the day when universities could adopt no-opt-
out OA policies (as opposed to both no-opt-out deposit policies and
opt-out OA policies) without violating Principle 2. One way to do
that is for universities to demand the right for postprint archiving
when negotiating licensing terms for subscription or renewal.
OhioLink publicly committed itself to this strategy in 2006, the only
library consortium I know to do so. (OhioLink is a consortium of 86
academic libraries in Ohio representing more than 600,000 faculty,
students, and staff.) Several major universities are also trying this
strategy, but so far without a public announcement. Public or
private, I recommend that all universities do what they can to
negotiate better terms for their authors, not just better terms for
their readers.
3. Universities now pay most of the costs of peer review, through
subscription fees and faculty salaries. They should continue to bear
the costs of peer review, in order to assure its survival, while
recognizing that the forms and venues of peer review are changing.
3.1. Whenever a university library saves money in its serials budget
from the cancellation, conversion, or demise of toll-access (TA)
journals, it should spend the savings first on peer-reviewed OA
journals. This will insure that the same money which formerly paid
the costs of facilitating peer review at TA journals will continue to
pay the costs of facilitating peer review at OA journals.
(BTW, my second priority for the savings is to replenish the book
budgets suppressed by the high costs of TA journals.)
Many publishers argue that the growth of OA will undermine peer
review. It's important for universities to recognize that the key
factor in the survival of peer review is not the growth of OA but the
willingness of universities to support peer-reviewed OA journals with
the same funds they formerly used to support peer-reviewed TA journals.
3.2. Universities should create a fund to pay reasonable publication
fees at fee-based OA journals (or subsidies to no-fee OA journals).
Such funds are already in operation at the U of Amsterdam, U of
California at Berkeley, U of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, U of
Nottingham, and the U of Wisconsin at Madison.
3.3. Why is it important to recognize that the forms and venues of
peer review are changing? So that universities can support effective
forms of quality control wherever they occur, not just the traditional
forms which may over time represent a shrinking percentage of peer-
reviewed literature. Universities should use promotion and tenure
criteria to reward all forms of excellent scholarship, not just the
subset delivered in certain conventional packages. When new peer-
reviewed journals and new forms of peer review are worthy,
universities should not discriminate against them or create
disincentives for faculty to submit their work to them. Universities
should continue to try to weed out second-rate scholarship, but they
should not do it with such crude criteria that they rule out much that
is first-rate at the same time. They should not disregard or devalue
new forms of high-quality review or (by disregarding and devaluing
them) put a brake on their continuing evolution.
.....
* Appendix: Quick summary of seven policy options
A. Require submission to OA journals.
(Unattested, though once considered by the Australian Productivity
Commission. Included on this list only for completeness.)
B. Request and encourage OA through the IR, except when publishers do
not allow it.
(Examples: Athabasca U, Swedish U of Agricultural Sciences.)
C. Require OA through the IR, except when publishers do not allow it.
(Examples: UK Economic & Social Research Council, Canadian Institutes
of Health Research.)
D. Require OA through the IR, and require faculty to avoid publishers
that do not allow it.
(Examples: Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, and US
National Institutes of Health.)
E. Require OA through the IR, and permission from faculty, and allow
opt-outs when faculty want to publish with publishers that do not
allow it.
(Examples: Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences, draft policy of U of
California.)
F. Require deposit in the IR, no exceptions, and make the deposits OA
whenever the author or institution can obtain permission.
(Examples: Recommendation of European Research Advisory Board, draft
policy of Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering & Technology.)
G. A blend of E and F: Require faculty to grant permission for OA
through the IR (with an opt-out), but also require deposit in the IR
(without an opt-out).
(Examples: Recommendation of Stevan Harnad.)
None of these is perfect. Policy A violates Principles 1 and 2.
Policies B, C, and E permit exceptions, falling short of Principle 1.
Policy D violates Principle 2. Policies F and G permit OA exceptions,
even if not deposit exceptions, falling short of Principle 1.
