Nabble - Bio.net - Jrnlnote

Try Arrow - for your literature needs

2009-07-04T04:56:40Z

Dear colleagues,

I would like to introduce you all to a forum exclusively for doctors
and scientists so that they can share scientific literature.

This site has no advertising and is not explorer for financial
benefits. It is like this mailing list a point of contact between
professionals to help science and medicine go forward!

http://papershare.forumotion.com/

regards,
M1ke
_______________________________________________
Jrnlnote mailing list
Jrnlnote@...
http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/jrnlnote

Google like Search Engine for Life Sciences -- VADLO.com

2009-02-02T01:02:27Z

*New Biomedical Search Engine VADLO*

Site : Vadlo (http://www.vadlo.com)

Daily Research Cartoons: http://www.vadlo.com/Daily_Research_Cartoon.html

Examples:
http://search.vadlo.com/b/q?k=Leukemia&rel=2
http://search.vadlo.com/b/q?k=Bipolar&rel=2
http://search.vadlo.com/b/q?k=ACE+Inhibitors&rel=2

Description: Vadlo is a search engine for the biology/biomedical
scientists. Find Lab methods, techniques, recipes, bioinformatics
links, websites, resources, lectures, & answers to life sciences
research queries on how to make & where to get information.
_______________________________________________
Jrnlnote mailing list
Jrnlnote@...
http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/jrnlnote

Appreciation Letter

2009-01-30T08:07:46Z

Dear Colleagues,
I appreciate the assistance of my International colleagues and friends in any kind: Editorship, authorship, reviewing, research partnering, consulting, etc and as well as the professionals who could not perform such tasks due to their commitments and kindly postponed it to the future.
I hope you all health, Joyfulness and promotion in this new year 2009.

Kind Regards and Wishes
Saeid Eslamian,
Associate Professor
-----------------------------------------------------
http://ndrd.academia.edu/ProfSaeidEslamian
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ProfSaeidEslamian
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1005412397&ref=name
http://www.serialspublications.com/journals1.asp?jid=324&dtype=1&jtype=1
eslamian@..., Prof.eslamian@..., Jflood.eng@...
Dr. S. Saeid Eslamian, IUT, TMU, UNSW, PU
A/Professor of Hydrology and Risk Analysis
IUT Head of Water Resources Engineering Department
Former V. Professor of Princeton University
Former V. Professor of ETH Zurich
GCC Network for Drylands Research and Development
Project Mentor, United States Civilian Research and Development
Foundation
Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Flood Engineering
Guest Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Water
Guest Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Global Energy Issues
Editor, Bulletin of Statistics and Economics
Regional Editor, Journal of Applied Sciences (ISI)
Regional Editor, Research Journal of Environmental Sciences (ISI)
Regional Editor, Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (ISI)
Regional Editor, Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences (ISI)
Research Journal of Fisheries and Hydrobiology (ISI)
Associate Editor, International Journal of Ecological Economic and
Statistics

--
Dr. S. Saeid Eslamian, IUT, TMU, UNSW, PU
A/Professor of Hydrology and Risk Analysis
IUT Head of Water Resources Engineering Department
Former V. Professor of Princeton University
Former V. Professor of ETH Zurich
GCC Network for Drylands Research and Development
Project Mentor, United States Civilian Research and Development
Foundation
Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Flood Engineering
Guest Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Water
Guest Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Global Energy Issues
Editor, Bulletin of Statistics and Economics
Regional Editor, Journal of Applied Sciences (ISI)
Regional Editor, Research Journal of Environmental Sciences (ISI)
Regional Editor, Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (ISI)
Regional Editor, Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences (ISI)
Research Journal of Fisheries and Hydrobiology (ISI)
Associate Editor, International Journal of Ecological Economic and
Statistics

_______________________________________________
Jrnlnote mailing list
Jrnlnote@...
http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/jrnlnote

Launching of Publications Online

2007-10-12T03:40:58Z

The Publications Online Board is proud to open its new Revue
"Publications Online" to the scientific community.
This journal is available to rapidly publish scentific papers, on the
basis of the scientific commons license.
A new Collaborative reviewing process is the main characteristic of
this revue.
More information is available on our website http://www.pub-online.org
Thanks a lot for your interrest.

The Publications Online Board
http://pub-online.org
publisher@...

_______________________________________________
Jrnlnote mailing list
Jrnlnote@...
http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/jrnlnote

Gregory A. Wray named Editor of The Quarterly Review of Biology

2007-10-11T11:12:53Z

**
Gregory A. Wray named Editor of The Quarterly Review of Biology

The University of Chicago Board of University Publications and the editorial
board of The Quarterly Review of Biology are delighted to announce a unanimous
decision to name Gregory A. Wray (Department of Biology, Duke University)
Editor of The Quarterly Review of Biology, effective immediately. Founded in
1926, The Quarterly Review of Biology is published by the University of Chicago
Press in association with Stony Brook University.

