[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
ICSTI: news items
- To: epc@iucr.org
- Subject: ICSTI: news items
- From: Pete Strickland <ps@iucr.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:08:21 +0100
- Organization: IUCr
----------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Mandating OA around the corner? Part of a thread on mandating OA from the 'Harnad' list. From: "Martin Frank" <Mfrank@the-aps.org> Mark brings up a good point, especially in light of David Lipmann's claim that it would only cost about $700,000 based on the hosting of 50,000 manuscripts annually. While this might be the number which PubMed Central conveys to the public, without a true cost accounting I am unconvinced that this is a real number. I suspect that the $700,000 does not take into account the general overhead (rent, heat, electricity, janatorial) that most publishers have to include in their cost analyses. I believe that Martin Blume alluded to that in his response to David. I also question David's analysis because of his claim that PubMed Central has an annual budget of approximately $2.5 million. While this is not a lot of money as compared to the total NIH budget, it is in my view $2.5 million more than needs to be spent and could instead be used to support approximately 6 research grants designed to find cures for cancer, etc. If the PubMedCentral budget is indeed $2.5 million as claimed by David Lipmann, one could use that number as the basis for establishing what an expanded PubMedCentral might cost if it started receiving articles from 50,000 authors per year from 4000 or more journals. At least when PMC gets their downloads from journals now, they come in bunches using the appropriate DTD, etc. Dealing with 50,000 submissions would probably be much less efficient than PMC's current efforts with its existing journal customers. As I indicated, David claims that his budget for PMC is $2.5 million. PMC currently hosts about 150 journals. That translates into $16,666 per journal. Assuming that PMC is likely to receive submissions from the equivalent of 3000 journals, that translates into a cost of approximately $50,000,000. I don't claim to know the right answer for the future cost of PMC, but extrapolating from their own numbers, it is a lot of money and a lot of lost research opportunities. martin frank >>> doyle@APS.ORG 07/21/04 02:00PM >>> Greetings, On Jul 18, 2004, at 1:08 PM, Martin Frank wrote: > However, based on knowledge of the costs associated with the hosting > of journals at HighWire Press, it is estimated that a full fledged > archive of NIH funded manuscripts at NIH would cost in the > neighborhood of $75-100 million. Wild (uncalled for!) speculation in my opinion (additonal FUD removed). According to David Lipman, this is off by at least an order of magnitude. They expect about 50-60,000 NIH funded manuscripts per year. Even a generous $100 per hosted manuscript gives only $5-6 million. Lipman also pointed out that one would not expect to have to immediately deal with this number of articles. Considering that NLM can leverage off of the existing PubMed infrastructure, I think they are in quite good shape (even creating by hand good XML metadata with tagged references can be done for about $5/article). It should be noted that if this is really author-deposit of manuscripts (again, Lipman's impression of the intent of the legislative language), than this might even be doable on the same cost scale of arXiv.org ($1 - $10 per article). I suspect the real cost will be somewhere in the middle. Regards, Mark Mark Doyle Assistant Director, Journal Information Systems The American Physical Society ------------------------------------------------------- Subject: New Medical meta-search engine http://omnimedicalsearch.com/ OmniMedicalSearch.com is a metasearch engine. It does not operate the same way as search engines like Google or Yahoo. Instead of assembling our own database of websites to present our search results, we return the search results from other search engines in various combinations. When you submit a search term, our metasearch software sends that query, simultaneously, to other search engines, websites and databases. When it returns, you are presented with the top results of ALL the search engines and databases you selected. It covers: PubMed, Nat'l Library of Medicine, ClinicalTrials.gov, HealthFinder.gov, Cancer.gov, Centers for Disease Control, MedHelp.org, MedlinePlus.gov, MedWebPlus.com, eMedicine.com, WebMD.com & Healthopedia.com ------------------------------------------------------- Subject: EU consultation on IPR Directives The European Commission has launched a consultation on whether the existing set of EU Directives on copyright and related rights need to be simplified or re-worked. Its own recommendation is for fine-tuning rather than an overhaul. The last 10 years have seen the adoption of seven EU Directives relating to copyright, and the Commission is concerned to establish whether inconsistencies between the different Directives hamper the operation of EU copyright law or damage the balance between rights holders’ interests, those of users and consumers and those of the European economy as a whole. More details at: http://www.out-law.com/php/page.php?page_id=tweakingeucopyrigh1090398892&area=news The EU's paper on the process is at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/copyright/docs/review/sec-2004-995_en.pdf An extract: "This paper assesses whether any inconsistencies on the definitions or on rules on exceptions and limitations between the different Directives hamper the operation of the acquis (that is to say the body of Community law) or have a harmful impact on the fair balance of rights and other interests, including those of users and consumers. The provisions of the early copyright acquis are reviewed alongside each other and compared with the standard set by the Information Society Directive 2001/29/EC, which is the most horizontal measure in the field of copyright and related rights. The paper concludes that there is, for example, a need to make a minor adjustment to the definition of the reproduction right and extend