Some shortfall from 100% OA is probably inevitable, like the friction
in a machine, and a small shortfall is harmless. I even believe that
some deliberate exceptions (as opposed to unintended failures) could
be desirable, for example, to muster support to pass the policy and to
accommodate unexpected circumstances. We don't have to pretend to
anticipate unanticipated cases; it's enough to make OA the default and
ask those seeking an exception to bear the burden of proof.
My preference is to think about which policy will bring an institution
closest to 100% OA (Principle 1) without violating academic freedom
(Principle 2). I rule out A because there aren't nearly enough OA
journals today; the shortfall and violation of academic freedom would
both be large. I rule out B because mere requests and encouragement
generate low compliance rates; the shortfall would be large. I rule
out C because about one-third of journals do not allow OA archiving;
the shortfall would be large.
I rule out D because it violates Principle 2. But I only rule it out
for universities, not funders, and only for the present. As I argued
in annotation 2.4, Principle 2 binds universities more than funders,
and as I argued in 2.3, over time policy D will violate Principle 2
less and less. These qualifications are important because only D-type
policies eliminate the shortfall caused by author or publisher opt-
outs. When the violation of Principle 2 becomes negligible, D-type
policies will be the clear winners.
I like E, F, and G, even today. In each case, it appears that the
shortfall would be fairly small. If true, then in choosing among them
the stakes are low and I would applaud any university for adopting any
of them. However, we should still look closely at which would have
the smallest shortfall and be ready to refine our policies in light of
what we find.
As I argued in my March 2008 newsletter, over time policy E will fall
short of Principle 1 less and less. For similar reasons, over time,
policies F and G will fall short of Principle 1 less and less.
Whatever their initial deficiencies, I'm persuaded that all three of
these policies will steadily, even if asymptotically, close their
loopholes and improve their conformity to Principle 1.
----------
Round-up
Here's what happened, or what I noticed, since the last issue of the
newsletter, emphasizing action and policy over scholarship and
opinion. I put the most important items first, with double asterisks,
and otherwise cluster them loosely by topic. Most of the time I link
to blog posts at Open Access News (where I am now assisted by Gavin
Baker), not to the sources themselves, because I only want to use one
link per item and the blog posts usually bring many relevant links
together.
** Austria's F=F6rderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung (Fund to
Promote Scientific Research, or FWF) strengthened its OA policy from a
request to a requirement and released an English translation of the
policy.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/fwf-strengthens-is-oa-policy-fro=
m.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/fwf-oa-policy-in-english-transla=
tion.html
** The prime ministers of the 27 EU member states endorsed an explicit
connection between OA and the proposed new "fifth freedom" or "free
movement of knowledge" for the EU. This is encouraging in part
because the Council of the European Union silently severed the
connection in February.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/more-on-freedom-and-oa.html
** After a slow start at implementing its July 2005 OA mandate, the
University of Zurich began taking steps to boost the deposit rate in
ZORA, its institutional repository.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/u-of-zurich-implementing-its-oa-=
mandate.html
** The University of Tasmania is preparing to implement an OA mandate
recommended by its Research College Board.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/oa-mandate-at-u-of-tasmania.html
* The University of Bergen is preparing a draft OA policy to submit to
its Board.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/university-of-bergen-drafting-oa=
-policy.html
* Rollins College is at least thinking about an OA mandate. After the
Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences adopted its OA mandate, the
Executive Committee of the Rollins Arts and Sciences Faculty asked
Jonathan Miller, Director of the Library, to write a memo on the
issues raised by the decision. Miller wrote the memo and posted it to
his blog.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/rollins-college-is-considering-o=
a.html
* New Zealand's Otago Polytechnic has a progressive IP policy with
implications for OA. With a couple of exceptions, it authorizes "free
and open access" under a CC-BY license to all the intellectual
property the institution "owns or co-owns". It also "encourages"
faculty and students to provide OA under a CC-BY license for their own
work.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/oa-policy-at-otago-polytechnic.h=
tml
* Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS, a division of the American Chemical
Society) decided not to allow the industry-standard but proprietary
CAS Registry Numbers to organize the growing body of chemical
information on Wikipedia. But it changed its mind in one week when
the open chemistry community protested and began looking for an open
alternative to the CAS numbers.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/acs-blocks-use-of-industry-stand=
ard.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/cas-will-cooperate-with-open-che=
mistry.html
* Bibliotheca Alexandrina launched an Access to Knowledge project to
raise awareness of A2K issues, especially in the Arab world.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/bibliotheca-alexandrina-launches=
-a2k.html
* eIFL (Electronic Information for Libraries) called for collaboration
on OA projects from like-minded organizations in the 47 developing and
transition countries in which it operates.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/eifl-call-for-cooperation.html
* Larry Sanger called on foundations to buy or commission first-rate
educational content and then make it OA. A few days later he created
a sign-on petition to encourage foundations to act. (In my blog
comments, I describe a similar but half-hearted initiative from the
Indonesian government.)
