>Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:33:18 +0100
>From: sz <[email protected]>
>To: incom <[email protected]>
>Subject: <incom> Berlin-3 Open Access Conference, Southampton, Feb 28 -
>Mar 1 2005
>
>The avowed purpose of the international meeting that will be hosted by
>Southampton University February 28 - March 1 "Berlin 3 Open Access:
>Progress in Implementing the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to
>Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities"
>http://www.eprints.org/berlin3/program.html
>is to *implement* the Berlin Declaration, so as to turn it into a concrete
>institutional policy which institutions that have signed (and will sign)
>the Berlin Declaration can then commit themselves to adopting. The Berlin
>Declaration itself was only an abstract expression of principle:
>Scholarly/Scientific research should be freely accessible online to all
>potential users worldwide.
>http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/berlindeclaration.html
>
>Many institutions worldwide signed that they endorsed that Principle.
>http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/signatories.html
>But not that they would put the Principle into Practice, or How!
>
>Berlin 2 (at CERN in May 2004)
> http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-cern/program_prelim.html
>began drafting a "Roadmap" for implementing the Berlin Declaration:
>
http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-cern/presentation-oa2berlin-roadmap-proposal.pdf
>but the Roadmap was still far too vague to provide a basis for a specific,
>concrete, practical institutional policy. That concrete policy is what the
>Berlin 3 Meeting in Southampton in February will try to formulate, and
>there is a candidate proposal (from Southampton) on the table, as to what
>this practical implementation policy should be:
>
>Unified Institutional Open-Access Provision Policy:
>http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/UKSTC.htm
>I. The institution's researchers EITHER publish their research in an Open
>Access Journal (if/when a suitable one exists) OR
>II. The institution's researchers publish their research in a suitable
>non-Open Access journal AND also self-archive a copy of it in their own
>institutional Open Access Archive.
>This is (roughly) the OA policy that has since been adopted at Southampton:
>http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/news/667
>and of course the self-archiving component (II) is the critical one, as
>institutions cannot create or convert OA Journals, nor can they commit
>their researchers to publishing in them, but they can certainly create OA
>Archives and commit their researchers to self-archiving a copy of all
>their research articles in them immediately upon acceptance for
>publication (and encourage self-archiving the preprints even earlier). At
>least 7 other institutions besides Southampton (2 in Germany, 2 in
>France, 1 in Australia, 1 in Portugal, 1 in India) have already adopted
>and implemented an institutional policy along these lines:
>http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
>http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php
>
>If this policy (or a suitable variant) is adopted as the Berlin
>Declaration's official "Roadmap" for OA in February, then institutional
>self-archiving and OA provision should shortly experience a dramatic
>growth spurt worldwide. Also to be present at the Berlin Declaration
>meeting are the representatives of two important national research
>institutions -- France's CNRS and Germany's Max-Planck Institutes. These
>distributed multi-disciplinary institutions are far bigger than any single
>university, and if they adopt the implementation policy, all other
>research universities and institutions will follow suit shortly thereafter
>worldwide.
>
>This is especially important in light of a set-back to OA progress that
>has just occurred in the US: The NIH (in the earnest hope of promoting OA
>thereby) adopted a flawed policy of *inviting* (rather than requiring) NIH
>grant-recipients to make their findings freely accessible online after a
>delay period of up to 12 months following publication (rather than
>immediately) in PubMed Central (rather than in each author's own
>institutional repository). One of the purposes of Berlin 3 is to provide
>a much better OA implementation policy as a model, thereby averting any
>worldwide cloning and proliferation of the NIH's very inadequate
>delayed-access policy -- which is certainly neither OA nor an
>implementation of the Berlin Declaration, and might have locked in a
>1-year access delay for years to come.
>
>"Please Don't Copy-Cat Clone NIH-12 Non-OA Policy!"
