[Taxacom] FW: [SOAN] SPARC Open Access Newsletter, 9/2/07; anti open access arguments and their rebuttal

Donat Agosti agosti at amnh.org
Sun Sep 2 16:06:23 CDT 2007

For all interested in the status of the debate and direction of open access
in scientific publications, here is a very complete rebuttal of the
publishers trade association and lobbying coalition objections against open
access. Peter Suber, the author of the text below, is one of the most
important advocate of open access.

It is well worth reading because of the concise arguments made, but also,
because it shows, in my view the very narrow, business oriented politics of
the publishers only aiming to guarantee their income and profits, and not to
operate even partially in the interest for those whose content they sell.
This includes even the distortion of the argument - in this case peer review
- to influence the politicians and policy makers to make decisions clearly
not in favor of the scientific community and all the tax payers. 

This debate is clearly of interest to the taxonomic community and all those
envisioning a Web2.0 environment, where each of the publications is a small,
indispensable part of a growing Web of Knowledge. Publications, especially
if they are properly hyperlinked with the underlying data and databases,
GBIF, Zoobank, etc.,  play a crucial role in its development.

Donat Agosti

-----Original Message-----
From: SPARC Open Access Newsletter [mailto:SPARC-OANews at arl.org] On Behalf
Of Peter Suber
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 7:07 PM
To: SPARC Open Access Newsletter
Subject: [SOAN] SPARC Open Access Newsletter, 9/2/07

      The SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue #113
      September 2, 2007
      by Peter Suber

      Read this issue online


SOAN is published and sponsored by the Scholarly 
Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC).

Additional support is provided by Data Conversion 
Laboratory (DCL), experts in converting research documents to XML.


Will open access undermine peer review?

As soon as governments started contemplating 
policies to ensure open access to publicly-funded 
research, publisher trade associations and 
lobbying coalitions objected that the policies 
would undermine peer review.  Here are some recent examples from the US:

 From the Association of American Publishers 
(AAP) in May 2006, opposing the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA):

>If enacted, S.2695 could well have the 
>unintended consequence of compromising or 
>destroying the independent system of peer review 
>that ensures the integrity of the very research 
>the U.S. Government is trying to support and disseminate.


 From the DC Principles Coalition in February 2007, opposing FRPAA:

>Subscriptions to journals with a high percentage 
>of federally funded research would decline 
>rapidly. Subscription revenues support the 
>quality control system known as peer review....


 From the Brussels Declaration in February 2007, 
organized by the Association of Learned and 
Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) and 
International Association of Scientific, 
Technical & Medical Publishers (STM), opposing a 
proposed OA mandate for the EU:

>Open deposit of accepted manuscripts risks 
>destabilising subscription revenues and undermining peer review.


 From the AAP/PSP's new lobbying organization, 
PRISM, in August 2007, opposing government OA mandates:

>[OA policies] would jeopardize the financial 
>viability of the journals that conduct peer 
>review, placing the entire scholarly communication process at risk.


We don't know how many individual publishers 
share the objection.  Most have been silent, 
neither publicly endorsing nor publicly 
criticizing this claim by their trade 
associations and lobbyists.  A recent exception 
is Rockefeller University Press, which publicly 
dissociated itself from the AAP/PSP's PRISM 
campaign, including the claimed threat to peer review.

For convenience, I'll refer to those who raise 
this objection as the publisher trade 
associations or lobbyists.  I can't use the 
shorter term "publishers" because so few have 
taken a position on it.  Publishers are not 
monolithic, even if their lobbyists want to 
appear to speak for all of them.  While some 
publishers do support the objection, some reject 
it, and a growing number of publishers embrace both OA and peer review.

Whenever I've seen publisher lobbyists raise the 
objection in public, I've blogged it along with a 
short, blog-length answer.  But for once I want 
to answer the objection at length.  I have three 
reasons.  First, the brevity of my blog responses 
hasn't allowed me to show the answer at full 
strength.  Second, the launch of PRISM, and its 
focus on this objection, suggest that publisher 
lobbyists are about to escalate their use of 
it.  Third, I'm tired of keying new blog 
responses to this old canard and don't want to 
have to do it every time lobbyists repeat 
it.  Writing new rebuttals even to old and 
unargued objections makes us vulnerable to anyone 
who wants to yank our chain.  It's much better to 
write a thorough rebuttal once and link to it as 
needed.  It strengthens the response, saves time, and cuts the chain.

(1) First note that the publisher associations 
who raise the objection usually have no problem 
with *low-volume* OA archiving.  They don't think 
it undermines subscriptions, revenue, or peer 
review, and most publishers have already adopted 
policies to permit it.  The objection does not 
target OA archiving as such, or spontaneous 
levels of author self-archiving, but only 
policies that would significantly increase the volume of OA archiving.

(2) The objection is not that funder OA policies 
ask researchers to bypass peer review.  On the 
contrary, funder OA policies uniformly support 
peer review and encourage publication in 
peer-reviewed journals.  This fact is well-known 
among the friends and foes of OA, but I mention 
it for completeness in case newcomers to the debate did not know it.

(3) Just as the funder OA policies do not ask 
authors by bypass peer review, they do not ask 
referees, editors, journals, or publishers to use 
any particular form of peer review, to lower 
their standard of peer review, or to change their 
methods of peer review.  The funder OA policies 
leave the methods and standards of peer review 
entirely up to the journals where 
authors/grantees choose to publish their work.

Again, these facts are well-known to those 
familiar with the OA policies.  I mention them 
not only for newcomers, but because some 
statements by the publishing lobby have muddied 
the waters.  For example, just last week Rachel 
Deahl wrote in Publishers Weekly,

>PRISM members are concerned that if government 
>becomes involved in the publication of 
>scientific and scholarly work, changing the 
>standard peer review process that has long been 
>in place, the work could lose its integrity. As 
>Dr. Brian Crawford, chairman of the [Association 
>of American Publishers'] Professional & 
>Scholarly Publishing Division explained, 
>changing the peer review process could 
>ultimately open the gates for "agenda-driven research and bad science."


If Crawford is really talking about government 
policies to change the methods of peer review, 
then he's fighting without an antagonist.  There 
are no such policies and no policy-makers or OA 
advocates to support them.  If he's talking about 
policies to encourage or require OA archiving, 
then he's changing the subject and leaving a 
false impression, much as if an oil company 
opposed steps to reduce greenhouse gases on the 
ground that reducing automobile safety would 
ultimately open the gates for injury and death.

