Category: Open Access

U.S. Dept. of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences Has Adopted Open Access Policy

In "Institute of Education Sciences Has an Open Access Policy," Stuart Shieber reports that the U.S Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences has an open access policy.

Here's an excerpt from a recent EIES grant announcement, which was listed in the Federal Register on March 23, 2009:

Recipients of awards are expected to publish or otherwise make publicly available the results of the work supported through this program. Institute-funded investigators should submit final, peer-reviewed manuscripts resulting from research supported in whole or in part by the Institute to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC, http://eric.ed.gov) upon acceptance for publication. An author's final manuscript is defined as the final version accepted for journal publication, and includes all graphics and supplemental materials that are associated with the article. The Institute will make the manuscript available to the public through ERIC no later than 12 months after the official date of publication. Institutions and investigators are responsible for ensuring that any publishing or copyright agreements concerning submitted articles fully comply with this requirement.

Open Access Bill: Senators Cornyn and Lieberman Re-Introduce Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA)

U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) re-introduced the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) today. (Thanks to Open Access News.)

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

Their legislation, the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA), would require every federal department and agency with an annual extramural research budget of $100 million or more to make their research available to the public within six months of publication.

"Our legislation would give the American people greater access to the important scientific research they help fund, which will accelerate scientific discovery and innovation, while also making sure that funding is being spent appropriately to ensure taxpayers are receiving a return on their research investments and they are not having to pay twice for the same research – once to conduct it, and a second time to read it. I will continue to advocate for greater transparency measures across all of our governmental departments and agencies, and I urge our Senate colleagues to support this legislation," said Sen. Cornyn.

"The United States has some of the best and brightest researchers," said Lieberman. "I continue to be impressed by their ideas and feel strongly that the American public should have access to what they discover. The internet makes it possible to provide public access to federally funded research and I am pleased to lead the effort to make this information more accessible."

Background:

Sens. Cornyn and Lieberman first introduced this legislation in the 109th Congress. In 2008, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) implemented their public access policy. It is estimated that approximately 80,000 papers are published each year from NIH funds.

  • Require every researcher with an annual extramural research budget of $100 million or more, whether funded totally or partially by a government department or agency, to submit an electronic copy of the final manuscript that has been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
  • Ensure that the manuscript is preserved in a stable digital repository maintained by that agency or in another suitable repository that permits free public access, interoperability, and long-term preservation.
  • Require that each taxpayer-funded manuscript be made available to the public online and without cost, no later than six months after the article has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

See also "Taxpayer Alliance Applauds Bill to Broaden Access to Federal Research Results."

Hindawi’s Open Access Journals’ Impact Factor Up over 27%

Hindawi's open access journals' average impact factor is up over 27% in the last year.

Here's an excerpt from the press release on liblicense-l:

Hindawi Publishing Corporation is pleased to announce that it has seen very strong growth in the Impact Factors of its journals in the recently released 2008 Journal Citation Report published by Thomson Scientific. This most recent Journal Citation Report shows the average Impact Factor of Hindawi's journals increasing by more than 27% over the past year, with two of Hindawi's largest journals, EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing and Mathematical Problems in Engineering, rising by 70% and 45% respectively. . . .

In addition to the 14 journals that were included in the 2007 Journal Citation Report, three of Hindawi's journals received Impact Factors for the first time this year: Clinical and Developmental Immunology, EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking, and Journal of Nanomaterials.

“Publisher ‘Threat’ to Open Access”

In "Publisher 'Threat' to Open Access," Zoë Corbyn of Times Higher Education reports that in the UK:

Elsevier is thought to be mooting a new idea that could undermine universities' own open-access repositories. It would see Elsevier take over the job of archiving papers and making them available more widely as PDF files. . . .

Shira Tabachnikoff, director of corporate communications at Elsevier, confirmed that preliminary discussions had taken place with some institutions but would not go into detail on their nature.

Enabling Open Scholarship Organization Launched

Professor Bernard Rentier, Rector of the University of Lige, and Dr. Alma Swan of Key Perspectives have launched Enabling Open Scholarship.

Here's an excerpt from the 6/11/09 American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum announcement:

Enabling Open Scholarship (EOS) is a membership organisation for universities and research institutions. The organisation is a forum for raising and discussing issues around the mission of modern universities, particularly with regard to the creation, dissemination and preservation of research findings.