Professor Wray has been at Duke University since 1999 and is Director of the
Duke Institute for Genome Sciences & Policys Center for Evolutionary Genomics.
He started his tenure at The Quarterly Review of Biology in 1996 as Assistant
Editor before becoming Associate Editor in 1999. Professor Wray received his
Ph.D. in Biology from Duke University in 1987, and was Assistant Professor of
Ecology and Evolution at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, now
Stony Brook University, from 1993 to 1999.

Professor Wray joins Daniel E. Dykhuizen (Stony Brook University), Massimo
Pigliucci (Stony Brook University), and James D. Thomson (University of
Toronto) as an Editor of The Quarterly Review of Biology, and Editor-in-Chief
John J. Wiens (Stony Brook University) on the editorial board.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About The Quarterly Review of Biology: The premier review journal in biology,
The Quarterly Review of Biology has since 1926 presented insightful historical,
philosophical, and technical treatments of important biological topics. The QRB
publishes outstanding review articles that are guided by an expansive,
inclusive, and often humanistic understanding of biology. The QRB is published
in association with Stony Brook University.

About the University of Chicago Press: Founded in 1891, the University of
Chicago Press is the largest American university press. The Journals Division
currently publishes forty-seven periodicals and serials in a wide range of
disciplines, including several journals that were the first scholarly
publications in their respective fields. Online since 1995, the Journals
Division has also been a pioneer in electronic publishing, delivering original,
peer-reviewed research from international scholars to a worldwide audience.

Contact: Suzanne Wu / 773-834-0386 / swu@...

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

_______________________________________________
Jrnlnote mailing list
Jrnlnote@...
http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/jrnlnote

Publications Online - Call for Reviewers

2007-07-10T04:50:35Z

The Publications Online Board will soon propose a new Journal (called
Publications Online) available to rapidly publish scentific papers,
based on the scientific commons license.
We are looking for some people to review the web site before official
launching.
Web site reviewers will gain free access to www.pub-online.org, on the
sole condition that they send their comments concerning the web site
to the Publisher.
Form and content have to be reviewed. All suggestions will be welcome.
Please apply for free access by sending a mail to publisher@pub-
online.org.

Mail for appliance must respond to the two following questions :

Why do you want to review Publications Online ?
Why are you interrested in Scientific Publications ?

Thanks a lot to apply for a free access,

The Publications Online Board
http://pub-online.org
publisher@...

_______________________________________________
Jrnlnote mailing list
Jrnlnote@...
http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/jrnlnote

Researcher Support for Open Access to Research

2007-01-19T06:51:50Z

The European Commission, the European Research Advisory Board and the
European Research Councils have recently each recommended adopting the
policy of providing Open Access to research results:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/research/eurab/pdf/eurab_scipub_report_recomm_dec06_en.pdf
http://erc.europa.eu/pdf/open-access.pdf

Very similar recommendations are also being made by governmental
research organisations in the United States, Canada, Australia, and
Asia:

http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php

There are non-research interests strongly lobbying against these
recommendations, so a display of support by the research community is
critically important.

A consortium of European organisations -- JISC (Joint Information
Systems Committee, UK), SURF (Netherlands), SPARC Europe, DFG
(Deutsches Forschungsgemeinschaft, Germany), DEFF (Danmarks
Elektroniske Fag- og Forskningsbibliotek, Denmark) -- is now sponsoring
a petition to the European Commission to demonstrate support for these
recommendations on the part of the European and worldwide research
community.

Signatures may be added by individual researchers or universities and
research institutions. Researchers, lab directors, institutute
directors, university research VPs and DVCs, are all strongly urged to
register your support.

Please sign the OA petition here:

http://www.ec-petition.eu/

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html

_______________________________________________
Jrnlnote mailing list
Jrnlnote@...
http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/jrnlnote

Call For Papers: LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES AND COGNITION

2006-08-29T02:37:54Z

CALL FOR PAPERS

Fourth special issue in the series Cognition and Technology

LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES AND COGNITION

Editor: Itiel Dror

Learning technologies have been taking an increasing role in almost all
learning environments. They are used in a variety of informal and formal
educational environments, from early years to university level and
throughout adulthood, as well as in many commercial, industrial, and
governmental settings. With the greater use of learning technologies it is
critical to better understand how they interact with human cognition. Both
in terms of how they may facilitate and enhance (as well as hinder)
learning, and also in terms of how they affect the way we learn and acquire
information, and the nature of cognition.

