<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Dear Richard,<div><br></div><div>Here are the answers:</div><div><br></div><div>1. ORBi, the Liège University Repository, will soon (I believe) reach 90% compliance. It is our target for 2014 and I hope we make it.</div><div>This figure comes from the calculation of the percentage of ULg papers that can be found in Web of Science and/or in Scopus that are deposited in ORBi as well (see method in <span style="font-family: CenturyGothic;"> </span><a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/340294/" style="font-family: CenturyGothic;">http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/340294/</a>)</div><div>It concerns one year at a time and it is not cumulative. Last May, the compliance level for the publications of 2013 was already 73% and our figure for 2012 is in the 80% range.</div><div><br></div><div>2. Only a small proportion of ULg papers are in CC-BY.</div><div>This is simply because, in order to publish in the journal of their choice (I haven’t tried to do anything against that!), our authors, in the great centuries-old tradition, give away their rights to the publisher. We have no control on that.</div><div>Later on, there is no way for them to CC-BY the same text (in fact, we are preparing ORBi 2.0, that will offer a CC-BY choice).</div><div>For now, we are aiming at free access and we are not yet fighting hard for re-use rights. We shall move progressively in this direction of course, while the publishing mores evolve…</div><div>In other words, I agree that we have free access, not a full fledge open access yet. It is not a failure, it is our objective to gain confidence first.</div><div>Unfortunately, even if we have established in-house rules for evaluation, external evaluations are still based on traditional indicators such as the highly and rightfully criticized but widely used Impact Factor and the like. In these conditions, today we cannot sacrifice our researchers — singularly the young ones — in the overall competition for jobs and funds, on the altar of « pure » Open Access.</div><div><br></div><div>Best wishes</div><div><br></div><div>Bernard Rentier</div><div>Rector, University of Liège, Belgium</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>Le 19 sept. 2014 à 21:52, Richard Poynder <<a href="mailto:ricky@richardpoynder.co.uk">ricky@richardpoynder.co.uk</a>> a écrit :</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font-family: CenturyGothic; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Dear Bernard,<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">I have two questions if I may:<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><span>1.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">You say that Liège is getting close to 90% compliance. Can you explain how you know that, and how you calculate compliance levels? I ask this because the consistent theme coming through from UK universities with regard to compliance to the RCUK OA mandate is that they simply do not know how many research outputs their faculty produce each year. If that is right, what systems does Liège have in place to enable it to produce a comprehensive list of research outputs that UK universities apparently do not have?<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><span>2.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Does Liège track the licences attached to the deposits in its repository? If so, can you provide some stats, especially the number of items that are available CC-BY (which we are now told is required before a deposit can be characterised as being open access?<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Thank you.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Richard Poynder<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></div><div><div style="border-style: solid none none; border-top-color: rgb(225, 225, 225); border-top-width: 1pt; padding: 3pt 0cm 0cm;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a> [<a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org</a>]<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b>On Behalf Of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b><a href="mailto:brentier@ulg.ac.be">brentier@ulg.ac.be</a><br><b>Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>19 September 2014 18:46<br><b>To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<br><b>Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>[GOAL] Re: Fwd: The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster<o:p></o:p></span></div></div></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></div><div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">"<i>Liège does not mandate anything, so far as I know; it only looks into the local repository (Orbi) to see what is in it, and it does so to assess performance or respond to requests for promotions or grant submissions.</i>" (JC. Guédon)<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br><br><o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Oh no, Jean-Claude, Liège mandates everything.<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">It is a real mandate and it took me a while to get almost every ULg researcher to realise that it is to his/her benefit. <o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Linking the deposits to personal in-house assessment was the trick to get the mandate enforced in the first place. As well as a few positive incentives and a lot of time consuming persuasion (but it was well worth it).<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Last Wednesday, the Liège University Board has put an ultimate touch of wisdom on its mandate by adding "<i>immediately upon acceptance, even in restricted access</i>" in the official procedure. Actually, a nice but to some extent useless addition because, with time (the mandate was imposed in 2007), ULg authors have become so convinced of the increase in readership and citations that two thirds of them make their deposits between the date of acceptance and the date of publication. <o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">All this explains why we are getting close to 90% compliance, an outstanding result, I believe. <o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br><br><o:p></o:p></div></div><div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br>Le 18 sept. 2014 à 23:40, Jean-Claude Guédon <<a href="mailto:jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca</a>> a écrit :<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">A reasonably quick response as I do not want to go into discursive tsunami mode...<br><br>1. Stevan admits that his evaluation of compliance is an approximation, easy to get, but not easy to correct. This approximation varies greatly from one institution to another, one circumstance to another. For example, he admits that language plays a role; he should further admit that the greater or smaller proportion of SSH researchers in the research communities of various institutions will also play a role. in short, comparing two institutions by simply using WoS approximations appears rash and unacceptable to me, rather than simply quick and dirty (which I would accept as a first approximation).