Just some links to the SCOAP3 presentations mentioned in the previous post.
Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics, Introduction – Ken Peach
(Oxford and Royal Holloway)
http://scoap3.org/files/06022008_Ken_Peach.pdf
The SCOAP3 model – Salvatore Mele (CERN)
http://scoap3.org/files/06022008_Salvatore_Mele.pdf
SCOAP3 seen from the library – Jens Vigen (CERN)
http://scoap3.org/files/06022008_Jens_Vigen.pdf
On Wednesday afternoon I attended a meeting about SCOAP3 (Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics). The event was mainly attended by librarians, although there were a couple of real researchers present as well (this was a shame – it would have been nice to see more people from the HEP research community there.
SCOAP3 is an attempt to experiment with an alternative model for peer-reviewed publication, specifically in the area of High Energy Physics (HEP). Essentially the core of the model is that we (the community) should pay for the ‘value added’ parts of the publication process – specifically the peer-review service, while dispenses with the traditional model of ‘journal subscriptions. The idea is that publishers could tender for the business of supplying the peer-review service, and that the money currently spent on subscriptions would be redirected via SCOAP3 to pay for this.
The reason for choosing HEP as a starting point is that it is a small community, already much given to collaboration, and 80% of HEP research is published in just 6 journals – so only a very small set of publications to deal with. Also, 90% of HEP research is already available OA via repositories (mainly arXiv I guess), and this is how most researchers access the research. Finally, HEP has a long history of depending on pre-prints – circulating printed copies of pre-prints at the expense of the community well before OA (or possibly even the Internet) was thought of. So in fact, the existing journals really are basically a way of ensuring peer-review still happens, much more than being a primary means of distributing research.
The meeting was essentially a set of presentations from those involved in SCOAP3 (including Prof. Ken Peach, Jens Vigen and Salvatore Mele) – all the presenters came across as enthusiastic and committed.
At the moment what SCOAP3 is looking for is ‘expressions of interest’ from the libraries/institutions who currently subscribe to the relevant HEP publications. In the longer term, these libraries/institutions will be asked to redirect their expenditure from the journal subs, to SCOAP3, who will in turn pay the relevant publishers to provide the peer review service. This is all hung round with caveats – it has to be affordable (i.e. not cost more than the current model), libraries would have to get money back where HEP journals are part of ‘big deals’ so that they can redirect the expenditure etc.
The presentations were followed by some discussion, but this was a bit circular because essentially I think everyone can see there are all kinds of potential problems and what-ifs, but all SCOAP3 are looking for at the moment is for the interested parties to say ‘hmm, sounds interesting, and if you can pull it off we’ll give it a go’
Probably the main concern raised in the discussion was sustainability. Specifically, if you don’t charge for either publication or access, what is to stop institutions deciding that they don’t want to contribute to the peer-review costs? There was definite feeling from some present that the libraries would find themselves pressured into cutting these payments to save money – essentially leaving a smaller pool of institutions to cover the costs of the peer-review process. To be honest it seems to me that they could almost certainly already do this (and maybe some places have?), as with 90% of the research in arXiv or other repositories, and the claims that this is how most researchers access it, paying for a subscription to the journal is actually just a way of keeping the whole thing going. However, there is no doubt that making this explicit raises the likelihood that someone will say ‘why are we paying for this’?
The next stage is for SCOAP3 to contact the librarians at the relevant institutions with a request they sign an ‘expression of interest’ – I suspect this is really not an issue. Despite the fact there were many questions about the model and how it would work at the moment the level of committment SCOAP3 is looking for is really very low.
Imperial College is very interested, and there is no doubt we will be signing an ‘expression of interest’. We’ll just have to see what happens after that. Once SCOAP3 has managed to get expressions of interest from the relevant parties (and they still have a little way to go on this – the biggest thing being the meeting in the USA next month), it can start the process of issuing a tender to publishers – this is the only way the actual cost can be established.
Overall SCOAP3 is an exciting initiative – it was referred to several times during the day as an ‘experiment’ – and I think this is right. Of course, experiments don’t always turn out how you hope – but you always learn something…
Yahoo! Announces Support for OpenID – quite a big announcement for OpenID fans. This starts in beta on 30th January – Plaxo will be one of the first services that will allow you to use the OpenID aspect of your Yahoo account to authenticate.