These issues pertain to specific technologies and to learning objectives.
Specific technologies (and their usage) are important to understand in
their own right; for example, how the use of electronic boards and
visualization tools, e-learning, synchronic vs. a-synchronic remote
learning, blackboard, simulation, virtual realities, and other
technological learning environments affect learning and the learner. But
also the learning technologies need to be considered and understood in
light of learning objectives: not only the acquisition of information, but
also the ability to retain and use it and the assessment of the
effectiveness of the learning process. When considering how best to use
learning technologies (and their vulnerabilities) one needs to be able to
determine which learning materials and objectives are best suited for these
technologies, which learning tools are most appropriate, and how to best use
them. Furthermore, a fundamental issue to address is if and when learning
technologies should replace traditional learning and when and how should
learning technologies be blended with traditional learning.

Original and high quality papers that examine learning technologies either
from an academic or from a practical perspective will be considered for
publication. The first special issue of Pragmatics & Cognition devoted to
Cognitive Technologies is now going to be published as a book. It is hoped
that the Learning Technologies special issue will also appear in book form
in the future.

For more information, please see:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~id/technology.html

Deadline for submissions: 30 June 2007
Publication: Summer 2008

Send submissions and inquiries to:

id@...
Itiel Dror
Psychology
Southampton University
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

#======================================================================#
| Itiel E. Dror, Ph.D. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~id/ |
| Senior Lecturer id@... |
| Department of Psychology Office 44 (0)23 8059-4519 |
| University of Southampton Fax. 44 (0)23 8059-4518 |
| Southampton Lab. 44 (0)23 8059-4598 |
| England SO17 1BJ |
#======================================================================#

***************************************************************************

_______________________________________________
Jrnlnote mailing list
Jrnlnote@...
http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/jrnlnote

Nature Forum on Open Peer Review Trial

2006-07-23T08:23:04Z

Did you remember the Harnad paper?
[Invisible] Peer Review and [Visible] Peer Commentary

Peer Review will be more reasonable when it complement with peer
commentary in this age of the Internet database as well as search
engine.

When we do few time and efforts in the right beginning of a research
stream using SSCI-SCI like database and USPTO.gov like patent database,
we can make INVISIBLE knowledge network (INK) more VISIBLE. At least we
will have had initial understanding MAP in our mindset.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/INK-SSCI-SCI

_______________________________________________
Jrnlnote mailing list
Jrnlnote@...
http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/jrnlnote

4 One Million Dollar. The Experiment begins...http://4onemillion.blogspot.com/

2006-07-13T06:13:00Z

chat,money,business,mp3,kostenlos,geld,dollar,rich,ebay,google,cars,auto,house,web,microsoft,windows,

linux,computer,blog,blogger

http://4onemillion.blogspot.com/ chat,money,business,mp3,kostenlos,geld,dollar,rich,ebay,google,cars,auto,house,web,microsoft,windows,

linux,computer,blog,blogger

Take a look....

The Experiment.......................................

http://4onemillion.blogspot.com/

chat,money,business,mp3,kostenlos,geld,dollar,rich,ebay,google,cars,auto,house,web,microsoft,windows,linux,computer,blog,blogger

_______________________________________________
Jrnlnote mailing list
Jrnlnote@...
http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/jrnlnote

Kleinanzeigenmarkt Korou Bundesweit und kostenlos Korou Kleinanzeigen

2006-07-12T22:45:45Z

Der clevere Kleinanzeigenmarkt.Korou.de Jetzt kostenlos in Deutschlands Nr.1 der Kleinanzeigenmärkte Inserieren! Bundesweit und kostenlos.Korou,Korou

chat,kleinanzeigen,kostenlos,umsonst,inserat,bundesweit,urlaub,computer,ebay,google,markt,neu,gebraucht,

kleinanzeigenmarkt,autos,immobilien,shopping,shop,gewerbe,privat,mp3,korou,test,gebrauchtwagen,kijiji,vivastreet,

quoka

_______________________________________________
Jrnlnote mailing list
Jrnlnote@...
http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/jrnlnote

4 One Million Dollar. The Experiment begins...http://4onemillion.blogspot.com/

2006-07-12T06:46:23Z

chat,money,business,mp3,kostenlos,geld,dollar,rich,ebay,google,cars,auto,house,web,microsoft,windows,

linux,computer,blog,blogger

http://4onemillion.blogspot.com/ chat,money,business,mp3,kostenlos,geld,dollar,rich,ebay,google,cars,auto,house,web,microsoft,windows,

linux,computer,blog,blogger

Take a look....