Since the NIH policy was proposed in 2004, 
publisher lobbyists have objected that it would 
"nationalize science", by which they seemed to 
mean that governments would take over the job of 
doing or managing peer review --and then corrupt 
it under political pressure from elected 
officials.  Crawford's statement echoes this 
older concern.  But the concern is easily 
answered by reading the policies and recognizing 
that nothing in them allows governments to take 
over or modify either of these jobs.  The 
policies regulate grantees, not publishers.  They 
concern OA repositories, not OA journals.  They 
focus on archiving work peer-reviewed and 
published elsewhere, not changing where or how 
work is peer-reviewed and published.  They leave 
every aspect of peer review up to independent 
(i.e. non-government) journals.  If peer review 
at independent journals is corrupted or 
politicized, it will be entirely the fault of the 
journals themselves.  The real-life examples of 
ideological control over government scientists by 
the Bush administration are not examples of OA 
policies at work and would even be prevented by effective OA policies.

The only plausible form of the publishing lobby's 
objection is about defunding peer review, not 
corrupting, politicizing, or nationalizing peer 
review, and from here I'll focus on that form of the objection.

(4) Publisher lobbyists who object that 
high-volume OA archiving will undermine peer 
review are never specific in explaining why or 
how.  But they seem to be thinking about a 
three-link chain of causation:  high-volume OA 
archiving will cause libraries to cancel journal 
subscriptions, which will in turn cause journals 
to lose revenue, which will in turn cause the 
journals to fold up and therefore to cease 
providing peer review.  At least that's the form 
of the objection to which I'll respond here.

(5) The first problem with the imagined chain of 
causation lies in the first link, the assumption 
that OA will trigger cancellations.  Maybe it will; maybe it won't.

The evidence to date is that it won't.  Physics 
is the field with the highest level and longest 
history of OA archiving.  Physicists have been 
self-archiving in arXiv for 16 years, far longer 
than in any other field.  In some subfields, like 
particle physics, the OA archiving rate 
approaches 100%, far higher than in any other 
field.  If high-volume OA archiving caused 
journal cancellations, we should expect to see it 
first in physics.  But we don't see it at 
all.  Two leading publishers of physics journals, 
the American Physical Society (APS) and Institute 
of Physics (IOP), have publicly acknowledged that 
they've seen no cancellations attributable to OA 
archiving.  In fact, the APS and IOP have not 
only made peace with arXiv, but they now accept 
submissions from it and even host their own mirrors of it.


American Physical Society (APS)

Institute of Physics (IOP)

APS mirror of arXiv (launched December 1999)

IOP mirror of arXiv (launched September 2006)

Alma Swan's interview with the APS in IOP in 
which "both societies said they could not 
identify any losses of subscriptions" due to OA archiving.

Other fields may have a different experience, 
however.  For fields that turn out to be like 
physics, toll-access (TA) journals will coexist 
with high-volume OA archiving and perhaps even 
become symbiotic with it.  For fields that turn 
out to differ from physics, high-volume OA 
archiving might threaten some TA journals.

It would definitely help to understand why the 
experience in physics has gone as it has and how 
far it might predict the experience in other 
fields.  But, so far, it's fair to say that we 
don't know the variables and that publisher 
lobbyists are not among those showing a serious 
interest in them.  When publisher trade 
associations argue that high-volume archiving 
will undermine subscriptions, they don't 
acknowledge the countervailing evidence from 
physics, let alone rebut it or qualify their 
conclusions in light of it.  It would be more 
honest and helpful if they would acknowledge the 
evidence from physics and then argue, as well as 
they could, that they have identified the 
variables and can show that their members publish 
in fields that are not like physics in the 
relevant respects.  I'm still waiting to see such an argument.

We don't know how many fields will turn out to be 
like physics, but the real-world study that will 
give us some answers is already under way.  Five 
of the seven Research Councils UK have adopted OA 
mandates, and most of them took effect in October 
2006.  Together they go well beyond physics to 
astronomy, biology, medicine, environmental 
science, economics, and the social 
sciences.  Answers won't come quickly 
though:  authors must receive their grants, do 
their research, write it up, and get it 
published; then we must wait for the OA embargoes 
to toll, for the volume of OA literature to grow, 
and for the new, larger volume of OA literature 
to have its effect, whatever it may be, on 
library renewal decisions.  But at least the 
wheels are already turning and on a large 
scale:  there are also multi-disciplinary OA 
mandates in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, 
France, Germany, Scotland, and Switzerland.

(Note to the EU, US, and other jurisdictions 
considering an OA mandate:  there are at least 
nine national-level, multi-disciplinary OA 
mandates and even more softer OA policies that 
encourage OA without requiring it.  These 
constitute a large, ongoing natural 
experiment.  By all means look at the evidence, 
but don't fall for the argument that we must 
delay the adoption of new OA policies in order to 
launch another, later, smaller study of the 
effect of OA archiving on journal subscriptions.)

Although the publishing lobby ignores the 
experience in physics, that experience isn't 
unambiguously favorable for either friends or 
foes of OA.  It cuts both ways for both 
camps.  The good news for OA, and bad news for 
publishers, is that the publishing lobby's 
favorite argument is very weak.  So far, fears 
that high-volume OA archiving will kill journal 
subscriptions are groundless outside physics and 
contradicted inside physics --and physics is by 
far the strongest test case.  The bad news for 
OA, and good news for publishers, is that even 
the very high levels of OA archiving inside 
physics does nothing to justify libraries in 
cancelling TA journal subscriptions.  So far, the 
money needed to support peer-reviewed OA journals 
on a large scale is still tied up in TA journal subscriptions.

Whenever I point out the evidence from physics, I 
also argue that even if OA archiving does 
threaten TA journals in other fields, OA mandates 
are still justified.  I'll make some of those 
arguments below.  But most of them are beyond the 
scope of this note, which is limited to the 
effect of OA mandates on subscriptions and peer review.

(6) Another reason to think that OA mandates will 
not kill subscriptions is that they leave 
standing at least four library incentives to subscribe.

First, all OA mandates include an embargo period 
to protect publishers.  For example, the OA 
mandates at the Research Councils UK require OA 
within six months after publication.  The bill 
now before Congress that would strengthen the NIH 
policy from a request to a requirement would 
allow an embargo period of 12 months.  Libraries 
that want to provide immediate access will still 
have an incentive to subscribe.

