Lars Jonsson & Maria Kinger, 2007
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/se/

Introduction
This module consists of a commented collection of links to resources, information, etc. regarding Open Access. To some extent the text is a repetition of that which has already been mentioned in the other modules, but it can at the same time be seen as a form of linked summary.

Archive

Open archives exists all over the world, with an emphasis on Western Europe and the US. The size of archive varies largely from containing a few single posts to containing up to about half a million. Instead of listing all these archives we have chosen to give examples of entries to directories of open archives. No list covers all existing archives but together the two mentioned below provide good coverage. The way to calculate the number of archives may vary. A Swedish example: in ROAR all university- and university college archives based on the Swedish DiVA platform (see below) are listed, while if you study the list of indexed archives in the search service BASE (see below) the DiVA portal is listed as an archive.

Archive lists

OpenDOAR - The Directory of Open Access Repositories

http://www.opendoar.org

Aims to create a complete authenticity-checked list of OA archives. Each listed archive has been reviewed by the project’s editorial staff. Thus, the list is not only automate-generated but also exposed to certain examination. The archives are listed geographically and short information is given about each separate archive. Besides a list of archives the possibility to search for a specific archive from criteria like the archive type, geographical location and its contents is also offered. OpenDOAR also offers a simple interface to cross search the archives. The project is administered and developed by the University of Nottingham.

ROAR - Registry of Open Access Repositories

http://archives.eprints.org/

This is a list with two basic functions. Partly to monitor the total growth of OA archives, and partly to maintain a list of OA archives based on GNU EPrints (see below). ROAR offers several search possibilities such as searching on type of archive, type of software, geographical location of archive, and also the possibility to search the contents of the archives. The list contains brief information together with a graphic profile to illustrate the growth over year for each separate archive. The registry builds on the self-registering of listed archives for further approval of the project’s editorial staff. Unlike OpenDOAR, OA journals are also listed here to some extent. ROAR is administered by the University of Southampton.

Exemples of established and large archives
A couple of individual archives may still be mentioned as they are greatly significant to their respective subject fields.

arXiv

http://arxiv.org/

Started already in 1991 and is with that also the first, still living archive of its kind. At the same time it is one of the largest and mostly used archives and today it is also an international project with a central position in physics as a research field. From the beginning the arXiv only contained publications in high-energy physics but today it also covers physics, mathematics, computer science and quantitative biology.

CogPrints

http://cogprints.org

Archive with material in the subject field of cognitive science.

Citeseer

http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu

A digital library and search service for scholarly material principally in the subject fields of computer- and information science. Indexes research articles in the formats PostScript and PDF from the Web. Indexes full text and metadata and citations to other on-line articles. In addition to searches for documents the service offers citation searches and citation indexes from the indexed material.  (For citation analyzes see also Citebase below)

PubMed Central (PMC)

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov

The free digital archive of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) with reviewed journal articles in the subject fields of biomedicine and life sciences. The publishing companies freely deposit the material in the database and can also choose to place a certain delay on full-text accessibility. The copyright remains with the publishing company or the author.

RePEc (Research Papers in Economics)

http://repec.org

In addition to a lot of other material the archive contains links to full-text documents in the subject field of economics.

Search services
Parallelly to the development of different types of software for the building up of digital archives, the Open Archive Initiative (see below) has come up with the standard OAI-PMH (Open Archive Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting) to make possible the interoperability between different archives. With OAI-compatible archives as a basis the focus and contents of the various search services differ from each other - some of them also index other digital resources available on the Web. A selection is given below. For a more extensive list see: http://www.openarchives.org/service/listproviders.html See also the module Increased exposure and accessibility. Besides these registered services listed below, to some extent the general Internet search services such as Google Scholar, Yahoo and Elsevier’s search service Scirus index material from OAI-compatible archives.

OAister

http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/

OAIster is a union catalogue of digital resources. The database consists of bibliographic metadata collected through so-called harvesting via OAI-PMH (the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting) from archives that are compatible with this standard. Indexes all types of digital resources like text, sound, images, data, etc. The database is updated every week. The service offers a search interface with the selection possibilities of title, author/creator, subject and language. Can also be limited to type of resource.  It is a well-established project, developed and administered by the University of Michigan.

