The dramatic growth of open access continues! Many areas of open access, particularly OA journals and repositories, appear to be showing a very rapid growth rate of more than 40% annually. The total number of articles in repositories is showing a somewhat lower growth rate, just over 25% annually.
My predictions for 2006:
Open Access Journals: continued high growth rate
This prediction is based on conversations with people in the process of developing new OA journals or working on converting to an OA journal model. DOAJ growth is assured, based on the many OA journals which await discovery and vetting. The truly important figure, however, is the total number of articles openly accessible, rather than journals. This growth will begin to become more obvious later in 2006, when the impact of mandated open access policies, from funding agencies and universities, begins to be felt.
Institutional Repositories: very high growth in repositories, slower growth in articles / documents, a trend that will gradually reverse
This prediction is based on conversations with people who are in the process of developing new institutional repositories. First we will see the repositories with few items, then they will begin to fill - slowly at first, then more rapidly as mandates and increased awareness kick in.
Following is the data on which my estimates of current growth are based. I am including some figures for future reference purposes; if no earlier data is presented, none is readily available. Only easily identifiable data is included. If your subject repository is not included, it may be because it is not easy to identify the total number of items from your website.
Early figures are from my preprint, The Dramatic Growth of Open Access: Implications and Opportunities for Resource Sharing, Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve, 16, 3 (2006).
Directory of Open Access Journals:
Dec. 31, 2005: 1,988 titles
February 2005 - over 1,400 titles
492 journals searchable at article level - 83,235 articles
This represents a growth of close to 600 titles, or 40% growth, in less than a year. In early 2005, the number of titles in DOAJ was roughly comparable to the number of titles in a general aggregator package for libraries (e.g. Academic Search Elite, Expanded Academic Index). DOAJ now clearly has more titles than these packages did in February 2005.
Note that the DOAJ list does not represent all open access journals, only the ones that have met DOAJ standards, and have gone through the DOAJ vetting process. Jan Szczepanski's list is much longer: over 4,705 titles total as of early December 2005.
The number of DOAJ titles will likely fluctuate over the next few months, as DOAJ has plans to weed out titles that no longer meet DOAJ criteria.
OAIster
Dec. 22, 2005: 6,255,599 records from 578 institutions
February 2005: over 5 million records, 405 institutions
This is about a 25% increase in records in less than a year, and a 40% increase in institutions. Why is the number of institutions increasing faster than the number of records? It could be because there are a great many libraries which have very new institutional repositories. My expectation is that this trend will continue in 2006, as many libraries have institutional repositories in planning stages. Eventually, the trend will reverse, as the number of institutional repositories stabilizes, but the IRs begin to fill more rapidly for two reasons: mandates, and increased awareness of the potential once a few institutions have repositories worth showing off.
Highwire Press Free Online Fulltext Articles
Dec. 31, 2005: 1,131,135 free articles
early January 2005: over 800,000 free articles
This is about a 40% increase in less than a year.
arXiv
Dec. 31, 2005: Open access to 350,745 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science and Quantitative Biology.
RePEC: Research Papers in Economics
Dec. 31, 2005: over 350,000 items of interest, over 250,000 of which are available online.
February 2005: over 200,000 freely available items.
This represents a growth rate of over 25% in less than a year. The growth rate for well-established repositories might be expected to be less than that for new repositories.
E-LIS
Dec. 31, 2005: 3,095 documents
No earlier figure available.
Open Access Publishers
BioMedCentral
Dec. 31, 2005: Over 140 open access journals covering all areas of biology and medicine
February 2005: over 100 open access journals.
Growth rate of about 40% in less than a year.
Public Library of Science
Dec. 31, 2005: 6 journals
February 2005: 2 journals
Threefold increase in journals in less than a year.
The interesting figure for the future for open access publishers will be the total number of articles, rather than journals, but setting up the journals likely does need to come first.
Canadian Association of Research Libraries : Metadata Harvester
Dec. 31, 2005: 21,9225 records from 11 archives.
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Saturday, December 31, 2005
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Open access textbooks
There are many curious ironies about the open access movement, and indeed the shift from print to electronic in general. Not least of these is that while advocacy efforts focus on the peer-reviewed research article, progress towards open access is happening in areas where no advocacy efforts are directed at all, to my knowledge. One such area is open access textbooks.
This came to my attention one day when searching for online math textbooks. I was not expecting to find free texts at all, on the assumption that textbooks were an area where the commercial sector would obviously prevail - after all, who would write an entire textbook without expectation of financial compensation?
Imagine my surprise, then, to find the extensive list of Textbooks, Lecture Notes and Tutorials in Mathematics by Alexandre Stefanov. All resources are free, and are divided into topics such as general mathematics, number theory, algebra, algebraic geometry, topolisis, analysis, geometry, mathematical physics, probability theory, formatting documents (TEX, LATEX, etc.).
Alexandre links to a number of other substantial lists, including the list of
Online mathematics textbooks, including over 40 textbooks as of October 2005, maintained by George Cain, School of Mathematics, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Why is this happening? This explanation, from George Cain's website, may help:
"The writing of textbooks and making them freely available on the web is an idea whose time has arrived. Most college mathematics textbooks attempt to be all things to all people and, as a result, are much too big and expensive. This perhaps made some sense when these books were rather expensive to produce and distribute--but this time has passed."
There may be more similarity between the writing of textbooks and the writing of peer-reviewed articles than one might think at first. Unlike the writers of articles, those who write books generally are paid for their time - however, in academia this is not generally a lucrative business proposition. Rather, faculty likely see a need for a textbook, or for a better textbook, and so they begin to write one. If there is financial assistance, it is most likely to compensate for the faculty member's time, so that they can be released to spend time writing the textbook.
The more I think about it, the more open textbooks make sense, particularly in mathematics. Printed textbooks are expensive - one cannot ask students to purchase more than one mathematics textbook. Yet it seems obvious that the student is much better off having access to the dozens of free textbooks that are already available. If a student is having difficulty understanding a concept explained one way, does it not make sense to provide an alternative explanation?
If writing a textbook without financial compensation seems like a puzzling thing to do, picture this: caculus tutorial. An endless line of students, all struggling to understand this complex subject. Some may be working hard, and may be taking the course for the second or third time, but still struggling. Doesn't writing down your best explanation of a given concept, to share with everyone - your students, and the students of other professors, everywhere, make sense?
If there are areas where subsidies for production for open access make sense, is this not one of them? If mathematics is covered in public education, and providing free resources can help more students to pass their math courses the first or second time (rather than the second or third time), does this not fulfill two very important public policy goals at once: efficient use of tax dollars, and maximum development of a critical skill area?
What about learning objects, too? If one person develops a learning object that helps students to master a complex concept, why not share this with everyone?
For that matter, could there be a role for students to help develop learning objects and/or explanations for textbooks? Could textbooks and learning object repositories be developed collaboratively, perhaps wikipedia-style?
Some opportunities for research based on the open textbooks phenomenon:
Contact the writers and publishers of open textbooks - ask them what inspired them to do this, would they recommend that others take the same approach, etc.
Do students with ready access to a range of textbooks do better than students with access to only one textbook?
Learning objects and concept mastery - it should be possible to design research that would test the relationship between students exposure to learning objects (on an individual or group basis) and their mastery of particular concept(s) - perhaps even years later. This in turn could help to identify the most useful learning objects. This kind of research would have some complex ethical / privacy dimensions to address.
This posting is a further development of a theme earlier discussed on the
SPARC Open Access Forum and Open Access News.
Update Dec. 28:
According to Peter Suber, "There's a growing number of OA textbook sites, but as far as I know just one searchable portal that tries to be comprehensive: Jason Turgeon's Textbook Revolution". From: Open Access News.
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
This came to my attention one day when searching for online math textbooks. I was not expecting to find free texts at all, on the assumption that textbooks were an area where the commercial sector would obviously prevail - after all, who would write an entire textbook without expectation of financial compensation?
Imagine my surprise, then, to find the extensive list of Textbooks, Lecture Notes and Tutorials in Mathematics by Alexandre Stefanov. All resources are free, and are divided into topics such as general mathematics, number theory, algebra, algebraic geometry, topolisis, analysis, geometry, mathematical physics, probability theory, formatting documents (TEX, LATEX, etc.).
Alexandre links to a number of other substantial lists, including the list of
Online mathematics textbooks, including over 40 textbooks as of October 2005, maintained by George Cain, School of Mathematics, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Why is this happening? This explanation, from George Cain's website, may help:
"The writing of textbooks and making them freely available on the web is an idea whose time has arrived. Most college mathematics textbooks attempt to be all things to all people and, as a result, are much too big and expensive. This perhaps made some sense when these books were rather expensive to produce and distribute--but this time has passed."
There may be more similarity between the writing of textbooks and the writing of peer-reviewed articles than one might think at first. Unlike the writers of articles, those who write books generally are paid for their time - however, in academia this is not generally a lucrative business proposition. Rather, faculty likely see a need for a textbook, or for a better textbook, and so they begin to write one. If there is financial assistance, it is most likely to compensate for the faculty member's time, so that they can be released to spend time writing the textbook.
The more I think about it, the more open textbooks make sense, particularly in mathematics. Printed textbooks are expensive - one cannot ask students to purchase more than one mathematics textbook. Yet it seems obvious that the student is much better off having access to the dozens of free textbooks that are already available. If a student is having difficulty understanding a concept explained one way, does it not make sense to provide an alternative explanation?
If writing a textbook without financial compensation seems like a puzzling thing to do, picture this: caculus tutorial. An endless line of students, all struggling to understand this complex subject. Some may be working hard, and may be taking the course for the second or third time, but still struggling. Doesn't writing down your best explanation of a given concept, to share with everyone - your students, and the students of other professors, everywhere, make sense?
If there are areas where subsidies for production for open access make sense, is this not one of them? If mathematics is covered in public education, and providing free resources can help more students to pass their math courses the first or second time (rather than the second or third time), does this not fulfill two very important public policy goals at once: efficient use of tax dollars, and maximum development of a critical skill area?
What about learning objects, too? If one person develops a learning object that helps students to master a complex concept, why not share this with everyone?
For that matter, could there be a role for students to help develop learning objects and/or explanations for textbooks? Could textbooks and learning object repositories be developed collaboratively, perhaps wikipedia-style?
Some opportunities for research based on the open textbooks phenomenon:
Contact the writers and publishers of open textbooks - ask them what inspired them to do this, would they recommend that others take the same approach, etc.
Do students with ready access to a range of textbooks do better than students with access to only one textbook?
Learning objects and concept mastery - it should be possible to design research that would test the relationship between students exposure to learning objects (on an individual or group basis) and their mastery of particular concept(s) - perhaps even years later. This in turn could help to identify the most useful learning objects. This kind of research would have some complex ethical / privacy dimensions to address.
This posting is a further development of a theme earlier discussed on the
SPARC Open Access Forum and Open Access News.
Update Dec. 28:
According to Peter Suber, "There's a growing number of OA textbook sites, but as far as I know just one searchable portal that tries to be comprehensive: Jason Turgeon's Textbook Revolution". From: Open Access News.
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Friday, December 23, 2005
Michael Eisen's Open Science Blog
Public Library of Science co-founder Michael Eisen has a new open access blog, the Open Science Blog. The first article, Fight Intelligent Design - Publish in PLoS!, talks about the importance for academics to bridge the growing gap between the scientific community and the public.
This article talks a bit about the use of research literature by the public - one of my favorite topics. Michael makes the point that much of the research literature is much more readable by the public, once they have access, than one would think. My point of view is that there is a relationship between learning and the opportunity to learn. Before the printing press and the ready availability of books, not many could read. The more people who have access to the research literature, the more people who will learn to read and use it.
For more on my thoughts on open access to the research literature and the public, see the article Andrew Waller and I wrote, Open Access: Basics and Benefits.
Thanks to Peter Suber on Open Access News
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
This article talks a bit about the use of research literature by the public - one of my favorite topics. Michael makes the point that much of the research literature is much more readable by the public, once they have access, than one would think. My point of view is that there is a relationship between learning and the opportunity to learn. Before the printing press and the ready availability of books, not many could read. The more people who have access to the research literature, the more people who will learn to read and use it.
For more on my thoughts on open access to the research literature and the public, see the article Andrew Waller and I wrote, Open Access: Basics and Benefits.
Thanks to Peter Suber on Open Access News
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Open Access Policy Issues Breakout Session
Just self-archived: my presentation at the CERN Workshop on Scholarly Innovations (OAI4) on the open access policy issues breakout session. In E-LIS or the Simon Fraser University Library Institutional Repository.
Abstract:
The CERN Workshop on Scholarly Innovations (OAI4) included about 30 participants from a variety of open access related backgrounds. Some were involved in institutional repositories at various stages, from mature repositories with mandated self-archiving policies to new or planned repositories. There was much interest in copyright issues, and the more experienced group members felt that the approach appreciated most by faculty was assistance in negotiating their rights with publishers, for example using the standard authors' addendum developed by SPARC U.S. Some participants were from the subject repository community (E-LIS, PubMed). Potential differences of viewpoint between the two approaches were identified, but seen as superficial differences which could be overcome. A representative from a funding agency suggested that the funding agency monies for open access charges could perhaps be leveraged to free up funds for non-funded researchers. The author concludes with an afterthought along these lines, that is, if publishers are receiving revenues from processing fees for funded researchers, subscription fees should decrease; these funds could then be diverted to a fund to pay for further processing fees.
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Abstract:
The CERN Workshop on Scholarly Innovations (OAI4) included about 30 participants from a variety of open access related backgrounds. Some were involved in institutional repositories at various stages, from mature repositories with mandated self-archiving policies to new or planned repositories. There was much interest in copyright issues, and the more experienced group members felt that the approach appreciated most by faculty was assistance in negotiating their rights with publishers, for example using the standard authors' addendum developed by SPARC U.S. Some participants were from the subject repository community (E-LIS, PubMed). Potential differences of viewpoint between the two approaches were identified, but seen as superficial differences which could be overcome. A representative from a funding agency suggested that the funding agency monies for open access charges could perhaps be leveraged to free up funds for non-funded researchers. The author concludes with an afterthought along these lines, that is, if publishers are receiving revenues from processing fees for funded researchers, subscription fees should decrease; these funds could then be diverted to a fund to pay for further processing fees.