Anyone who is interested in enrolling their institution as a member, or in attending an EOS meeting or briefing session, is invited to email the convenor of the group, Dr Alma Swan . . .

Contact information for Dr. Swan can be found on the Key Perspectives Contact Us page.

“Not Served on a Silver Platter! Access to Online Mathematics Information in Africa”

Anders Wandahl has self-archived "Not Served on a Silver Platter! Access to Online Mathematics Information in Africa" in arXiv.org.

Here's an excerpt:

The "truly free" resources listed in the table [e.g., open access journals] above are free to anyone and anywhere. Resources provided by other programmes and initiatives, which are described below [e.g., HINARI], are also free to end-users in all or most African countries. However, there is an importance difference between these two groups of resources. The second group requires some sort of authentication before the user is allowed access. . . .

In order for the IP number control system to work smoothly, the public IP number(s) should be fairly stable. In Africa, this is not always the case, since a change of the Internet Service Provider (ISP) also usually means a change of the IP number. African institutions sometimes see an advantage in negotiating terms and prices with a new Internet Service Provider now and then, in order to find a more favorable deal, but this means that the new IP numbers must be supplied to all journals and publishers before access is reestablished.

To complicate this picture a little further, there is a distinction between static and dynamic IP numbers. In general, there is a world-wide shortage of IP numbers. In order to cope with this situation, the numbers are sometimes assigned to universities and institutions in a dynamic as opposed to static way. A dynamically assigned IP number may change any time (even though they usually are pretty stable over time). A static number is assigned once and is not supposed to change as long as you have a running contract with an Internet Service Provider, which makes them better for authentication purposes. The flip-side of the coin is that static numbers are more expensive.

Scholarly Communication 101: Starting with the Basics Workshop Materials Added to Scholarly Communication Toolkit

ACRL has added materials from its Scholarly Communication 101: Starting with the Basics Workshop to its Scholarly Communication Toolkit.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) is extending the reach of the "Scholarly Communication 101: Starting with the Basics" workshop by adding related materials to its popular Scholarly Communication Toolkit. The materials—including short videos, presentations templates and handouts—were developed for the half-day workshop offered at the ACRL 14th National Conference in Seattle and traveling to five locations around the country this summer (http://www.ala.org/ala/newspresscenter/news/pressreleases2009/april2009/acrlscroadshowhosts.cfm). Now librarians can make use of these tools to enhance their own knowledge or adapt them to offer related workshops on their own campuses. The Scholarly Communication Toolkit is available online at http://www.acrl.ala.org/scholcomm/.

Developing a basic understanding of scholarly communication issues should be a high priority for every librarian. Enhancing understanding of how scholars work along with the systems, tools and technology to support the evolving work of the creation, personal organization, aggregation, discovery, preservation, access and exchange of information in all formats is one of six strategic priorities for 2009-13 developed by the ACRL Board of Directors (http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/about/whatisacrl/index.cfm). The newly developed tools support this strategic priority, with a focus on new methods of scholarly publishing and communication, copyright and intellectual property and economics along with open access and openness as a principle.

Harvard Graduate School of Education Faculty Adopt Open Access Policy

The Harvard Graduate School of Education faculty have adopted an open access policy. (Thanks to Open Access News.)

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

The faculty of the Harvard Graduate School of Education (HGSE) voted overwhelmingly at its last faculty meeting to allow the university to make all faculty members' scholarly articles publicly available online. The resolution makes HGSE the fourth of Harvard's 10 schools to endorse open access to faculty research publications. The Faculties of Arts and Sciences, the Harvard Law School, and the Harvard Kennedy School all passed similar policies in recent months. . . .

As a result of the resolution, HGSE faculty will now provide their scholarly articles to the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication for deposit in an open access digital repository that is currently under development. When the repository launches later this year, the contents will be freely available to the public, unless an author chooses to embargo or block access. The policy makes rights sharing with publishers and self-archiving the default, while allowing faculty to waive Harvard's license on a case-by-case basis, at the author's discretion.

RoMEO Application Programmers’ Interface Version 2.4 Released

SHERPA has released version 2.4 of the RoMEO Application Programmers' Interface (API).