The Experiment.......................................

http://4onemillion.blogspot.com/

chat,money,business,mp3,kostenlos,geld,dollar,rich,ebay,google,cars,auto,house,web,microsoft,windows,linux,computer,blog,blogger

_______________________________________________
Jrnlnote mailing list
Jrnlnote@...
http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/jrnlnote

4 One Million Dollar. The Experiment begins...http://4onemillion.blogspot.com/

2006-07-12T02:35:11Z

http://4onemillion.blogspot.com/

Take a look....

The Experiment.......................................

http://4onemillion.blogspot.com/

_______________________________________________
Jrnlnote mailing list
Jrnlnote@...
http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/jrnlnote

Call for Papers: Special Issue of IJEES on "Stream Ecology and Low Flow"

2006-07-06T12:38:25Z

Special issue of "International Journal of Ecological
Economics and Statistics" (IJEES) will be on "Stream
Ecology and Low Flow". Original research papers or
reviews are invited in the following and related
areas:

-River Economic
-River Quality Modeling
-Pollution Minimization
-Ecological Education
-Sustainable Development Modeling
-Case Studies
-Arid Zone River Ecology
-Human & Stream Ecology
-Ecological Management Modeling
-Stream Physical, Chemical & Biological Treatment
Processes
-River Statistics and Classification
-Water Reuse
-Ecological Problems and Health Risk Assessment
-Hydrological Analysis of Low Flows

Important Dates:

Deadline for paper submission: 30 September 2006

Paper review: 30 November 2006

Final papers submission: 15 January 2007

For more information:
http://ceser.res.in/ijees/cont/self.html

Regards

Saeid Eslamian
Guest Editor-in-Chief of IJEES
Visiting Professor
Princeton University
New Jersey
USA
eslamian@..., prof.eslamian@...

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

=================================================

* To subscribe this group, send a blank email to:
hydrologymodel-subscribe@...

* Post message: hydrologymodel@...

* This group is moderated by C. P. Kumar -
http://www.angelfire.com/nh/cpkumar/

=================================================

Hydrology Resources on the Web:
http://www.angelfire.com/nh/cpkumar/forums.html

Google Groups in Hydrology:
http://www.angelfire.com/bc/nihhrrc/google.html

Software User Groups in Groundwater Modelling:
http://www.angelfire.com/bc/nihhrrc/groups.html

=================================================
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrologymodel/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
hydrologymodel-unsubscribe@...

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://in.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

_______________________________________________
Jrnlnote mailing list
Jrnlnote@...
http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/jrnlnote

korou bundesweiter kleinanzeigenmarkt kostenlos korou

2006-06-26T00:29:52Z

Bundesweiter Kleinanzeigenmarkt korou fuer Gewerbe und privat kostenlos,inserieren

bundesweit,umsonst,korou,chat,auto,markt,inserat,jobs,kleinanzeigen,korou,korou,korou

Bundesweiter kleinanzeigenmarkt korou,korou,korou

_______________________________________________
Jrnlnote mailing list
Jrnlnote@...
http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/jrnlnote

Pubreminer: a tool for PubMed query building and literature mining.

2006-06-11T09:34:05Z

Pubreminer: a tool for PubMed query building and literature mining.

In the vast amounts if medical literature, finding information tailored to your

needs and interest is becoming more and more complex. Using the right keywords
is essential for effective searches, but which ones should you use?

Pubreminer is a web-based tool that allows simple text-based query building
and information gathering(mining) of the NCBI literature search engine PubMed.
Pub re-miner presents its results, gathered from abstracts, in frequency tables

of journals, authors and words, which can be included/excluded in an iterative
fashion.

Next to building efficient queries, Pubreminer can also be helpful in other
areas:
*Selecting a journal for your current work (by scanning the most often used
journals of similar research)
*Finding experts in a research area (by viewing the authors associated with
your query)
*Determine the research interest of an author (by viewing the keywords
associated with an author)

The Website can be accessed at :
http://bioinfo.amc.uva.nl/human-genetics/pubreminer/

_______________________________________________
Jrnlnote mailing list
Jrnlnote@...
http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/jrnlnote

Journal costs and where to publish

2006-05-04T05:03:59Z

Carl Bergstrom (UW) has done a study of the cost effectiveness of
journals; something to keep in mind when choosing a journal along with
circulation and citation frequencies, etc. Go to his website and follow

the links.

http://octavia.zoology.washington.edu/publishing/

Then consider punishing the costly journals by denying them your
publications.