Second, OA mandates only apply to the final 
version of the author's peer-reviewed manuscript, 
not to the published version.  If the journal 
provides copy editing after peer review, then the 
policies do not apply to the copy-edited version, 
let alone to the published PDF.  Libraries that 
want to provide access to published edition, or 
the published version of the text, will still have an incentive to

Note what happens when we put the two previous 
points together.  The OA mandate, and its 
associated embargo period, only apply to the 
author's peer-reviewed manuscript.  Publishers 
retain life-of-copyright (virtually permanent) 
exclusivity on the published edition.  Hence, the 
funder-mandated OA copies of the author's 
peer-reviewed manuscript won't compete with 
subscriptions for 6-12 months, and OA copies of 
the more desirable published edition need never 
compete with subscriptions.  Even if OA archiving 
does have harmful effects on subscriptions 
outside physics, publishers have longer and 
better protection from these effects than their lobbyists ever acknowledge.

Third, OA mandates only apply to research 
articles, not to the many other kinds of content 
published in scholarly journals, such as letters, 
editorials, review articles, book reviews, 
announcements, news, conference information, and 
so on.  Libraries that want to provide access to 
these other contents will still have an incentive to subscribe.

Fourth, funder OA mandates only apply to articles 
arising from research funded by the mandating 
agency.  Very few journals publish nothing but 
articles from a single funder or even from a set 
of funders all of whom have OA 
mandates.  Libraries that want to provide access 
to all the research articles in a journal, 
regardless of the source of funding, will still 
have an incentive to subscribe.  (This incentive 
will weaken as more and more funders adopt OA 
mandates; but we're very far from universal 
funder mandates; unfunded research, which 
predominates in many fields, will still fall 
outside this category; and the other incentives above will still stand.)

Here's how the Association of College and 
Research Libraries put the point in a November 
2004 open letter on the NIH policy: "We wish to 
emphasize, above all, that academic libraries 
will not cancel journal subscriptions as a result 
of this plan....Even if libraries wished to 
consider the availability of NIH-funded articles 
when making journal cancellation decisions, they 
would have no reasonable way of determining what 
articles in specific journals would become openly 
accessible after the embargo period."

These four reasons do not guarantee that 
high-volume OA archiving won't cause some 
cancellations.  They are merely reasons or 
incentives for libraries to renew their 
subscriptions, and libraries will evaluate them 
in light of the reasons or incentives to cancel, 
such as eventual OA to a subset of the articles, 
rising prices, oppressive licensing terms, and 
competition for limited budget dollars from 
journals with better terms, higher impact, or 
greater local usage.  They aren't a decisive "no" 
to the publishing lobby's slippery slope, just 
cautions against its glib and oversimple "yes".

(7) Some studies bear on the question whether the 
growing volume of OA archiving will trigger journal cancellations.

Publisher associations like to cite the 
Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) study by 
Chris Beckett and Simon Inger, Self-Archiving and 
Journal Subscriptions: Co-existence or 
Competition? An international Survey of 
Librarians’ Preferences, October 26, 2006.

The PRC asked 400 librarians about the relative 
weight of different factors in their decisions to 
cancel subscriptions.  Other things being equal, 
the librarians preferred free content to priced 
content, and short embargoes to longer 
ones.  Publisher lobbyists interpret this to mean 
that the rise of OA archiving will cause a 
decline in subscriptions.  The chief flaw with 
the study, however, is its artificiality.  The 
authors' attempt to eliminate bias also 
eliminated realism.  For example, they did not 
ask about named journals but only about resources 
with abstractly stipulated levels of quality and 
reliability.  They also disregarded faculty input 
on cancellation decisions when all librarians 
admit that faculty input is decisive.  Other 
things are never equal, and result was a study of 
hypothetical preferences, not actual cancellation decisions.

Also see Steve Hitchcock's collection of other 
objections to the PRC study and replies from Beckett and Inger.

A less hypothetical study was commissioned by 
ALPSP and conducted by Mark Ware, ALPSP survey of 
librarians on factors in journal cancellation, March 2006.
The study is not free, but ALPSP has published a free summary.

Quoting the summary:  "The three most important 
factors used to determine journals for 
cancellation, in declining order of importance, 
are that the faculty no longer require it (i.e. 
relevance to research or teaching programme), 
usage and price.  Next, availability of the 
content via open access (OA) archives and 
availability via aggregators were ranked equal 
fourth, but some way behind the first three 
factors.  The journal's impact factor and 
availability via delayed OA were ranked 
relatively unimportant....With regard to OA 
archives, there was a great deal of support for 
the idea that they would not directly impact journal subscriptions."

Bottom line:  journals have much more to fear 
from their own price increases than from OA 
archiving.  If raising the risk of cancellations 
can be blamed for undermining peer review, then 
publishers are far more guilty than funding agencies with OA mandates.

The studies that support the publishing lobby and 
the studies that contradict it both show that 
there are many factors behind journal 
cancellations and many reasons to cancel 
subscriptions that are entirely unrelated to the 
rise of OA.  In fact, most journals were already 
suffering 5-10% attrition per year when OA was 
new and negligible.  If subscriptions continue to 
fall as the volume of OA archiving continues to 
rise, then it will be very difficult to 
disentangle the factors and decide what part of 
the attrition is attributable to OA.  This 
difficulty is aggravated by the fact that, 
contrary to supply and demand in a healthy 
market, journals respond to cancellations by 
raising their prices, and high prices cause many 
more cancellations than OA.  But publisher 
lobbyists are already blaming OA, with mounting 
desperation, while systematically diverting 
attention from their members' own 
hyperinflationary price increases and their 
cardinal role in causing journal 
cancellations.  As the difficult "disentangling 
problem" gets more difficult, we should expect to 
see even less care with evidence and even more OA scapegoating.

(8) There is evidence that OA archiving decreases 
*downloads* from publishers' web sites.  For 
example, the ALPSP describes this phenomenon in 
its April 2006 comments to the UK Gowers Commission.

The effect on downloads is understandable:  many 
users who know about both the OA and TA editions, 
will prefer to click through to the OA edition 
(e.g. because they aren't affiliated with a 
subscribing institution or, even when they are, 
because authentication can be a hassle), and many 
users who only know about the OA edition will 
stop looking.  But it's important not to confuse 
decreased downloads with decreased subscriptions.

I haven't seen any evidence that OA leads to 
decreased downloads overall, that is, fewer 
readers and less reading.  On the contrary, the 
same evidence that OA leads to more citation 
impact shows that it leads to more readers and more reading.

But while shifting readership from the publisher 
web site to an OA repository is compatible with 
continued subscriptions and revenue, it can cause 
other problems for journals.  For example, it 
could throw off the journal's traffic metrics, 
which it uses to set advertising rates.