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

The new version uses a totally new algorithm and is faster than earlier 1.x versions. It also supplies data for the fields that were missing in earlier versions—paid open access, and compliance with research funders' mandates. . . .

If you are using an older version of the prototype, we strongly recommend that you upgrade your application to use V.2.4 as soon as possible, because we will be discontinuing the old versions at the end of 2009. Version 2.4 is largely compatible with earlier versions. The main things that may require attention are: the new URL, handling the extra fields, and handling changes to the parameter and copyright fields.

“One Year (Almost) with the Open Access Authors Fund”

Andrew Waller has self-archived his "One Year (Almost) with the Open Access Authors Fund" presentation in E-LIS.

Here's the abstract:

This presentation described the origin of and policies and procedures relating to the Open Access Authors Fund at the University of Calgary. The activities of the Fund in its first year were presented and discussed. Other Open Access activities at the University of Calgary were also briefly discussed.

Costs and Benefits of Research Communication: The Dutch Situation

The SURFfoundation has released Costs and Benefits of Research Communication: The Dutch Situation.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

This study examines the costs and potential benefits of alternative models for scientific and scholarly publishing in the Netherlands. It is a follow-up of the Australian study 'Research Communication Costs, Emerging Opportunities and Benefits' (Houghton et al. 2006) and the UK/JISC study 'Economic Implications of Alternative Scholarly Publishing Models'. The Dutch study was commissioned by SURFfoundation and led by Professor John Houghton from the Centre of Strategic Economic Studies at Melbourne's Victoria University and Jos de Jonge and Marcia van Oploo of EIM Business & Policy Research in the Netherlands. . . .

The study Costs and Benefits of Research Communication: The Dutch Situation compares three publication models. The greatest advantage is offered by the Open Access model, which means that the research institution or the party financing the research pays for publication and the article is then freely accessible. Adopting this model could lead to an annual saving of EUR 133 million. Even if the Netherlands were the only country to adopt this publication model and continued to pay for licences to access periodicals, there would still be a saving of EUR 37 million.

Open Access Scholarly Information Sourcebook Launched

The Open Access Scholarly Information Sourcebook has been launched.

Here's an excerpt from the home page:

OASIS aims to provide an authoritative ‘sourcebook’ on Open Access, covering the concept, principles, advantages, approaches and means to achieving it. The site highlights developments and initiatives from around the world, with links to diverse additional resources and case studies. As such, it is a community-building as much as a resource building exercise. Users are encouraged to share and download the resources provided, and to modify and customize them for local use. Open Access is evolving, and we invite the growing world-wide community to take part in this exciting global movement.

Melissa Hagemann OASIS Introduction on YouTube

AAP/PSP Endorses IPA/IFLA “Enhancing the Debate on Open Access” Statement

The Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division of the Association of American Publishers has endorsed the IPA/IFLA "Enhancing the Debate on Open Access" statement.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

The Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division of the Association of American Publishers (AAP/PSP) today expressed its support and endorsement of a joint statement on the open access debate issued by two prestigious international organizations representing publishers and librarians. Designed to bring more light and less heat to the often contentious debate surrounding open access, the statement, entitled "Enhancing the Debate on Open Access," was issued on May 20 by the International Publishers Association (IPA) and the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA). They were joined in releasing the statement by the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers.

Although the debate over open access presents a unique and important opportunity for the international publishing and library communities to explore the use of technology and new business models to meet the challenges of growing scholarly publishing output, the debate has too often been hobbled "by unnecessary polarisations and sweeping generalized statements." The IPA/IFLA statement attempts to lay out common ground for both communities so that future debate is conducted "in an open-minded way, encouraging experimentation and arguments based on empirical facts. . ."

Michael Hays (McGraw-Hill Education), chairman of the AAP/PSP Executive Council, said: "By acknowledging common ground and shared values and agreeing, among other things, that 'all assumptions surrounding open access and scholarly communications should be open to scientific scrutiny and academic debate,' this statement represents an important step forward in bringing a civility and rationality to this debate which has too often been absent. We applaud the efforts of IFLA and the IPA, and join in the spirit of open inquiry and mutual respect embodied by the statement."