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
The elusive art of costing (institutional repositories)
Talk in open access circles of late has centred around the true costs of setting up and maintaining an institutional repository. The only accurate answer to this question, in my opinion, is: it depends - on a number of factors.
At the low end of the cost range is the completely free institutional repository. An individual can easily download free software, such as gnu eprints, using computing and internet facilities already in place for other purposes at work. The amount of volunteer labor involved also depends on how the IR is set up. Are authors allowed to deposit their own works, or is there a central vetting process? Obviously, the central vetting process is more labor-intensive than allowing authors to deposit their own works.
Of course, even this is option is not truly completely free; it is just that there are no hard dollar costs. Even with no budget at all, we can easily get an institutional repository up and running with what we have.
In fact, this might be easier and simpler for the smaller and poorer library. Decisions, for example, are easier, when one has fewer options to contemplate. This is another example of the Delightful Irony of open access; that the poor can afford, what the rich cannot (or claim that they cannot).
At the higher end of the cost range, a large university could plan a comprehensive institutional repository program, not only for the open access research literature, but also for all manner of other types of information. For example, universities which move to electronic records only have long-term needs for preservation and access to a variety of institutional records, including some (such as student and personnel records) which are confidential. It may well be necessary and/or desirable to develop a series of repositories, rather than just one, and these may be handled in a centralized or distributed manner. The highest single per-repository cost would come with a central system housing a variety of different types of information for a large university. This operation may well require a fair bit of hardware, connectivity, security and authentication arrangements, staff, and space to house the computers and staff - plus adminstrative overhead, of course. The costs for this kind of arrangement are not necessarily new costs, as there will be current means of maintaining institutional records and so forth; indeed, there may be a variety of cost savings. It is likely that there would be initial transitional costs, such as equipment purchases, space design, and so forth. Even with substantial cost savings, however, the costs for such a comprehensive program could well be substantial, both initially and ongoing.
In between there is a great variety of possibilities for costs. A library could set up an institutional repository using free open source software, and advertise for a specialist to work on the institutional repository, whether as technical support or promotion or both, full or part time. An open source software solution with paid hosting costs could be pursued, or commercial software.
To sum up, when we look at the wide variety of costs reported for institutional repositories - from practically nothing to $6,000, to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and ask: which of these costs estimates is correct? There are two correct answers to this question: all of the above, and it depends - how much money do you have, and what are you willing to spend?
This wide range of costs is not particularly unusual, especially in the electronic environment. Think of a website - or blog. Either one can easily be set up by an individual, using equipment and connectivity already in place as part of a standard internet connection service - or even using totally free equipment and services, often provided by public libraries. Or, a large institution can set up a web services department, hire a manager, some graphic designers, administrative staff, and naturally, supply them with office space. Here, too, it is quite accurate to say that the true cost of a website or blog ranges from nothing or virtually nothing, to a great deal of money.
This phenomenon is not entirely new, for that matter. Consider the costs of transportation. A billionaire might own a fleet of planes, helicopters, ships, and fancy cars, in various locations all the over the world. Transportion costs for such a person could be astronomical. Those of us with more modest means get about with our bikes, skateboards, more modest cars, and buses. Even the destitute, barring disability, can get about on their own two feet. If we think such a person cannot get as far - remember Gandhi. Has anyone accomplished more? So, the answer to the question: how much does transportation for one person cost? Is, quite correctly, a wide range, from nothing to a very large sum of money, with many possibilities in between.
This post was inspired by a recent conversation on the SPARC Open Access Forum (SOAF); for more on this perspective, see my SOAF posting on this topic.
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
At the low end of the cost range is the completely free institutional repository. An individual can easily download free software, such as gnu eprints, using computing and internet facilities already in place for other purposes at work. The amount of volunteer labor involved also depends on how the IR is set up. Are authors allowed to deposit their own works, or is there a central vetting process? Obviously, the central vetting process is more labor-intensive than allowing authors to deposit their own works.
Of course, even this is option is not truly completely free; it is just that there are no hard dollar costs. Even with no budget at all, we can easily get an institutional repository up and running with what we have.
In fact, this might be easier and simpler for the smaller and poorer library. Decisions, for example, are easier, when one has fewer options to contemplate. This is another example of the Delightful Irony of open access; that the poor can afford, what the rich cannot (or claim that they cannot).
At the higher end of the cost range, a large university could plan a comprehensive institutional repository program, not only for the open access research literature, but also for all manner of other types of information. For example, universities which move to electronic records only have long-term needs for preservation and access to a variety of institutional records, including some (such as student and personnel records) which are confidential. It may well be necessary and/or desirable to develop a series of repositories, rather than just one, and these may be handled in a centralized or distributed manner. The highest single per-repository cost would come with a central system housing a variety of different types of information for a large university. This operation may well require a fair bit of hardware, connectivity, security and authentication arrangements, staff, and space to house the computers and staff - plus adminstrative overhead, of course. The costs for this kind of arrangement are not necessarily new costs, as there will be current means of maintaining institutional records and so forth; indeed, there may be a variety of cost savings. It is likely that there would be initial transitional costs, such as equipment purchases, space design, and so forth. Even with substantial cost savings, however, the costs for such a comprehensive program could well be substantial, both initially and ongoing.
In between there is a great variety of possibilities for costs. A library could set up an institutional repository using free open source software, and advertise for a specialist to work on the institutional repository, whether as technical support or promotion or both, full or part time. An open source software solution with paid hosting costs could be pursued, or commercial software.
To sum up, when we look at the wide variety of costs reported for institutional repositories - from practically nothing to $6,000, to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and ask: which of these costs estimates is correct? There are two correct answers to this question: all of the above, and it depends - how much money do you have, and what are you willing to spend?
This wide range of costs is not particularly unusual, especially in the electronic environment. Think of a website - or blog. Either one can easily be set up by an individual, using equipment and connectivity already in place as part of a standard internet connection service - or even using totally free equipment and services, often provided by public libraries. Or, a large institution can set up a web services department, hire a manager, some graphic designers, administrative staff, and naturally, supply them with office space. Here, too, it is quite accurate to say that the true cost of a website or blog ranges from nothing or virtually nothing, to a great deal of money.
This phenomenon is not entirely new, for that matter. Consider the costs of transportation. A billionaire might own a fleet of planes, helicopters, ships, and fancy cars, in various locations all the over the world. Transportion costs for such a person could be astronomical. Those of us with more modest means get about with our bikes, skateboards, more modest cars, and buses. Even the destitute, barring disability, can get about on their own two feet. If we think such a person cannot get as far - remember Gandhi. Has anyone accomplished more? So, the answer to the question: how much does transportation for one person cost? Is, quite correctly, a wide range, from nothing to a very large sum of money, with many possibilities in between.
This post was inspired by a recent conversation on the SPARC Open Access Forum (SOAF); for more on this perspective, see my SOAF posting on this topic.
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Make Internet an Election Issue
Michael Geist, Make Internet an Election Issue Toronto Star, Dec. 12, 2005.
Michael Geist calls on Canadians to take advantage of the parties' attempt to articulate a unique vision for the future of Canada, to draw attention to key policy areas, such as access and privacy.
The following excerpt is from Peter Suber on Open Access News
As local politicians go door-to-door in search of votes and the national party leaders prepare for this week's debates, the election campaign has thus far centred on each party's attempt to articulate a unique vision for the future of Canada. With this in mind, Canadians should jump at this rare opportunity to turn the leaders' attention to law and technology issues....In this election, two issues come immediately to mind — access and privacy....[The access] issue should also touch on access to knowledge initiatives. The Internet has the potential to tear down barriers to knowledge by embracing open-access research funding that would bring federally-funded research into the hands of millions of Canadians, committing to the creation of a national digital library that could emerge as a critical cultural export, and promoting online access to knowledge in Canadian schools without unnecessary new licensing schemes. The Liberals provided some support for open access funding, but were non-committal on other access issues; opposition parties should take a stand.
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Michael Geist calls on Canadians to take advantage of the parties' attempt to articulate a unique vision for the future of Canada, to draw attention to key policy areas, such as access and privacy.
The following excerpt is from Peter Suber on Open Access News
As local politicians go door-to-door in search of votes and the national party leaders prepare for this week's debates, the election campaign has thus far centred on each party's attempt to articulate a unique vision for the future of Canada. With this in mind, Canadians should jump at this rare opportunity to turn the leaders' attention to law and technology issues....In this election, two issues come immediately to mind — access and privacy....[The access] issue should also touch on access to knowledge initiatives. The Internet has the potential to tear down barriers to knowledge by embracing open-access research funding that would bring federally-funded research into the hands of millions of Canadians, committing to the creation of a national digital library that could emerge as a critical cultural export, and promoting online access to knowledge in Canadian schools without unnecessary new licensing schemes. The Liberals provided some support for open access funding, but were non-committal on other access issues; opposition parties should take a stand.
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Friday, December 09, 2005
"Without the risk"
Lord Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, has publicly released his December 7 response to the open letter written by nearly 50 Fellows of the Royal Society in support of open access, in which he states the support of the Royal Society for open access, but says:
"We are simply concerned that open access is achieved without the risk of unintended damage..."
Two comments:
First, as others have pointed out, there is a substantial body of evidence that open access is completely consistent with an ongoing traditional peer review system - this has been the experience with physics, where close to 100% of articles in some sub-disciplines are freely available in arXiv, and this has been the case for over a decade.
Second, if we all waited for guarantees of a risk-free outcome before making changes towards necessary goals - would anything ever get done?
Who knows this better than our politicians? Who knows more about what is involved in change? Politicians must envision a better future, articulate it so that voters will provide the mandate, then take the bold steps needed to implement the vision. Ideally, one wants everyone onside; but, in reality, we need to make changes, even though not everyone is completely comfortable with them.
What happens if we apply the risk-free philosophy to our personal lives? Would we ever go to school (we might fail! we might sign up for the wrong program!), apply for a job, start a business or develop a relationship? Would we ever leave the house in the morning to go to work? We might get killed or injured in a traffic accident on the way! Better stay home - but then, don't most accidents happen at home? Better stay in bed, then - but isn't this a risk to our physical and mental health?
"without the risk" - indeed.
Thanks to Peter Suber at Open Access News for the link to the Royal Society letter.
"We are simply concerned that open access is achieved without the risk of unintended damage..."
Two comments:
First, as others have pointed out, there is a substantial body of evidence that open access is completely consistent with an ongoing traditional peer review system - this has been the experience with physics, where close to 100% of articles in some sub-disciplines are freely available in arXiv, and this has been the case for over a decade.
Second, if we all waited for guarantees of a risk-free outcome before making changes towards necessary goals - would anything ever get done?
Who knows this better than our politicians? Who knows more about what is involved in change? Politicians must envision a better future, articulate it so that voters will provide the mandate, then take the bold steps needed to implement the vision. Ideally, one wants everyone onside; but, in reality, we need to make changes, even though not everyone is completely comfortable with them.
What happens if we apply the risk-free philosophy to our personal lives? Would we ever go to school (we might fail! we might sign up for the wrong program!), apply for a job, start a business or develop a relationship? Would we ever leave the house in the morning to go to work? We might get killed or injured in a traffic accident on the way! Better stay home - but then, don't most accidents happen at home? Better stay in bed, then - but isn't this a risk to our physical and mental health?
"without the risk" - indeed.
Thanks to Peter Suber at Open Access News for the link to the Royal Society letter.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
The Open Access Organizational Advantage: An Hypothesis
The open access citation advantage has been amply demonstrated in many studies, which can be found through Steve Hitchcock's excellent bibliography, The effect of open access and downloads ('hits') on citation impact: a bibliography of studies.
With universities and countries proceeding towards open access at different paces, here is an hypothesis which anyone interested in invited to test:
There will be a strong positive correlation between open access and organizational impact.
Open access can be measured through such means as the availability and fill rate of an institutional repository, or the tendency of faculty to publish in open access journals. The former will likely be easier to measure than the latter.
Organizational impact can be measured through such means as success at obtaining funding grants (whether measured by number or amount of grants), success at attracting top students (perhaps measured through traditional evaluation criteria by which students are considered for competitive programs), graduate student success, success at obtaining operational or capital funding through public or private sources, academic awards, student success in the workplace, and so forth.
Here is a bit of background to explain why organizations would also see an open access impact advantage.
Funding agencies (e.g. the U.S. National Institute of Health, Wellcome Trust, Research Councils U.K., Canada's Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council), have expressed a strong preference for open access to the results of the research they fund. Even without formal criteria rating research proposals from researchers with an open access portfolio higher (possible though this is, given the preference), there are still two reasons why researchers who meet this criterion are likely to be successful. First, even if the reviewers make every effort to avoid allowing this preference to affect their funding decisions, they are human beings, and subject to bias. All else being equal, if one would like to obtain funding, it is a good idea to try to fit the preferences of the funders, particularly ones with a sound philosophical basis such as open access. Second, the work of the researcher with the open access portfolio will be readily accessible to the reviewers. A researcher with a good track record will benefit from this added opportunity for scrutiny.
Top students are more likely to be attracted to a university with a strong open access mandate for two reasons. First, they are more likely to encounter the research published by the university's researchers and thus become interested in the university. Second, the university's researchers will benefit from the open access citation advantage - their work will be cited more often, and hence will be more obviously valued by the scholarly community. Good matches between graduate students and supervisors would appear to have some relation with common research interests - the more students who have access to our work, the better the chances that the grad student who would be a really good match will find us. This is particularly true of students who come from developing countries, or poorer areas of the developed world, who would not otherwise have access to all of the research literature.
A university that makes its work available to the world through an institutional repository is a resource for the community. Local media will find it easy to write about the university, and find local experts to interview. It makes sense that this would enhance the value of the university to the community, which in theory should help universities in their funding efforts.