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/buying-then-liberating-excellent=
.html
* Dave Solomon and Gunther Eysenbach called for an organization of OA
journal editors and publishers.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/organization-for-oa-journal-edit=
ors-and.html
* The NIH hosted an open meeting on its public access policy (March
20, 2008), for which it solicited a new round of public comments on
the policy.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/comments-on-new-nih-policy.html
* The NIH released the comments submitted for its March 20 open
meeting. The vast majority supported the new OA mandate.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/nih-comments-online.html
* The NIH called for yet another set of public comments, from March 31
to May 31, 2008.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/call-for-additional-comments-on-=
nih.html
* The British Journal of Mormon Studies is a new OA, peer-reviewed
journal with a print edition available by POD from Lulu.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/new-oa-journal-on-mormon-studies=
.html
* Archimaera is a new German-language, peer-reviewed OA journal of
architecture and cultural history.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/new-oa-journal-of-architecture.h=
tml
* Ag=F4n is a new French-language, peer-reviewed OA journal on the
performing arts.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/new-oa-journal-on-performing-art=
s.html
* Molecular Cytogenetics is a new peer-reviewed OA journal from BioMed
Central.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/new-oa-journal-on-molecular.html
* Tropical Conservation Science is a new peer-reviewed OA journal from
Mongabay.com.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/new-oa-journal-on-tropical-conse=
rvation.html
* Drinking Water Engineering and Science is a new peer-reviewed OA
journal published by Copernicus for the Delft University of Technology.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/new-oa-journal-on-drinking-water=
.html
* Humana Press, an imprint of Springer, announced two new OA journals:
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine (launched March 2008) and
the Journal of Ocular Biology, Diseases, and Informatics (forthcoming).
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/2-new-oa-journals-from-springer.=
html
* Health and Human Rights converted to OA, starting with the March
2008 issue. HHR is published by Harvard University's Fran=E7ois-Xavier
Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/health-and-human-rights-converti=
ng-to.html
* Acta Crystallographica Section E: Structure Reports Online,
published by the International Union of Crystallography, converted
from hybrid OA to full OA.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/acta-crystallographica-e-convert=
s-to-oa.html
* After MIT canceled its subscription to the Society of Automotive
Engineers Technical Papers because its onerous DRM, the journal
dropped the DRM and MIT re-subscribed.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/society-publisher-abandons-drm-a=
fter.html
* Bioscience Horizons is a new peer-reviewed OA journal of
undergraduate research from Oxford University Press.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/new-oa-journal-from-oxford-on-un=
dergrad.html
* The University of Pennsylvania publishes three OA journals of
undergraduate research and distributes them through the institutional
repository: the Penn McNair Research Journal (PMRJ), the Journal of
Student Nursing Research (JOSNR), and the College Undergraduate
Research Electronic Journal (CUREJ).
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/oa-student-journals-in-u-penn-ir=
.html
* The National Library of Wales is digitizing and providing OA to
hundreds of thousands of pages Welsh journals, in Welsh and English,
from 1900 to the present.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/podcast-on-welsh-journals-online=
.html
* Three PLoS journals --PLoS Computational Biology, PLoS Genetics and
PLoS Pathogens-- moved to the Topaz platform already used by PLoS ONE
and PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/3-plos-journals-move-to-topaz-pl=
atform.html
* USENIX, the "advanced computing systems association", announced that
it will provide OA to all its conference proceedings.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/oa-to-usenix-conference-proceedi=
ngs.html
* College & Research Libraries (C&RL) began offering access to
preprints from the journal web site, but only for members of the
Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL).