PLoS Progress Report: June 2009

The Public Library of Science has released the PLoS Progress Report: June 2009.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

Reading it will tell you more about our story, our success and our vision for the future through the voices of many people who have helped us to get where we are today. In it you will find:

Discussions about important questions such as:

  • Five years after entering the publishing arena, what does the PLoS financial picture tell us? How will PLoS and OA affect STM (science, technology and medical) publishing in the future?
  • Examples of PLoS articles that have really changed outcomes on the ground: for example some that have improved global health, liberated research, helped scientists advance their careers, protected privacy, unearthed fossils, accelerated science or even changed policy.
  • Many personal messages from our supporters: "The innovation of PLoS was high-quality; open-access science. The innovation of PLoS ONE in some ways, is even larger because it allows radical reorganizations of scientific knowledge, which can enable new discoveries." Dr Jesse Ausubel, Director, Program for the Human Environment, The Rockefeller University.
  • Impressive statistics about the size of the PLoS community: 13,000 peer-reviewers. 26,000 authors, 1,400 board members and millions of unique visitors in 2008.
  • Information about our diverse portfolio of journals: why each exists and what they do for the organization and the audiences that they serve.
  • The reasons why PLoS still needs the financial support of our donors: to fuel OA advocacy and fund innovation in new online tools and how you can help us.
  • Our current financial statement: posted here ahead of our 990 filing on Guidestar, a commonly used resource for financial information about non profits.
  • The team: Board of Directors, Senior Staff and Editorial Boards.

“Summary and Conclusions. Final Chapter of Scholarly Communication for Librarians“

Heather Morrison has self-archived "Summary and Conclusions. Final Chapter of Scholarly Communication for Librarians" in E-LIS.

Scholarly Communication for Librarians is written from the perspective of a passionate advocate for Open Access and transformative change in scholarly communication, and is based on a course first taught at the University of British Columbia's School of Library, Archival and Information Studies. Topics covered include perspectives from the different groups involved in scholarly communication, including the scholars themselves, journals, publishers, and librarians. There are chapters devoted to Author’s Rights and Intellectual Property, Economics, Open Access, and Emerging Trends and Formats. The following summary highlights the major points of each chapter.

Position Statement From University Press Directors on Free Access to Scholarly Journal Articles

Ten university press directors have issued a statement about free access to scholarly journal articles.

Here's an excerpt:

  1. The undersigned university press directors support the dissemination of scholarly research as broadly as possible.
  2. We support the free access to scientific, technical, and medical journal articles no later than 12 months after publication. We understand that the length of time before free release of journal articles will by necessity vary for other disciplines.
  3. We support the principle that scholarly research fully funded by governmental entities is a public good and should be treated as such. We support legislation that strengthens this principle and oppose legislation designed to weaken it.
  4. We support the archiving and free release of the final, published version of scholarly journal articles to ensure accuracy and citation reliability.
  5. We will work directly with academic libraries, governmental entities, scholarly societies, and faculty to determine appropriate strategies concerning dissemination options, including institutional repositories and national scholarly archives.

Read more about it at "10 University-Press Directors Back Free Access to Scholarly Articles."

“Achieving the Full Potential of Repository Deposit Policies”

Karla Hahn has published "Achieving the Full Potential of Repository Deposit Policies" in the latest issue of Research Library Issues.

Here's an excerpt:

Editor's note: A small group of individuals with expertise on author-rights policies, the campus policy environment, National Institutes of Health (NIH) deposit processes, and digital repository services met in Washington DC on January 9, 2009, under the auspices of ARL's Public Policy and Scholarly Communication programs. The group explored opportunities, desired outcomes, and policy issues involved in developing capabilities for institutionally mediated deposit processes and content transfer between institution-based and funder-based repositories, particularly PubMed Central. Based on that discussion, the group also identified potential strategies that would lead toward creating the needed rights-management environment and repository services. This essay reflects the January 9 discussions.

Also of interest in this issue are: "Author-Rights Language in Library Content Licenses," "Digital Scholarly Communication: A Snapshot of Current Trends," and "Strategies for Supporting New Genres of Scholarship."

“Enhancing the Debate on Open Access: A Joint Statement by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions and the International Publishers Association”

IFLA and the IPA have issued "Enhancing the Debate on Open Access: A Joint Statement by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions and the International Publishers Association."

Here's an excerpt:

IFLA and IPA share a common set of basic understandings and believe that the observance of the shared ground as set out below would enhance the overall debate.