--

Daniel.Montesinos@... www.danielmontesinos.es

Centro de Investigaciones sobre Desertificación-CIDE (CSIC-UV-GV)
Camí de la Marjal, s/n <> 46470 - Albal <> València (Spain)
Tel:(+34) 96 122 05 40 Fax:(+34) 96 127 09 67

Daniel Montesinos <Daniel.Montesinos@...>

_______________________________________________
Jrnlnote mailing list
Jrnlnote@...
http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/jrnlnote

[Journal-notes] Re: Lord Sainsbury on the RCUK OA Proposal: Drubbing Peter to Pox Paul

2005-10-29T08:32:12Z

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Subbiah Arunachalam wrote:

> My point is scientists, like the British Minister, are highly educated and
> yet they find it difficult to appreciate what to you and me appear to be
> simple.
>
> We must think through this phenomenon and come up with a good workable
> solution.

Dear Arun,

You are quite right that it is both puzzling and frustrating that such
simple, transparent and even trivial things keep being systematically
misunderstood by people who not only speak the language but are quite
intelligent.

There are only a few possible explanations. I have no idea which is
correct (though I have my hunches), but here they are:

(1): The premises of Open Access are wrong. There is in fact either
(1a) no need for all those who do not currently have access to have
access, or, if there is a need, then there is (1b) no way for all of
them them to have access, or, if there is a way for all of them to
have access, then (1c) it is either illegal or financially nonviable.

(2): (1) above is false, but people do not know how or why.

(3): (1) above is false, and people know how and why, but they have
reasons for preferring that it should not come to pass anyway,
hence they treat (1) as if it were true.

My own hunch is that (2) is closest to the truth. There may be some in
the publishing community who are closer to (3), but I do not believe
that it is they who are holding back OA. OA is provided by and for the
research community. It is in reality 100% in their hands, and always has
been. Hence if they are not yet providing it, it is certain that this is
not because of publishers. It is because of (2): the research community
does not (yet) know that (1) is false, nor how, nor why.

And if you want a functional analogy to this state of anosognosia (a
neurological condition in which a patient -- with intelligence fully
intact -- keeps systematically failing to perceive what is amiss, and
what to do about it), here is an example.

A professor, an intelligent professor, with full command of the English
language, has a stroke that leaves all of his intellectual faculties
unimpaired but (temporarily) paralyses the left side of his body,
leaving it unable to move or feel. You visit the professor in his
hospital bed and he is of course perfectly lucid, sharp as ever, reading
the latest edition of PLoS Biology, etc., but his left leg is dangling
off the side of his bed.

You ask him "What is happening hereÃ"

He asks what you mean.

"I mean this" (pointing to the leg).

The professor seems not to have noticed it, but now that you draw it to
his attention to it, he says: "Oh, that. It's a leg. It was in my bed,
so I pushed it out."

Astonished, you reply: "But it's *your* leg!"

Professor (not astonished, but puzzled): "My legÃ"

"Yes, your leg. Look, I start from the foot and trace it up, you see it
is connected to and leads to your bodyÃ"

Professor (still puzzled): "Quite so, I suppose you are right."

"Here, I will put it back in your bed for you: But are you in the habit
of seeing disembodied legs, and merely pushing them out of your bed
without asking any further questions?"

Professor (still puzzled): "No, of course not, you are quite right. How
silly of me. I don't know what came over me!"

The conversation continues, on other matters. Ninety-seconds later, the
professor pushes his leg out of the bed, without missing a beat.

Anosognosia.

And that is what it has felt like for years, explaining OA and
self-archiving to researchers, till they nod with apparent understanding,
only to relapse within 90 seconds. I've even given the syndrome a name --
Zeno's Paralysis -- and prescribed the FAQ to be ingested whenever any of
its 32 symptoms (so far known) manifest themselves.

"Zeno's Paradox and the Road to the Optimal/Inevitable"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0820.html
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#32-worries

Let us hope that an appeal to their employers and funders will be
more successful. After all, it is not *their* leg that is in question.
Perhaps, like hospital attendants, they can see to it that researchers
do the right thing. Then the patients can go back to reading and writing
their journals...

The epidemiology and chronology of the pandemic can then be left to
the psychohistorians.

Cheers, Stevan

PS I suspect that conflating/confusing green and gold will turn out to
have played a big part in the long road road to the optimal/inevitable
recovery.