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/acrl-mixed-messages-on-preprint-=
access.html
* Physicists who want to post their articles to wikis, for OA and text-
mining, criticized the American Physical Society for not allowing it.
The APS said it would consider revising its licensing terms.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/american-physical-society-v-wiki=
pedia.html
* Heather Morrison found that only 8 out of 84 psychology journals
listed in the DOAJ charge publication fees.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/less-than-10-of-oa-psychology-jo=
urnals.html
* Heather Morrison found that the DOAJ grew by three titles/day during
the first quarter of 2008, compared to 1.4 titles/day during 2007.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/1q-update-on-growth-of-oa.html
* Using data from PubMed, Heather Morrison found that 4% of dentistry
literature is OA, 13% of cancer literature, and 30% of genetics
literature.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/how-much-of-medical-literature-i=
s-free.html
* OhioLINK joined the SCOAP3 project.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/ohiolink-joins-scoap3.html
* Johns Hopkins University expressed interest in joining CERN's SCOAP3
project.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/johns-hopkins-may-join-scoap3.ht=
ml
* ICOLC (the International Consortium of Library Consortia) is looking
for US academic libraries and library consortia interested in joining
CERN's SCOAP3 project.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/calling-us-libraries-interested-=
in.html
* The American University of Rome launched an institutional repository.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/american-u-of-rome-launches-ir.h=
tml
* In January the University of Ljubljana launched DiKUL (Digitalna
Knjiznica Univerza v Ljubljani), its institutional repository.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/u-of-ljubljana-launches-ia.html
* India's Chandragupta Institute of Management is planning to launch
an institutional repository.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/cimp-to-launch-ir.html
* Hprints, the Nordic repository for humanities research, signed the
deal to be hosted by HAL, the consortial repository from France's CNRS.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/more-on-hprints-deal-with-hal.ht=
ml
* A NISO working group may recommend an IR deposit tool and a standard
deposit protocol.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/niso-may-recommend-ir-deposit-to=
ol-and.html
* Chris Keene launched a web page to track the growth of UK
repositories.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/growth-of-uk-repositories.html
* Barbara Kirsop collected deposit numbers for a group of OA
repositories in developing countries.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/ir-usage-in-developing-countries=
.html
* DRIVER (Digital Repository Infrastructure Vision for European
Research) is soliciting contributions to its wiki.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/driver-solicits-wiki-contributio=
ns.html
* The Human Oral Microbiome Database is an OA database of information
about microbes which live in the human oral cavity.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/new-oa-database-on-human-oral-mi=
crobes.html
* CiteSeer released the alpha version of CiteSeerX.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/alpha-release-of-citeseerx.html
* The NIH added genome data on Parkinson's disease to dbGaP (Database
of Genotypes and Phenotypes).
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/parkinsons-genome-data-added-to-=
nih.html
* PatientsLikeMe is a new web site allowing medical patients to share
personal data on their conditions, their medications, and the effects
of their medications, in order to "get help and give help".
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/medical-patients-share-data-to-h=
elp.html
* Proteopedia is a new OA database for "making structural biology
clearer for chemists and biologists by linking textual content to 3D
structures".