<br><br>The impact factor folly was mentioned because, by basing his approximation on the WoS, Stevan reinforces the centrality of a partial and questionable tool that is, at best, a research tool, not a management tool, and which stands behind all the research assessment procedures presently used in universities, laboratories, etc.<br><br>2. Stevan and I have long differed about OA's central target. He limits himself to journal articles, as a first step; I do not. I do not because, in the humanities and social sciences, limiting oneself to journal articles would be limiting oneself to the less essential part of the archive we work with, unlike natural scientists.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><br>Imagine a universe where a research metric would have been initially designed around SSH disciplines and then extended as is to STM. In such a parallel universe, books would be the currency of choice, and articles would look like secondary, minor, productions, best left for later assessments. Then, one prominent OA advocate named Stenan Harvard might argue that the only way to proceed forward is to focus only on books, that this is OA's sole objective, and that articles and the rest will be treated later... Imagine the reaction of science researchers...<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><br>3. Liège does not mandate anything, so far as I know; it only looks into the local repository (Orbi) to see what is in it, and it does so to assess performance or respond to requests for promotions or grant submissions. If books and book chapters are more difficult to treat than articles, then place them in a dark archive with a button. This was the clever solution invented by Stevan and I agree with it.<br><br>4. To obtain mandates, you need either faculty to vote a mandate on itself (but few universities have done so), or you need administrators to impose a mandate, but that is often viewed negatively by many of our colleagues. Meanwhile, they are strongly incited to publish in "prestigious journals" where prestige is "measured" by impact factors. From an average researcher's perspective, one article in Nature, fully locked behind pay-walls, is what is really valuable. Adding open access may be the cherry on the sundae, but it is not the sundae. The result? OA, as of now, is not perceived to be directly significant for successfully managing a career.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><br>On the other hand, the OA citation advantage has been fully recognized and accepted by publishers. That is in part why they are finally embracing OA: with high processing charges and the increased citation potential of OA, they can increase revenues even more and satisfy their stakeholders. This is especially true if funders, universities, libraries, etc., are willing to pay for the APC's. This is the trap the UK fell into.<br><br>5. SSH authors are less interested in depositing articles than STM researchers because, for SSH researchers, articles have far less importance than books (see above), and, arguably, book chapters.<br><br>6. I am not citing rationales for the status quo, and Stevan knows this well. This must be the first time that I have ever been associated with the status quo... Could it be that criticizing Stevan on one point could be seen by him as fighting for the status? But that would be true only if Stevan were right beyond the slightest doubt. Hmmmmmmmmmm!<br><br>I personally think he is right on some points and not so right on others.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><br>Also, I am simply trying to think about reasons why OA has been so hard to achieve so far, and, in doing so, I have come to two conclusions: too narrow an objective and too rigid an approach can both be counter-productive.<br><br>This said, trying to have a method to compare deposit rates in various institutional and mandate circumstances would be very useful. I support Stevan's general objective in this regard; I simply object to the validity of the method he suggests. Alas, I have little to suggest beyond my critique.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><br>I also suggest that a better understanding of the sociology of research (not the sociology of knowledge) is crucial to move forward.<br><br>Finally, I expect that if I saw Stevan self-archive his abundant scientific production, I would be awed by the lightning speed of his keystrokes. But are they everybody's keystrokes?<br><br>Jean-Claude Guédon<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" style="width: 698px;"><tbody><tr><td style="padding: 0cm;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">--<o:p></o:p></div><pre style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';">Jean-Claude Guédon<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';">Professeur titulaire<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';">Littérature comparée<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';">Université de Montréal<o:p></o:p></pre></td></tr></tbody></table><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Le jeudi 18 septembre 2014 à 12:28 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :<o:p></o:p></div><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon <<a href="mailto:jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Most interesting dialogue.<br><br>I will focus on two points:<br><br>1.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b>Using the Web of Science collection as a reference</b>: this generates all kinds of problems, particularly for disciplines that are not dominated and skewed by the impact factor folly. This is true, for example, of most of the social sciences and the humanities, especially when these publications are not in English.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">The purpose of using WoS (or SCOPUS, or any other standardized index) as a<i><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>baseline</i> for assessing OA repository success is to be able to estimate (and compare) <i>what percentage of an institution's total annual refereed journal article output has been self-archived. </i><o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Raw total or annual deposit counts tell us neither (1) whether the deposits are refereed journal articles nor (2) when the articles were published, nor (most important of all) (3) what proportion of total annual refereed journal article output is deposited.<o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Institutions do not know even know their total annual refereed journal article output. (One of the (many) reasons for mandating self-archiving is in order to get that information.)