Insofar as publishers need accurate traffic data, 
this problem can be solved if OA repositories 
agree to share traffic data with publishers 
(indeed, with everyone).  Insofar as journals 
need eyeballs on their own site to retain 
advertisers, and not just data on eyeballs 
elsewhere, this problem can be solved, or at 
least mitigated, if publishers agree to post OA 
copies to their own sites.  After all, if there 
are OA copies in repositories, publishers have 
much to gain and nothing to lose by hosting their 
own.  If they host OA copies of the published 
editions, and not just the final versions of the 
authors' peer-reviewed manuscripts, they could 
even steal traffic away from the OA repositories.

(9) Some subscription journals have found that OA 
after an embargo period, even a very short one 
like two months, actually *increases* submissions and subscriptions.

For example, this has been the experience of the 
American Society for Cell Biology and its 
journal, Molecular Biology of the Cell,
...and the experience of the MedKnow journals 
(with TA print editions, full-text OA editions, and no embargoes),

In the face of the publishing lobby's unqualified 
prediction of harm, it should be enough to point 
out documented counterexamples of harmlessness 
(APS, IOP, and physics generally) and benefit 
(ASCB and MedKnow) to subscription 
journals.  When we trouble ourselves to look at 
the evidence, we find that different journals in 
different research niches will have different 
experiences.  All the examples I've cited have 
been cited many times in the debate and yet the 
most common response from the publisher lobbyists 
and trade associations (for example, the response 
from PRISM last week) is a mindless repetition of 
unargued confidence in a self-serving prediction.

(10) There are two strong signs that many 
publishers don't believe that OA mandates will 
defund peer review.  Their trade associations are 
either out of touch with their members or deliberately distorting the

First, many publishers have tried to head off an 
OA mandate at the NIH by encouraging grantees to 
comply with the current, voluntary policy.  They 
understand that the very low compliance rate, 
hovering at about 5%, is one of the strongest 
arguments to adopt a mandate, and they have tried 
to neutralize that argument by boosting 
compliance.  But either publishers don't expect 
these efforts to succeed or they don't seriously 
believe that increased compliance will defund them.

Second, many publishers provide OA to their back 
issues, voluntarily, sometimes on the same 
timetable as the OA mandates they 
oppose.  Sometimes they even provide OA to a 
superior version (the published edition as 
opposed to the peer-reviewed but unedited 
author's manuscript) and to a wider scope of 
content (all the articles in the journal, not 
just the research articles or those funded by a 
certain agency).  If they seriously thought this 
would defund them, they wouldn't do it.

I wish I could point to a comprehensive list of 
publishers who provide voluntary OA to their 
journals on the same timetable as the OA 
mandates.  But there isn't one.  However, 
Highwire gives us good data for Highwire-hosted 
journals, mostly from society publishers.

As of August 30, 2007, here are the tallies of 
Highwire-hosted subscription-based journals that 
provide free online access after an embargo period or moving wall:

--after 2 months = 1 journal
--after 3 months = 6 journals
--after 4 months = 9 journals
--after 6 months = 18 journals
--after 12 months = 197 journals
(Omitting those with longer embargoes.)

Publishers who provide free online access on the 
same timetable as the OA mandates, or even 
sooner, don't object to OA itself or even 
high-volume OA.  And they certainly don't object 
to the effect of delayed OA on revenue and peer 
review.  If they don't object to OA mandates 
either, then their trade associations should 
qualify their message and acknowledge the 
dissenting voices.  If they do object to OA 
mandates, then the trade associations should 
still adjust their message, though in a different 
way, for the real concern of this group is not OA 
threats to revenue and peer review, but OA 
threats to publisher control over access.

(11) But even if publishers don't seriously 
believe that OA mandates will defund them, 
perhaps they will defund them anyway.  So let's 
continue the analysis and suppose that 
high-volume OA archiving will definitely cause 
journal cancellations, at least in some fields 
outside physics.  It just doesn't follow that 
defunding TA journals will defund peer review.

The DOAJ lists more than 2,800 peer-reviewed OA 
journals.  Together they account for a bit more 
than 10% of the total number of peer-reviewed 
journals in all fields and languages.  It's true 
that 10% is a small minority, but it's also true 
that it's impressive progress after only a decade 
of growth, more or less, especially when most of 
the money to pay for OA journals is still locked up in subscriptions.

Even if the rapid rise of OA archiving undermines 
TA journals, it will not undermine the OA 
journals.  Even if libraries cancel 
subscriptions, peer-reviewed OA journals don't 
use subscriptions to pay their bills.  Hence even 
under the publishers' most catastrophic scenario, 
peer-reviewed journals will survive.  More 
importantly, the new mutant strain of journals is 
adapted to an environment of high-volume OA 
archiving and is not threatened by the further growth of OA.

Just as the publishing lobby rarely acknowledges 
that TA physics journals thrive alongside 
high-volume OA archiving, it rarely acknowledges 
that OA journals provide peer review, are not 
threatened by OA archiving, and often practice OA 
archiving themselves.  It's much easier to argue 
that OA will kill peer review as such (or "to 
equate traditional publishing models with peer 
review", as Eric Dezenhall allegedly recommended 
to the AAP) than to argue that, at worst, OA will 
only kill peer-reviewed journals with a print-era business model.

But 10% is not 100%, and not even close.  If all 
or most TA journals fail, then could OA journals 
meet the demand?  For this, see the following three points.

(12) Here's where we have to focus on the 
weakness in the third link of the publishing 
lobby's causal chain:  the claim that if rising 
OA does cut journal revenue, then the journals 
will fold up and stop providing peer 
review.  It's much more likely that, if they 
could no longer sustain themselves on 
subscription revenue, they would convert to OA 
and continue providing peer review.  Survival as 
an OA journal would be vastly preferable to 
folding up, and most would try it at least 
experimentally before turning out the lights and closing the door.

If subscription journals find themselves losing a 
critical number of subscriptions, and the growth 
of OA archiving seems to be part of the cause, 
then they could try to stop the growth of OA or 
they could stop betting against the 
internet.  They could stop using a business model 
that makes cost recovery into an access barrier 
that limits audience and impact.  They could look 
for alternatives to the subscription model, and 
find that many are already being tested, and some 
proved, in the highly diverse world of OA 
journals.  There's a lot to examine and try out, 
and perhaps a lot to reject, before giving up and folding.

At such a dinosaur moment, some will adapt rather 
than die, and most will at least try.  We know 
that adaptation is possible because many are 
already adapting.  Every year since 2005 the 
number of TA journals converting to OA has increased significantly.