  1. IFLA and IPA value the contribution to scholarly communication that publishers and libraries have made and believe that mutual respect is important to enhance the quality of the public discourse on open access.
  2. IFLA and IPA recognise that the concerns of academic authors must be at the heart of this debate—their scientific freedom, and their needs as researchers, teachers, authors, reviewers and users are paramount.
  3. IFLA and IPA acknowledge that the broadest possible access to scholarly communications is an important shared objective and that potential access to all research by all researchers, irrespective of geographical location or institutional affiliation is a shared aspiration of libraries and publishers.
  4. All assumptions surrounding open access and scholarly communications should be open to scientific scrutiny and academic debate. All stakeholders are encouraged to innovate, experiment and explore the new opportunities that technology brings.
  5. IFLA and IPA recognise that access must be sustainable, i.e. that economic long-term viability and long-term archiving are important elements of this debate.
  6. IFLA and IPA agree that the debate is most effective if it recognises the potential diversity of scholarly communication in different academic disciplines and different types of publications, e.g, research journals, review journals, monographs, text books, etc. IFLA and IPA support a debate that avoids general conclusions for all scholarly communication but gives a closer, differentiated focus on the potentially very different framework in various academic disciplines and types of publications.
  7. Equally, scholarly publishers and their specific roles and functions can vary greatly. Scholarly publishing includes publishers with a variety of commercial and non-commercial affiliations and interests, outside and within the research community.
  8. IFLA and IPA believe publishers, librarians, government and funding agencies should at this stage support innovation, experimentation and pilot schemes on access to scholarly publications. Pilot schemes should be accompanied by vigorous research and analysis that enables evaluation against measurable targets, that reflect the chief concerns of academic authors (as set out in Point 2), as the basis for an enriched, fact-oriented debate. As part of investigating the feasibility of open access, studies should also explore such matters as impact, transparency and economic models. Data should be shared openly among stakeholders or disclosed to allow open scrutiny. The results from these studies should provide better insight into the processes surrounding open access.

See also the press release.

Google and University of Michigan Sign Expanded Digitization Agreement

Google and the University of Michigan have signed an expanded digitization agreement that incorporates the terms of the Google Book Search Settlement Agreement.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

Specifically, the agreement:

Expands the scope of Google and University of Michigan's partnership:
The University of Michigan continues its tradition of leadership in library digitization by being the first library to expand its partnership with Google under the terms of Google's settlement agreement with a broad class of authors and publishers. The principles underlying the new agreement are to ensure access to our collection, to provide a solid foundation for future research and study, and to provide the greatest public good for patrons of libraries around the US.

Broadens public access to University of Michigan's collections:
Once the settlement is approved by the court, readers and students throughout the US will enjoy the benefits of University of Michigan's collections, including free previews, the ability to buy access to University of Michigan's books online, and institutional subscriptions.

Supports shared services with other libraries:
The agreement empowers University of Michigan to broaden public access to its collection by using digital files of books that Google scans to strengthen and support initiatives like HathiTrust.

Provides greater digital access to University of Michigan's collections for students and faculty:
University of Michigan will get a digital copy of every book held in their collection, whether it's scanned from Michigan or at another library.

Broadens access to public domain books from University of Michigan's collection:
The University of Michigan will be able to share digital copies of public domain works Google has digitized from its collection with fellow academic institutions, libraries, and other organizations for non-commercial purposes. These provisions enable Michigan to share its digital library collection with students, scholars, and other library users around the world.

Subsidizes University of Michigan's Institutional Subscription:
If approved by the court, Google's agreement with authors and publishers allows it to make millions of digitized books available to colleges and universities via a subscription. Under our new agreement, Google will subsidize the cost of Michigan's subscription based on the number of books scanned from Michigan. In practice, this means that Google will subsidize the entire cost of Michigan's institutional subscription–so that Michigan's students and staff will be able to access and read almost every book Google has digitized from 29 libraries around the world, for free.

Expands access for students, faculty, and patrons with disabilities:
Google will make public domain works digitized from Michigan's print library collection accessible to users with print disabilities in the same ways as in-copyright books covered under the settlement agreement.

Safeguards the public's access to knowledge:
Michigan's agreement includes collective terms Google has committed to that can be enjoyed by any of Google's other partner libraries. Michigan is the first university to sign on to these terms, which give libraries new ways to help safeguard the public's access to these books.

