<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/4.2.2">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
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.
</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>