<o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">The WoS (or SCOPUS, or other) standardized database provides the denominator against which the deposits of those articles provide the numerator. <o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Once that ratio is known (for WoS articles, for example), it provides an estimate of the proportion of total institutional article output deposited. <o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Anyone can then "correct" the ratio for their institution and discipline, if they wish, by simply taking a (large enough) sample of total institutional journal article output for a recent year and seeing what percentage of it is in WoS! (This would obviously have to be done discipline by discipline; and indeed the institutional totals should also be broken down and analyzed by discipline.)<o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">So if D/W, the WoS-deposit/total-WoS ratio = R, and w/s, the WoS-indexed-portion/total-output-sample = c, then c can be used to upgrade W to the estimate of total institutional article output, and the WoS deposit ratio R can be compared to the deposit ratio for the non-WoS sample (<i>which must not, of course, be derived from the repository, but some other way!</i>) to get a non-WoS ratio of Rc. <o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">My own prediction is that R and Rc will be quite similar, but if not, c can also be used to correct R to better reflect both WoS and non-WoS output and their relative sizes.<o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">But R is still by far the easiest and fastest way to get an estimate of institutional deposit percentages.<o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">(As far as I can see, none of this has much to do with impact factor folly. For non-English-language institutions, however, the non-WoS correction may be more substantial.)<o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Stevan has also and long argued about limiting oneself to journal articles. I have my own difficulties with this limitation because book chapters and monographs are so important in the disciplines that I tend to work in. Also, I regularly write in French as well as English, while reading articles in a variety of languages. Most of the articles that are not in English are not in the Web of Science. A better way to proceed would be to check if the journals not in the WoS, and corresponding to deposited articles, are peer-reviewed. The same could be done with book chapters. Incidentally, if I limited myself to WoS publications for annual performance review, I would look rather bad. I suspect I am not the only one in such a situation, while leading a fairly honourable career in academe.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Authors are welcome to deposit as much as they like: articles, chapters, books, data, software.<o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">But OA's primary target (and also its primary obstacle) is journal articles. Ditto for OA mandates.<o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">All disciplines, including the social sciences and humanities, in all languages, write journal articles. This discussion is about the means of measuring the success of an OA self-archiving mandate. It applies to all journal articles (and refereed conference articles) in all disciplines.<o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">There are problems with mandating book deposit, or even book chapter deposit, so that is being left for later.<o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Nothing is being said about performance review except that the way to submit journal articles should be stipulated to be repository deposit.<o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> <o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">2.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b>The issue of rules and regulations.</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>It is absolutely true that a procedure such as the one adopted at the Université de Liège and which Stevan aptly summarizes as (with a couple of minor modifications): "<i>henceforth the way to submit refereed</i><i><s>journal article</s><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>publications for annual performance review is to deposit them in the [appropriate] IR "</i>.<o:p></o:p></div></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Liège does not mandate the deposit of books.<o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> <o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">However, obtaining this change of behaviour from an administration is no small task. At the local, institutional, level, it corresponds to a politically charged effort that requires having a number of committed OA advocates working hard to push the idea. Stevan should know this from his own experience in Montreal; he should also know that, presently, the Open Access issue is not on the radar of most researchers. In scientific disciplines, they tend to be mesmerized by impact factors without making the link between this obsession and the OA advantage, partly because enough controversies have surrounded this issue to maintain a general feeling of uncertainty and doubt. In the social sciences and humanities where the citation rates are far less "meaningful" - I put quotation marks here to underscore the uncertainty surrounding the meaning of citation numbers: visibility, prestige, quality? - the benefits of self-archiving one's articles in open access are less obvious to researchers, especially if they do not adopt a global perspective on the importance of the "grand conversation" needed to produce knowledge in an optimal manner, but rather intend to manage and protect their career.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">I am not sure what is the point of the above observations. I agree it has been difficult to get authors to deposit. That's why the OA movement has turned to mandates, and now to ways of optimizing mandates so as to facilitate and maximize success (i.e. deposit rates). And here we are just talking about how to measure and compare those deposit rates between institutions, and between mandates.<o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Nothing about impact factors, performance evaluation criteria, metrics, discipline criteria or language differences. Just ways to induce journal article authors to deposit them in their institutional repositories. <o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Saying all this is not saying that we should not remain committed to OA, far from it; is is simply saying that the chances of success in reaching OA will not be significantly improved by simply referring to "huge" benefits at the cost of only a few extra keystrokes. This is rhetoric. The last time I deposited an article of mine, given the procedure used in the depository I was using, it took me close to half an hour to enter all the details required by that depository - a depository organized by librarians, mainly for information science specialists. All these details were legitimate and potentially useful. However, while I was absolutely sure I was doing the right thing, I could well understand why a colleague less sanguine about OA than I am might push this task to the back burner. In fact, I did so myself for several months. Shame on me, probably, but this is the reality of the quotidian.