<div>Here is my attempt at summarizing the discussion, and my attempt at getting to where we need to go faster.</div><div><br></div><div>If Open Access is the only goal then all we need to do is follow Stevan's advice. However, the goal of Open Access itself is to change the scholarly information system into a system suitable for the 21st century. In this sense, Green Open Access is an incremental change, which is expected to lead to more fundamental changes over time. It is disheartening to witness how hard it is to implement this incremental change.</div>
<div><br></div><div>However, it does not matter. Major disruption will come. When it comes, it will be sudden and chaotic. We have witnessed it before. It has been documented extensively. Most people in technology have read Clayton Christensen's seminal work The Innovator's Dilemma, and whoever has not should do as soon as possible. We are right in the run-up to a classical disruption where a low-margin/low-overhead business replaces a high-margin/high-overhead business. Initially, the low-margin business is sneered at because it offers low quality. By the time the high-margin business realizes it is in trouble it is too late.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The high-margin/high-overhead business in scholarly communication is the publisher-library combination. Alicia's comment is indicative of this:</div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div><span style>This upward pressure on prices is of course offset by efficiency gains, and personally I think site licenses have been helpful in making the system more efficient. Libraries and their consortia are on the whole very professional negotiators.</span></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>This year's system may be more efficient that last year's, but that is not relevant. What matters is what is on the horizon and how you will compete with that. For a window into what is going on at Amazon, read Eric Hellman's blog: <a href="http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2012/04/publishings-amazon-powered-future.html">http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2012/04/publishings-amazon-powered-future.html</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>I do not doubt the professionalism of libraries and consortia as negotiators. However, through no fault of their own, they have been miserable failures in getting to reasonable results appropriate for the new digital era. Libraries enter the negotiations knowing they have to have a deal, and publishers know this. Moreover, the negotiations are about trivial concessions on the edges. The starting point is last year's price of the site license plus inflation plus increase in volume of content. No other publisher has gotten through this disruptive era with that kind of luxury. Ask newspapers, magazines, etc.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The real disruption will happen when universities realize that this whole business model belongs in the last century. Universities pay for all of the professional negotiators and negotiations on both sides. They pay for libraries to run collection-development meetings, inter-departmental meetings, consortia meetings. They pay (through the cost of site licenses) for the publisher's negotiators. Why? To help students and faculty buy digital content? Obviously, these present and future intelligentsia need help with this, because every day they come to the library for their iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, etc. accounts...</div>
<div><br></div><div>The idea of library-mediated digital lending seems reasonable only because we are conditioned by the paper era. Site licenses make sense only if the total cost of the site license, including the associated administrative costs and the technical maintenance, is less than that what individual researchers/scholars would be able to obtain. I sincerely doubt that. Moreover, once the purchase decision is in the hands of individuals, they will make price/value judgments. Libraries are much more limited to make such judgements, because they have to make them on behalf of a community. (In my blog, I detail what libraries should do instead. The end of lending is NOT the end of libraries.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>This disruption (or one similar to it) is inevitable. The only question is when it will happen, and the precise path it will take.</div><div><br></div><div>(BTW, I agree with both Jean-Claude and Jan regarding my positive points. Publishers have stepped in where academics did not. When publishers stepped in, they did a decent job on the points that I highlighted.)<br clear="all">
--Eric.<br><br><div><a href="http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com</a></div><div><br>Google Voice: (626) 898-5415<div>Telephone: (626) 376-5415<br>Skype chat, voice, or web-video: efvandevelde<br>
E-mail: <a href="mailto:eric.f.vandevelde@gmail.com" target="_blank">eric.f.vandevelde@gmail.com</a></div></div><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Peter Morgan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pbm2@cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">pbm2@cam.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:</span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">"For searchability, remember what Clifford Lynch declared years ago in the OA book edited by Neil Jacobs: no real open access without open computation…"<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Here's the (self-archived) link:<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><a href="http://old.cni.org/staff/cliffpubs/opencomputation.htm" target="_blank">http://old.cni.org/staff/cliffpubs/opencomputation.htm</a><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">--<u></u><u></u></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Peter Morgan<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Head of Medical and Science Libraries<u></u><u></u></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Medical Library<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Cambridge University Library<u></u><u></u></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Addenbrooke's Hospital<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Hills Road<u></u><u></u></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Cambridge<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">CB2 0SP<u></u><u></u></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">UK<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">email: <a