If top-level students, whether graduate or otherwise, make their best work - whether a thesis, a capstone paper, or their best presentation - openly available, this should help out in obtaining employment related to their career. Picture a resume with this work - readily clickable, and leading to the repository of a university with a great reputation. Could this be a means of helping universities and alumni to keep in touch? Once again, this could help the university out financially, as alumni are an important source of fund-raising for many.
The same principles that apply to universities apply to other organizations, and entire countries. All else being equal, the country that is fully open access will be full of researchers whose work is read and cited more often, and universities with an edge on attracting top students and funding. Not that this competition is the point. To me, equity is the point, and this is where open access eventually leads. It's just that those of us who have to work hardest against the barriers (mostly the profits of a very few) are at a bit of a disadvantage. The only person we should ever be in competition with is ourselves - to always strive to be our very best. The real competition of the educational sector is not the other institutions - it is ignorance.
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
With universities and countries proceeding towards open access at different paces, here is an hypothesis which anyone interested in invited to test:
There will be a strong positive correlation between open access and organizational impact.
Open access can be measured through such means as the availability and fill rate of an institutional repository, or the tendency of faculty to publish in open access journals. The former will likely be easier to measure than the latter.
Organizational impact can be measured through such means as success at obtaining funding grants (whether measured by number or amount of grants), success at attracting top students (perhaps measured through traditional evaluation criteria by which students are considered for competitive programs), graduate student success, success at obtaining operational or capital funding through public or private sources, academic awards, student success in the workplace, and so forth.
Here is a bit of background to explain why organizations would also see an open access impact advantage.
Funding agencies (e.g. the U.S. National Institute of Health, Wellcome Trust, Research Councils U.K., Canada's Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council), have expressed a strong preference for open access to the results of the research they fund. Even without formal criteria rating research proposals from researchers with an open access portfolio higher (possible though this is, given the preference), there are still two reasons why researchers who meet this criterion are likely to be successful. First, even if the reviewers make every effort to avoid allowing this preference to affect their funding decisions, they are human beings, and subject to bias. All else being equal, if one would like to obtain funding, it is a good idea to try to fit the preferences of the funders, particularly ones with a sound philosophical basis such as open access. Second, the work of the researcher with the open access portfolio will be readily accessible to the reviewers. A researcher with a good track record will benefit from this added opportunity for scrutiny.
Top students are more likely to be attracted to a university with a strong open access mandate for two reasons. First, they are more likely to encounter the research published by the university's researchers and thus become interested in the university. Second, the university's researchers will benefit from the open access citation advantage - their work will be cited more often, and hence will be more obviously valued by the scholarly community. Good matches between graduate students and supervisors would appear to have some relation with common research interests - the more students who have access to our work, the better the chances that the grad student who would be a really good match will find us. This is particularly true of students who come from developing countries, or poorer areas of the developed world, who would not otherwise have access to all of the research literature.
A university that makes its work available to the world through an institutional repository is a resource for the community. Local media will find it easy to write about the university, and find local experts to interview. It makes sense that this would enhance the value of the university to the community, which in theory should help universities in their funding efforts.
If top-level students, whether graduate or otherwise, make their best work - whether a thesis, a capstone paper, or their best presentation - openly available, this should help out in obtaining employment related to their career. Picture a resume with this work - readily clickable, and leading to the repository of a university with a great reputation. Could this be a means of helping universities and alumni to keep in touch? Once again, this could help the university out financially, as alumni are an important source of fund-raising for many.
The same principles that apply to universities apply to other organizations, and entire countries. All else being equal, the country that is fully open access will be full of researchers whose work is read and cited more often, and universities with an edge on attracting top students and funding. Not that this competition is the point. To me, equity is the point, and this is where open access eventually leads. It's just that those of us who have to work hardest against the barriers (mostly the profits of a very few) are at a bit of a disadvantage. The only person we should ever be in competition with is ourselves - to always strive to be our very best. The real competition of the educational sector is not the other institutions - it is ignorance.
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Scholars, Professionals, and the Value of Knowledge
One of the arguments in the open access movement advanced by publishers is that they have every right to expect to be paid for their valuable work. In some senses, I completely agree; but then, if we apply this concept to the full production of scholarly knowledge - what happens?
That knowledge is of tremendous value is something that I think most of humans can agree on. There are at least two ways of looking at the value of knowledge: as something so precious that it belongs to all of us; or, as an economic commodity like any other.
Let us look at the role of the scholar and the professional in light of these two approaches. To become qualified to participate in the advancement of human knowledge, or to become a practising professional, takes many, many years of education, and ongoing hard work to keep up with the latest developments.
If we see knowledge as something that belongs to all of us, it makes sense for scholars and professionals to make the kind of sacrifices that we do - basically giving away much of our labour for the good of all, with our rewards being modest incomes and a little bit of recognition for our contributions.
On the other hand, if we see knowledge as an economic commodity like any other, perhaps we scholars and professionals should be thinking about pay equity. The salaries of people like professional sports stars, movie stars, and upper management in the corporate sector are often in the hundreds of thousands, and not infrequently millions, of dollars.
If we are looking at this from a purely economic standpoint - isn't the work of the brain surgeon or the dedicated researcher who is working towards a cure for cancer, worth more than the salaries of those who entertain us - no matter how well - or who merely manage? If we think a movie star deserves several million dollars for their role in a movie - what is the worth of the researcher who finds a treatment for stroke that eliminates disability for millions, or a new form of energy that dramatically decreases pollution?
What about the universities, funding agencies, and taxpayers? If knowledge is a commodity - shouldn't the publishers be paying the people who fund the research and support the researcher - not vice versa?
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
That knowledge is of tremendous value is something that I think most of humans can agree on. There are at least two ways of looking at the value of knowledge: as something so precious that it belongs to all of us; or, as an economic commodity like any other.
Let us look at the role of the scholar and the professional in light of these two approaches. To become qualified to participate in the advancement of human knowledge, or to become a practising professional, takes many, many years of education, and ongoing hard work to keep up with the latest developments.
If we see knowledge as something that belongs to all of us, it makes sense for scholars and professionals to make the kind of sacrifices that we do - basically giving away much of our labour for the good of all, with our rewards being modest incomes and a little bit of recognition for our contributions.
On the other hand, if we see knowledge as an economic commodity like any other, perhaps we scholars and professionals should be thinking about pay equity. The salaries of people like professional sports stars, movie stars, and upper management in the corporate sector are often in the hundreds of thousands, and not infrequently millions, of dollars.
If we are looking at this from a purely economic standpoint - isn't the work of the brain surgeon or the dedicated researcher who is working towards a cure for cancer, worth more than the salaries of those who entertain us - no matter how well - or who merely manage? If we think a movie star deserves several million dollars for their role in a movie - what is the worth of the researcher who finds a treatment for stroke that eliminates disability for millions, or a new form of energy that dramatically decreases pollution?
What about the universities, funding agencies, and taxpayers? If knowledge is a commodity - shouldn't the publishers be paying the people who fund the research and support the researcher - not vice versa?
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
The Impossible Assignment, and the Research Question
Librarians and academics in recent years have been working together to help students to develop information literacy skills, that is, the kind of skills that are likely to be particularly essential in the information age. Basically, these are the skills that help us to recognize a need for information, find the right information, evaluate it, and effectively use it.
Occasionally, a curious phenomenon arises out of these endeavours: the impossible assignment - impossible, at any rate, for the average undergraduate student.
That is, a faculty member would like to assign a topic, and encourage students to find particular resources - but the resources simply do not exist.
One poignant example of this is the faculty member who would like students to find scholarly critiques of the work of a local author, particularly if the original work was published fairly recently. Thanks are due to the members of BCLA's Academic Librarians in Public Service (ALPS), who talked about their mutual experiences with this phenomenon at a meeting last Friday. [Disclosure: I am the Chair-Elect of ALPS].
Which makes me wonder: do the forces in academia - the need to publish or perish - discourage us from pursuing questions we really think are important, and sharing information in the way that makes the most sense to us, when we think about it?
To take the example of the local author: academics need to publish - or they will perish. The best thing for one's career is to publish in the most prestigious journals; the ones that are read and cited by the most other academics. Will our local authors - or local politics, social structure, culture or ecosystem - ever be the top priority for these kinds of journals?
The essential problem here, in my opinion, is that we are placing the procedure - the method - ahead of what is truly important - the research question. We want an easy, objective way to measure the quality of the research our faculty are doing. In the sciences, the impact factor of a journal provides a quick means to achieve this; in other areas, less numeric but still similar kinds of judgements are likely to apply.
To illustrate the approach to research, here is how this works: we know, and are comfortable with, a particular method - surveys, citation analysis, experimental methodology. We start with the method. We know how to count, therefore, what will we count? It is very, very easy to do this instead of considering the more complex - but more important question: what do we need to learn about?
It would be interesting to know whether academics are beginning to talk about these kinds of questions; no doubt, some are. In the area of english literature, the situation is particularly ironic, as the scholars are, in some cases, also the writers whose works end up being neglected; or, they are friends of these authors, and care deeply about the writing process and encouraging the writer. That's probably why they assigned the impossible assignment in the first place.
As librarians begin to move into evidence-based practice, here is a challenge that I am hoping my fellow professionals will take up: start by focusing on the research question, not the method. We have, and are developing, some fancy new tools that will give us interesting numbers to look at: database usage statistics, surveys, story-gathering and pattern-recognition software, among others. Rather than focusing on learning the tools and asking: what can we do with these? - why not ask ourselves the really important questions.
In this case, why is this assignment impossible? Why are researchers not researching and publishing on what they truly think is important? What can - or should librarians do this in situation? We could do pilot studies to encourage assignment-checking and eliminating those impossible assignments - but, is this a disservice to our academic colleagues? Should we not, instead, alert them to the fact that the research they expect someone is doing, is in fact not being done at all?
I would like to acknowledge my professor of research methodology and general LIS studies advisor, Dr. Alvin Schrader of the University of Alberta, for his contributions to my thinking here. If he reads this blogpost, he might be thinking: someone was listenting to those lectures!
As for the timely sharing of information, if professors would like to see students working on more timely research assignments, there is a simple and immediate solution: self-archive those preprints!
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Occasionally, a curious phenomenon arises out of these endeavours: the impossible assignment - impossible, at any rate, for the average undergraduate student.
That is, a faculty member would like to assign a topic, and encourage students to find particular resources - but the resources simply do not exist.
One poignant example of this is the faculty member who would like students to find scholarly critiques of the work of a local author, particularly if the original work was published fairly recently. Thanks are due to the members of BCLA's Academic Librarians in Public Service (ALPS), who talked about their mutual experiences with this phenomenon at a meeting last Friday. [Disclosure: I am the Chair-Elect of ALPS].
Which makes me wonder: do the forces in academia - the need to publish or perish - discourage us from pursuing questions we really think are important, and sharing information in the way that makes the most sense to us, when we think about it?
To take the example of the local author: academics need to publish - or they will perish. The best thing for one's career is to publish in the most prestigious journals; the ones that are read and cited by the most other academics. Will our local authors - or local politics, social structure, culture or ecosystem - ever be the top priority for these kinds of journals?
The essential problem here, in my opinion, is that we are placing the procedure - the method - ahead of what is truly important - the research question. We want an easy, objective way to measure the quality of the research our faculty are doing. In the sciences, the impact factor of a journal provides a quick means to achieve this; in other areas, less numeric but still similar kinds of judgements are likely to apply.
To illustrate the approach to research, here is how this works: we know, and are comfortable with, a particular method - surveys, citation analysis, experimental methodology. We start with the method. We know how to count, therefore, what will we count? It is very, very easy to do this instead of considering the more complex - but more important question: what do we need to learn about?
It would be interesting to know whether academics are beginning to talk about these kinds of questions; no doubt, some are. In the area of english literature, the situation is particularly ironic, as the scholars are, in some cases, also the writers whose works end up being neglected; or, they are friends of these authors, and care deeply about the writing process and encouraging the writer. That's probably why they assigned the impossible assignment in the first place.
As librarians begin to move into evidence-based practice, here is a challenge that I am hoping my fellow professionals will take up: start by focusing on the research question, not the method. We have, and are developing, some fancy new tools that will give us interesting numbers to look at: database usage statistics, surveys, story-gathering and pattern-recognition software, among others. Rather than focusing on learning the tools and asking: what can we do with these? - why not ask ourselves the really important questions.
In this case, why is this assignment impossible? Why are researchers not researching and publishing on what they truly think is important? What can - or should librarians do this in situation? We could do pilot studies to encourage assignment-checking and eliminating those impossible assignments - but, is this a disservice to our academic colleagues? Should we not, instead, alert them to the fact that the research they expect someone is doing, is in fact not being done at all?
I would like to acknowledge my professor of research methodology and general LIS studies advisor, Dr. Alvin Schrader of the University of Alberta, for his contributions to my thinking here. If he reads this blogpost, he might be thinking: someone was listenting to those lectures!
As for the timely sharing of information, if professors would like to see students working on more timely research assignments, there is a simple and immediate solution: self-archive those preprints!
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Canadian Leadership in the Open Access Movement
Concordia University Open Access mandate
New Open Access Fund at SFU Library
PubMedCentral Canada up and available for searching
University of Ottawa among North American leaders in open access
Michael Geist's creative open access initiative!
Vancouver enters the age of the open city
University of Calgary Library Faculty Open Access Mandate
Canadian Health Services Research Foundation Open Access Policy
Open Sesame to the Digital World - an open access high school library.
Free access to the Cochrane Library for Canada. While this geographically limited access is not full OA, it is likely the very best that the Canadian Cochrane Center can do, given that it does not have the rights to the full Library. Let's hope that the international Cochrane network is inspired by this example, and comes together to provide full open access to everyone!
Ontario contributes $4.7 million more to lab of Toronto-based open access researcher Aled Edwards
Canadian Research Knowledge Network looking for expressions of interest in supporting major OA initiative in physics
Canada, let's fix the open access policy loophole BEFORE we harmonize
Towards PubMedCentral Canada: Update
Québec's Fonds de la Recherche en Santé has released their Policy regarding open access to published research outputs Jim Till's comments
Jennifer Bell on Government Transparency via Open Data and Open Source
Irving K. Barber Learning Centre supports open access resources
Two calls for open access from Quebec
Will Canada Seize the Lead in the Open Access Movement in the History Books - Or Cede to the U.S.?
