<!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 9.00.8112.16450"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=552250613-07102012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>It's my impression that it's not researchers per se (they like
publishing in journals, and reading articles with a journal 'label', with all
the signals that carries), but rather their cash-strapped librarians, who are
increasingly likely to be tempted by the (apparently) free 'alternative' to
journals if and when it offers them all or most of the literature their users
want. And that's what, understandably, scares publishers - and some of the
usage patterns shown up by recent studies can only fuel their
anxieties. Publishers are not against enabling the largest possible number
of people to read the content they publish - what they are against is
being forced out of business.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=552250613-07102012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=552250613-07102012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>But the underlying problem is the inevitably growing gap
between libraries' funding and the cost of providing access
to anywhere near all the literature their users might want. This is
not publishers' fault - it is simply the result of the growth in research
funding, which far outstrips the growth (if any) in library funding.
That's what makes the Gold OA model so attractive to me - in well-funded
research areas, at least, it has the potential to scale with research
funding.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=552250613-07102012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=552250613-07102012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>But even then, the global total cost of publication is bound
to continue to rise. I suspect none of us has yet come up with a
sufficiently radical new model for providing the services that researchers want,
both as authors and as readers, in a way that is both affordable for the
beneficiaries and worthwhile for the service providers. That doesn't mean
to say there isn't a fantastic new model out there - I certainly hope there
is! But personally I don't think Green OA is it.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=552250613-07102012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=552250613-07102012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Sally</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=552250613-07102012><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>Stevan
Harnad<BR><B>Sent:</B> 07 October 2012 13:29<BR><B>To:</B> Global Open Access
List (Successor of AmSci)<BR><B>Cc:</B> jisc-repositories<BR><B>Subject:</B>
[GOAL] Re: Open Access in the UK: Reinventing the Big Deal<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Sally Morris <SPAN dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk"
target=_blank>sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk</A>></SPAN> wrote:
<DIV><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote><U></U>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word">
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial>Stevan overlooks
the difference between 'publishing' an article in a repository and in a
journal. As long as researchers prefer the latter (and there are
lots of reasons why they seem to, in addition to peer review) then there will
be a demand for journals in which to publish: selection and collecting
together of articles of particular relevance to a given audience, and
of a certain range of quality; 'findability'; kudos of the
journal's title (and impact factor); copy-editing; linking;
quality of presentation; etc etc...</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT color=#0000ff
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial>And peer review
is in any case not a contextless operation. The selection of articles
for publication in journal X is a relative matter; not just 'is the
research soundly conducted and honestly reported?' but 'is it of sufficient
relevance, interest and value to our readers in
particular?'</FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I completely agree with Sally about peer review (it is a decision by
qualified specialists about whether a paper meets a journal's established
standards for quality <I>as well as subject matter, </I>as certified by the
journal's title and track-record), and I explicitly say so in the longer
commentaries of which I only posted an excerpt.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>But that, of course, does not change a thing about the fact that peer
review is merely a service, that can be unbundled from the many other products
and services with which it is currently co-bundled. It certainly does not imply
that in order for referees or editors to make a decision about journal subject
matter, there has to exist a set of articles co-bundled in a monthly or
quarterly collection, sold together as a product, online or on-paper!</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>As to the rest of the co-bundled products and services Sally mentions: If
she's right, then journals have nothing to fear from Green OA mandates, since
those only apply to the author's peer-reviewed, revised, accepted final draft.