Citebase

http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/search

Concurrently with the increase in the number of OA articles the interest in and possibilities for making citation- and impact analyses have arisen, as this constitutes such a central part of the scholarly publishing process. In addition to being a traditional search serve Citebase is also a tool for citation- and impact analyses based on references indexed from OAI- compatible archives in the subject fields of physics, mathematics, information science and biomedicine. Developed by the Open Citation Project http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html

BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine

http://www.base-search.net/index.php?l=en

Search service for scholarly material published on the Web. Collects metadata from OAI-PMH-compatible archives but also from other Web resources considered suitable. The search can be limited to only apply to freely accessible material. Developed and administered at the Bielefeld University Library.

Scientific Commons

http://en.scientificcommons.org

The ScientificCommons.org project makes it possible to access the largely distributed sources with their vast amount of scientific publications via just one common interface.

Uppsök

http://uppsok.libris.kb.se/sru/uppsok

A search service based on the OAI protocol that indexes degree projects and student theses in full text from Swedish universities and university colleges. A search interface is offered via Libris. Uppsök is administered by the National Library of Sweden.

Journals

Like the archives a great number of OA journals exist (and the number continues to grow), for what reason we here have chosen not to give direct examples of individual titles. Instead appropriate entries are given, such as catalogues and examples of publishing companies with different interests that publish OA journals. No so-called hybrid journals are listed below. For more information about OA and hybrid journals see the module Publishing in Open Access Journals.

DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals

http://www.doaj.org

Catalogue of freely accessible scholarly reviewed OA journals. For visibility of OA journals and consequent increased use and impact. The service aims at covering all subject fields. Besides the possibility to search for a journal it is also possible to search the tables of contents of some journals. Developed and administered by the Lund University Library.

Hindawi
http://www.hindawi.com
An academic publisher with  Open Access journals covering all major areas of science, technology, and medicine.

Journal Info

http://jinfo.lub.lu.se/

The purpose is to provide an aid for the researcher in the selection of journal for publication. The publication market has continuously grown more and more complex. It is important to weigh in facts like scope and quality, but more recently also information about reader availability and library cost. The Lund University Libraries have made an attempt to merge all there items into one tool, giving the researcher the power to make informed choices.

Open J-Gate

http://www.openj-gate.com

A catalogue of OA journals, both reviewed journals and trade magazines.

BioMed Central

http://www.biomedcentral.com

Commercial publishing company which puts out about 200 OA journals in the subject fields of biology and medicine. Also offers the possibility to start new OA journals, alternatively conversion of already existing subscription-based journals into OA journals under the administration of BioMed Central. Charges a fee, so-called “article-processing charges,” to cover publishing costs. Also charges a membership fee. Uses Creative Commons licences for copyright.

Public Library of Science (PLoS)

http://www.plos.org

Non-profit publishing company that puts out reviewed OA journals, whereof PLOS Biology and PLoS Medicine are examples of the fact that also OA journals can reach a high-ranking position. Financed in part through memberships and uses Creative Commons licences for copyright

Software

A lot of different software exists today, both commercial and open source, to create electronic archives and OA journals. Below is a list of some of the most used and spread software. For a more complete list of software see: A Guide to Institutional Repository Software v 3.0 http://www.soros.org/openaccess/software/OSI_Guide_to_Institutional_Repository_Software_v3.htm for archives, and Journal Management Systems http://www.arl.org/sparc/resources/pubres.html#journals for journals.

EPrints

http://www.eprints.org/software

The first publishing tool and platform to create a Web-based electronic archive. Launched in 2000 and has since then come out in several updated versions. From the beginning intended for researchers for the spreading of electronic articles through self-depositing of the articles for storage in a searchable archive. The material for archiving can today be constituted by many different types, from text files to multimedia and sound files. The software is open source, in other words it is free to use and develop as one chooses. However, there are additional services as installation help etc. which you have to pay for. Eprints offers a search interface to search the archive and its full texts. The system is OAI-compatible and multilingual; a Swedish translation is in progress. An advantage with EPrints is that it is well established, and that the software is updated and developed continuously. The great number of users also results in there being a large forum for the exchange of experiences. EPrints is developed and administered by the University of Southampton.