Michael Geist Calls on Canadian Government to Implement Open Access Policies
CLA Announces New Open Access Interest Group
National Cancer Institute of Canada Open Access Policy
PubMedCentral Canada (PMC) Initiative
Open Access in Canada: Sept/Oct 2008 College and Research Libraries News article by Heather Morrison and Andrew Waller. Overview of status of OA in Canada
CANLII, Canada's open access legal database, is the electronic resource most used by the Canadian legal community!
Danielle Dennie and Librarian Activist.Org
Meet Pam Ryan. Pam Ryan and colleague Denise Koufogiannakis are behind the support OA support at the University of Alberta libraries.
Tracey Lauriault of datalibre.ca and civicaccess.ca, is among Canada's most vocal open data advocates.
Meet Hugh McGuire, a Montreal-based engineer, founder of Librivox which aims to make an audio version of every public domain book freely available at all and Canadian open data advocate.
Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) recommends copyright retention!
National Research Council OA Mandate
Three forthcoming OA policies announced at ELPUB
Richard Poynder Interviews Leslie Chan
CLA/ABC Position Statement on Open Access for Canadian Libraries
Free Government Pubs, from the BC Legislature Library
Canadian Association of Research Libraries calls for Canadian OA Mandate
On May 22, 2008, the Canadian Library Association approved a Position Statement on Open Access for Canadian Libraries.
Dean Giustini on Canadian Leadership in the Open Access Movement. Dean's first post covers the early years to 1999.
York University Library
A Celebration of Research and Scholarship at Kwantlen University College
Ranjini Mendis is an open access pioneer, having co-developed (with John Willinsky) the first open access, fully online international journal on postcolonial studies to come out of Canada, Post-Colonial Text. Babir Gurm and Alice Macpherson developed the open access Transformative Dialogues - inventing their own approach to online publishing along the way.
York University Library is a great role model! YUL's EJournal publishing support for faculty is prominently displayed as a link on the services for faculty page; York has not one, but 3 repositories; York librarians are researching, publishing, and presenting on open access and scholarly communications.
Taking the plunge: from print to online open access
civicaccess.ca
Hilde Colenbrander and an open access cIRcle at UBC
RRRESEARCH: UBC Leadership in the Open Access Movement
Francis Ouellette named one of 6 Franklin Awards finalists
Pilot Project to Provide Open Access to NRC Publications
The Canadian Digital Information Strategy and Open Access
The Canadian Library Association congratulates Dr. Alan Bernstein, President of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, on the CIHR Open Access policy.
Stephen's web
Stephen Downes works for the National Research Council, and writes a blog with a philosophy very similar to IJPE, often about open access.
Libraries and Public Access to Information (CLA 1994)
The Canadian Library Association's Information and Telecommunications Access Principles, 1994, articulate the role of librarians as spokepersons for public access to information, one of the key elements of the open access movement.
Access to any or all sources of information; a matter of ethics (CLA 1976)
The Canadian Library Association Code of Ethics, 1976, states that CLA members, individually and collective, have an ethical obligation to facilitate access to any and all sources of information that may be of assistance to library users.
CLA Commitment to "Open Availability to Information" - from 1987
Canadian Sociology Journal Goes OA
Dr. Kevin Haggerty, incoming Editor of the Canadian Journal of Sociology, talks about why this well-established journal decided to move to electronic-only, fully open access beginning in January 2008, using the Open Journal Systems platform hosted by the University of Alberta Libraries.
Jim Till: Be Openly Accessible or Be Obscure
Jim Till, Chair of the CIHR Advisory Committee responsible for developing a model open access policy for CIHR, and a key person in the initial development of the Canadian Breast Cancer Research Agency's Open Access Archive, is among Canada's most noted open access advocates - and that is saying something! Formerly a member of the Open Access News team when it was a group blog, Jim is now author of Be Openly Accessible or Be Obscure, one of the most thoughtful - and thought-provoking blogs on open access on the web. Delightfully named, too!
Canadian Institutes of Health Research(CIHR): Policy on Access to Research Outputs
CIHR announcement of an open access policy likely to be seen as a model by other funding agencies. Features include strong support for immediate open access, or OA with no more than a 6 month delay, and support for OA publishing, including clarification that article processing fees for OA are an eligible expense under Use of Grant Funds. Traditional publishers can easily comply with CIHR policy through an enlighted self-archiving policy, as the vast majority of journals already do.
Open, Digital Scholarly Publishing at Athabasca University Press
From the press announcement: AU Press, Canada’s first 21st century university press, is dedicated to disseminating knowledge emanating from scholarly research to a broad audience through open access digital media and in a variety of formats (e.g., journals, monographs, author podcasts.
CARL and SPARC offer Canadian authors new tool to widen access to published articles.
Announcement by the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) and the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) on the release of the Canadian version of the SPARC Author's Addendum.
Canadian Library Association Moves Open Access
The Canadian Library Association announces a strong open access policy for CLA publications, as well as an open policy for almost all CLA communications.
datalibre.ca. New blog urging governments to make data about Canada and Canadians free and accessible to citizens. Highly recommended!
Atlantic Provinces Library Association supports Open Access Publishing!
Free Online Access to Digital Mapping Data
"Our Government recognizes the importance of providing Canadians with access to the latest digital mapping information at no cost," said Minister Lunn. "Not only will Canadians now have free access to digital maps, but Canada will be known as an important source for digital mapping data around the world."
Congratulations and thanks to the Honourable Gary Lunn and NRCan for yet another illustration of Canadian Leadership in the Open Access Movement.
Thanks to Olivier Charbonneau.
SSHRC Aid to Open Access Journals
BC Libraries Support DOAJ!
The British Columbia Library Association Resolution on Open Access
Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL): Canadian Leader in Open Access
Canadian Leadership in the Open Access Movement: Budapest
Jean Claude Guédon
Leslie Chan
Stevan Harnad
Michae Geist. Canada: the Time has Come to Prioritize Open Access!
Linda Hutcheon: a Democratized Diffusion of Knowledge
The Ouellette Declaration
Coming April 24: the IDRC Digital Library (thanks to Marjorie Whalen).
John Willinsky and the Public Knowledge Project
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
New Open Access Fund at SFU Library
PubMedCentral Canada up and available for searching
University of Ottawa among North American leaders in open access
Michael Geist's creative open access initiative!
Vancouver enters the age of the open city
University of Calgary Library Faculty Open Access Mandate
Canadian Health Services Research Foundation Open Access Policy
Open Sesame to the Digital World - an open access high school library.
Free access to the Cochrane Library for Canada. While this geographically limited access is not full OA, it is likely the very best that the Canadian Cochrane Center can do, given that it does not have the rights to the full Library. Let's hope that the international Cochrane network is inspired by this example, and comes together to provide full open access to everyone!
Ontario contributes $4.7 million more to lab of Toronto-based open access researcher Aled Edwards
Canadian Research Knowledge Network looking for expressions of interest in supporting major OA initiative in physics
Canada, let's fix the open access policy loophole BEFORE we harmonize
Towards PubMedCentral Canada: Update
Québec's Fonds de la Recherche en Santé has released their Policy regarding open access to published research outputs Jim Till's comments
Jennifer Bell on Government Transparency via Open Data and Open Source
Irving K. Barber Learning Centre supports open access resources
Two calls for open access from Quebec
Will Canada Seize the Lead in the Open Access Movement in the History Books - Or Cede to the U.S.?
Michael Geist Calls on Canadian Government to Implement Open Access Policies
CLA Announces New Open Access Interest Group
National Cancer Institute of Canada Open Access Policy
PubMedCentral Canada (PMC) Initiative
Open Access in Canada: Sept/Oct 2008 College and Research Libraries News article by Heather Morrison and Andrew Waller. Overview of status of OA in Canada
CANLII, Canada's open access legal database, is the electronic resource most used by the Canadian legal community!
Danielle Dennie and Librarian Activist.Org
Meet Pam Ryan. Pam Ryan and colleague Denise Koufogiannakis are behind the support OA support at the University of Alberta libraries.
Tracey Lauriault of datalibre.ca and civicaccess.ca, is among Canada's most vocal open data advocates.
Meet Hugh McGuire, a Montreal-based engineer, founder of Librivox which aims to make an audio version of every public domain book freely available at all and Canadian open data advocate.
Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) recommends copyright retention!
National Research Council OA Mandate
Three forthcoming OA policies announced at ELPUB
Richard Poynder Interviews Leslie Chan
CLA/ABC Position Statement on Open Access for Canadian Libraries
Free Government Pubs, from the BC Legislature Library
Canadian Association of Research Libraries calls for Canadian OA Mandate
On May 22, 2008, the Canadian Library Association approved a Position Statement on Open Access for Canadian Libraries.
Dean Giustini on Canadian Leadership in the Open Access Movement. Dean's first post covers the early years to 1999.
York University Library
A Celebration of Research and Scholarship at Kwantlen University College
Ranjini Mendis is an open access pioneer, having co-developed (with John Willinsky) the first open access, fully online international journal on postcolonial studies to come out of Canada, Post-Colonial Text. Babir Gurm and Alice Macpherson developed the open access Transformative Dialogues - inventing their own approach to online publishing along the way.
York University Library is a great role model! YUL's EJournal publishing support for faculty is prominently displayed as a link on the services for faculty page; York has not one, but 3 repositories; York librarians are researching, publishing, and presenting on open access and scholarly communications.
Taking the plunge: from print to online open access
civicaccess.ca
Hilde Colenbrander and an open access cIRcle at UBC
RRRESEARCH: UBC Leadership in the Open Access Movement
Francis Ouellette named one of 6 Franklin Awards finalists
Pilot Project to Provide Open Access to NRC Publications
The Canadian Digital Information Strategy and Open Access
The Canadian Library Association congratulates Dr. Alan Bernstein, President of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, on the CIHR Open Access policy.
Stephen's web
Stephen Downes works for the National Research Council, and writes a blog with a philosophy very similar to IJPE, often about open access.
Libraries and Public Access to Information (CLA 1994)
The Canadian Library Association's Information and Telecommunications Access Principles, 1994, articulate the role of librarians as spokepersons for public access to information, one of the key elements of the open access movement.
Access to any or all sources of information; a matter of ethics (CLA 1976)
The Canadian Library Association Code of Ethics, 1976, states that CLA members, individually and collective, have an ethical obligation to facilitate access to any and all sources of information that may be of assistance to library users.
CLA Commitment to "Open Availability to Information" - from 1987
Canadian Sociology Journal Goes OA
Dr. Kevin Haggerty, incoming Editor of the Canadian Journal of Sociology, talks about why this well-established journal decided to move to electronic-only, fully open access beginning in January 2008, using the Open Journal Systems platform hosted by the University of Alberta Libraries.
Jim Till: Be Openly Accessible or Be Obscure
Jim Till, Chair of the CIHR Advisory Committee responsible for developing a model open access policy for CIHR, and a key person in the initial development of the Canadian Breast Cancer Research Agency's Open Access Archive, is among Canada's most noted open access advocates - and that is saying something! Formerly a member of the Open Access News team when it was a group blog, Jim is now author of Be Openly Accessible or Be Obscure, one of the most thoughtful - and thought-provoking blogs on open access on the web. Delightfully named, too!
Canadian Institutes of Health Research(CIHR): Policy on Access to Research Outputs
CIHR announcement of an open access policy likely to be seen as a model by other funding agencies. Features include strong support for immediate open access, or OA with no more than a 6 month delay, and support for OA publishing, including clarification that article processing fees for OA are an eligible expense under Use of Grant Funds. Traditional publishers can easily comply with CIHR policy through an enlighted self-archiving policy, as the vast majority of journals already do.
Open, Digital Scholarly Publishing at Athabasca University Press
From the press announcement: AU Press, Canada’s first 21st century university press, is dedicated to disseminating knowledge emanating from scholarly research to a broad audience through open access digital media and in a variety of formats (e.g., journals, monographs, author podcasts.
CARL and SPARC offer Canadian authors new tool to widen access to published articles.
Announcement by the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) and the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) on the release of the Canadian version of the SPARC Author's Addendum.
Canadian Library Association Moves Open Access
The Canadian Library Association announces a strong open access policy for CLA publications, as well as an open policy for almost all CLA communications.
datalibre.ca. New blog urging governments to make data about Canada and Canadians free and accessible to citizens. Highly recommended!
Atlantic Provinces Library Association supports Open Access Publishing!
Free Online Access to Digital Mapping Data
"Our Government recognizes the importance of providing Canadians with access to the latest digital mapping information at no cost," said Minister Lunn. "Not only will Canadians now have free access to digital maps, but Canada will be known as an important source for digital mapping data around the world."
Congratulations and thanks to the Honourable Gary Lunn and NRCan for yet another illustration of Canadian Leadership in the Open Access Movement.
Thanks to Olivier Charbonneau.
SSHRC Aid to Open Access Journals
BC Libraries Support DOAJ!
The British Columbia Library Association Resolution on Open Access
Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL): Canadian Leader in Open Access
Canadian Leadership in the Open Access Movement: Budapest
Jean Claude Guédon
Leslie Chan
Stevan Harnad
Michae Geist. Canada: the Time has Come to Prioritize Open Access!
Linda Hutcheon: a Democratized Diffusion of Knowledge
The Ouellette Declaration
Coming April 24: the IDRC Digital Library (thanks to Marjorie Whalen).
John Willinsky and the Public Knowledge Project
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Monday, November 28, 2005
What if...
The human genome sequence is freely downloadable from Genbank and the European Bioinformatics Institute - thanks to the efforts of early open access pioneers.
What is this had not been the case?
Imagine that various different learned societies each ended up with the rights to a chunk of chromosome, and sold access rights to the DNA sequence in order to fund their charitable activities.
One can only imagine the furore that would have blown up if it had then been proposed to open up access to the DNA sequences.