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/oa-database-for-structural-biolo=
gy.html
* Library and Archives Canada has launched a project to provide OA to
Canadian genealogical data.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/proposed-oa-canadian-genealogica=
l.html
* The Open Data Commons project released version 1.0 of its Public
Domain Dedication & Licence.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/public-domain-dedication-and-lic=
ence-v.html
* Open Source Chemistry Dictionary is an OA dictionary of chemistry
terms.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/oa-dictionary-file-for-chemistry=
.html
* France launched Gallica 2, a new and larger version of Gallica,
offering more than 60,000 free online books digitized from the
Biblioth=E8que Nationale de France and about 2,000 from about 50 private-
sector publishers.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/demo-of-french-digital-book-proj=
ect-to.html
* UNESCO is helping to digitize rare Mongolian texts for eventual OA.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/oa-to-mongolian-texts.html
* Richard Crocker launched Planet eBook, a new portal of OA books in
the public domain.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/oa-classics-from-planet-ebook.ht=
ml
* Microsoft and the Internet Archive will digitize thousands of public-
domain books from the Princeton Theological Seminary library.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/microsoft-to-digitize-princeton.=
html
* The library at Ludwig-Maximilans-Universit=E4t M=FCnchen is digitizing
and providing OA to many of its rare books, with 229 done to date.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/lmu-munich-provides-oa-to-229-ra=
re.html
* The University of Pittsburgh library released an OA collection of
bird illustrations by John James Audubon.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/oa-collection-of-audubon-illustr=
ations.html
* Purdue University endorsed the CIC author addendum.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/purdue-endorses-cic-author-adden=
dum.html
* MIT and Elsevier struck a deal allowing MIT Open Courseware pages to
use limited text selections and graphics from 2,000+ Elsevier
journals, under CC licenses.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/elsevier-allows-free-use-of-limi=
ted.html
* Ball State University released a summary of its repository and
digitization projects.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/ball-states-digital-initiatives.=
html
* Oxford University released its project plan for Scoping Digital
Repository Services for Research Data Management.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/plan-for-oxford-data-repository-=
project.html
* Public University Online is a portal of OA video lectures.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/another-site-for-oa-video-lectur=
es.html
* A controversy erupted at the U of Iowa when its MFA (Master of Fine
Arts) students thought their creative writings were subject to the OA
mandate for theses and dissertations. The interim provost explained
that the policy did not apply to writings in the MFA program.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/controversy-over-oa-for-fine-art=
s.html
* UNESCO released a major new report on open education.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/open-education-report-by-unesco.=
html
* A report by ACIL Tasman prepared for Australia's Cooperative
Research Centre for Spatial Information and ANZLIC concluded that in
Australia alone, in one year (2006-07), the lack of OA to spatial data
cost the economy $500,000,000.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/high-cost-of-lack-of-open-data.h=
tml
* An independent study commissioned by the UK government concluded
that the benefits of giving away government data exceeds the costs (in
lost license fees), for the top six data providing agencies alone, by
more than =A3160 million/year.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/economic-benefits-of-oa-for-publ=
ic.html
* TGE Adonis is launching a study of French publishing in the social
sciences and humanities. The goal is to identify indicators to measure
the impact of OA policies, especially for publicly-funded research.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/french-oa-policies-and-french.ht=
ml
* A report on publishing needs at the U of California found that
"campus resources are increasingly compromised by the commercial
publishing culture", that "the tenure and promotion process generally
impedes those actions that might effectively address the scholarly
communications crisis, such as publishing in open access journals
[and] granting non-exclusive copyright to publishers," and recommended
"a full spectrum of journal support services at the university"
including support for OA journals.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/california-publishing-plan-inclu=
des-oa.html
* A report on scientific books in Brazil found high levels of public
subsidies but a confusing array of barriers to public access.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/access-to-scientific-books-in-br=
azil.html
* The Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry,
Science and Technology announced hearings Canadian on science and
technology policy. The hearings will include OA policy and the
committee will accept written testimony from anyone.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/chance-to-affect-canadian-scienc=
e.html
* According to Cliff Morgan of Wiley, the European Commission is
funding a three-year study of OA, Publishing and Ecology of European
Research (PEER) and may delay any EU-wide OA policy until the study is
complete. According to eContentPlus, the study will be undertaken by
STM and is funded at more than 2 million Euros.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/ec-funds-another-study-on-impact=
-of-oa.html
* Alexander Varshavsky, a Professor of Cell Biology at the California
Institute of Technology, is the winner of the first annual $1 million
Gotham Prize for cancer research. The Gotham Prize doesn't require OA
but does encourage data sharing.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/first-1-million-gotham-prize-awa=
rded.html
* The University of Florida Digital Library Center announced that it
has been digitizing and providing OA to more than 100,000 pages per
month for the past seven months.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/digitization-milestone-from-u-fl=
orida.html
* GenBank turns 25 this week.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/genbank-will-be-25.html
* The Association of Cancer Online Resources and Committee for
Economic Development joined the Alliance for Taxpayer Access.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/two-more-members-for-ata.html
* Jan Velterop left his position as Open Access Director at Springer
to become the CEO of KnewCo.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/jan-velterop-leaves-springer-for=
-knewco.html
* Microsoft released an add-in for Word 2007 to generate XML-tagged
documents conforming to the National Library of Medicine Document Type
Definition (NLM DTD).