Establishes a mechanism to review prices:
Our agreement gives Michigan and other participating libraries the power to review the pricing of Institutional Subscriptions to make sure that they are priced for "broad penetration," as required by the settlement agreement. That means that the reviewer will evaluate whether subscriptions are affordable enough to allow universities, libraries, and other institutions across the country to take advantage of them.

If they determine that prices are too high, University of Michigan and other participating libraries who sign these collective terms can challenge the prices through arbitration, and Google will be required to work with the Registry to adjust the pricing accordingly.

Ensures access to millions of books for generations to come:
Google has committed to make the books it has scanned publicly available for free search, consumer purchase, institutional subscriptions, and other services established by the settlement agreement. Our agreement ensures that libraries and their patrons can continue to use digital copies of the millions of books Google has scanned well into the future, even if Google goes away.

Also see the press release.

University of Washington Faculty Senate Passes Resolution Concerning Scholarly Publishing Alternatives and Authors’ Rights

The University of Washington Faculty Senate has passed a "Resolution Concerning Scholarly Publishing Alternatives and Authors' Rights." (Thanks to Open Access News.)

Here's an excerpt:

BE IT RESOLVED, that

1. the University of Washington prepare for a future in which academic publications are increasingly available through open sources by encouraging faculty members to:

  • assess the pricing practices and authors' rights policies of journals with which they collaborate (as authors, reviewers, and editors) and advocate for improvements therein; and
  • adopt and use an Addendum to Publication Agreement such as that provided by the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) in order to retain their rights to use their work in the classroom and in future publications and to archive final accepted manuscripts; and
  • publish scholarly works in moderately priced journals, in journals published by professional societies and associations, or in peer-reviewed "open access" journals; and
  • archive their work in the UW's ResearchWorks or other repositories supported by research institutions, professional societies, or government agencies in order to provide the widest and most affordable access to their scholarship; and

2. UW Libraries is encouraged to

  • provide relevant, current information regarding journal publishers, pricing, and authors' rights to departments and individual faculty members; and
  • maintain and further develop ResearchWorks and related services; and
  • allocate personnel to facilitate the deposit of faculty publications in ResearchWorks, and to obtain publishers' permission to deposit previously published works when possible; and

3. the University of Washington administration is encouraged to:

  • provide resources to the Libraries and to academic units to foster these efforts; and
  • work with departments and colleges to assure that the review process for promotion, tenure and merit takes into consideration these new trends and realities in academic publication.

“No-Fee OA Journals in the Humanities, Three Case Studies: A Presentation by Open Humanities Press”

S. A. Jottkandt has self-archived "No-Fee OA Journals in the Humanities, Three Case Studies: A Presentation by Open Humanities Press" in E-LIS.

Here's the abstract:

Open Humanities Press (OHP) is the first open access publisher devoted to contemporary critical theory. OHP was created as a grassroots movement of academics, librarians, journal editors and technology specialists to address the growing inequality of readers' access to critical materials necessary for our research. In this presentation, I offer case studies of journals edited by the founders of the new OA academic journal consortium, Open Humanities Press, as a starting point for a discussion of how professional open access publishing may be achieved without author-side fees (a "business model" that for both practical and cultural reasons is inappropriate in the context of humanities publishing). While reputable open access publishing in the humanities confronts significant challenges, the problem of how to finance it—the problem that is frequently raised as the Gold path's chief obstacle in the sciences—appears far and away the least pressing.

Gustavus Adolphus College Library Faculty Adopt Open Access Pledge

The Gustavus Adolphus College library faculty have adopted an open access pledge. (Thanks to Open Access Archivangelism.)

Here's the pledge:

The Gustavus library faculty believes that open access to scholarship is critical for scholarly communication and for the future of libraries. For that reason we pledge to make our own research freely available whenever possible by seeking publishers that have either adopted open access policies, publish contents online without restriction, and/or allow authors to self-archive their publications on the web. We pledge to link to and/or self-archive our publications to make them freely accessible.

Librarians may submit their work to a publication that does not follow open access principles and will not allow self archiving only if it is clearly the best or only option for publication; however, librarians will actively seek out publishers that allow them to make their research available freely online and, when necessary, will negotiate with publishers to improve publication agreements.