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">I invite Jean-Claude to time me depositing an article in my institutional repository (and I am not a fast typist)! It takes about two minutes.<o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">In conclusion, i suspect that if Stevan focuses on such a narrowly-defined target - journal articles in the STM disciplines - this is because he gambles on the fact that making these disciplines fully OA would force the other disciplines in the humanities and social sciences to follow suit sooner or later. Perhaps, it is so, but perhaps it is not. Meanwhile, arguing in this fashion tends to alienate practitioners of the humanities and the social sciences, so that the alleged advantages of narrowly focusing on a well-defined target are perhaps more than negatively compensated by the neglect of SSH disciplines. yet, the latter constitute about half, if not more, of the researchers in the world.<o:p></o:p></div><table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" style="width: 538px;"><tbody><tr><td style="padding: 0cm;"></td></tr></tbody></table></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">The target is journal articles in all disciplines. Not clear why SSH journal article authors would be any more or less compliant with self-archiving mandates than any other discipline. It has nothing to do with books, yet.<o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Yes, once journal articles are being self-archived universally, many other things will follow.<o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">I suggest that it may be more constructive to practice deposit keystrokes to provide OA than to cite a-priori rationales for the status quo, Jean-Claude. I bet you'll be up to speed after depositing just a few articles!<o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Stevan Harnad <o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" style="width: 538px;"><tbody><tr><td style="padding: 0cm;"></td></tr></tbody></table><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Le mercredi 17 septembre 2014 à 07:07 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :<br><br><o:p></o:p></div><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br>Begin forwarded message:<br><br><br><o:p></o:p></div><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><b>From:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk</a>><br><br><b>Subject:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Re: The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><b>Date:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>September 16, 2014 at 5:28:48 PM GMT-4<br><br><b>To:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b><a href="mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK</a><br><br><br><br>On Sep 16, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Paul Royster <<a href="mailto:proyster2@UNL.EDU" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">proyster2@UNL.EDU</a>> wrote:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></div><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">At the risk of stirring up more sediment and further muddying the waters of scholarly communications,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>but in response to direct questions posed in this venue earlier this month, I shall venture the following …<br><br>Answers for Dr. Harnad<br><br>(1) What percentage of Nebraska-Lincoln output of peer-revewed journal articles (only) per year is<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>deposited in the N-L Repository? About 3 months ago I furnished your graduate student (at least he<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>said he was your student) with 5 years of deposit data so he could compare it to Web of Science<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>publication dates and arrive at some data-based figure for this. I cautioned him that I felt Web of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>Science to be a narrow and commercially skewed comparison sample, but I sent the data anyway.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>So I expect you will have an answer to this query before I do. If the news is good, I hope you will<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>share it with this list; if not, then let your conscience be your guide. As for benchmarking, I don’t believe<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>it is a competition, and every step in the direction of free scholarship is a positive one. I hope when<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>they hand out the medals we at least get a ribbon for participation.<o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br><br>Thanks for reminding me! It was my post-doc, Yassine Gargouri, and I just called him to ask about<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>the UNL results. He said he has the UNL data and will have the results of the analysis in 2-3 weeks!<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><br><br>So the jury is still out. But many thanks for sending the data. Apparently Sue was not aware that UNL<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>had provided those data (and I too had forgotten!).<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></div><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">(2) Why doesn’t N-L adopt a self-archiving mandate? <br>I do not even attempt to explain the conduct of the black box that is my university’s administration;<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>so in short, I cannot say why or why not. I can only say why I have not campaigned for adoption of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>such a mandate. My reasons have been purely personal and idiosyncratic, and I do not hold them<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>up as a model for anyone else or as representing the thinking or attitude of this university. Bluntly,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>I have not sought to create a mandate because I feel there are enough regulations and requirements<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>in effect here already. Instituting more rules brings further problems of enforcement or compliance,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>and it creates new categories of deviance. There are already too many rules: we have to park in<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>designated areas; we have to drink Pepsi rather than Coke products; we have to wear red on game<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>days; we can’t enter the building through the freight dock; etc. etc. etc. I simply do not believe in<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>creating more rules and requirements, even if they are for our own good. The Faculty Senate<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>voted to “endorse and recommend” our repository; I have not desired more than that. But I am<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>concerned mainly with 1600 faculty on two campuses in one medium-sized university town—not<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>with a universal solution to the worldwide scholarly communications crisis. I see discussions lately<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>about “putting teeth” into mandated deposit rules, and I wonder—who is intended to be bitten?