Publishers don't like this scenario because OA 
journals have lower profit margins and "unproved" 
business models.  But it's one thing to argue 
that TA journals might be forced to adapt to a 
changing world and survive in a less profitable 
form, and quite another to argue that they will 
not survive at all.  However, publisher lobbyists 
prefer the Chicken Little objection and 
invariably fail to draw this distinction.

The objection that business models for OA 
journals are not proven should be taken 
seriously, and can be seriously 
answered.  Indeed, taking it seriously puts a 
different color on lobbyist predictions that 
publishers would fold up their TA journals rather 
than convert to OA.  Suddenly that kind of 
dramatic ending looks less like the result of 
inexorable causation than a business judgment made in advance of the facts.

(To answer the "unproven business model" 
objection quickly:  At least two OA publishers 
using two different business models are now 
profitable.  Hindawi, with 51 OA journals, is the 
world's second largest OA publisher, and its OA 
journal program is profitable; all of its OA 
journals charge publication fees.  MedKnow, with 
43 OA journals, is probably the third largest OA 
publisher, is also profitable, and none of its OA 
journals charge publication fees.  Apart from the 
health of these OA publishers, and the proof of 
concept they provide for fee-based and no-fee OA 
business models, there is the proven unhealth of 
the subscription model itself.  Even if OA models 
were riskier than they are, they would be worth 
exploring if the subscription model, as the 
University of California put it, is "incontrovertibly unsustainable".)



University of California, Letter to faculty from 
Lawrence Pitts, Chair of the Academic Senate, and 
the head librarians of the 11 UC campuses, January 7, 2004

(13) Most importantly, the publishing lobby never 
acknowledges that if subscription-based journals 
did fail, the money formerly spent on 
subscriptions would be freed up to pay for peer-reviewed OA journals.

Peer review could survive, could be funded at the 
same levels as today, and could be funded through 
a business model immune to the continuing "threat" of OA.

The new generation of peer-reviewed OA journals 
needn't be new journals.  They could be the 
existing TA journals, with their existing brands, 
standards, reputations, editors, referees, 
readership, and impact.  The money now spent on 
subscriptions could keep existing TA journals 
afloat as OA journals if they couldn't sustain themselves as TA journals.

For the same reason, the new generation of OA 
journals could be the equals of their TA 
predecessors in quality.  There are reasons to 
think they could, on average, be even better.

In short, it's false that the subscription model 
is the only business model that can support peer 
review.  It's false that the hypothetical 
collapse of subscription journals would mean a 
defunding of peer review.  On the contrary, it 
would mean a windfall replenishing of university 
library budgets that could fund any successor to 
subscription journals that we chose.

But first a qualification:  We don't know what 
would happen to the money freed up by TA journal 
subscriptions.  It will be allocated by human 
beings thinking about a complicated range of 
opportunities and constraints.  The decisions 
will be made either by librarians, in spending 
the library budget, or by university 
administrators, in setting the library 
budget.  There will be many attractive uses for 
the money and many differences in policy and 
priority from one institution to another.

I've often argued that the money should go first 
to peer-reviewed OA journals, in order to replace 
the departing peer-reviewed TA journals, and 
second to the book budgets long depressed by 
rising TA journal prices.  But that's a normative 
argument, not a prediction.  The money might go 
instead to surviving TA journals (who might even 
raise their prices to grab some of the new 
library bounty) or to needs outside the library 
like new faculty, new administrators, higher salaries, and financial aid.

The point is that it will be decision by academic 
leaders.  If we want to preserve peer-reviewed 
journals after the hypothetical failure of TA 
journal subscriptions, we could do it without 
raising extra money, without curbing OA, and 
without propping up TA journals and encouraging 
them to make their financial viability depend on 
access barriers or artificial scarcity to 
published knowledge.  The question is not about 
the inevitable consequences of OA, but about the 
will of the academic community.  If we find 
ourselves with windfall savings from the 
cancellation, conversion, or demise of 
peer-reviewed TA journals, and we don't spend it 
on peer-reviewed OA alternatives, and if peer 
review withers and dies as a result, the fault 
will lie with university administrators, not with OA.

When publishers assert that threats to TA journal 
subscriptions automatically translate into 
threats to peer review, like the collision of 
billiard balls, they only insult their present 
customers, whose intelligent decisions will determine the outcome.

In a 2005 essay on OA-TA coexistence, I made the 
point this way:  "[T]his is nothing like 
predicting a force of nature.  We're talking 
about the actions of interested human beings, including ourselves."

The OA debate could be more productive and even 
collaborative if it could be regrounded in this 
reality:  even with OA mandates, human beings 
will decide the future of peer review.  Even with 
OA mandates, we face a policy decision, not a row 
of falling dominoes.  Even if OA causes mass 
cancellations of TA journals, we'll have choices 
and money.  If OA mandates threaten the current 
system of scholarly communication, they do not 
threaten the money to support peer review, but 
only the business model supporting peer review 
from the age of print.  If the future of peer 
review is uncertain, it's not because OA makes 
its existence more difficult or less likely, or 
because it reduces funding, but because we don't 
know who will spend the money or on 
what.  However, we don't have to guess the future 
when we can make it.  If we want OA mandates and 
peer reviewed journals, we can have them.

(14) If the money to support peer review will 
survive the failure of TA journals, so will the people who provide peer

Scholarly journals don't pay authors for articles 
and they don't pay referees for participating in 
peer review.  Business setbacks at TA journals, 
including total failure, will not have the 
slightest effect on the willingness of scholars 
to write and referee research articles.  The same 
talent will be available, at the same price, 
motivated by the same interests, to any 
peer-reviewed OA journals that may arise to take 
the place of failed TA journals.

Publishers of TA journals like to present 
themselves as peer review providers --indeed, the 
only peer review providers-- but they merely 
organize unpaid volunteers to provide peer 
review.  This organization is nontrivial and 
costs money, and at TA journals the money is paid 
by publishers from subscription revenue.  But if 
subscription journals fail, the same money will 
be available to organize the same people to provide the same service.

The rub for publishers is that the money won't be 
in the hands of publishers, but in the hands of 
universities and other former subscribers.  This 
explains publisher resistance, but it doesn't 
change the facts about peer review.  Peer 
reviewers aren't paid by TA journals and will 
live on, with unchanged interests and motives, if 
TA journals die off.  Peer reviewers are paid by 
their employers, usually universities, and this 
subsidy to peer-reviewed journals will be 
available to any journals, TA or OA, that want to make use of it.