Instead of an open access environment which allows all of humankind to put all of our greatest assets - the 6 billion or so human minds on the planet - into advancing medical knowledge, we could have had dollars for a few, comfortable conferences and lectures for the wealthy, and exclusion for everyone else.
Thanks to my anonymous friend and co-writer.
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
What is this had not been the case?
Imagine that various different learned societies each ended up with the rights to a chunk of chromosome, and sold access rights to the DNA sequence in order to fund their charitable activities.
One can only imagine the furore that would have blown up if it had then been proposed to open up access to the DNA sequences.
Instead of an open access environment which allows all of humankind to put all of our greatest assets - the 6 billion or so human minds on the planet - into advancing medical knowledge, we could have had dollars for a few, comfortable conferences and lectures for the wealthy, and exclusion for everyone else.
Thanks to my anonymous friend and co-writer.
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Royal Society's Position Statement on Open Access
Recently, the Royal Society issued a Position Statement on 'Open Access', one of the few negative submissions to the RCUK consulation on open access. Many have already commented on this statement - Peter Suber succinctly states the major fallacies in his Nov. 24 comments on Open Access News, where links to many other responses can be found. Some thoughtful replies can be found on the American Scientist Open Access Forum thread, Not a Proud Day in the Annals of the Royal Society, initatied by Barbara Kirsop.
Here are a couple of notes on my perspective - in addition to agreement with comments by Peter Suber, Barbara Kirsop, Frederick Friend, Jean Claude Guedon, David Prosser, Adam Hodgkins, Iain Stevenson, Steve Hitchcock, Stevan Harnad, and others:
The Royal Society asserts that the goal of OA advocates is: "to stop commercial publishers from making profits from the publication of research that has been funded from the public purse. While some companies do appear to be making excessive profits from the publication of researchers' papers..."
Profits are not the issue, not even excessive profits! Access is the issue. Google is one commercial company that appears to be making lots of money from an open access approach, even if it's not primarily in the scholarly realm - kudos to google! BioMedCentral is a for-profit commercial open access publisher - I'm sure all OA advocates join me in wishing BMC nothing but success, including financial success.
Where the confusion may stem from is where a few organizations - both commercial publishers and not-for-profits - appear to be prioritizing profits over dissemination of scholarly knowledge. The fight of the American Chemical Society against PubChem is an excellent example of this. Making profits providing good service in the public interest (providing peer review and optimum dissemination of scholarly research - whether as an OA publisher or by providing full self-archiving rights) is a good thing. Using one's profits to actively lobby against the public interest, is something else altogether.
The Royal Society states, referring to repositories that: "Not all of these papers have been subjected to a quality control process, such as peer review and acceptance for publication by a journal". Comment: repositories may accept only peer-reviewed articles, or they may accept a wide variety of materials. The world wide web makes it easier to publish all kinds of material, not just peer-reviewed papers. Increasing publication of non-peer-reviewed material (conference presentations, working papers, student papers, etc.) is not a threat to the peer-review system. Peer-reviewed journals have existed alongside other kinds of publications for centuries in the print world - the existence of newletters and magazines has never been a threat to peer review, for example. It is important for readers to be able to distinguish content that is peer-reviwed and/or scholarly in nature, from material which is more popular in nature. This has long been true in the print world, and it will continue to be true into the future. This is one of the many reasons why information literacy is a essential skill for students to gain before they graduate.
The Royal Society states: "The Royal Society and other learned bodies currently use their publishing surpluses to fund activities such as academic conferences and public lectures..." This puzzles me, a little, and I would like to suggest a challenge for the Royal Society and other publishers following this approach. That is to say, in librarianship our associations run conferences on a cost-recovery or modest surplus basis, rather than subsidizing. We are not a well-funded discipline at all. Our associations need to keep membership fees and conference fees low, in order to be successful. If librarians can manage to make money from conferences, why does a well-funded discipline like chemistry need sudsidies? As for public lectures - unlike other disciplines, there are many highly profitable companies in chemistry, who have needs to promote and advertise their services. Also, many of whom are now focusing more on their social responsiblities. Why not ask these commercial interests to sponsor a public lecture series?
The Royal Society welcomes debate about open access. Debate has been going on for years, amongst funders, librarians, publishers, and scholars. While ongoing debate about the particulars is necessary, the time has come to shift focus from debate to action, from talking about open access to implementing open access, in my opinion.
I would like to point out one positive in the Royal Society statement: "The Society remains as committed now as it was when it was founded to promoting the exchange of knowledge, not just between scholars, but with wider society." It is good to see a scholarly society acknowledge that scholarship can benefit the wider public, not just scholars.
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Here are a couple of notes on my perspective - in addition to agreement with comments by Peter Suber, Barbara Kirsop, Frederick Friend, Jean Claude Guedon, David Prosser, Adam Hodgkins, Iain Stevenson, Steve Hitchcock, Stevan Harnad, and others:
The Royal Society asserts that the goal of OA advocates is: "to stop commercial publishers from making profits from the publication of research that has been funded from the public purse. While some companies do appear to be making excessive profits from the publication of researchers' papers..."
Profits are not the issue, not even excessive profits! Access is the issue. Google is one commercial company that appears to be making lots of money from an open access approach, even if it's not primarily in the scholarly realm - kudos to google! BioMedCentral is a for-profit commercial open access publisher - I'm sure all OA advocates join me in wishing BMC nothing but success, including financial success.
Where the confusion may stem from is where a few organizations - both commercial publishers and not-for-profits - appear to be prioritizing profits over dissemination of scholarly knowledge. The fight of the American Chemical Society against PubChem is an excellent example of this. Making profits providing good service in the public interest (providing peer review and optimum dissemination of scholarly research - whether as an OA publisher or by providing full self-archiving rights) is a good thing. Using one's profits to actively lobby against the public interest, is something else altogether.
The Royal Society states, referring to repositories that: "Not all of these papers have been subjected to a quality control process, such as peer review and acceptance for publication by a journal". Comment: repositories may accept only peer-reviewed articles, or they may accept a wide variety of materials. The world wide web makes it easier to publish all kinds of material, not just peer-reviewed papers. Increasing publication of non-peer-reviewed material (conference presentations, working papers, student papers, etc.) is not a threat to the peer-review system. Peer-reviewed journals have existed alongside other kinds of publications for centuries in the print world - the existence of newletters and magazines has never been a threat to peer review, for example. It is important for readers to be able to distinguish content that is peer-reviwed and/or scholarly in nature, from material which is more popular in nature. This has long been true in the print world, and it will continue to be true into the future. This is one of the many reasons why information literacy is a essential skill for students to gain before they graduate.
The Royal Society states: "The Royal Society and other learned bodies currently use their publishing surpluses to fund activities such as academic conferences and public lectures..." This puzzles me, a little, and I would like to suggest a challenge for the Royal Society and other publishers following this approach. That is to say, in librarianship our associations run conferences on a cost-recovery or modest surplus basis, rather than subsidizing. We are not a well-funded discipline at all. Our associations need to keep membership fees and conference fees low, in order to be successful. If librarians can manage to make money from conferences, why does a well-funded discipline like chemistry need sudsidies? As for public lectures - unlike other disciplines, there are many highly profitable companies in chemistry, who have needs to promote and advertise their services. Also, many of whom are now focusing more on their social responsiblities. Why not ask these commercial interests to sponsor a public lecture series?
The Royal Society welcomes debate about open access. Debate has been going on for years, amongst funders, librarians, publishers, and scholars. While ongoing debate about the particulars is necessary, the time has come to shift focus from debate to action, from talking about open access to implementing open access, in my opinion.
I would like to point out one positive in the Royal Society statement: "The Society remains as committed now as it was when it was founded to promoting the exchange of knowledge, not just between scholars, but with wider society." It is good to see a scholarly society acknowledge that scholarship can benefit the wider public, not just scholars.
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Freedom Under Attack: A Song, a Healing Process, and Intellectual Property Law
My latest article, Freedom Under Attack: A Song, a Healing Process, and Intellectual Property Law, has just been published in Politics With Perspective.
Marcus' Banks Introduction and comments can be found on Marcus' World, Nov. 14, 2005.
Marcus' Banks Introduction and comments can be found on Marcus' World, Nov. 14, 2005.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
New blog! Announcing...OA Librarian
OA Librarian is a blog with two purposes.
The blog is designed to gather together major search sources for freely available information in library and information science. See the top right hand corner of the blog, which features links to the DOAJ LIS journal collection - 52 titles as of today, along with links to E-LIS and D-LIST, as well as key advocacy resources particularly relevant to libraries and librarians. The result is a combined pathfinder / news resource blog. The idea is to bookmark the page, for handy reference particularly to the free resources, a tool which will become of greater importance as the OA resources grow.
From my point of view, it is becoming more and more attractive to begin research with international resources such as DOAJ and E-LIS. I find that the results give me a much broader perspective than searching in a package including only articles in english, written by people whose background is very similar to mine. For LIS faculty, here is a thought: what about an assignment that actually requires the use of DOAJ and/or E-LIS, to take advantage of this broad, global perspective?
Postings are on topics relating to open access that are particularly relevant for libraries and librarians: comments on open access activities from our perspectives, thoughts about what librarians will be doing in an open access world, celebrations of OA library accomplishments and stories about OA advocate librarians.
OA Librarian is a team effort. Founding team members are Lesley Perkins, a recent graduate of UBC's SLAIS program, and member of the BCLA Information Policy Committee, Andrew Waller from the University of Calgary, who has done some co-writing and co-publishing on open access with me, and Marcus Banks from NYU, who is on the editorial board at the open access journal, Biomedical Digital Libraries. Marcus' own blog, Marcus' World, includes the journal-within-a-blog Politics With Perspective, one of the inspirations for the Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics, which is a blog which is a journal - sort of. Comments are welcome on OA Librarian, and there is room for more on the blog team, so if you would like to join, let one of us know!
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
The blog is designed to gather together major search sources for freely available information in library and information science. See the top right hand corner of the blog, which features links to the DOAJ LIS journal collection - 52 titles as of today, along with links to E-LIS and D-LIST, as well as key advocacy resources particularly relevant to libraries and librarians. The result is a combined pathfinder / news resource blog. The idea is to bookmark the page, for handy reference particularly to the free resources, a tool which will become of greater importance as the OA resources grow.
From my point of view, it is becoming more and more attractive to begin research with international resources such as DOAJ and E-LIS. I find that the results give me a much broader perspective than searching in a package including only articles in english, written by people whose background is very similar to mine. For LIS faculty, here is a thought: what about an assignment that actually requires the use of DOAJ and/or E-LIS, to take advantage of this broad, global perspective?
Postings are on topics relating to open access that are particularly relevant for libraries and librarians: comments on open access activities from our perspectives, thoughts about what librarians will be doing in an open access world, celebrations of OA library accomplishments and stories about OA advocate librarians.
OA Librarian is a team effort. Founding team members are Lesley Perkins, a recent graduate of UBC's SLAIS program, and member of the BCLA Information Policy Committee, Andrew Waller from the University of Calgary, who has done some co-writing and co-publishing on open access with me, and Marcus Banks from NYU, who is on the editorial board at the open access journal, Biomedical Digital Libraries. Marcus' own blog, Marcus' World, includes the journal-within-a-blog Politics With Perspective, one of the inspirations for the Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics, which is a blog which is a journal - sort of. Comments are welcome on OA Librarian, and there is room for more on the blog team, so if you would like to join, let one of us know!
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Canada Telcom Policy: Urgent Action Item
Canada's telecommunications policy is under review - and it should come as no surprise that big industry players have dominated the process. Canadians believe that our federal government has an obligation to ensure access to telecommunications for the disabled, the poor, and those in rural areas. Companies want to want to reduce the role of the regulator, so that companies are free to offer what telecommunications services they want, where they want, at the price they want, and under the conditions they want.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre, the Consumers' Association of Canada, the National Anti-Poverty Organization, and the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), have filed a joint submission, and are calling on other organizations to sign a brief declaration. Comments are due November 10, so action is urgent.
Details can be found on the CIPPIC web site at: http://www.cippic.ca/en/projects-cases/telecom-policy/
The Canadian Library Association submission states: "First and foremost, we advance the idea that panelists must think of the review as an opportunity to reinforce its commitment to providing access to all Canadians". A link to the full submission can be found from: http://www.cla.ca/issues/clabrief.htm.
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre, the Consumers' Association of Canada, the National Anti-Poverty Organization, and the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), have filed a joint submission, and are calling on other organizations to sign a brief declaration. Comments are due November 10, so action is urgent.
Details can be found on the CIPPIC web site at: http://www.cippic.ca/en/projects-cases/telecom-policy/
The Canadian Library Association submission states: "First and foremost, we advance the idea that panelists must think of the review as an opportunity to reinforce its commitment to providing access to all Canadians". A link to the full submission can be found from: http://www.cla.ca/issues/clabrief.htm.
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Open Access Economics: Funding Agencies and Leverage
Funding agencies and other groups are beginning to make commitments to providing monies for publishing fees. In addition to providing direct support for open access publishing, this could be an opportunity for libraries to leverage additional change.
Here is a thought: if publishers are beginning to receive revenue from a new stream (publishing charges for open access), subscription fees should decrease by a correponding amount, should they not? Indeed, has not Springer promised this with their Open Choice program? Something to keep in mind when that renewal comes up...
Why not use these savings to create a fund to support further open access publishing? This could take a number of approaches, such as paying for membership fees to open access publishers, or fully or partially paying publication fees on a per-article basis.
From my point of view, one of the keys to success of a production-based economics model is ensuring that it is cost effective. There are likely many ways to encourage cost effectiveness. Here is one idea: Libraries could fund publication fees based on a sliding scale. For example, modest publication costs (e.g. $500 per article) could be paid in full, with a decreasing percentage of the fee paid based on the amount - e.g. 80% of costs up to $1,000, 75% up to $1,500, and so forth. This ensures that faculty are aware of the costs of publication, at least whenever the costs are high enough that it is important to be aware.