href="mailto:pbm2@cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">pbm2@cam.ac.uk</a><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">tel: <a href="tel:%2B44%20%280%291223%20336757" value="+441223336757" target="_blank">+44 (0)1223 336757</a><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">fax: <a href="tel:%2B44%20%280%291223%20331918" value="+441223331918" target="_blank">+44 (0)1223 331918</a><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><font face="Tahoma"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-weight:bold">From:</span></font></b><font face="Tahoma"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> <a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org" target="_blank">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org" target="_blank">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a>] <b><span style="font-weight:bold">On Behalf Of </span></b>Jean-Claude Guédon<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> 15 May 2012 17:13<br><b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> <a href="mailto:goal@eprints.org" target="_blank">goal@eprints.org</a><br><b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> [GOAL] Re: [BOAI10] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div></div><div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">With due respect to Eric, I will disagree with at least the devolution of the first two tasks<br>
<br>1. The selection of editors should come from scientific communities themselves, not from commercial publishers. This is a good instance where commercial concerns (maximizing profits, etc.) can pollute research concerns. There is also something weird in having commercial publishers holding the key to what may amount to the ultimate academic promotion: being part of an editorial board means power over colleagues; being editor-in-chief even more so. At least, when journals were in the hands of scientific associations, the editorial choice remained inside the community of researchers. What criteria, beyond scientific competence and prestige, may enter into the calculations of a commercial publisher while choosing an editor-in-chief, God knows...<br>
<br>2. Effective peer review should be organized by peers themselves, by scholars and scientists, not by publishers. Tools to organize this process should ideally be based on free software and available to all in a way that allows disciplinary or speciality tweaking. The Open Journal System, for example, is a good, free, tool to organize peer review and manuscript handling in the editorial phase. Such a tool should be favoured over proprietary tools offered to editors as a way to convince them to join a particular journal stable, and as a way to make them dependent on that tool - yet another way to ensure growing stables of journals.<br>
<br>Professional "looks" can indeed be given away to commercial publishers. Layout, spelling, perhaps some syntaxic and stylistic help would be nice. But I would stop there. <br><br>As for the "archivable" historic record, I would have to see more details to give my personal blessing to this. Remember how Elsevier pitted Yale against the Royal Dutch Library when the issue of digital preservation began to emerge a dozen or so years ago. I am not sure about the distinction between archived and archivable.<br>
<br>For searchability, remember what Clifford Lynch declared years ago in the OA book edited by Neil Jacobs: no real open access without open computation. Elsevier and other publishers do code their articles in XML, but provide only impoverished, eye-ball limited, pdf or html files. When one uses Science Direct, all kinds of links pop up to guide us toward other articles, presumably from Elsevier journals. This is part of driving a competition based on impact factors. That is not the kind of searchability we want, even though it is of some value.<br>
<br>The quest for "alternative comprehensive systems" is exactly what Elsevier attempts to build with Scopus. In so doing, Elsevier picks up on the vision of Robert Maxwell when the latter did everything he could, from cajoling to suing, to get the Science Citation Index away from Garfield's hands. Is this really what we want? If it were open, and open access, Eric's idea would make sense; otherwise, it becomes a formidable source of economic power that will do much harm to scientific communication. In effect, with a universal indexing index and more than 2,000 titles in its stable, Elsevier could become judge and party of scientific value.<br>
<br>Finally, I am not blaming companies for trying to make money, except when they pollute their environment. Most do so in the physical environment, and they are regulated, or should be. The commercial publishers do it in their virtual environment by driving research competition through tools that also favour their commercial goals. The intense competition around publishing in "prestigious journals" - prestige being defined here as impact factors, although impact factors are a crazy way to measure or compare almost anything - leads to all kinds of practices that go against the grain of scientific research. The rise in retracted papers in the most prestigious journals - prestige being again measured here by IF - is a symptom of this "pollution.<br>
<br>The rise in journal prices was tentatively explained in my old article, "In Oldenburg's Long Shadow" that came out eleven years ago. It tries at least to account for the artificial creation of an inelastic market around "core journals", the latter being the consequence of the methods used to design the Science Citation Index. Incidentally, the invention of the "core journal" myth - myth because it arbitrarily transforms an operational truncation needed for the practical handling of large numbers of citations into an elite-building club of journals - has been one of the most grievous obstacle to the healthy globalization of science publishing in the whole world. Speak to Brazilians like Abel Packer about this, and he will tell you tons of stories related to this situation. Scientific quality grows along a continuous gradient, not according to a two-tier division between core science, so-called, and the rest.<br>
<br>Jean-Claude Guédon<br><br><u></u><u></u></span></font></p><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" style="width:100.0%"><tbody><tr><td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in"><pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">-- <u></u><u></u></span></font></pre><pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Jean-Claude Guédon<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre><pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Professeur titulaire<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Littérature comparée<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre><pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Université de Montréal<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