That's what's self-archived in the author's institutional repository. If all
those other products and services are so important, then reaching 100% Green OA
globally will not make subscriptions unsustainable, because the need, and hence
the market, for all those other co-bundled products and services Sally mentioned
will still be there.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The only difference will be that all users -- not just subscribers -- will
have access to all peer-reviewed, revised, accepted final drafts. (That's
Green OA, and once we are there, I can stop wasting my time and energy trying to
get us there, as I have been doing for nearly 20 years now!) </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>But then can I ask Sally, please, to call off her fellow publishers who
have been relentlessly (and successfully) lobbying BIS not to mandate Green OA,
and have been imposing embargoes on Green OA, on the (rather incoherent)
argument that (1) Green OA is inadequate for researchers' needs and has already
proved to be a failure and (2) that if Green OA succeeded it would destroy
publishing, peer review, and research quality?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Otherwise this (incoherent) argument becomes something of a self-fulfilling
prophecy, and we have the Finch/RCUK fiasco to show for it.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Stevan Harnad</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word">
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT color=#0000ff
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT color=#0000ff
face=Arial>Sally</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial>Sally Morris</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial>South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing,
West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial>Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial>Email: <A
href="mailto:sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk"
target=_blank>sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us align=left>
<HR>
<FONT face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> <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>On Behalf Of </B>Stevan
Harnad<BR><B>Sent:</B> 06 October 2012 23:12<BR><B>To:</B> Global Open Access
List (Successor of AmSci)<BR><B>Cc:</B> <A
href="mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK"
target=_blank>JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK</A><BR><B>Subject:</B> [GOAL]
Re: Open Access in the UK: Reinventing the Big Deal<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; MIN-HEIGHT: 14px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px"><B>Publisher Wheeling and Dealing:
Open Access Via National and Global McNopoly?</B></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 13px Arial"><BR>Excerpted from more extensive
comments on the Poynder/Velterop Interview <A
href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/942-.html"
target=_blank><SPAN style="COLOR: #783f0f">here</SPAN></A> and <A
href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/943-.html"
target=_blank><SPAN style="COLOR: #783f0f">here</SPAN></A>.<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0px">
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 13px Arial"><B>Jan Velterop:</B><I> “a shift
to an author-side payment for the service of arranging peer review and
publication is a logical one”</I></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 13px Arial"><BR>The service of arranging peer
review I understand. <BR><BR>But what’s the rest? What’s “Arranging
publication”? Once a paper has been peer-reviewed, revised and accepted,
what’s left for publishers to do (for a fee) that authors can’t do for free
(by depositing the peer-reviewed, revised, accepted paper in their
institutional repository)?<BR><BR>And how to get <I>there</I>, from
<I>here</I> -- and at a fair price for just peer review alone? Publishers
won’t unbundle, downsize and renounce revenue until there’s no more market for
the extras and their costs – and Green OA is what will put paid to that
market. Pre-emptive Gold payment, while subscriptions are still being paid,
will not – and especially not hybrid Gold.<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0px">
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 13px Arial"><B>JV:</B><I> “‘Hybrid OA’
doesn’t exist. It is just “gold” OA. OA in a hybrid journal is the same as
OA in a fully OA journal for any given article.”</I></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 13px Arial"><BR>Gold OA is indeed Gold OA
whether the journal is hybrid or pure (and whether the Gold is Gratis or
CC-BY)<BR><BR>But “hybrid” does not refer to a kind of OA, it refers to a kind
of journal: the kind that charges both subscriptions and (optionally) Gold OA
fees. <BR><BR>That kind of journal certainly exists; and they certainly can
and do double-dip. And that’s certainly an expensive way to get (Gratis) Gold
OA. <BR><BR>And the Finch/RCUK policy will certainly encourage many if not all
journals to go hybrid Gold, and publishers, to maximize their chances of
making an extra 6% revenue from the UK, will in turn jack up their Green
embargoes past RCUK’s permissible limits.<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0px">
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 13px Arial"><B>JV:</B><I> “The
“double-dipping” argument is a red herring. There's… a notion that
subscription prices should be proportional to the number of articles in a
journal. How would that work? There are journals with 100 subscribers… and…
with thousands of subscribers [and] & 25 articles a year & 25 or
more articles a week.”</I></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 13px Arial"><BR>Double-dipping is not about the
number articles or subscribers a journal has, but about charging subscriptions
and, in addition, charging, per article, for Gold OA. That has nothing to do
with number of articles, journals or subscribers: It’s simply double-charging.
<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0px">
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 13px Arial"><B>JV:</B><I> “The cost, and…
revenue, of an individual article can only usefully… be expressed as an
average, and then probably company-wide. What would otherwise be the
situation for a loss-making hybrid journal that receives in one year 10% of
its articles as gold, and the next year only 2%? Impossible to work out. A
subscription system is inherently lacking in
transparency”</I></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 13px Arial"><BR>Nothing of the sort, and
extremely simple, for a publisher who really does not want to double-dip, but
to give all excess back as a rebate: <BR><BR>Count the total number of
articles, N, and the total subscription revenue, S. <BR><BR>From that you get
the revenue per article: S/N. <BR><BR>Hybrid Gold OA income is than added to
that total revenue (say, at a fee of S/N per article). <BR><BR>That means that
for k Gold OA articles, total hybrid journal revenue is S + kS/N.<BR><BR>And
if the journal really wants to reduce subscriptions proportionately, at the
end of the year, it simply sends a rebate to each subscribing
institution:<BR><BR>Suppose there are U subscribing institutions. Each one
gets a year-end rebate of kS/UN (regardless of the yearly value of k, S, U or
N).<BR><BR>(Alternatively, if the journal wants to give back all of the rebate
only to the institutions that actually paid for the extra Gold, don’t charge
subscribing institutions for Gold OA at all: But that approach shows most
clearly why and how this pre-emptive morphing scheme for a transition from
subscriptions to hybrid Gold to pure Gold is unscaleable and unsustainable,
hence incoherent. It is an Escher impossible figure, either way, because
collective subscriptions/“memberships” – including McNopolies -- only make
sense for co-bundled incoming content; for individual pieces of outgoing
content the peer-review service costs must be paid by the individual piece.