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Subbiah Arunachalam wrote:

> Dear Stevan:
>
> We should try to understand why many people have problems in understanding
> what we think is simple English. For example, Lord Sainsbury, you say, has
> misunderstood the RCUK proposal as well as the earlier Select Committee
> proposal. He is a Minister in the UK Government and obviously must be an
> educated person. And English is his mother tongue. He is not a second
> generation immigrant from the subcontinent or Africa. And yet you find him
> 'misunderstanding' simple English statements.
>
> A number of Indians, many of them very bright young graduates, are unable to
> go to US (or British) universities to pursue higher studies because they
> fail to clear English as a Foreign Language test. I can understand that, as
> even today many rural Indian schools have problems hiring good English
> teachers. Is there a similar problem in the UK too?
>
> More importantly, if people in positions of power take decisions on the
> basis of wrong perceptions, how can we correct what we see as their wrong
> decisions?
>
> Yesterday I was returning from Bangalore by a late evening flight, after
> attending a conference on India's competitiveness and preparedness to
> progress in a knowledge economy/society, which was attended, among others,
> by the chairman and most of the members of the high power Science Advisory
> Council to the Prime Minister. On the flight I met an old friend, a marine
> zoologist and a Fellow of the Indian national Science Academy. I tried to
> explain to him the advantages of OA self archiving, but he was insisting
> that as far as he was concerned it was enough if he published in a reputed
> journal (most journals in his field he told me were published by commercial
> publishers). I said even then he could still deposit his papers in an
> archive, to which he replied that it would lead to copyright violation and
> the journals would refuse to publish his papers any more.
>
> My point is scientists, like the British Minister, are highly educated and
> yet they find it difficult to appreciate what to you and me appear to be
> simple.
>
> We must think through this phenomenon and come up with a good workable
> solution.
>
> Regards.
>
> Arun
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stevan Harnad" <harnad@...>
> To: "King MPST" <MPST.KING@...>
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 10:24 PM
> Subject: [BOAI] Lord Sainsbury on the RCUK OA Proposal: Drubbing Peter to
> Pox Paul
>
>
> > BioMed Central (BMC) has written a very good reply to Lord Sainsbury's
> > recent remarks about the RCUK policy proposal:
> >
> > http://www.biomedcentral.com/openletter/20051027/
> >
> > BMC's point that it is untrue that there is a decline of interest
> > in open access publishing is quite correct. Interest continues to rise.
> >
> > Minor point: Rather than cite over-reliance on Journal Citation Impact
> > Factors
> > (though there *is* over-reliance on Journal Citation Impact Factors)
> > as a "level playing field" matter, disadvantaging new OA journal
> > start-ups,
> > my strategy would have been to stress the overwhelming evidence of the OA
> > Citation Advantage at the author/article level, as demonstrated by the
> > within-journal comparisons between what has and has not been made OA
> > through
> > self-archiving.
> >
> > http://citebase.eprints.org/isi_study/
> > http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/graphes/EtudeImpact.htm
> >
> > BMC's passage about ignoring the UK Select Committee's impartial advice
> > on Open Access Self-Archiving is also very helpful and spot-on (though
> > I rather wish -- again a very minor point -- that Matt had called it
> > "Self-Archiving" rather than just "Archiving," which always makes it sound
> > ambiguous as between OA provision itself and mere preservation-archiving).
> >
> > It might also have been helpful to point out to Lord S that 93% of the
> > journals in the Romeo index have already given their green light to
> > self-archiving, whereas it is Lord S who appears to be ambivalent about
> > RCUK's proposal to mandate it. Lord S wrote:
> >
> > Lord S: "what [RCUK] said effectively is we want you to publish it as
> > soon
> > as you can, subject to reaching agreement with the publishers as
> > to when that would be. That seems to me to put researchers in an
> > impossible position, ie, every individual researcher has got to
> > start negotiating with the publisher as to what that means."
> > http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/uc490-i/uc49002.htm
> >
> > I would say that the one nearer an impossible position is not the
> > researcher, but Lord S, who has not understood the RCUK proposal; he has
> > (yet again) conflated OA publishing (which is not what RCUK is proposing
> > to mandate) with OA self-archiving (of *published* articles), which is
> > what RCUK is proposing to mandate. Lord S is (yet again) drubbing Peter
> > (OA self-archiving, green) to pox Paul (OA publishing, gold), as he did
> > with the Select Committee proposal, which he also misunderstood:
> >
> > "Drubbing Peter to pox Paul"
> > Thursday December 2, 2004
> > Guardian Education
> >
> > http://education.guardian.co.uk/higherfeedback/story/0,11056,1364556,00.html
> >
> > With about 93% of journals already green on OA self-archiving, Lord S is
> > being
> > more royalist than the sovereign, more catholic than the pope...
> >
> > http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php
> >
> > The following (*extremely* hirsute) passage from Lord S alas does not
> > attest
> > to a clear grasp of what is at issue, even when he endeavours to consider
> > OA self-archiving separately:
> >
> > Lord S: "The question of institutional repositories is a slightly
> > different one because I think there is a role for institutional
> > repositories [SH: So far so good], but in rather specific
> > circumstances, which is there is a whole series of fields of research
> > where the people like publishing their papers and what they are doing
> > before they send them to the journals, and this is a very good way
> > of communication between research communities. The question here
> > is what is the requirement or the desire for people to publish
> > them alongside publishing them in the actual journals? [SH: Lord S
> > seems here both to be conflating (1a) publishing with (1b) providing
> > access to the publication and (2a) pre-peer-review preprints with
> > (2b) post-peer-review postprints] I think that is for individual
> > universities to decide for themselves as to whether that is a cost
> > [SH: Cost? Cost of what? Cost to whom?] that they think is justified
> > subject to whatever agreement is reached with the publishers on what
> > is the proper thing to do."
> > http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/uc490-i/uc49002.htm
> >
> > Agreement? 93% of journals have already given their blessing to author
> > self-archiving. But so preoccupied is Lord S with the costs to and
> > of the journal trade that he seems to be missing entirely the fact
> > that the RCUK self-archiving mandate is meant to recover a needless
> > ongoing cost to the British tax-payer, who funds RCUK research, namely,
> > the loss of at least 50% (i.e., about £1.5 billion's-worth) of citation
> > impact on the RCUK's annual £3.5 billion investment in research, a loss
> > that occurs because currently the only researchers who can access a UK
> > research finding are those whose institutions can afford access to the
> > journal in which that finding happens to be published. Access denied to
> > all the rest of its would-be users.
> >
> > http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/28-guid.html
> > http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html
> >
> > The RCUK self-archiving mandate is intended to make RCUK-funded research
> > output accessible also to those would-be users who cannot afford
> > the journal in which it happens to be published, so as to remedy the
> > needlessly lost usage and impact of UK research findings, to maximise
> > their uptake, usage, and applications, and thereby to maximise the
> > benefits to British tax-payers resulting from the research that they
> > have paid for.
> >
> > Where do journal-costs and publishing-models figure at all in this
> > equation? The transaction seems to be primarily one between the British
> > tax-payer and the British research community that it funds to produce
> > research, research which is in turn intended to be used and applied for
> > the benefit of the British tax-payer, not to serve as a product to be
> > sold, as in a supermarket, for the benefit of some other party. Publishers
> > certainly add value (and earn revenue) from this transaction too, but
> > their retail side-trade surely is not what it is all about!
> >
> > Surely Lord S is not just our trade minister, but our science minister
> > as well. As such, he should stop conflating trade matters with research
> > matters, especially when it otherwise entails the tail wagging the dog.
> >
> > Stevan Harnad
> >
> > AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:
> > A complete Hypermail archive of the ongoing discussion of providing
> > open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2005)
> > is available at:
> > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/
> > To join or leave the Forum or change your subscription address:
> > http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
> > Post discussion to:
> > american-scientist-open-access-forum@...
> >
> > UNIVERSITIES: If you have adopted or plan to adopt an institutional
> > policy of providing Open Access to your own research article output,
> > please describe your policy at:
> > http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
> >
> > UNIFIED DUAL OPEN-ACCESS-PROVISION POLICY:
> > BOAI-1 ("green"): Publish your article in a suitable toll-access
> > journal
> > http://romeo.eprints.org/
> > OR
> > BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a open-access journal if/when
> > a suitable one exists.
> > http://www.doaj.org/
> > AND
> > in BOTH cases self-archive a supplementary version of your article
> > in your institutional repository.
> > http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
> > http://archives.eprints.org/
> > http://openaccess.eprints.org/
> >
> >
> >
>
>