Here is a thought for libraries wondering where the monies for staffing to adminster such a system might come from: why not interlibrary loans staff? Why knows more about how to manage payment for information on an item-by-item basis, or how to make a system based on this as efficient as humanly possible? One reason this makes sense is that every article that becomes open access no longer needs to be obtained, by anyone, through interlibrary loan (staff may help patrons to discover the item, but there will not be a need to request from another library, track and pay for the service, etc.). It seems logical that there would be some correspondence between the percentage of material becoming open access, and a decrease in interlibrary loans - perhaps slow at first, then gradually growing.
This strikes me as a relatively smooth, and humane, way to manage the transition. There must be other ways to manage the transition that will make it as seamless as possible for everyone, staff at publishing houses included.
Many thanks to those who participated in the breakout session on policy issues at OAI4, who inspired this train of thought.
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Here is a thought: if publishers are beginning to receive revenue from a new stream (publishing charges for open access), subscription fees should decrease by a correponding amount, should they not? Indeed, has not Springer promised this with their Open Choice program? Something to keep in mind when that renewal comes up...
Why not use these savings to create a fund to support further open access publishing? This could take a number of approaches, such as paying for membership fees to open access publishers, or fully or partially paying publication fees on a per-article basis.
From my point of view, one of the keys to success of a production-based economics model is ensuring that it is cost effective. There are likely many ways to encourage cost effectiveness. Here is one idea: Libraries could fund publication fees based on a sliding scale. For example, modest publication costs (e.g. $500 per article) could be paid in full, with a decreasing percentage of the fee paid based on the amount - e.g. 80% of costs up to $1,000, 75% up to $1,500, and so forth. This ensures that faculty are aware of the costs of publication, at least whenever the costs are high enough that it is important to be aware.
Here is a thought for libraries wondering where the monies for staffing to adminster such a system might come from: why not interlibrary loans staff? Why knows more about how to manage payment for information on an item-by-item basis, or how to make a system based on this as efficient as humanly possible? One reason this makes sense is that every article that becomes open access no longer needs to be obtained, by anyone, through interlibrary loan (staff may help patrons to discover the item, but there will not be a need to request from another library, track and pay for the service, etc.). It seems logical that there would be some correspondence between the percentage of material becoming open access, and a decrease in interlibrary loans - perhaps slow at first, then gradually growing.
This strikes me as a relatively smooth, and humane, way to manage the transition. There must be other ways to manage the transition that will make it as seamless as possible for everyone, staff at publishing houses included.
Many thanks to those who participated in the breakout session on policy issues at OAI4, who inspired this train of thought.
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
SSHCR Consultation on Open Access: Response
Re: Response to Consultation on Open Access (An Open Letter)
Congratulations to SSHRC on adopting open access in principle. Here is my response, as a librarian with a special interest in scholarly communications, and an open access advocate. A copy of this letter will be posted on my blog, The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics.
In brief, my response is a recommendation that SSHRC policy be to require open access to the results of SSHRC funded research, as defined in the Budapest Open Access Initiative, basically immediate, free, and unrestricted online availability. Specifically, my recommendation is to require deposit in an institutional repository, and to make open access a requirement for SSHRC subsidy funding for publishers. Detailed responses to specific consultation questions follows.
Policy Questions
SSHRC requests your advice on the following general policy issues:
• Should SSHRC adopt a regulation requiring that one copy of all research results be deposited in an institutional repository?
Yes.
Researchers should place articles in institutional repositories even when they are making works openly available by other means, such as placing articles in subject repositories or publishing in open access journals. This is the best way for Canadian universities, individually and as a whole, to highlight the value of Canadian research, and ensure its preservation. This approach also facilitates the development of Canadian-based portals, enhancing our ability to search for Canadian-specific materials.
• Should such a regulation apply to all forms of research outputs (i.e. peer-reviewed journal articles, non-peer reviewed research reports, monographs, data sets, theses, conference proceedings, etc.)?
Yes.
• Should there be exceptions for research outputs where there is an expectation of financial return to the author (i.e., monographs where royalties are accrued)?
If all of the research and writings costs are covered by SSHRC, there should be no exceptions. However, authors should be free to use a noncommercial creative commons license, e.g. an electronic, free open access copy of a monograph should not preclude sales of a print version.
Operational Questions
In general, there are two accepted routes to open access:
• Self-archiving – depositing research results and materials in institutional repositories that can be searched by anyone with Internet access; and,
• Open access electronic journals – peer-reviewed journals that provide Internet-based access for readers without subscription charges.
Both routes present SSHRC and the research community with operational challenges:
1 Institutional repositories: Building a management and service platform
Currently, not all Canadian universities provide an institutional repository service. Some 26 repositories are now in place, or are in development, but this does not yet provide the necessary services for all SSHRC-funded researchers.
General comment:
If researchers do not yet have an institutional repository available, there are several options that can be explored. For example, universities with repositories can make space available to authors from other institutions; universities can develop repositories on a collaborative rather than individual basis; SSHRC could develop a central repository, or, there is a universal depository currently under development that is expected to be available this fall.
a If required by SSHRC, would you be willing to send all outputs from SSHRC-funded research to an institutional repository?
For me, depositing work in an institutional repository is not an obligation, but rather a pleasure my IR is a much appreciated service. For details on why I just love my institutional repository – as I am sure other authors, universities and academia as a whole will in the future – please see my blogpost, “the Institutional Repository, the Author and the Academy of Aug. 7, 2005, at: http://tinyurl.com/9d7ln
(http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/
2005_08_07_poeticeconomics_archive.html)
b What range of electronic publications and institutional repository services are needed to fully meet the needs of the scholarly community? See, for example Érudit.org (www.erudit.org), a Quebec-based electronic service provider. Should this model be extended across Canada?
The ideal is institutional repository services available to every researcher across Canada, and a range of Canadian-based electronic publication outlets, to assure that research of particular importance in the Canadian context is published. The Synergies group , which includes Érudit, represents one very good model for cross-country collaboration. In my view, it is particularly useful to help with the publishing software and technology needs, as with the Open Journal Systems. [Disclosure: I work for Simon Fraser University, which is a partner in Open Journal Systems and Synergies, although I am not involved with these projects].
2 Open access journals: Revising the SSHRC Aid to Research and Transfer Journals Program
Although SSHRC financially supports the majority of social science and humanities journals produced in Canada , the Aid to Research and Transfer Journals Program does not provide support for non-subscription based journals.
Comment: open access is the most effective means of disseminating results of SSHRC funded research. Picture the difference in accessibility between a journal that meets the current minimum of 200 subscribers, with an open access journal.
200 subscribers: an article published in such a journal might be readily available at every university library in Canada, a few individual researchers, and some of the major research libraries elsewhere in the world.
Open access: can be readily accessed by anyone, anywhere in the world with an internet connection – from the college student in Canada’s north, studying at an institution with a small library – to a researcher in another country who may take the results of research conducted in Canada and build on them, to develop ideas, solutions, and new questions that help Canadians in their research endeavors.
Therefore, my recommendation is that the 200-subscriber minimum should not only be eliminated, but that open access should be a requirement for a SSHRC publication subsidy. Other metrics designed to measure usage can replace the number of subscribers, such as downloads. While these kinds of measures are imperfect, it should be noted that the current approach (subscribers) also have limits. Another approach would be to ask scholars to review the quality and importance of the journals.
a Scholarly peer-reviewed journals play a crucial role in the certification of research knowledge. In the context of open access, institutional repositories must be able to distinguish between peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed research outputs. Therefore, the continued existence, and financial viability, of journals is clearly a critical issue.
Please comment on each of the three following possible ways to tackle this challenge, taking into consideration the fact that there are limited resources for the support of research:
• A “moving wall” system where journal articles are available only by subscription for the first six months, and then made available free of charge.
This is not open access, and this does not provide the best service to the Canadian research community. As an example, if a Canadian researcher and an international researcher conduct similar research and come to similar results at the same time, what happens if the Canadian publishes in a Canadian-based journal with a subscriber base of 200, while the international researcher publishes in an open access journal or an international journal with a much wider readership base? It seems likely that the work of the international researcher will be much more likely to be read, cited, and used. Immediate open access places the Canadian researcher and publisher on a level playing field at the international level; the “moving wall’ approach does not.
• A publication fee, charged by journals to authors, to be considered an eligible expense within a SSHRC research grant. This would require researchers to have access to SSHRC or other grant funds.
Good idea, and I would suggest that this be considered in addition to SSHRC funding for publications. This is one means to facilitate the move to open access or creation of new open access journals which are not covered by SSHRC funding. This would make it easier for Canadian researchers to create new journals in emerging fields, for example. Used in combination with other approaches, such as funding of fully open access journals, this provides options to authors, whether they are SSHRC funded or not.
• A modification to the SSHRC support program for journals—which currently covers 40 to 50 per cent of journal expenditures—to allow grants to cover all peer review, administration and manuscript preparation costs, but not costs associated with distribution.
Good idea, and should be accompanied by an expectation of open access.
b As journal editors, do you allow your contributing authors to place their accepted articles in an institutional repository or on a Web site not connected with the journal? Why, or why not?
N/a
c As researchers/authors, would you be willing to comply with a SSHRC regulation that requires peer-reviewed articles to be published in an open access journal and/or placed in a publicly-accessible institutional repository?
As noted above, I happily deposit my work in an institutional repository, with no obligation. I should note that I have never received or applied for SSRHC funding.
Many thanks for the opportunity to participate in this consultation process. Questions are welcome
Sincerely,
Heather G. Morrison, M.L.I.S.
http://poeticecoomics.blogspot.com
Phone: 604-268-7001
Congratulations to SSHRC on adopting open access in principle. Here is my response, as a librarian with a special interest in scholarly communications, and an open access advocate. A copy of this letter will be posted on my blog, The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics.
In brief, my response is a recommendation that SSHRC policy be to require open access to the results of SSHRC funded research, as defined in the Budapest Open Access Initiative, basically immediate, free, and unrestricted online availability. Specifically, my recommendation is to require deposit in an institutional repository, and to make open access a requirement for SSHRC subsidy funding for publishers. Detailed responses to specific consultation questions follows.
Policy Questions
SSHRC requests your advice on the following general policy issues:
• Should SSHRC adopt a regulation requiring that one copy of all research results be deposited in an institutional repository?
Yes.
Researchers should place articles in institutional repositories even when they are making works openly available by other means, such as placing articles in subject repositories or publishing in open access journals. This is the best way for Canadian universities, individually and as a whole, to highlight the value of Canadian research, and ensure its preservation. This approach also facilitates the development of Canadian-based portals, enhancing our ability to search for Canadian-specific materials.
• Should such a regulation apply to all forms of research outputs (i.e. peer-reviewed journal articles, non-peer reviewed research reports, monographs, data sets, theses, conference proceedings, etc.)?
Yes.
• Should there be exceptions for research outputs where there is an expectation of financial return to the author (i.e., monographs where royalties are accrued)?
If all of the research and writings costs are covered by SSHRC, there should be no exceptions. However, authors should be free to use a noncommercial creative commons license, e.g. an electronic, free open access copy of a monograph should not preclude sales of a print version.
Operational Questions
In general, there are two accepted routes to open access:
• Self-archiving – depositing research results and materials in institutional repositories that can be searched by anyone with Internet access; and,
• Open access electronic journals – peer-reviewed journals that provide Internet-based access for readers without subscription charges.
Both routes present SSHRC and the research community with operational challenges:
1 Institutional repositories: Building a management and service platform
Currently, not all Canadian universities provide an institutional repository service. Some 26 repositories are now in place, or are in development, but this does not yet provide the necessary services for all SSHRC-funded researchers.
General comment:
If researchers do not yet have an institutional repository available, there are several options that can be explored. For example, universities with repositories can make space available to authors from other institutions; universities can develop repositories on a collaborative rather than individual basis; SSHRC could develop a central repository, or, there is a universal depository currently under development that is expected to be available this fall.
a If required by SSHRC, would you be willing to send all outputs from SSHRC-funded research to an institutional repository?
For me, depositing work in an institutional repository is not an obligation, but rather a pleasure my IR is a much appreciated service. For details on why I just love my institutional repository – as I am sure other authors, universities and academia as a whole will in the future – please see my blogpost, “the Institutional Repository, the Author and the Academy of Aug. 7, 2005, at: http://tinyurl.com/9d7ln
(http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/
2005_08_07_poeticeconomics_archive.html)
b What range of electronic publications and institutional repository services are needed to fully meet the needs of the scholarly community? See, for example Érudit.org (www.erudit.org), a Quebec-based electronic service provider. Should this model be extended across Canada?
The ideal is institutional repository services available to every researcher across Canada, and a range of Canadian-based electronic publication outlets, to assure that research of particular importance in the Canadian context is published. The Synergies group , which includes Érudit, represents one very good model for cross-country collaboration. In my view, it is particularly useful to help with the publishing software and technology needs, as with the Open Journal Systems. [Disclosure: I work for Simon Fraser University, which is a partner in Open Journal Systems and Synergies, although I am not involved with these projects].
2 Open access journals: Revising the SSHRC Aid to Research and Transfer Journals Program
Although SSHRC financially supports the majority of social science and humanities journals produced in Canada , the Aid to Research and Transfer Journals Program does not provide support for non-subscription based journals.
Comment: open access is the most effective means of disseminating results of SSHRC funded research. Picture the difference in accessibility between a journal that meets the current minimum of 200 subscribers, with an open access journal.
200 subscribers: an article published in such a journal might be readily available at every university library in Canada, a few individual researchers, and some of the major research libraries elsewhere in the world.
Open access: can be readily accessed by anyone, anywhere in the world with an internet connection – from the college student in Canada’s north, studying at an institution with a small library – to a researcher in another country who may take the results of research conducted in Canada and build on them, to develop ideas, solutions, and new questions that help Canadians in their research endeavors.
Therefore, my recommendation is that the 200-subscriber minimum should not only be eliminated, but that open access should be a requirement for a SSHRC publication subsidy. Other metrics designed to measure usage can replace the number of subscribers, such as downloads. While these kinds of measures are imperfect, it should be noted that the current approach (subscribers) also have limits. Another approach would be to ask scholars to review the quality and importance of the journals.
a Scholarly peer-reviewed journals play a crucial role in the certification of research knowledge. In the context of open access, institutional repositories must be able to distinguish between peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed research outputs. Therefore, the continued existence, and financial viability, of journals is clearly a critical issue.