There are at least 20,000 research-active institutions on the planet and at
least 25,000 peer-reviewed journals, publishing several million individual
articles per year. No basis – or need --for a pre-emptive cartel/consortium
McNopoly.)<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0px">
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 13px Arial"><B>JV:</B><I> “If journals should
reduce their subscription price when they get a percentage of papers paid
for as gold, what should happen if they lose the same percentage (for
completely different reasons) of subscriptions?”</I></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 13px Arial"><BR>Less Gold – the value of the
year-end institutional rebate -- kS/UN – is less that year.<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0px">
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 13px Arial"><B>JV:</B><I> “What if a journal
which decided to go hybrid has published a steady amount of 50 articles a
year for ages and all of a sudden attracts an extra 10 gold OA articles? By
how much should it reduce its subscription price?”</I></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 13px Arial"><BR>By exactly10S/50U per
subscribing institution U.<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0px">
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 13px Arial"><B>JV:</B><I> “If an article is
worth £2,000 to have published with OA in a full-OA journal, why is it not
worth the same £2,000 if published in a hybrid
journal?”</I></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 13px Arial"><BR>Simple answer: it’s not worth
the price either way. Both prices are grotesquely inflated. No-fault peer
review should cost about $100-200 per round…</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 13px Arial"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 13px Arial"><B>Stevan
Harnad</B><BR><BR><B><I>Excerpted from more extensive comments on the
Poynder/Velterop Interview </I></B><A
href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/942-.html"
target=_blank><SPAN style="COLOR: #783f0f"><B><I>here</I></B></SPAN></A><B><I>
and </I></B><A
href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/943-.html"
target=_blank><SPAN
style="COLOR: #783f0f"><B><I>here</I></B></SPAN></A><B><I>.</I></B></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>On 2012-10-02, at 5:00 AM, Richard Poynder wrote:</DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV lang=EN-GB link="blue" vlink="purple">
<DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Love
it or loathe it, the recently announced Open Access policy from Research
Councils UK has certainly divided the OA movement. Despite considerable
criticism, however, RCUK has refused to amend its
policy.<U></U><U></U></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><U></U><U></U></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">So
what will be its long-term impact?<U></U><U></U></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><U></U><U></U></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Critics
fear that RCUK has opened the door to the reinvention of the Big Deal.
Pioneered by Academic Press in 1996, the Big Deal involves publishers
selling large bundles of electronic journals on multi-year contracts.
Initially embraced with enthusiasm, the Big Deal is widely loathed
today.<U></U><U></U></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><U></U><U></U></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">However,
currently drowned out by the hubbub of criticism, there are voices that
support the RCUK policy. Jan Velterop, for instance, believes it will be
good for Open Access.<U></U><U></U></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><U></U><U></U></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Velterop
also believes that the time is ripe for the creation of a New Big Deal
(NBD). The NBD would consist of “a national licensing agreement” that
provided researchers with free-at-the-point-of-use access to all the papers
sitting behind subscription paywalls, *plus* a “national procurement
service” that provided free-at-the-point-of-use OA publishing services for
researchers, allowing them to publish in OA journals without having to foot
the bill themselves. <U></U><U></U></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><U></U><U></U></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Velterop’s
views are not to be dismissed lightly. Former employee of Elsevier, Springer
and Nature, Velterop was one of the small group of people who attended the
2001 Budapest meeting that saw the birth of the Open Access movement, and he
was instrumental in the early success of OA publisher BioMed
Central.<U></U><U></U></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><U></U><U></U></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Moreover,
during his time at Academic Press, Velterop was a co-architect of the
original Big Deal.<U></U><U></U></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><U></U><U></U></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">More
on this, and a Q&A with Velterop, can be read here:<U></U><U></U></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><U></U><U></U></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><A
style="COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline"
href="http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/open-access-in-uk-reinventing-big-deal.html"
target=_blank>http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/open-access-in-uk-reinventing-big-deal.html</A><U></U><U></U></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><U></U><U></U></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></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></BODY></HTML>