the application of the exception for certain temporary acts of reproduction under Article 5(1) of the Information Society Directive to computer programs and databases" ------------------------------------------------------- Subject: NFAIS Forum on stats An NFAIS Forum for the Information Community: Online Usage Statistics - Current Trends and Future Directions in Meeting User Needs The NFAIS Committee on Best Practices/Usage Statistics is organizing a forum that will provide an overview of the current status and future trends in the development and provision of online usage statistics - all within the context of evolving technology, emerging standards and most importantly - customer needs and expectations. This one-day session will be held on Friday, October 1, 2004 at St. John's University Manhattan Campus, New York, N.Y, from 9:00A.M. - 4:30P.M. It will begin with an overview of the development of online usage statistics and a discussion of the various standards that have been developed for their use. A group of users from diverse market sectors - academic, government, and corporate - will present their perspective with regard to how well their needs are currently being met, and what they perceive as the essential user requirements to be met in the future. The expectations - and limitations - of technology in meeting those needs will be addressed, as will the legal concerns related to users' privacy rights. The remainder of the session will be devoted to case studies of actual implementation of online usage statistics, highlighting the challenges that were met and the level of customer satisfaction that resulted. Come and join your peers in learning what organizations need to know - and plan for - in order to ensure that evolving customer needs are met - both now and in the future. Register early, as seating is limited. The draft program, registration form, directions to the meeting location, and a list of nearby hotels are available at: http://www.nfais.org/events/event_details.cfm?id=26 Register before August 20, 2004 and NFAIS members pay $155 and non-members pay $205 (registration fee includes continental breakfast, a box lunch and two refreshment breaks). After August 20, 2004 NFAIS members pay $195 and non-members pay $245. For more information contact: Jill O'Neill, NFAIS Director, Communication and Planning, 215-893-1561 (phone); 215-893-1564 (fax); mailto:jilloneill@nfais.org. ------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Fwd: Re: The UK report, press coverage, and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access Stevan Harnad's take on the press reaction to the UK House of Commons and the NIH reports on OA.... "The press just keeps on missing the mark! "American and British Lawmakers Endorse Open-Access Publishing" Andrea Foster and Lila Guterman Chronicle of Higher Education, July 30, 2004 http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v50/i47/47a01302.htm > "In a double coup for the open-access movement this month, > committees of the U.S. Congress and British Parliament recommended > that papers resulting from government-financed research be made > available free. The committees recommended that the U.S. and British > governments require researchers to deposit in free, online archives > any articles that arise from research sponsored, respectively, > by the National Institutes of Health and any British agency. So far, so good. That part was correct. But then: > The British committee further recommended that journal publishers > adopt an open-access model in which authors would pay to publish > and subscription fees would be eliminated. Both governments are > expected to act on the committees' recommendations this year." No, the British committee did not recommend that; on the contrary, they explicitly refrained from recommending it and recommended only further experimentation with it, along with funding to help pay author-institutions costs for OA Publishing. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm Nor is the title of the story correct: "American and British Lawmakers Endorse Open-Access Publishing" "Endorsement" is ambiguous. What, if anything, both the Americans and the British endorsed was Open Access (OA), not OA Publishing. They recommended mandating OA *Provision* through author/institution self-archiving of published articles (the "green" road to OA), not OA Publishing (the golden road to OA). Stevan Harnad" ------------------------------------------------------- Subject: New patent search management tool from Questel Questel•Orbit Releases PatentExaminer Questel•Orbit, a provider of intellectual property information services, announced the release of PatentExaminer, a patent portfolio management system that speeds patent analysis and enhances the collaboration among search experts, engineers, and patent attorneys. PatentExaminer displays the full-text patents and original facsimile patents side-by-side. It includes a user-defined text mapping and clustering feature incorporating different colored highlighting to quickly find text and concept clusters. Ranking and annotation features are included to assist in the examination and collaboration process. http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/wnd040726.shtml ------------------------------------------------------- -- Best wishes Peter Strickland Managing Editor IUCr Journals ---------------------------------------------------------------------- IUCr Editorial Office, 5 Abbey Square, Chester CH1 2HU, England Phone: 44 1244 342878 Fax: 44 1244 314888 Email: ps@iucr.org Ftp: ftp.iucr.org WWW: http://journals.iucr.org/ NEWSFLASH: Complete text of all IUCr journals back to 1948 now online! Visit Crystallography Journals Online for more details _______________________________________________ Epc mailing list Epc@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/epc
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- The devil you don't know (Yves Epelboin )
- Prev by Date: ICSTI: news items
- Next by Date: ICSTI: Public Access to Science Act (Sabo Bill, H.R. 2613)
- Prev by thread: ICSTI: news items
- Next by thread: The devil you don't know
- Index(es):