For those who haven’t come across OpenID, it is a way of using a single ‘identity’ across a number of services, with the control of the OpenID resting largely with the user, rather than with an organisation.
The Official OpenID site has a better explanation than I have time for here…
Blogged with Flock
(via ALA Techsource Blog)
BiomedExperts looks similar to Nature Network but perhaps with some extra cleverness which tries to exploit citations to make connections. It includes “1.4 million expert profiles in the biomedical field based on a computed co-author network of the Pubmed database from 1997 onwards”. Although all can join, those who have “published at least three papers over the last ten years that have been indexed in the Pubmed database” you get a “pre-calculated expert profile and network”
Blogged with Flock
(via ALA Techsource Blog)
BiomedExperts looks similar to Nature Network but perhaps with some extra cleverness which tries to exploit citations to make connections. It includes “1.4 million expert profiles in the biomedical field based on a computed co-author network of the Pubmed database from 1997 onwards”. Although all can join, those who have “published at least three papers over the last ten years that have been indexed in the Pubmed database” you get a “pre-calculated expert profile and network”
Blogged with Flock
(via I want to)
I’ve not come across the concept of a ‘live blogging’ application before (although I usually blog conferences I attend ‘live’, and of course I’ve seen this kind of blog for sports events, tech launches etc.)
However, this seems to take it a step further – and it strikes me would be an interesting way of running a live ‘lesson’ in a virtual environment.
Blogged with Flock
(via I want to)
I’ve not come across the concept of a ‘live blogging’ application before (although I usually blog conferences I attend ‘live’, and of course I’ve seen this kind of blog for sports events, tech launches etc.)
However, this seems to take it a step further – and it strikes me would be an interesting way of running a live ‘lesson’ in a virtual environment.
Blogged with Flock
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/resourcediscovery/googlegen.aspx
This report commissioned by JISC and the British Library suggests that although young people are more technologically savvy, this isn’t developing hand in hand with effective use of the web for information.
The report was previewed in a Guardian article yesterday, and is now available online.
I haven’t had time to read the full report, although I have skimmed it, and it looks full of interesting stuff like:
“Our view is that the semantic web is a tool that will reach its tipping point fairly soon.”
“Our overall conclusion is that much writing on the topic of this report overestimates the impact of ICTs on the young and underestimates its effect on older generations.”
The report makes especially interesting reading alongside a report on the viewing and surfing habits of Children in the UK reported in the Guardian this morning. I found the following paragraph particularly interesting:
The press release is accompanied by a quote from Lynne Brindley (Chief Exec of the BL):
It’s really good to see the BL taking this attitude – something we can learn from.
Blogged with Flock
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/resourcediscovery/googlegen.aspx
This report commissioned by JISC and the British Library suggests that although young people are more technologically savvy, this isn’t developing hand in hand with effective use of the web for information.
The report was previewed in a Guardian article yesterday, and is now available online.
I haven’t had time to read the full report, although I have skimmed it, and it looks full of interesting stuff like:
“Our view is that the semantic web is a tool that will reach its tipping point fairly soon.”
“Our overall conclusion is that much writing on the topic of this report overestimates the impact of ICTs on the young and underestimates its effect on older generations.”
The report makes especially interesting reading alongside a report on the viewing and surfing habits of Children in the UK reported in the Guardian this morning. I found the following paragraph particularly interesting:
The press release is accompanied by a quote from Lynne Brindley (Chief Exec of the BL):
It’s really good to see the BL taking this attitude – something we can learn from.
Blogged with Flock
MINDS @ UW: Innkeeper at the Roach Motel
A slightly depressing look at the state of Institutional Repositories from the Library perspective – however, contains some interesting points, and can’t help pointing at it for the quote:
“Likewise, Imperial College London’s effort to embed the repository in existing campus practice
and technology (Afshari and Jones 2007) is exemplary.”
One of the issues raised by the article is the state of repository software, but I think it is a shame that it focusses solely on the Open Source offerings, without considering what the alternatives might be. Although they don’t get the coverage online of DSpace and e-Prints, there are many commercial products out there which can be used for an Insitutional Repository:
DigiTool
Equella
The Hive
Intralibrary
Symposia
Contentdm
These products are not necessarily targetted directly at IR – some are from a library digital collections background, and some e-learning repository background, but they support the relevant standards.
I’m not making an argument for commercial over Open Source here, but just wondering why the Open Source products in this particular area get all the attention?
Blogged with Flock