Re: Stable Self-Archiving Software

From: Jan Velterop <>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:10:35 +0000

Dear Jim,

The potential for instability you describe lends support to the necessity of
inclusion in the definition of Open Access of this:
"['open access' means that:] The article is universally and freely
accessible via the Internet, in an easily readable format and deposited
immediately upon publication, without embargo, in an agreed format - current
preference is XML with a declared DTD - in at least one widely and
internationally recognized open access repository (such as PubMed Central)"
(from the BioMed Central definition: We deposit also in HTML
and PDF, but both are of course based on the underlying XML. Meanwhile, all
research articles published by BioMed Central are also deposited (actively,
where we take the initiative, as well as passively, where the depository
collects) in a range of other depositories and not just in PubMed Central.
Some of them take all the journals; others selected journals. We have a
deliberate policy of redundancy in that respect.

Findability of the full text via PubMed, Google and others is assured, even
if one or more of the sites are down (unless, of course, they are all down,
in which case there probably is a worldwide problem of such a scale that it
dwarfs the problem of not finding a particular article).

All Open Access material published by BioMed Central, be it from our own
site or from any of the deposits, is not just free, but truly open: it
allows for the material to be used, re-used, and incorporated in e.g.
databases and course-packs freely, allows unlimited print copies (some other
OA definitions limit print to 'a small number of copies for personal use'),
and does not even exclude commercial use (if anybody can sell OA material
that is freely available from many sites, well, good luck to them), all on
only one stipulation: proper attribution of the author(s).

Best wishes,

Jan Velterop
BioMed Central

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Till [mailto:till_at_UHNRES.UTORONTO.CA]
> Sent: 09 January 2004 02:56
> Subject: Re: Free Access vs. Open Access
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Stevan Harnad wrote [in part]:
> >[sh]> If you have the money to publish *one* article in
> >[sh]> PLoS ($1500) you have more than enough money to set
> >[sh]> up at least one eprint archive. (Kepler OAI
> >[sh]> "archivelets" might be an even cheaper solution:
> >[sh]> ).
> I did set up, in June 2001, the original version of a Kepler
> archivelet. However, the original Kepler Search Service,
> where my eprints were cached, is no longer supported by the
> research group at Old Dominion University. So, the stability
> of the server that supported the archivelet did become an
> issue.
> FYI, the current home page for Kepler is at:
> At the bottom of this page is a link labeled:
> "What happened to the previous version of Kepler?",
> If one follows this link, the page obtained includes this
> paragraph:
> "The first version of Kepler as described in D-Lib Magazine
> 7(4) is no longer functioning. Users of old Kepler are urged
> to upgrade to the new archivelet. The publications that were
> previously uploaded via old Kepler are available in the test
> group section."
> There's a link to the "test group", but clicking on it has
> yielded, on several occasions, only a 404 (not available)
> error message.
> So, my experiment with the first version of Kepler was an
> interesting one, but I've decided not to repeat it with a
> "new archivelet". One experience with instability of the
> host server was enough for me.
> In my previous message, I also asked for advice about
> self-archiving a current eprint of mine (it's *not* about
> electronic publishing, it's an invited commentary about
> cancer-related electronic support groups). It's currently in
> preprint form, and I'd prefer not to self-archive it until
> it's in postprint form. As I mentioned in my previous
> message, I'm retaining copyright, and the right to
> self-archive the postprint version (if it's accepted for
> publication, after peer-review by the toll-access journal to
> which it's been submitted). But, where to self-archive the
> postprint?
> As I mentioned previously, my university has a "community"-
> based eprint repository, but I'm not a member of any of the
> current "communities". (BTW, the new Kepler archivelets are
> also, I believe, "community"-based).
> My eprint also isn't suitable for the Quantitative Biology
> section of the arXiv repository. What about CogPrints?
> Stevan responded:
> >[sh]> Does it not look compatible with any of the following
> >[sh]> existing CogPrints subject categories?
> >[sh]>
> >[sh]>
> >[sh]> * Electronic Publishing
> >[sh]> o Archives (34)
> >[sh]> o Copyright (12)
> >[sh]> o Economics (21)
> >[sh]> o Peer Review (16)
> No, it doesn't. However, it does contain a section about
> Internet research ethics (in the context of research
> involving cancer-related electronic support groups).
> So, maybe it might not be entirely ridiculous to include it
> in this CogPrints subject category:
> * Philosophy
> o Ethics (18)
> Jim Till
> University of Toronto
Received on Fri Jan 09 2004 - 12:10:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:47:15 GMT