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2E01227A
>http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4307.html
>
>"Open Access vs. NIH Back Access and Nature's Back-Sliding"
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?M3115427A
>http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4312.html
>
>In contrast to the US NIH policy, the UK Parliamentary Select Committee's
>formal recommendation (although it has not been adopted by the UK
>government) is almost identical to the Unified Institutional OA Provision
>Policy described above:
>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm
>
>Research Councils UK are currently working on formulating a policy of
>their own for implementing the UK Committee recommendation, but RCUK will
>not present anything at the Berlin 3 meeting because its date happens to
>fall exactly at the delicate time when RCUK are working on finalising
>their policy, which has not yet been agreed upon.
>http://www.stm-assoc.org/conferences/Goldstein.ppt
>
>(It would of course have been better if RCUK too could have attended
>Berlin 3 to present its own OA plans along with CNRS and MaxPlanck, but
>the timing prevented it: I hope RCUK will announce soon after, and that
>its announcement will be favorable, but I have no way of knowing yet what
>its decision will turn out to be!)
>
>There is one more theme to be noted in closing: One of the outcomes of
>last month's 2-day Southampton Workshop on OA self-archiving in the UK --
>"Open Access Institutional Repositories: Leadership, Direction and Launch"
>http://www.eprints.org/jan2005/programme.html
>http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4341.html
>had been a candidate alternative to the NIH delayed-access policy for
>universities. It has become apparent across the years that the single most
>important obstacle delaying 100% Open Access provision is *keystrokes*: If
>there were a way to ensure that all the metadata (author, title, date,
>journal-name, etc.) plus the full-texts of all university research article
>output were duly deposited in the university's institutional repository --
>by (someone) performing the relatively few keystrokes per paper required
>to do this (Southampton's logs suggest it only takes 6 minutes per paper)
>-- then 100% OA would only be one keystroke away: the keystroke that makes
>the full-text (and not just the metadata) accessible webwide rather than
>just accessible internally to the author's institution. (The metadata are
>visible and harvestable worldwide in any case.)
>
>All the issues that derailed the NIH proposal would be bypassed if
>performing that last keystroke were simply left to the discretion of the
>author (though strongly encouraged) in any case where there was any
>reluctance or uncertainty -- but all the preceding keystrokes (for
>entering the metadata and uploading the full-text into the university's
>repository) were mandatory.
>
>Several researcher surveys have now confirmed that although researchers
>are beginning to realize the power and value of OA self-archiving, many
>nevertheless state very explicitly that they will *not* self-archive
>until/unless they are *required* to do so by their employers and/or their
>research funders -- yet almost 80% say that if/when they *are* required to
>do so, they will do so *willingly* (just as they comply willingly with the
>requirement to publish-or-perish).
>http://www.eprints.org/jan2005/ppts/swan.ppt
>
>At Southampton University, it turned out that the practical benefits of
>having all university research output deposited in the university
>repository -- for the purposes of internal record-keeping, asset
>management, CV-generation, and research performance evaluation, as well as
>for external research assessment (e.g., the RAE), grant applications, and
>research visibility -- were sufficient in themselves to motivate making
>self-archiving an official university policy.
>
>Whether or not the last keystroke was done to make the full-text visible
>externally turned out to be a minor matter, affecting a minor number of
>cases, as long as the rest of the keystrokes were done: The metadata are
>then (1) all already harvestable and hence (2) all already generating
>eprint requests to the author from would-be users around the world, (3)
>92% of journals have already given full-text OA self-archiving their green
>light, and meanwhile (4) the objective evidence of the power of OA to
>enhance research usage and citation impact is growing rapidly.
>http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php
>
>So as long as the first N-1 keystrokes are done, nature can be trusted to
>take its course.
>http://citebase.eprints.org/isi_study/
>http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/ch.htm
>http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html
>
>Stevan Harnad
>Chaire de recherche du Canada
>Centre de neuroscience de la cognition (CNC)
>Universit� du Qu�bec � Montr�al
>Montr�al, Qu�bec, Canada H3C 3P8
>[email protected]
>http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/
Este archivo fue generado por hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Jul 1 11:02:37 2005 AST