<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16446"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=906261314-20062012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>I find it very sad that the response on this list has been to
denigrate both the Finch report's authors and publishers in general. It
would seem that the (relatively small number of) primary contributors to this
list take it as an article of faith that publishers are to be hated and
destroyed; they do not want a balanced approach or a 'mixed economy' (e.g.
of green, gold etc).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=906261314-20062012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=906261314-20062012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>However, if researchers themselves, both as authors and as
readers, didn't value what journals, and their publishers, add to research
articles, they would long ago have ceased publishing in, or
reading, journals, and contented themselves with placing their articles
directly in, and reading from, repositories.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=906261314-20062012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=906261314-20062012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>If that were to change, those that benefit from the proceeds
of the current range of publishing models (not just shareholders, but also
learned society members etc...) would indeed face a major challenge. But
until it does, the challenge with which publishers are currently engaging is how
to enable their authors' work to be as accessible as possible, without making it
impossible to continue to do those things that authors and readers value in
journals. I don't see how that makes publishers
bad?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=906261314-20062012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=906261314-20062012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Can't we grow up and have a rather more reasoned
discussion?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=906261314-20062012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=906261314-20062012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Sally</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=906261314-20062012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=906261314-20062012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Sally Morris</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>South House, The Street, Clapham,
Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Tel: +44 (0)1903
871286</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Email:
sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> goal-bounces@eprints.org
[mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Jean-Claude
Guédon<BR><B>Sent:</B> 20 June 2012 14:05<BR><B>To:</B>
goal@eprints.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> [GOAL] Re: Agreement on Green OA not needed
from publishers but from institutions and funders<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>What I really, and I mean <B>*really*</B> like about this exchange is
that priorities are finally being set up right. <B>The business of research is
between researchers</B> and the institutions supporting research. Researchers
ought to communicate among themselves as they choose, and not as external
players (such as publishers) might desire. I really like what all my colleagues
have been saying below, and they are all researchers. <BR><BR>As for Dr. Wise,
her statements amount to reasserting or seeking a role for publishers, but she
should understand that the point of research is not publishers, and what
researchers need is some form of <B>publication</B>, not publishers. <BR><BR>The
problem publishers have in this new digital world is that they have trouble
justifying their role. To wit:<BR><BR>
<OL type=1>
<LI type=1 value=1>Peer review is performed by researchers, not publishers.
Peer reviewers are selected by journal editors that are researchers, not
publishers. Managing the flow of manuscripts in peer review often requires
tools that publishers may or may not provide; however, free tools are
available (e.g. OJS) and are evolving nicely all the time;
<LI type=1 value=2>Linguistic and stylistic editing could provide a small role
for publishers, except that they do it less and less for cost-cutting reasons
(i.e. profit-seeking reasons).
<LI type=1 value=3>Marketing of ideas is done wrong: it is done through
journals and it is handled largely through the flawed notion of impact
factors. More and more studies demonstrate a growing disconnect between impact
factors and individual article impacts. Researchers do not need a marketing of
journals; they need a marketing of their <B>articles</B> through some device
that clearly and unambiguously reflects the quality of their visible
(published) work.
<LI type=1 value=4>To market their own articles, researchers should have
recourse to OA repositories. Once better filled up through mandates,
repositories can become platforms for the efficient promotion of articles.
Such platforms are entirely independent of publishers. </LI></OL><BR>And Stevan
is absolutely right: OA policy is not the publishers' business, but the business
of institutions carrying on research.<BR><BR>Fundamentally, the publishers'
problem is that they claim to know the publication needs of researchers better
than researchers themselves; they also claim a degree of control over the "grand
conversation" of science. Obviously, both propositions are
unacceptable.<BR><BR>Jean-Claude Guédon<BR><BR><BR>Le mercredi 20 juin 2012 à
07:41 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">On 2012-06-20, at 7:15 AM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)
wrote: </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">...perhaps time to explore opportunities to work
<I>with</I> publishers?<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">No, precisely the opposite, I think: It's time for
institutions to realize that institutional </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">Green OA self-archiving policy is (and always has
been) exclusively their own </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">business, and not publishers' (who have a rather
different business...) </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">Negotiate subscription prices with publishers.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">But do not even discuss institutional OA policy with
publishers. </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">(And advise institutional researchers to ignore
incoherent clauses </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">in their copyright agreements: Anything of the form "P
but not-P" -- e.g. </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">"you retain the right to self-archive, but not if you
are required to </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">exercise the right to self-archive" -- implies
anything at all, as well as the </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">opposite of anything at all. Don't give it another
thought: just self-archive. </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">And institutions should set policy -- mandate
immediate deposit, specify </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">maximum allowable OA-embargo-length, the shorter the
better, and </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">keep publisher mumbo-jumbo out of the loop altogether.