_______________________________________________
Jrnlnote mailing list
Jrnlnote@...
http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/jrnlnote

[Journal-notes] Re: Drubbing Peter to Pox Paul

2005-10-28T06:23:48Z

Prior AmSci Topic Thread:
"Drubbing Peter to Pay Paul"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4152.html

BioMed Central (BMC) has written a very good reply to Lord Sainsbury's
recent remarks about the RCUK policy proposal:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/openletter/20051027/

BMC's point that it is untrue that there is a decline of interest
in open access publishing is quite correct. Interest continues to rise.

Minor point: Rather than cite over-reliance on Journal Citation Impact Factors
(though there *is* over-reliance on Journal Citation Impact Factors)
as a "level playing field" matter, disadvantaging new OA journal start-ups,
my strategy would have been to stress the overwhelming evidence of the OA
Citation Advantage at the author/article level, as demonstrated by the
within-journal comparisons between what has and has not been made OA through
self-archiving.

http://citebase.eprints.org/isi_study/
http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/graphes/EtudeImpact.htm

BMC's passage about ignoring the UK Select Committee's impartial advice
on Open Access Self-Archiving is also very helpful and spot-on (though
I rather wish -- again a very minor point -- that Matt had called it
"Self-Archiving" rather than just "Archiving," which always makes it sound
ambiguous as between OA provision itself and mere preservation-archiving).