Dspace

http://dspace.org/technology/index.html

Offers open-source software for the creation of an OAI-compatible digital archive that can store different types of material such as text, images, data, sound files etc. From the beginning DSpace was more adapted to multidisciplinary institutions larger than EPrints. Another difference was that DSpace focused a bit more on long-term preservation. The software was developed by MIT Libraries in collaboration with Hewlett Packard Labs, and today it is administered by the library at MIT, USA. DSpace is an established system with many users, which means that there is a large forum for the exchange of experiences. On DSpace Wiki http://wiki.dspace.org you find more information.

Fedora - Flexible Extensible Digital Object and Repository Architecture

http://www.fedora.info/

Offers open-source software for the creation of digital archives consisting of many different types of digital objects. Fedora can handle up to one million objects. Developed by the University of Virginia Library and Cornell University and launched in 2003.

CDS Invenio

http://cdsware.cern.ch/invenio/index.html

Earlier called CdSware and developed at Cern where a proper digital library for pre-prints, articles, books, etc. was created from the beginning. The software is accessible as open source and is OAI-compatible. Some twenty institutions use the software today.

Greenstone

http://www.greenstone.org

Open-source software to create digital libraries for different types of material. OAI-compatible. Developed and administered by the University at Waikato, Nya Zeeland.

Digital Commons

http://www.umi.com/products_umi/digitalcommons

An example of a commercial platform for an institutional OAI-compatible digital archive. Launched in 2002 by The Berkeley Electronic Press (Bepress). Today it forms part of ProQuest Information & Learning. The participating archives can also be searched via a joint search interface.

DiVA - the Academic Archive Online

http://www.diva-portal.org

A publishing system developed at Uppsala University Library, and since 2003 in full operation. DiVA portal is a search tool and an institutional repository for research publications and student theses written at a number of different universities and colleges of higher education. The contents are primarily made up by dissertations and student theses, but also include full-text articles and reports.

OJS - Open Journal System

http://pkp.sfu.ca/?q=ojs

Open-source software for the creation of OA journals. Created to handle the entire publishing chain from the submitting of an article via reviewing to publishing. Developed at the University of British Columbia, the Simon Fraser University Library and the Canadian Centre for Studies in Publishing at Simon Fraser University.

Initiatives, organisations, projects, forums etc.
Below you will find a list of organisations, initiatives, projects, forums, etc. which may be useful entries to the subject of Open Access. Some of them are general while others focus on a specific area or aspect.

Fundamental initiatives
For further information about these three central initiatives see the module International and National Initiatives

Budapest Open Access Initiative

http://www.soros.org/openaccess/index.shtml

Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters

Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities

http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin

Washington D.C. Principles For Free Access to Science

http://www.dcprinciples.org

Organisations or similar

Create Change

http://www.createchange.org

Initiative developed by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) with the purpose of advancing new possibilities and models in scholarly communication. Focuses primarily on changes made possible through digitalization.

Creative Commons

http://creativecommons.org

A non-profit organisation which offers free licences to copyright protect different types of work. The originator creates a licence based on the kind of rights that should apply to the work.

Open Archives Initiative

http://www.openarchives.org

Developing work to standardize and make possible interoperability between different systems for storage and spreading of digital scholarly material. Has developed the protocol OAI-PMH among other things which forms the basis of the different search services mentioned above and makes cross searching of various archives possible.

SHERPA

http://www.sherpa.ac.uk

Consortium consisting of some 30 institutions based in Great Britain which runs projects about matters concerning Open Access. Among other things projects like SHERPA/RoMEO, SHERPA/JULIET and OpenDOAR have developed from this collaboration.