Please comment on each of the three following possible ways to tackle this challenge, taking into consideration the fact that there are limited resources for the support of research:
• A “moving wall” system where journal articles are available only by subscription for the first six months, and then made available free of charge.
This is not open access, and this does not provide the best service to the Canadian research community. As an example, if a Canadian researcher and an international researcher conduct similar research and come to similar results at the same time, what happens if the Canadian publishes in a Canadian-based journal with a subscriber base of 200, while the international researcher publishes in an open access journal or an international journal with a much wider readership base? It seems likely that the work of the international researcher will be much more likely to be read, cited, and used. Immediate open access places the Canadian researcher and publisher on a level playing field at the international level; the “moving wall’ approach does not.
• A publication fee, charged by journals to authors, to be considered an eligible expense within a SSHRC research grant. This would require researchers to have access to SSHRC or other grant funds.
Good idea, and I would suggest that this be considered in addition to SSHRC funding for publications. This is one means to facilitate the move to open access or creation of new open access journals which are not covered by SSHRC funding. This would make it easier for Canadian researchers to create new journals in emerging fields, for example. Used in combination with other approaches, such as funding of fully open access journals, this provides options to authors, whether they are SSHRC funded or not.
• A modification to the SSHRC support program for journals—which currently covers 40 to 50 per cent of journal expenditures—to allow grants to cover all peer review, administration and manuscript preparation costs, but not costs associated with distribution.
Good idea, and should be accompanied by an expectation of open access.
b As journal editors, do you allow your contributing authors to place their accepted articles in an institutional repository or on a Web site not connected with the journal? Why, or why not?
N/a
c As researchers/authors, would you be willing to comply with a SSHRC regulation that requires peer-reviewed articles to be published in an open access journal and/or placed in a publicly-accessible institutional repository?
As noted above, I happily deposit my work in an institutional repository, with no obligation. I should note that I have never received or applied for SSRHC funding.
Many thanks for the opportunity to participate in this consultation process. Questions are welcome
Sincerely,
Heather G. Morrison, M.L.I.S.
http://poeticecoomics.blogspot.com
Phone: 604-268-7001
Friday, October 14, 2005
Immediate Open Access: Every Step of the Way
Here is a thought for the SSHRC Consultation on Open Access: why wait until publication for open access? Indeed - why wait until the research is completed, or even begun?
What if a researcher were to post the details of a SSHRC funded research grant just as soon as confirmation of the funding was received? What if this were linked to background information, and supplemented by research data as soon as it was available? Then each draft of the research report as it became available - along with openly available peer reviews, then the final peer-reviewed versions when this was available?
With this approach, Canadians (and others, of course) could watch the research as it progressed. For some researchers, this might help to attract needed study participants. In some cases, perhaps students at various levels could conduct some of the research - or, perhaps the students could carry out parallel studies. Would there be excitement? There is no suspense with a completed study - but what about research in progress, where the results are not yet known?
Could watching and participating in research become as exciting as watching reality t.v. - or moreso, since this is real knowledge that is being created?
Would this open approach help to develop science and information literacy, and help to cultivate a new generation of keen researchers?
Would this mean interesting material for journalists - and more meaningful and positive news for the rest of us? Would the net effect be more public support for research in general - and humanities and social sciences research in particular?
This would really be embracing the medium.
[Series note: this is the 3rd post in the "Embracing the Medium" series}.
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
What if a researcher were to post the details of a SSHRC funded research grant just as soon as confirmation of the funding was received? What if this were linked to background information, and supplemented by research data as soon as it was available? Then each draft of the research report as it became available - along with openly available peer reviews, then the final peer-reviewed versions when this was available?
With this approach, Canadians (and others, of course) could watch the research as it progressed. For some researchers, this might help to attract needed study participants. In some cases, perhaps students at various levels could conduct some of the research - or, perhaps the students could carry out parallel studies. Would there be excitement? There is no suspense with a completed study - but what about research in progress, where the results are not yet known?
Could watching and participating in research become as exciting as watching reality t.v. - or moreso, since this is real knowledge that is being created?
Would this open approach help to develop science and information literacy, and help to cultivate a new generation of keen researchers?
Would this mean interesting material for journalists - and more meaningful and positive news for the rest of us? Would the net effect be more public support for research in general - and humanities and social sciences research in particular?
This would really be embracing the medium.
[Series note: this is the 3rd post in the "Embracing the Medium" series}.
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
A delightful irony
A delightful irony of open access: the poor, it seems, can afford,
what the rich cannot.
The Latin American countries have long been leaders on the gold road,
with their Scielo project. The Indian Institute of Sciences is one
of the leaders in the green road, with a relatively institutional
repository. Either approach, some people seem to think, could not be
followed in places like the U.K. or the U.S. without some sort of
disaster befalling the scholarly publishing industry.
Finally, for a while at least, people in the poorer countries have an
opportunity to catch up. The OA impact advantage may only be
temporary, until all scholarly knowledge is OA. In the meantime, if
the researchers in place like Chile and India have a bit of an access
edge, this has its upside as well.
Unlike the OA impact advantage studies, this is not based on any
scientific evidence at all. This is purely whimsical speculation,
brought to you by:
Heather Morrison
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
Originally posted to the SPARC Open Access Forum, October 4, 2005
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
what the rich cannot.
The Latin American countries have long been leaders on the gold road,
with their Scielo project. The Indian Institute of Sciences is one
of the leaders in the green road, with a relatively institutional
repository. Either approach, some people seem to think, could not be
followed in places like the U.K. or the U.S. without some sort of
disaster befalling the scholarly publishing industry.
Finally, for a while at least, people in the poorer countries have an
opportunity to catch up. The OA impact advantage may only be
temporary, until all scholarly knowledge is OA. In the meantime, if
the researchers in place like Chile and India have a bit of an access
edge, this has its upside as well.
Unlike the OA impact advantage studies, this is not based on any
scientific evidence at all. This is purely whimsical speculation,
brought to you by:
Heather Morrison
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
Originally posted to the SPARC Open Access Forum, October 4, 2005
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Until we all have institutional repositories: an idea for the transition
One of the quandaries for funding agencies wishing to mandate open access to the results of research they have funded, is that not all researchers currently enjoy the services of an institutional repository.
There are likely a number of ways of addressing this issue on a temporary basis. Here is one thought: why not investigate whether any of the libraries which already have an IR repository up and running would consider a contract to create a special section for the funding agency? This would provide a means of immediately addressing this situation, which may well be temporary in nature, at less cost than might be incurred if the funding agency were to set up their own central repository.
When the authors' own repository is up and running, the article(s) can then be copied to this IR. Similarly, once IR technology is more advanced and it becomes cheaper and easier for the funding agency to set up their own repository, then the items can be moved or copied from this temporary IR, to the funders' IR.
Comment from Peter Suber, Open Access News, Monday October 9, 2005: Another possibility is for universities with IRs to allow deposits by faculty from selected IR-less institutions. Another is for universities without individual IRs to launch a consortial IR. Another possibility, though still forthcoming, is the universal repository I'm helping to launch at the Internet Archive.
Thoughts on this would be appreciated, whether on one of the open access lists, or send directly to heatherm dot eln dot bc dot ca
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
There are likely a number of ways of addressing this issue on a temporary basis. Here is one thought: why not investigate whether any of the libraries which already have an IR repository up and running would consider a contract to create a special section for the funding agency? This would provide a means of immediately addressing this situation, which may well be temporary in nature, at less cost than might be incurred if the funding agency were to set up their own central repository.
When the authors' own repository is up and running, the article(s) can then be copied to this IR. Similarly, once IR technology is more advanced and it becomes cheaper and easier for the funding agency to set up their own repository, then the items can be moved or copied from this temporary IR, to the funders' IR.
Comment from Peter Suber, Open Access News, Monday October 9, 2005: Another possibility is for universities with IRs to allow deposits by faculty from selected IR-less institutions. Another is for universities without individual IRs to launch a consortial IR. Another possibility, though still forthcoming, is the universal repository I'm helping to launch at the Internet Archive.
Thoughts on this would be appreciated, whether on one of the open access lists, or send directly to heatherm dot eln dot bc dot ca
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
:: Info Commons.ca :: website and listserv
The Canadian Library Association's newly formed Information Commons Interest Group's website is now live, and our listserv is up and running and open to all!
Website: http://www.infocommons.ca/
Listserv signup instructions:
send an email to majordomo@concordia.ca with the
TITLE blank and the following in the
BODY of your email:subscribe infocommons end
Projects in progress:
Copyright in Libraries: the Digital Conundrum (Proposal for CLA Preconference)
wiki setup
Drafting response to SSRHC Consultation on Open Access
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Website: http://www.infocommons.ca/
Listserv signup instructions:
send an email to majordomo@concordia.ca with the
TITLE blank and the following in the
BODY of your email:subscribe infocommons end
Projects in progress:
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
In the Public Interest: the Future of Canadian Copyright
Creative Commons Canada is pleased to announce the launch of the first Canadian academic monograph to be offered under a Creative Commons Licence.
In the Public Interest: the Future of Canadian Copyright, is an open access book that is a first in many respects:
first publication by a legal publisher (Irwin Law) in both commercial book and free online formats
the first national compilation of copyright scholarly opinion in Canada
the first time a book from such a publisher has been put together in time to respond and contribute directly to a policy process at the bill stage
(thanks to Margaret Ann Wilkinson for this list)
The book begins with an introduction by Michael Geist. My fellow librarians and information policy aficionados may be interested to know that two joint Law and LIS scholars, Margaret Ann Wilkinson and Sam Trosow, from Western, are among the authors.
In the Public Interest: the Future of Canadian Copyright, is an open access book that is a first in many respects:
(thanks to Margaret Ann Wilkinson for this list)
The book begins with an introduction by Michael Geist. My fellow librarians and information policy aficionados may be interested to know that two joint Law and LIS scholars, Margaret Ann Wilkinson and Sam Trosow, from Western, are among the authors.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Wellcome Trust OA Mandate in Effect! (SSHRC Consultation)
The Wellcome Trust's Open and Unrestricted Access to the Outputs of Published Research is in effect as of October 2005.
This is the best model for an open access policy to date, in my opinion, particularly because open access is mandatory. A detailed, thoughtful analysis about why this is a model policy can be found in Peter Suber's October 2005 SPARC Open Access Newsletter.
One aspect that might not be optimum in the SSRHC context is the allowance for a delay of 6 months for open access. This is a very generous concession to the worried publishing community, which may not be necessary or desirable in the Canadian context.
Open access will make it possible to greatly expand and enhance the impact of the Canadian researcher. Instead of articles being readily accessible to subscribers only - likely a few individuals, Canada's research libraries, and some of the larger libraries abroad - open access means that Canadian research will be readily accessible to all researchers, everywhere.
Here is a scenario to illustrate how immediate open access can enhance the impact and prestige of the Canadian researcher. While pre-publication open access may be the optimum, for the sake of simplicity of comparison, this scenario assumes a SSHRC policy of mandatory OA immediately on publication, while another country, similar to Canada (X) permits a 6-month delay, which has become general practice.
Let's imagine that a Canadian researcher, and a researcher from X, have both completed similar studies, which resulted in similar findings. Everyone in this research area is very excited when they read the results of either study. Other researchers read and cite the studies, begin new studies based on the results, and some suggest that the author might be a good conference presenter,invite the author to participate in an international research team, or nominate the author for an award. For the researcher from X, this is primarily other researchers in X, and a few outsiders, while for the Canadian, this is this worldwide research community.
It is the work of the Canadian researcher which is more likely to be read and cited, and recognised in a number of ways. The Canadian researcher is looking good - and so is SSHRC, as the funder, and Canada as a whole.
For details on the many research studies illustrating the OA Impact Advantage, see Steve Hitchcock's The effect of open access and downloads ('hits') on citation impact: a bibliography of studies
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
This is the best model for an open access policy to date, in my opinion, particularly because open access is mandatory. A detailed, thoughtful analysis about why this is a model policy can be found in Peter Suber's October 2005 SPARC Open Access Newsletter.
One aspect that might not be optimum in the SSRHC context is the allowance for a delay of 6 months for open access. This is a very generous concession to the worried publishing community, which may not be necessary or desirable in the Canadian context.
Open access will make it possible to greatly expand and enhance the impact of the Canadian researcher. Instead of articles being readily accessible to subscribers only - likely a few individuals, Canada's research libraries, and some of the larger libraries abroad - open access means that Canadian research will be readily accessible to all researchers, everywhere.
Here is a scenario to illustrate how immediate open access can enhance the impact and prestige of the Canadian researcher. While pre-publication open access may be the optimum, for the sake of simplicity of comparison, this scenario assumes a SSHRC policy of mandatory OA immediately on publication, while another country, similar to Canada (X) permits a 6-month delay, which has become general practice.
Let's imagine that a Canadian researcher, and a researcher from X, have both completed similar studies, which resulted in similar findings. Everyone in this research area is very excited when they read the results of either study. Other researchers read and cite the studies, begin new studies based on the results, and some suggest that the author might be a good conference presenter,invite the author to participate in an international research team, or nominate the author for an award. For the researcher from X, this is primarily other researchers in X, and a few outsiders, while for the Canadian, this is this worldwide research community.
It is the work of the Canadian researcher which is more likely to be read and cited, and recognised in a number of ways. The Canadian researcher is looking good - and so is SSHRC, as the funder, and Canada as a whole.
For details on the many research studies illustrating the OA Impact Advantage, see Steve Hitchcock's The effect of open access and downloads ('hits') on citation impact: a bibliography of studies
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
SSHRC Open Access Consultation: October 31 deadline!
SSHRC Aid to Open Access Research Journals. April 2007. A one-year program designed to test a new approach to funding SSHRC-sponsored journals.
Please see the May 6, 2006 update SSHRC to Actively Promote Open Access to Research Results
Canada's Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) adopted Open Access in principle in April 2005, and is presently seeking input on implementation measures. The deadline for this consultation process is October 31.