If TA journals do fold up rather than convert, 
and we do have to redirect the money formerly 
spent on them to support peer review at new 
journals, will that be turbulent and 
messy?  Almost surely, and also exciting and 
hopeful, like any period of flux in adapting to 
fundamentally new technologies and taking 
advantages of the opportunities they offer.  (A 
big topic for another day.)  Will it be 
impossible or unlikely?  I don't see any reason 
to think so, not even with the help of the publisher lobbyists.

(15) In conclusion, publishing lobbyists claim 
that the growth of OA archiving will undermine 
peer review, but they don't connect the 
dots.  Insofar as they hint at a theory, they 
assume a causal chain of events not borne out by 
evidence and contradicted by the evidence to date.

The first step in evaluating their objection to 
OA mandates is to distinguish the effect on 
subscriptions from the effect on peer 
review.  The publishing lobby's attempt to blur 
this distinction is self-serving FUD.  Moreover, 
both effects are much weaker than they claim.

There's strong evidence that OA archiving has not 
caused cancellations in physics and will not 
cause cancellations in those fields that turn out 
to be like physics in the relevant respects.  At 
the same, it might eventually cause cancellations 
in fields that turn out to differ from physics in 
the relevant respects.  For now, nobody knows 
which fields, or how many, will turn out to be 
like physics, and we don't even have a good grasp of the relevant variables.

There are attested cases in which immediate OA 
and OA after a short embargo actually increase 
subscriptions (and submissions) at TA 
journals.  Nobody knows how widely this pattern 
would hold if other journals adopted the same policies.

OA mandates will increase one library incentive 
to cancel subscriptions (eventual OA to a subset 
of articles) but won't affect four incentives to 
renew subscriptions:  to provide immediate 
access; to provide access to the published 
editions; to provide access to all the research 
articles in a journal; and to provide access to 
all the contents in a journal beyond research articles.

Publishers themselves have uncovered good 
evidence that high journal prices far surpass OA 
archiving as a cause of cancellations.  At the 
same time, many publishers voluntarily provide OA 
to back issues on the same timetable as the OA 
mandates, and encourage compliance with voluntary 
OA policies as a tactic to head off mandates, 
without finding that these practices undermine their subscriptions.

The connection to peer review is even more 
tenuous than the connection to 
subscriptions.  One reason is the existence and 
viability of peer-reviewed OA journals, which 
would survive unharmed if libraries cancelled all their journal

It's true that most peer-reviewed journals today 
are TA.  But we cannot even say that *to the 
extent* OA archiving undermines TA journal 
subscriptions, then *to that extent* it will 
undermine peer review.  That claim makes the two 
events appear to be connected by rigid causation, 
when in fact they are connected, if at all, by 
human decisions.  There are at least two 
decisions points along the way that can sever the connection.

The first decision point arises for journals 
losing a critical number of subscriptions:  they 
must decide whether to fold up or convert to 
OA.  The second arises for the academic community 
when TA journals do fold up or convert to OA:  it 
must decide whether to use the money freed up 
from peer-reviewed TA journals on peer-reviewed 
OA journals.  It must decide, in other words, 
whether to continue supporting peer review with 
the funds that formerly supported peer 
review.  TA journals could all die and strong 
peer review live and thrive, with no greater 
overall cost, if we want it to.  If peer review 
dies, it will not be from the failure of 
peer-reviewed TA journals but own our failure to 
fund their successors with the same money.

In short, and with some simplification, will the 
rise of OA archiving cause cancellations of TA 
journals?  Either it will or it won't.  The 
evidence, as opposed to the fears, is that it 
won't.  But if it will in some fields other than 
physics, then we'll lose some peer-reviewed TA 
journals.  As we do, we'll reap savings that we 
can redirect to peer-reviewed OA journals (which 
might be the same journals under different 
business models).  To make this scenario 
frightening, the most the publishing lobby can 
say is that spending the money to support peer 
review will not be automatic.  On the other side, 
to refute the publishing lobby's current claim, 
all we have to say is that spending the money on 
something else will also not be automatic.

If we do find that some fields are not like 
physics, and the growth of OA archiving causes 
journal cancellations, then we will have 
discovered an incompatibility between OA to 
publicly-funded research and the subscription 
business model, at least for those fields.  That 
would a problem with the subscription business 
model, not with OA.  It would emphatically not be 
an incompatibility between OA and peer 
review.  If we do discover an incompatibility 
between OA mandates and the subscription business 
model, then the OA mandates would still be 
justified, especially at public funding agencies, 
by the principle that puts the public interest 
ahead of special interests.  If we reach that 
point (repeat, if), then it would be perverse and 
backwards to compromise the public interest in 
accelerating research, sharing knowledge, and 
serving taxpayers in order to prop up publishers 
who are not able to adapt to good public 
policy.  And if we reach that point and choose 
OA, we would not be limiting ourselves to OA 
minus peer review.  For we can have universal OA 
archiving and adequately funded, independent peer 
review, if we want them both.  We won't have to 
find new money, but we will have spend the money in new ways.

If we take this course and observe that OA 
archiving and journal cancellations are rising in 
tandem, then the best response for funding 
agencies would be to stand fast rather than 
retreat to today's dysfunctional system of 
artificial scarcity.  The best response for 
universities would be to redirect the savings 
from cancelled subscriptions to peer-reviewed OA 
journals (through journal subsidies and/or 
publication fees) rather than cut the library 
budget.  The best response for publishers would 
be to convert their journals to OA, or launch new 
OA journals, and accept the new revenue.

I am not saying that we should deliberately 
defund TA journals in order to fund OA journals, 
and I am not saying that TA journals should 
die.  I'm saying that publishers have not even 
come close to making good on either of their 
claims, that OA archiving would kill TA journals 
or that killing TA journals would kill peer 
review.  I am saying that funding agencies should 
mandate OA archiving without fear.  (So should 
universities, but I'm omitting that argument 
here.)  Either peer-reviewed TA journals will 
survive the transition, as they have in physics, 
or they won't and we'll face the decision whether 
to re-fund peer review by spending the savings on 
peer-reviewed OA journals or defund it by spending it elsewhere.

Academic publishers defending peer review should 
set an example of reasoned argument and 
sensitivity to evidence.  The AAP/PSP and other 
publisher trade associations have not lived up to 
this responsibility, and should be called on it 
by their members.  A good example is the public 
statement by Rockefeller University Press, 
dissociating itself from the hand-waving of the 
PRISM campaign.  For another, see the editorial 
in The Lancet (an Elsevier journal) from October 
16, 2004, in response to AAP lobbying against an OA policy at the NIH:

>[A]s editors of a journal that publishes 
>research funded by the NIH, we disagree with 
>[AAP President Patricia] Schroeder's central 
>claim.  Widening access to research is unlikely 
>to bring the edifice of scientific publishing 
>crashing down. Schroeder provides no evidence 
>that it would do so; she merely asserts the 
>threat.  This style of rebuttal will not 
>do.  Indeed, the aggressive rhetorical line 
>taken by the AAP unnecessarily pits publishers 
>against the interests of science and the public....