Ditto for </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">funders, but, to avoid gratuitous extra problems as a
3rd-party site, </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">stipulate institutional rather than
institution-external deposit.) </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">Stevan Harnad </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">Dr Alicia Wise<BR><BR>Director of Universal
Access<BR><BR>ElsevierI The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford
I OX5 1GB<BR><BR>M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: <A
href="mailto:a.wise@elsevier.com">a.wise@elsevier.com</A><BR><BR><B>Twitter:
@wisealic</B><BR><BR> <BR><BR> <BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><B>From:</B> <A
href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</A>
[mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>David
Prosser<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, June 20, 2012 11:31 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<BR><B>Subject:</B> [GOAL] Re:
Why should publishers agree to Green OA?<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">Laurent makes an important point. OA policies
are between the funders or institutions and the researchers. These
agreements come before any agreement regarding copyright assignment between
authors and publishers. So, it is the job of publishers to decide if
they are willing to live with the deposit agreement between the
funder/institution and researchers, not the job of funders and institutions
to limit their policies to match the needs of
publishers.<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">David<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">On 20 Jun 2012, at 11:04, Laurent Romary
wrote:<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">Not that I know. I think the French Research
Performing Organizations are not planning to put negotiation with editors as
a premise to defining their own OA
policy. <BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">Laurent<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">Le 20 juin 2012 à 11:45, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) a
écrit :<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">Hi Laurent,<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">Institutions already do have agreements with
publishers via their libraries and/or library consortia.. This is
certainly the case for INRIA. <BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">With kind wishes,<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">Alicia<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><B>From:</B> <A
href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</A> <A
href="mailto:[mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org]">[mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org]</A> <B>On
Behalf Of </B>Laurent Romary<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, June 20,
2012 9:11 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Global Open Access List (Successor of
AmSci)<BR><B>Subject:</B> [GOAL] Re: Why should publishers agree to
Green OA?<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">This definitely makes no sense. Institutions are not
going to start negotiating agreements with all publishers one by one. Does
Elsevier have so much man power left to start negotiating with all
institutions one by one as well. The corresponding budget could then
probably used to reduce subscriptions prices
;-)<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">Laurent<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">Le 20 juin 2012 à 09:53, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) a
écrit :<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">Hi all,<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">Just a quick point of clarification…. Elsevier
doesn’t forbid posting if there is a mandate. We ask for an agreement
with the institution that has the mandate, and there is no cost for these
agreements. The purpose of these agreements is to work out a win-win
solution to find a way for the underlying journals in which academics choose
to publish to be sustainable even if there are high posting
rates.<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">With kind wishes,<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">Alicia<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">Dr Alicia Wise<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">Director of Universal
Access<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I
Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: <A
href="mailto:a.wise@elsevier.com">a.wise@elsevier.com</A><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><B>Twitter:
@wisealic</B><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><B>From:</B> <A
href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</A> <A
href="mailto:[mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org]">[mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org]</A> <B>On
Behalf Of </B>Peter Murray-Rust<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, June 19,
2012 7:23 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Global Open Access List (Successor of
AmSci)<BR><B>Subject:</B> [GOAL] Why should publishers agree to Green
OA?<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">I have some simple questions about Green OA. I don't
know the answers.<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR>* is there any *contractual* relationship
between a Green-publisher and any legal body? Or is Green simply a
permission granted unilaterally by publishers when they feel like it, and
withdrawable when they don't.<BR>* if Green starts impacting on publishers'
revenues (and I understand this is part of the Green strategy - when we have
100% Green then publishers will have to change) what stops them simply
withdrawing the permission? Or rationing it? Or any other anti-Green
measure<BR>* Do publishers receive any funding from anywhere for allowing
Green? Green is extra work for them - why should they increase the amount
they do?<BR>* Is there any body which regularly "negotiates" with publishers
such as ACS, who categorically forbid Green for now and for
ever.<BR><BR>Various publishers seem to indicate that they will allow Green
as long as it's a relatively small percentage. But, as Stevan has noted, if
your institution mandates Green, then Elsevier forbids it. So I cannot see
why, if Green were to reach - say - 50%, the publishers wouldn't simply
ration it and prevent
100%. <BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><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>+44-1223-763069<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><PRE>Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales).
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
<A href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</A>
<A href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</A>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">Laurent Romary<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">INRIA &
HUB-IDSL<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><A
href="mailto:laurent.romary@inria.fr">laurent.romary@inria.fr</A><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><PRE>Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales).
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
<A href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</A>
<A href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</A>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">Laurent Romary<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">INRIA &
HUB-IDSL<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><A
href="mailto:laurent.romary@inria.fr">laurent.romary@inria.fr</A><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE
TYPE="CITE"><ATT00001..txt><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><BR><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><PRE>Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales).
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
<A href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</A>
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE"><BR><PRE>_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
<A href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</A>
<A href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</A>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>