SSHRC is hearing from the publishers - let's make sure they hear from the rest of us, too!
Link to SSHRC Open Access Consultation Note: link not working April 2007
See also:
A global information system needs a culture of sharing University Affairs, November 2005, article by Dr. Arthur Carty, National Science Advisor to the Prime Minister. Thanks to Peter Suber's Open Access News, October 18, 2005.
Wellcome Trust OA Mandate in Effect (SSHRC Consultation)
University of Toronto's Open Source Open Access Project
Links to OS!OA and Dr. Gunther Eysenbach's responses to the SSHRC Consultation on Open Access.
Excerpt (Dr. Eysenbach's response):
With turning down the Journal of Medical Internet Research as a SSHRC funded journal only because at that time it didn’t have paying subscribers (because it is Open Access) SSHRC lost a tremendous opportunity to explore researcher-led experimental models of publishing. .
Note: SSHRC rules at present are based on a subscription system, and discriminate against open access journals. Simply eliminating this discriminatory practice would do a lot to further open access in Canada!
Creative Commons Canada Response to SSHRC-CFHSS Consultation on Open Access
British Columbia Library Association Submission to SSHRC Consultation on Open Access
Canadian Library Association Submission to SSHRC Consultation on Open Access
CARL's Brief to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council concerning Open Access
Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair on Internet & E-Commerce Law: The Canadian Move Toward Open Access
Daniel Lemire's blog entry
Excerpt: "Would I risk my federal grant for the whims of a publisher like IEEE? Never."
Immediate Open Access: Every Step of the Way
Canadian library associations which have declared support for open access:
Canadian Association of Research Libraries
Canadian Library Association (also Canadian Association of College and University Libraries)
British Columbia Library Association
Heather Morrison's Response to the SSHRC Consultation on Open Access
Canada's Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) adopted Open Access in principle in April 2005, and is presently seeking input on implementation measures. The deadline for this consultation process is October 31.
SSHRC is hearing from the publishers - let's make sure they hear from the rest of us, too!
Link to SSHRC Open Access Consultation
See also:
A global information system needs a culture of sharing University Affairs, November 2005, article by Dr. Arthur Carty, National Science Advisor to the Prime Minister. Thanks to Peter Suber's Open Access News, October 18, 2005.
Wellcome Trust OA Mandate in Effect (SSHRC Consultation)
University of Toronto's Open Source Open Access Project
Links to OS!OA and Dr. Gunther Eysenbach's responses to the SSHRC Consultation on Open Access.
Excerpt (Dr. Eysenbach's response):
With turning down the Journal of Medical Internet Research as a SSHRC funded journal only because at that time it didn’t have paying subscribers (because it is Open Access) SSHRC lost a tremendous opportunity to explore researcher-led experimental models of publishing. .
Note: SSHRC rules at present are based on a subscription system, and discriminate against open access journals. Simply eliminating this discriminatory practice would do a lot to further open access in Canada!
Creative Commons Canada Response to SSHRC-CFHSS Consultation on Open Access
British Columbia Library Association Submission to SSHRC Consultation on Open Access
Canadian Library Association Submission to SSHRC Consultation on Open Access
CARL's Brief to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council concerning Open Access
Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair on Internet & E-Commerce Law: The Canadian Move Toward Open Access
Daniel Lemire's blog entry
Excerpt: "Would I risk my federal grant for the whims of a publisher like IEEE? Never."
Immediate Open Access: Every Step of the Way
Canadian library associations which have declared support for open access:
Canadian Association of Research Libraries
Canadian Library Association (also Canadian Association of College and University Libraries)
British Columbia Library Association
Heather Morrison's Response to the SSHRC Consultation on Open Access
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Please see the May 6, 2006 update SSHRC to Actively Promote Open Access to Research Results
Canada's Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) adopted Open Access in principle in April 2005, and is presently seeking input on implementation measures. The deadline for this consultation process is October 31.
SSHRC is hearing from the publishers - let's make sure they hear from the rest of us, too!
Link to SSHRC Open Access Consultation Note: link not working April 2007
See also:
A global information system needs a culture of sharing University Affairs, November 2005, article by Dr. Arthur Carty, National Science Advisor to the Prime Minister. Thanks to Peter Suber's Open Access News, October 18, 2005.
Wellcome Trust OA Mandate in Effect (SSHRC Consultation)
University of Toronto's Open Source Open Access Project
Links to OS!OA and Dr. Gunther Eysenbach's responses to the SSHRC Consultation on Open Access.
Excerpt (Dr. Eysenbach's response):
With turning down the Journal of Medical Internet Research as a SSHRC funded journal only because at that time it didn’t have paying subscribers (because it is Open Access) SSHRC lost a tremendous opportunity to explore researcher-led experimental models of publishing. .
Note: SSHRC rules at present are based on a subscription system, and discriminate against open access journals. Simply eliminating this discriminatory practice would do a lot to further open access in Canada!
Creative Commons Canada Response to SSHRC-CFHSS Consultation on Open Access
British Columbia Library Association Submission to SSHRC Consultation on Open Access
Canadian Library Association Submission to SSHRC Consultation on Open Access
CARL's Brief to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council concerning Open Access
Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair on Internet & E-Commerce Law: The Canadian Move Toward Open Access
Daniel Lemire's blog entry
Excerpt: "Would I risk my federal grant for the whims of a publisher like IEEE? Never."
Immediate Open Access: Every Step of the Way
Canadian library associations which have declared support for open access:
Canadian Association of Research Libraries
Canadian Library Association (also Canadian Association of College and University Libraries)
British Columbia Library Association
Heather Morrison's Response to the SSHRC Consultation on Open Access
Canada's Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) adopted Open Access in principle in April 2005, and is presently seeking input on implementation measures. The deadline for this consultation process is October 31.
SSHRC is hearing from the publishers - let's make sure they hear from the rest of us, too!
Link to SSHRC Open Access Consultation
See also:
A global information system needs a culture of sharing University Affairs, November 2005, article by Dr. Arthur Carty, National Science Advisor to the Prime Minister. Thanks to Peter Suber's Open Access News, October 18, 2005.
Wellcome Trust OA Mandate in Effect (SSHRC Consultation)
University of Toronto's Open Source Open Access Project
Links to OS!OA and Dr. Gunther Eysenbach's responses to the SSHRC Consultation on Open Access.
Excerpt (Dr. Eysenbach's response):
With turning down the Journal of Medical Internet Research as a SSHRC funded journal only because at that time it didn’t have paying subscribers (because it is Open Access) SSHRC lost a tremendous opportunity to explore researcher-led experimental models of publishing. .
Note: SSHRC rules at present are based on a subscription system, and discriminate against open access journals. Simply eliminating this discriminatory practice would do a lot to further open access in Canada!
Creative Commons Canada Response to SSHRC-CFHSS Consultation on Open Access
British Columbia Library Association Submission to SSHRC Consultation on Open Access
Canadian Library Association Submission to SSHRC Consultation on Open Access
CARL's Brief to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council concerning Open Access
Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair on Internet & E-Commerce Law: The Canadian Move Toward Open Access
Daniel Lemire's blog entry
Excerpt: "Would I risk my federal grant for the whims of a publisher like IEEE? Never."
Immediate Open Access: Every Step of the Way
Canadian library associations which have declared support for open access:
Canadian Association of Research Libraries
Canadian Library Association (also Canadian Association of College and University Libraries)
British Columbia Library Association
Heather Morrison's Response to the SSHRC Consultation on Open Access
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Open Access: Good for Business!
The primary benefit of open access is that it is the best means of disseminating the results of research, thus speeding the process of research, and the impact of the individual researcher or research funder. Open access, however, does a great deal more, and this is just one example.
Providing open access to the scholarly research literature makes it readily available to the whole business community. All have access to the latest knowledge, on which to build new business ideas - based on the soundest knowledge we have.
Picture open access to all of the literature relating to environmental sciences, for example. What opportunities will emerge for the creative entrepreneur, to find new ways of producing goods and services that help us to protect and enhance our environment?
If any of our research finds new forms of producing energy, that are renewable and non-polluting - why not share them with everyone, so that we can devise means of applying the solutions as rapidly as possible?
It makes a great deal of sense that business would have access to research which is funded through taxpayer dollars, and conducted at universities. Businesses, after all, do pay taxes. Many also contribute to universities in various ways. For example, many businesses are corporate donors. Would a full institutional repository - providing many leads to new business ideas - help a university attract more donors of this sort?
Corporations produce research as well. Some research, of course, is applied and a trade secret, and cannot be published. Many corporate researchers do produce publishable articles, however, and when they do, it makes sense just as much sense for the corporate as the university researcher to publish their articles as open access. The OA impact advantage (50% - 250% more citations to open access articles), well documented in Steve Hitchcock's The effect of open access and downloads ('hits') on citation impact: a bibliography of studies, works just as much in the favor of the corporate as the university-based author. That is, when you make it easy for people to access your article - they are more likely to access, read, use, and cite your article. Go figure!
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Providing open access to the scholarly research literature makes it readily available to the whole business community. All have access to the latest knowledge, on which to build new business ideas - based on the soundest knowledge we have.
Picture open access to all of the literature relating to environmental sciences, for example. What opportunities will emerge for the creative entrepreneur, to find new ways of producing goods and services that help us to protect and enhance our environment?
If any of our research finds new forms of producing energy, that are renewable and non-polluting - why not share them with everyone, so that we can devise means of applying the solutions as rapidly as possible?
It makes a great deal of sense that business would have access to research which is funded through taxpayer dollars, and conducted at universities. Businesses, after all, do pay taxes. Many also contribute to universities in various ways. For example, many businesses are corporate donors. Would a full institutional repository - providing many leads to new business ideas - help a university attract more donors of this sort?
Corporations produce research as well. Some research, of course, is applied and a trade secret, and cannot be published. Many corporate researchers do produce publishable articles, however, and when they do, it makes sense just as much sense for the corporate as the university researcher to publish their articles as open access. The OA impact advantage (50% - 250% more citations to open access articles), well documented in Steve Hitchcock's The effect of open access and downloads ('hits') on citation impact: a bibliography of studies, works just as much in the favor of the corporate as the university-based author. That is, when you make it easy for people to access your article - they are more likely to access, read, use, and cite your article. Go figure!
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Open Access, Funding Agencies, and Incentives
In addition to the obvious and necessary step of requiring that results of funded research be made openly accessible immediately on publication, if not before, here is another step that funding agencies might wish to consider.
Assuming that a very good indicator of future behavior is past behavior, why not recognize researchers with a history of open access publishing when awarding grants? For example, if a weighting criteria approach is used in evaluation, why not assign a few points based on researchers' prior open access history?
In addition to increasing the likelihood of open sharing of the research under consideration for funding, there will be conveniences for the evaluators as well. That is, if prior studies are presented as clickable URLs, this will make it easier for any investigator to evaluate the researchers' history.
Here are two examples of how this might be implemented:
Weighting criteria: rewarding open access history approach
Allot 3 points (assuming 100 totals) to open access publishing history, as follows:
Recognising administrative efficiency approach
This approach would work well with an electronic approach to applying for funding. Fast-track applications where examples of prior research are fully openly accessible, as evaluators will have immediate, cost-free access to this research for evaluation purposes.
Perhaps information about this aspect of evaluation could be accompanied by information on how to make one's works openly accessible. One easey way would be to point to Peter Suber's Open Access Overview. Or, depending on the funding agency, it might make sense to provide pointers to lists of open access publishers, disciplinary archives, or lists of institutional repositories or general repositories (such as the one run by Bioline International for authors in developing countries) that may be available.
To accomodate researchers who have lesser opportunities for making their work openly accessible, perhaps alternatives could be considered. For example, a researcher might supply a copies of letters to their universities, learned societies, and/or publishers in their field explaining their need for open access. Funding agencies could make sample letters available for the convenience of these applicants.
This approach is meant to supplement the more direct approach of requiring immediate open access to the results of research actually funded by the agency, of course.
See Stevan Harnad's Maximising the on the UK's Public Investment in Research for a well-thought-out, if conservative, analysis of the economic benefits of open access for the research funder.
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Assuming that a very good indicator of future behavior is past behavior, why not recognize researchers with a history of open access publishing when awarding grants? For example, if a weighting criteria approach is used in evaluation, why not assign a few points based on researchers' prior open access history?
In addition to increasing the likelihood of open sharing of the research under consideration for funding, there will be conveniences for the evaluators as well. That is, if prior studies are presented as clickable URLs, this will make it easier for any investigator to evaluate the researchers' history.
Here are two examples of how this might be implemented:
Weighting criteria: rewarding open access history approach
Allot 3 points (assuming 100 totals) to open access publishing history, as follows:
- 3 points: full open access history
all works of all researcher applicants are fully open access (published in OA journals, or self-archived on or before publication) - 2 points: substantial open access history
recent research of all researcher applicants is openly accessible - 1 point: some open access history
some research results of researcher applicants is openly accessible
Recognising administrative efficiency approach
This approach would work well with an electronic approach to applying for funding. Fast-track applications where examples of prior research are fully openly accessible, as evaluators will have immediate, cost-free access to this research for evaluation purposes.
Perhaps information about this aspect of evaluation could be accompanied by information on how to make one's works openly accessible. One easey way would be to point to Peter Suber's Open Access Overview. Or, depending on the funding agency, it might make sense to provide pointers to lists of open access publishers, disciplinary archives, or lists of institutional repositories or general repositories (such as the one run by Bioline International for authors in developing countries) that may be available.
To accomodate researchers who have lesser opportunities for making their work openly accessible, perhaps alternatives could be considered. For example, a researcher might supply a copies of letters to their universities, learned societies, and/or publishers in their field explaining their need for open access. Funding agencies could make sample letters available for the convenience of these applicants.
This approach is meant to supplement the more direct approach of requiring immediate open access to the results of research actually funded by the agency, of course.
See Stevan Harnad's Maximising the on the UK's Public Investment in Research for a well-thought-out, if conservative, analysis of the economic benefits of open access for the research funder.
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the Simon Fraser University Library.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)