Here's what happened, or what I noticed, since 
the last issue, emphasizing action and policy 
over scholarship and opinion.  I put the most 
important items first, with double asterisks, and 
otherwise cluster them loosely by topic.  Most of 
the time, I link to my blog posts, not to the 
sources themselves, because I only want to use 
one link per item and my blog posts usually bring many relevant links

** The Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) 
announced an OA mandate to take effect on September 1.

** The German Research Society (Deutsche 
Forschungsgemeinschaft or DFG) announced a 
funding program to launch new science journals, 
expand existing journals, and help print journals 
make the transition to electronic 
publication.  To be eligible for funding, 
journals must meet the DFG guidelines for open access.

** German copyright law will change in late 2007 
or early 2008.  Electronic rights in works 
published in Germany before 1995 will vest in 
publishers unless authors expressly tell their 
publishers within one year of the new law that 
they wish to hold the electronic rights 
themselves.  If authors regain the electronic 
rights to these works, they may authorize OA for them.

** The University of Wisconsin at Madison 
launched a Library Fund for Open Access Publishing.

** Google's new program to share data with 
researchers includes a rule requiring OA for the research results.

** The AAP/PSP launched PRISM (Partnership for 
Research Integrity in Science & Medicine) to 
lobby against government OA policies.

* Rockefeller University Press released a public 
statement explaining why PRISM does not speak for 
it, and asking the Association of American 
Publishers to add a disclaimer to the PRISM 
website indicating that it does not speak for all AAP members.

* Peter Murray-Rust, who teaches at Cambridge 
University, released an open letter to Cambridge 
University Press, asking whether it supports 
PRISM and whether it was consulted by the AAP before the launch of PRISM.

* Dave Munger discovered that the PRISM web site 
was using copyrighted photographs from Getty 
Images, still displaying their Getty 
watermarks.  Paying customers receive copies 
without the watermarks.  PRISM quickly resolved 
the problem and added copyright statements.

* ACRL urged Americans to ask their Senators to 
support the OA mandate at the NIH.

* Bentham Science Publishers has created web 
sites for 209 forthcoming OA journals.  This is 
part of its program to become the world's largest 
OA publisher by launching over 300 OA journals before the end of 2007.

* H-Net announced 20 "new" peer-reviewed OA 
journals from Revues.org.  (About a quarter of 
them have already been announced in SOAN.)

* Marquette Books announced plans to launch eight 
peer-reviewed OA journals in January 2008.  All 
eight will be in media studies and communications.

* The Leibniz Gemeinschaft’s Zentrum für 
Psychologische Information und Dokumentation 
(ZPID) converted its Journal für Psychologie to OA.

* The Indian Association for Medical Informatics 
(IAMI) converted its journal, the Indian Journal 
of Medical Informatics (IJMI), to OA.

* The editorial board of Springer's journal, 
K-Theory, resigned and launched the new Journal 
of K-Theory with Cambridge University Press at 
less than half the subscription price of the Springer journal.

* Blake Stacey launched Eureka Science Journal 
Watch, a wiki to track science journals and their 
progress toward OA.  Eureka is a more general 
version of its predecessor, MathSciJournalWiki.

* For the first time, Google Scholar publicly 
disclosed its journal digitization and OA 
project, in a Barbara Quint interview of Anurag 
Acharya.  (I blogged the project in December 2006 
but without the benefit of official, public information from Google.)

* AnthroSource, the publishing arm of the 
American Anthropological Association, is moving 
from the University of California Press to Wiley-Blackwell.

* Eric Lease Morgan launched two demos, Article 
Index and Reading List, to show how Notre Dame's 
MyLibrary software can make use of journal and article data from the DOAJ.

* Yale dropped its institutional membership in BioMed Central.

* The University of California at Berkeley reaffirmed its BMC membership.

* Washington University reaffirmed its BMC membership.

* The Howard Hughes Medical Institute bought the highest level BMC

* Three journals published special issues on 
OA-related topics:  Ariadne on digital 
repositories, OCLC Systems & Services on 
institutional repositories, and 
Cyberinfrasctructure Technology Watch (CTWatch) 
on The Coming Revolution in Scholarly Communication and Cyberinfractructure.

* The Aquatic Commons is a new OA repository for 
the aquatic sciences, from International 
Association of Aquatic and Marine Science 
Libraries and Information Centers (IAMSLIC) and 
the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

* Indonesia's University of Muhammadiyah 
Surakarta launched an institutional repository.

* The University of Minnesota officially launched 
its institutional repository, the University Digital Conservancy.

* Cornell University revamped and renamed its institutional repository.

* The Cornell University Library joined the 
Google Library Project, the 27th to do so and the 
second (I believe) that was already participating in the Open Content

* Researchers from Washington University, Harvard 
University, Massachusetts General Hospital, and 
the Howard Hughes Medical Institute announced the 
Open Access Series of Imaging Studies (OASIS), OA 
MRI datasets of 416 anonymized medical patients.

* After 18 months of copyright bushwhacking, 
Australia launched Molecular Medicine Informatics 
Mode (MMIM) an OA database of anonymized patient data for medical research.

* Archaeologists excavating Heathrow Airport’s 
Terminal 5 are releasing their raw data under a 
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 License.

* NASA and the Internet Archive teamed up to 
digitize a vast collection of NASA images.  The 
IA will host, curate, and provide OA to the digital results.

* Information World Review joined The Guardian's Free Our Data campaign.

* Ari Schwartz started a list of CRS Reports that 
are not yet OA, asked Americans request copies 
from their representative in Congress, and send 
them to OpenCRS for OA.  The reports from the 
Congressional Research Service are highly 
regarded and publicly funded, but not 
automatically OA.  They are made available to 
members of Congress, but not the public.

* Athabasca University launched the OA-focused Athabasca University Press.

* The University of Cape Town launched 
OpeningScholarship to promote open education and 
open access within the university.

* The Alexander Technological Educational 
Institute of Thessaloniki signed the Berlin 
Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge.

* Germany’s Technische Fachhochschule Wildau 
(University of Applied Sciences Wildau) also signed the Berlin Declaration.

* The Cystinosis Research Network joined the Alliance for Taxpayer Access.