https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/4276.html
* Microsoft released a new platform for OA, OAI-compliant research
repositories. The software is now free of charge, and the company
said that it may one day open the source code.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/preview-of-microsoft-repository.=
html
* Microsoft launched a discussion forum for its new repository platform.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/notes-on-microsofts-repository-p=
latform.html
* The National Library of Sweden released OAI4J, a free and open
source client library for OAI-PMH and OAI-ORE.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/oai-pmh-implementation-in-java.h=
tml
* The National Library of Sweden also released oreprovider, a free and
open source add-on service for Fedora to "disseminate digital objects
stored in a Fedora repository as OAI-ORE Resource Maps".
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/oai-ore-add-on-for-fedora.html
* DSpace released version 1.5.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/dspace-upgrade.html
* ACRL, ARL, and SPARC released a short video on the rights of
scholarly authors.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/video-on-author-rights.html
* The Lieberman bill to provide OA for CRS reports is stalled in
Congress, and a compromise bill has been introduced by Sen. Dianne
Feinstein (D-CA).
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/more-on-oa-to-crs-reports.html
* Public.Resource.Org released a new batch of OA case law from US
federal courts.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/more-on-oa-to-us-case-law.html
* The British And Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) will
publish OA editions of the UK's 3,000 most important legal decisions.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/oa-to-uk-common-law.html
* The Open Knowledge Definition was translated into Spanish and Catalan.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/open-knowledge-definition-in-spa=
nish.html
* The Open Knowledge Definition was translated into Basque.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/open-knowledge-definition-in-bas=
que.html
* The Open Knowledge Definition was translated into Slovenian.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/open-knowledge-definition-in-slo=
venian.html
* STM, PSP, and ALPSP issued a joint Statement on journal publishing
agreements and copyright agreement "addenda", March 2008. My blog
comment responds to their objections.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/publisher-groups-criticize-attem=
pts-to.html
* When Scopus released TopCited, a new free service listing the most-
cited recent articles in various disciplines, Klaus Graf discovered
that all the current top 20 papers (across all disciplines, from the
past five years) have OA versions online.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/topcited-lists-most-cited-papers=
-by.html
* Germany's Informationsplattform Open Access has made it to the
second round of consideration for renewal of its DFG funding.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/germany-oa-info-center-may-be-re=
newed.html
* The UK Arts and Humanities Data Service (AHDS) came to the end of
its regular funding, and will operate for one more year on
supplemental funding from JISC.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/central-funding-for-ahds-ends-to=
morrow.html
* Ross Scaife died of cancer at age 47. He was a leading OA advocate
in the humanities and a Professor of Classics at the University of
Kentucky.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/03/ross-scaife-1960-2008.html
----------
Coming this month
Here are some important OA-related events coming up in April.
* April 7, 2008. All articles arising from NIH-funded research that
are accepted for publication on or after this date are covered by the
new NIH OA mandate and must be submitted to PubMed Central on
acceptance. See the lead article above.
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-033.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/01/nih-releases-its-new-oa-policy.h=
tml
* Mid-April, 2008. Germany's 30-volume Brockhaus Encyclopedia plans
to drop its price barrier and offer free online access to all.
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/103362
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/02/free-online-access-to-brockhaus.=
html
* Sometime in April 2008. A prototype of TicTOCS, the OA, RSS-based,
table-of-contents service, should be online.
