the last keystroke for the author, as mentioned by Stevan Harnad,
that the metadata are typed in, even that can be outsourced:
our Institute does this for large stacks of documents for any scientific
author, with results like
http://www.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/hydro/siefert04.html
(check for the source code); which then the author puts on his webserver.
so, the only thing left, is, that authors say either yes or a enforced by
their University to do so.
Ebs
.................................................
Eberhard R. Hilf, Dr. Prof.;
CEO (Geschaeftsfuehrer)
Institute for Science Networking Oldenburg GmbH
an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet
Ammerlaender Heerstr.121; D-26129 Oldenburg
ISN-home:
http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/
homepage:
http://isn-oldenburg.de/~hilf
email : hilf_at_isn-oldenburg.de
tel : +49-441-798-2884
fax : +49-441-798-5851
Why not visit
- Buendnis Urheberrecht fuer Bildung und Wissenschaft
www.urheberrechtsbuendnis.de
- Open Access www.zugang-zum-wissen.de
- Physics Distributed Network: www.physnet.net
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> 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)
> Université du Québec à Montréal
> Montréal, Québec, Canada H3C 3P8
> tel: 1-514-987-3000 2461#
> fax: 1-514-987-8952
> harnad_at_uqam.ca
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/
>
Received on Thu Feb 10 2005 - 16:58:42 GMT