It might also have been helpful to point out to Lord S that 93% of the
journals in the Romeo index have already given their green light to
self-archiving, whereas it is Lord S who appears to be ambivalent about
RCUK's proposal to mandate it. Lord S wrote:

Lord S: "what [RCUK] said effectively is we want you to publish it as soon
as you can, subject to reaching agreement with the publishers as
to when that would be. That seems to me to put researchers in an
impossible position, ie, every individual researcher has got to
start negotiating with the publisher as to what that means."
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/uc490-i/uc49002.htm

I would say that the one nearer an impossible position is not the
researcher, but Lord S, who has not understood the RCUK proposal; he has
(yet again) conflated OA publishing (which is not what RCUK is proposing
to mandate) with OA self-archiving (of *published* articles), which is
what RCUK is proposing to mandate. Lord S is (yet again) drubbing Peter
(OA self-archiving, green) to pox Paul (OA publishing, gold), as he did
with the Select Committee proposal, which he also misunderstood:

"Drubbing Peter to pox Paul"
Thursday December 2, 2004
Guardian Education
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higherfeedback/story/0,11056,1364556,00.html

With about 93% of journals already green on OA self-archiving, Lord S is being
more royalist than the sovereign, more catholic than the pope...

http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php

The following (*extremely* hirsute) passage from Lord S alas does not attest
to a clear grasp of what is at issue, even when he endeavours to consider
OA self-archiving separately:

Lord S: "The question of institutional repositories is a slightly
different one because I think there is a role for institutional
repositories [SH: So far so good], but in rather specific
circumstances, which is there is a whole series of fields of research
where the people like publishing their papers and what they are doing
before they send them to the journals, and this is a very good way
of communication between research communities. The question here
is what is the requirement or the desire for people to publish
them alongside publishing them in the actual journals? [SH: Lord S
seems here both to be conflating (1a) publishing with (1b) providing
access to the publication and (2a) pre-peer-review preprints with
(2b) post-peer-review postprints] I think that is for individual
universities to decide for themselves as to whether that is a cost
[SH: Cost? Cost of what? Cost to whom?] that they think is justified
subject to whatever agreement is reached with the publishers on what
is the proper thing to do."
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/uc490-i/uc49002.htm

Agreement? 93% of journals have already given their blessing to author
self-archiving. But so preoccupied is Lord S with the costs to and
of the journal trade that he seems to be missing entirely the fact
that the RCUK self-archiving mandate is meant to recover a needless
ongoing cost to the British tax-payer, who funds RCUK research, namely,
the loss of at least 50% (i.e., about £1.5 billion's-worth) of citation
impact on the RCUK's annual £3.5 billion investment in research, a loss
that occurs because currently the only researchers who can access a UK
research finding are those whose institutions can afford access to the
journal in which that finding happens to be published. Access denied to
all the rest of its would-be users.

http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/28-guid.html
http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html

The RCUK self-archiving mandate is intended to make RCUK-funded research
output accessible also to those would-be users who cannot afford
the journal in which it happens to be published, so as to remedy the
needlessly lost usage and impact of UK research findings, to maximise
their uptake, usage, and applications, and thereby to maximise the
benefits to British tax-payers resulting from the research that they
have paid for.

Where do journal-costs and publishing-models figure at all in this
equation? The transaction seems to be primarily one between the British
tax-payer and the British research community that it funds to produce
research, research which is in turn intended to be used and applied for
the benefit of the British tax-payer, not to serve as a product to be
sold, as in a supermarket, for the benefit of some other party. Publishers
certainly add value (and earn revenue) from this transaction too, but
their retail side-trade surely is not what it is all about!

Surely Lord S is not just our trade minister, but our science minister
as well. As such, he should stop conflating trade matters with research
matters, especially when it otherwise entails the tail wagging the dog.

Stevan Harnad

AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:
A complete Hypermail archive of the ongoing discussion of providing
open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2005)
is available at:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/
To join or leave the Forum or change your subscription address:
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
Post discussion to:
american-scientist-open-access-forum@...

UNIVERSITIES: If you have adopted or plan to adopt an institutional
policy of providing Open Access to your own research article output,
please describe your policy at:
http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php

UNIFIED DUAL OPEN-ACCESS-PROVISION POLICY:
BOAI-1 ("green"): Publish your article in a suitable toll-access journal
http://romeo.eprints.org/
OR
BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a open-access journal if/when
a suitable one exists.
http://www.doaj.org/
AND
in BOTH cases self-archive a supplementary version of your article
in your institutional repository.
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
http://archives.eprints.org/
http://openaccess.eprints.org/

_______________________________________________
Jrnlnote mailing list
Jrnlnote@...
http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/jrnlnote