* FreePatentsOnline and Planetree also joined the Alliance for Taxpayer

* The Cystinosis Research Network also joined the Alliance for Taxpayer

* A study by Philipp Mayr and Anne-Kathrin Walter 
found "a relatively large gap" in Google Scholar's indexing of OA

* Sweden's OpenAccess.se has launched a study of 
Copyright in a New Publishing Environment.

* The German association of specialized 
publishers, Deutsche Fachpress, released the 
results of a short member survey on OA.  Only 
7.5% said that OA was already affecting their 
business models and 40% admitted they didn't know 
how to evaluate it.  Nevertheless, 72.5% said 
that they could not do their jobs as well as they do now under OA.

* The University of California released a study 
of UC faculty, documenting some deep 
misunderstandings about OA and ignorance of the 
UC's own draft OA policy, which has been the 
subject of public discussion on every one of the UC campuses for over a

* Columbia Law School and the University of 
Colorado Law School have launched AltLaw.org, an OA portal of US case law.

* Carl Malamud is systematically scanning new US 
judicial opinions and posting them in OA form on 
the web site of his organization, Public Resource.

* The National Science Foundation, Public Library 
of Science and the San Diego Supercomputing 
Center launched SciVee ("YouTube for 
scientists"), which broadcasts OA videos explaining OA articles.

* JISC and the Wellcome Trust are providing OA to 
400+ films important in the history of medicine.

* SPARC and CARL produced a Canadian version of the SPARC Author Addendum.

* UNESCO released the final version of the 
Kronberg Declaration on the Future of Knowledge Acquisition and Sharing.

* Fedora, the open-source archiving software 
project, launched Fedora Commons, a non-profit 
organization and open community to support the 
software, thanks to a $4.9 million grant from the Moore Foundation.

* The EU is funding an Assessment of the Economic 
and Social impact of the Public Domain in the Information Society.

* The NIH is funding a project on Sharing Data 
and Tools:  Federation using the BIRN and caBIG Infrastructures.

* Don Waters of the Mellon Foundation is willing 
to fund a study of "the feasibility and 
desirability of a massive reallocation of 
institutional funds [from journal subscriptions] to support open access."

* Germany's DINI (Deutsche Initiative für 
Netzwerkinformation) launched OA-Netzwerk to 
improve the data quality of the national network of OA repositories.

* Martin Ragg asked Germany's Bundesministerium 
für Bildung und Forschung (Federal Ministry of 
Education and Research or BMBF) for its position 
on OA.  The answer is that BMBF neither requires 
nor encourages OA, but the final reports for 
BMBF-funded research are available to the public, in hardcopy.

* A blogger named Imam launched a blog on the 
Indonesian Open Access Initiative.

* The Open Knowledge Foundation created a web 
site to finish drafting and collect comments on its Open Service Definition.

* The Scholarly Publishing Office of the 
University of Michigan Library has just released 
an interactive, CommentPress edition of the July 
Ithaka report on university presses, University Publishing In A Digital Age.

* The People's Open Access Education Initiative 
is a new open education project focusing on 
medical education in developing countries.

* The Creative Commons ccLearn project and the 
Hewlett Foundation are building a search engine for open educational

* David Wiley, who developed the first open 
content license, drafted a new one for the special purpose of open

* Based on an idea of Heather Ford's, Jimmy Wales 
plans to stimulate the self-organization of 50 
parties in 50 cities around the world devoted to 
"Wikipedians, Creative Commoners, open 
access-ers, free software-ers and those 
interested in finding out more about free/sharing digital culture."


Coming this month

Here are some important OA-related events coming up in September.

* September 1, 2007.  The HHMI-Elsevier agreement takes effect.

* September 1, 2007.  The Nereus consortium of 
European academic libraries launches NEEO 
(Network of European Economists Online).

* September 30, 2007.  SURF will close the 
application process for funding projects to 
enhance knowledge-sharing in higher education.

* Notable conferences this month

Towards a European e-Infrastructure for e-Science 
digital repositories workshop (sponsored by e-SciDR)
[looking for a better URL]
Lisbon, September 4, 2007

Open Source Chemistry (a teleconference with 
Jean-Claude Bradley) (sponsored by Chemists Without Borders)
September 6, 2007 (a teleconference)

Disclosure and Preservation: Fostering European 
Culture in the Digital Landscape (OA is among the topics)
Lisbon, September 7-8, 2007

Doing Digital: Using digital resources in the arts and humanities (DRHA
Dartington, Totnes, South Devon, September 9-12, 2007

Long-lived Collections: the future of Australia's research data
Canberra, September 11, 2007

Discovering eprints: finding needles in the 
haystack? (JIBS and JISC Collections Workshop)
Birmingham, September 12, 2007

Value for Money: ROI on Scholarly Journal 
Acquisitions (OA is among the topics) (sponsored by Library Journal)
September 13, 2007 (a webcast)

European Conference on Research and Advanced 
Technology for Digital Libraries (ECDL 2007)
Budapest, September 16-21, 2007

Berlin 5 Open Access: From Practice to Impact: 
Consequences of Knowledge Dissemination
Padua, September 19-21, 2007

Towards an European repository ecology (ECDL2007 
Workshop) (OA is among the topics)
Budapest, September 21, 2007

Open Education 2007: Localizing and Learning
Logan, Utah, September 26-28, 2007

* Other OA-related conferences



* I've added 12 new conferences to my conference 
page since the last issue.  In the next few days 
I'll delete the second asterisk marking them and 
the new entries will blend into the rest of the collection.


This is the SPARC Open Access Newsletter (ISSN 
1546-7821), written by Peter Suber and published 
by SPARC.  The views I express in this newsletter 
are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of SPARC or other sponsors.

To unsubscribe, send any message to <SPARC-OANews-off at arl.org>.

Please feel free to forward any issue of the 
newsletter to interested colleagues.  If you are 
reading a forwarded copy of this issue, see the 
instructions for subscribing at either of the first two sites below.

SPARC home page for the Open Access Newsletter and Open Access Forum

Peter Suber's page of related information, 
including the newsletter editorial position

Newsletter, archived back issues

Forum, archived postings

Conferences Related to the Open Access Movement

Timeline of the Open Access Movement

Open Access Overview

Open Access News blog

Peter Suber
peter.suber at earlham.edu

SOAN is an open-access publication under the 
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.


This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  The SPARC Open Access Newsletter.
To unsubscribe, email to <SPARC-OANews-off at arl.org>.
Send administrative queries to <SPARC-OANews-request at arl.org>.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list