https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/3915.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2007/08/oa-table-of-contents-service.htm=
l
* Notable conferences this month
Open Repositories 2008
http://openrepositories.org/2008/
Southampton, April 1-4, 2008
On the Open Humanities Press (two public lectures by Sigi Jottkandt
and Gary Hall)
http://www.humanities.uci.edu/humanitech/lectures/lectures.php
Los Angeles, April 3, 2008
EurOpenScholar Meeting: The University's Mission, Management and
Mandate in the Open Access Era
http://or08.ecs.soton.ac.uk/euro.html
Southampton, April 4, 2008
Institutional Compliance with the NIH Public Access Policy: Ensuring
Deposit Rights
http://www.arl.org/sc/implement/nih/webcast/index.shtml
April 7, 2008 (a webcast, 1:00 - 2:00 pm Eastern Standard Time)
Economies of the Commons: Strategies for Sustainable Access and
Creative Reuse of Images and Sounds Online
http://www.debalie.nl/dossierpagina.jsp?dossierid=3D208416
Amsterdam, April 10-12, 2008
Culture of Sharing (OA is among the topics)
http://cultureofsharing.library.wisc.edu/
Madison, April 12, 2008
Open Access: New Trends in Scholarly Communcation
http://www.lib.uom.gr/openaccess/index.php?lang=3Den
Thessaloniki, April 14, 2008
Faculty discussion of scholarly communication (not the official title)
(OA is among the topics)
http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/sel.php/2008/04/01/faculty_discuss_scholarly_=
communication
[Looking for a better URL]
Berkeley, April 14, 2008
ODaF Europe 2008 (sponsored by the Open Data Foundation)
http://www.opendatafoundation.org/events/odaf_europe_2008.php
Colchester, April 14-15, 2008
Panel on OA for students (not the official title)
[no web site yet]
Northfield, Minnesota (Carleton College), April 15, 2008
Panel on OA for students (not the official title)
[no web site yet]
Northfield, Minnesota (St. Olaf College), April 16, 2008
Scholar 2 Scholar: How Web 2.0 is Changing Scholarly Communication as
We Know It (Drexel University Libraries' Scholarly Communication
Symposium)
http://scholar2scholar.wikispaces.com/
Philadelphia, April 16, 2008
Institutional Repositories: The Great Debate
http://www.asis.org/Chapters/carolinas/index.html
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, April 17, 2008
Off the Shelf and Out of the Box: Creativity in Libraries (2008 BC
Library Conference)(OA is among the topics)
http://www.bcla.bc.ca/2008%20Conference/default.aspx
Richmond, British Columbia, April 17-19, 2008
Fourth Nordic Conference on Scholarly Communication (NCSC 2008)
http://www.lub.lu.se/ncsc
Lund, April 21-23, 2008
Blogs, RSS and Wikis: tools for dissemination, collaboration and
information gathering
http://www.ukeig.org.uk/training/2008/April/BlogsManchester200804.html
Manchester, April 22, 2008
Open Access Repositories: New Models for Scholarly Communication
(sponsored by eIFL.net and Ahmadu Bello University)
[no web site yet]
Zaria, Nigeria, April 28-29, 2008
Bio-IT World 2008 (OA is among the topics)
http://www.bio-itworldexpo.com/
Boston, April 28-30, 2008
* Other OA-related conferences
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm
----------
Housekeeping
* I've added 47 new conferences to my conference page since the last
issue. In the next few days I'll delete the second asterisk marking
them and the new entries will blend into the rest of the collection.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
This is the SPARC Open Access Newsletter (ISSN 1546-7821), written by
Peter Suber and published by SPARC. The views I express in this
newsletter are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of SPARC or
other sponsors.
To unsubscribe, send any message (from the subscribed address) to <SPARC-OA=
News-off@arl.org
>.
Please feel free to forward any issue of the newsletter to interested
colleagues. If you are reading a forwarded copy, see the instructions
for subscribing at either of the next two sites below.
SPARC home page for the Open Access Newsletter and Open Access Forum
http://www.arl.org/sparc/publications/soan
Peter Suber's page of related information, including the newsletter
editorial position
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/index.htm
Newsletter, archived back issues
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm
Forum, archived postings
https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SOA-Forum/List.html
Conferences Related to the Open Access Movement
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm
Timeline of the Open Access Movement
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm
Open Access Overview
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm
Open Access News blog
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
Peter Suber
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters
peter.suber@earlham.edu
SOAN is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United
States License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/
***************************************************************************
Manon Anne Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org,
www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA
Tel.: +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673
Consumer Project on Technology
1 Route des Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727
Consumer Project on Technology
24 Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX, UK
Tel: +44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252 Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607