</td></tr></tbody></table><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Le lundi 14 mai 2012 à 11:38 -0700, Eric F. Van de Velde a écrit :<br><br><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">To Alicia: <u></u><u></u></span></font></p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Here are what I consider the positive contributions by commercial publishers. For any of the positive qualities I mention, it is easy find counterexamples. What matters is that, on the average, the major publishers have done a good job on the following: <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">- Select good editorial boards of leading scholars. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">- Develop effective systems for organizing peer review. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">- Produce articles/journals that look professional commensurate with the importance of the scholarship. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">- Produce an archivable historical record of scholarship. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Publishers only receive a marginally passing grade for producing searchable databases of the scholarly record and journals. In the age of iTunes, Netflix, etc., it is inexcusable that to search through scholarship one must buy separate products like the Web of Knowledge in addition to the journal subscriptions. Publishers need to work together to produce alternative comprehensive systems. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Most commercial publishers and some society publishers (like ACS) receive failing grades on cost containment. Because of their importance to academia, scholarly publishers have been blessed with the opportunity to reinvent themselves for the future without the devastating disruption other kinds of publishers faced (newspapers, magazines, etc.). However, instead of taking advantage of this opportunity, scholarly publishers are squandering it for temporary financial gain. Every price increase brings severe disruption closer. On the current path, your CEOs are betting the existence of the company every year. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">About the only company who understands the current information market is Amazon, and everything they do is geared towards driving down costs of the infrastructure. Your competition will not come from Amazon directly, but from every single academic who will be able to produce a high-quality electronic journal from his/her office. There may be only one success for every hundred failed journals in this system, but suppose it is so easy 100,000 try... Your brand/prestige/etc. will carry you only so far. (Amazon is focusing on e-books production now, but it is only a matter of time when they come out with a journal system.) <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">To Jean-Claude: <u></u><u></u></span></font></p></blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Blaming commercial enterprises for making too much money is like blaming scholars for having too many good ideas. Making money is their purpose. They will stop raising prices if doing so is in their self-interest. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">The real question is why the scholarly information market is so screwed up that publishers are in a position to keep raising prices. I am blaming site licenses (<a href="http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-if-libraries-were-problem.html" target="_blank">http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-if-libraries-were-problem.html</a> and <a href="http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2011/09/publishers-dilemma.html" target="_blank">http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2011/09/publishers-dilemma.html</a>), but I am open to alternative explanations. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> <u></u><u></u></span></font></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">--Eric.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><a href="http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com</a> <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>Google Voice: <a href="tel:%28626%29%20898-5415" value="+16268985415" target="_blank">(626) 898-5415</a> <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Telephone: <a href="tel:%28626%29%20376-5415" value="+16263765415" target="_blank">(626) 376-5415</a><br>
Skype chat, voice, or web-video: efvandevelde<br>E-mail: <a href="mailto:eric.f.vandevelde@gmail.com" target="_blank">eric.f.vandevelde@gmail.com</a> <u></u><u></u></span></font></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><br><br><u></u><u></u></span></font></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <<a href="mailto:pm286@cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">pm286@cam.ac.uk</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Jean-Claude,<br>This is a great analysis and says almost exactly some of what I was planning to say.<br><br>We cannot de facto trust the publishers to work in our interests. There was a time when this was posssible - but no longer. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
<br><br><br><br>-- <br>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader in Molecular Informatics<br>Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br>University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br><a href="tel:%2B44-1223-763069" target="_blank">+44-1223-763069</a><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>GOAL mailing list<br><a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org" target="_blank">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br><a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></pre><pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">_______________________________________________<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">GOAL mailing list<u></u><u></u></span></font></pre><pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org" target="_blank">GOAL@eprints.org</a><u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
<pre><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><u></u><u></u></span></font></pre>
</blockquote></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>