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>Apparently, the already-beleaguered faculty.<o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br><br>I agree that we are over-regulated! But I think that doing a few extra keystrokes when a refereed<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>final draft is accepted for publication is really very little, and the potential benefits are huge. Also,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>there is some evidence as to how authors comply with a self-archiving mandate — if it’s the right<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>self-archiving mandate, i.e., If the mandate simply indicates that<i><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>henceforth the way to submit refereed</i><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><i>journal article publications for annual performance review is to deposit them in UNL’s IR</i><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>(rather than<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>however they are being submitted currently) then UNL faculty will comply as naturally as they did<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>when it was mandaed that submissions should be online rather than in hard copy. It’s just a technological upgrade.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></div><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">(3) Why do you lump together author-pays with author-self-archives?<br>I was not aware that I did this, so perhaps you are responding to Sue’s catalog of various proposed<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>solutions—“author-pays OA, mandated self-archiving of manuscripts, CHORUS, SHARE, and others”—as<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>all being “ineffectual or unsustainable initiatives to varying degrees.” I feel we are strong believers and<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>even advocates for author self-archiving (so-called), and disdainful non-advocates for author-pays models.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>But I think we have become aware of the divergence of interests between the global theoretics of the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>open access “movements” on the one hand and the “boots-on-the-ground” practicalities of managing<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>a local repository, even one with global reach, on the other. Crusades for and controversies about<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>“open access” have come to seem far removed from what we actually do, and now seem more of a<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>distraction than a help or guide.<o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br><br>I can understand that, from the library’s perspective: The library can’t mandate self-archiving, can’t fund<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>author-pays, and can’t do anything about authors’ rights. But maybe, if you look at the evidence that<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>mandates work, and become convinced, then the library could encourage the administration… And<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>of course if self-archiving is mandated at UNL, then the library can help with mediated self-archiving,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>at least initially, as I pointed out to Sue (though it’s hardly necessary, for a few keystrokes — certainly<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>a much smaller task than UNL’s current mediated deposit: tracking down the PDF. checking the rights. etc.).<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></div><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">We have been (and continue to be) constant supporters of “green” open access; and we have appreciated<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>Dr. Harnad’s reliably indefatigable defenses of that cause against innumerable critics, nay-sayers, and<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>“holier-than-thou” evangelists of competing approaches. I sympathize with his weariness, I applaud his tirelessness,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>and I do not wish to tax his patience further. I hope no part of this response will be interpreted as attempting<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>to dispute, contradict, or diminish any of his points. I regret if these answers are unsatisfactory or incomplete,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>but that is all I can manage at this time.<o:p></o:p></div></blockquote><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br><br>Much appreciated, Paul! <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><br><br>Hope to have the UNL data for you soon, with a comparison with other IRs, mandated and unmandated.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><br><br>Best wishes,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><br><br>Stevan<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></div><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br>Paul Royster<br>Coordinator of Scholarly Communications<br>University of Nebraska–Lincoln<br><a href="mailto:proyster@unl.edu" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">proyster@unl.edu</a><br><a href="http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">http://digitalcommons.unl.edu</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></blockquote><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></div><pre style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';">GOAL mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';"><a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">GOAL@eprints.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';"><a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">_______________________________________________<br>GOAL mailing list<br><a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br><a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><pre style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';">GOAL mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';"><a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">GOAL@eprints.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';"><a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">_______________________________________________<br>GOAL mailing list<br><a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br><a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><o:p></o:p></div></blockquote></div>_______________________________________________<br>GOAL mailing list<br><a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>