SPARC - The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition

http://www.arl.org/sparc

International collaboration between research libraries with the purpose of creating change in the scholarly publishing system. Focus on the stimulation of development and the growth of new and alternative models for scholarly communication. This in order to facilitate the dissemination of research material, but also to reduce costs, for example for libraries. Collected information about OA. Provides training material, presentations, forums together with other resources and guides for libraries, researchers, publishing companies. Here you will, for example, find SPARC’s “Author Addendum” - an addendum for the researcher to make possible a supplement to the publishing contract made with a publishing company, so as to increase the rights to the published material.

SUHF - the Association of Swedish higher education

http://www.suhf.se

Handles joint matters regarding higher education, research, organisation of university colleges, resource needs, etc., for example through contributing to the implementation of Open Access and stimulating the discussion of the merit-rating systems so that these will consider this form of publishing in a proper way.

The Swedish Research Council

http://www.vr.se

Government institution that develops and funds basic research in all fields of science. The Research Council works with research funding, strategies and analyses and also research information.

Projects or similar

DRIVER

http://www.driver-repository.eu/

Networking European Digital repositories - project with start in spring 2007 with the purpose of creating a European database based on existing archives in Europe. The goal is a future joint European digital archive for researchers, contributors and institutions, with different services such as storage, searches and recommendations.

OASIS

http://www.openoasis.org/

Open Access Scholarly Information Sourcebook - “aims to provide an authoritative ‘sourcebook’ on Open Access, covering the concept, principles, advantages, approaches and means to achieving it.”

Openaccess.se

http://www.openaccess.se

Program sorting under the National Library of Sweden with the objective of promoting maximum accessibility and visibility for works produced by researchers, teachers and students at Swedish universities and university colleges. In progress until and including 2009.

Sciecom

http://www.sciecom.org

Swedish resource centre for scholarly communication. Project supported by the National Library of Sweden and administered at Lund University and concluded in 2006, but with a solid collection of links concerning matters on among other things Open Access still available.

SHERPA/JULIET

http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/index.php

A compilation of contributors’ attitudes to Open Access. Lists possible requirements from contributors concerning archiving and in such case specifications on what to archive. With a few exceptions the contributors are exclusively based in Great Britain (March 2007).

SHERPA/RoMEO

http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php

A compilation of the policies of publishing companies/journals regarding self-archiving and copyright. Classified into four colour codes: green: archiving of both pre-print and post-print OK, blue: archiving of post-print OK , yellow: archiving of pre-print OK, and white: archiving not allowed. Also contains a brief definition of the meaning of pre-print and post-print. For more information see the section Publishing in Open Archives under the module Open Access Publishing.

Other information

Economic Implications of Alternative Scholarly Publishing Models: Exploring the costs and benefits

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/documents/economicpublishingmodelsfinalreport.aspx

A Report from Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) that investigates the costs and benefits of alternative publishing. 

Open Archives Forum

http://www.oaforum.org

Forum with a European focus on open archives in general and the Open Archives Initiative in particular.

The Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography

http://www.digital-scholarship.com/sepb/sepb.html

Bibliography of literature on and about electronic publishing.

WIPO Guide to Intellectual Property Worldwide

http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/ipworldwide

A guide to different countries’ legislation on, among other things, copyright issues.

Jörgen Eriksson, 2007
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/se/

Description
This section will deal with the searching for data in open archives. The standard for collection of data that dominates today will be presented, as will its advantages and disadvantages, together with some of the established search services that use this standard. In addition, some other search services, which are important for visibility, will be described.

The purpose of the section is to explain the OAI-PMH standard and to present the most important search services.

Introduction
One advantage with institutional repositories is that the organization that builds up the archive can support its researchers by developing a local infrastructure (tools, practical assistance, copyright expertise,…) which the researchers can have close at hand. The disadvantages with institutional repositories manifest themselves when it comes to dissemination and accessibility of the publications. To go from archive to archive and search for publications is not a rational procedure.  On 21 February 2007 OpenDoar lists 843 open archives.

To really make the publications accessible you need search services which can collect and index the information in the local archives. Standardized descriptions of the publications are also required if the search services are to offer search possibilities that go beyond those that Google offers. 

Open Archives Initiative (OAI)
The OAI is an organisation which develops and markets standards. The goal of the activities is to render more effective the spreading of contents, for example the contents of local open archives. The members of the organization are some of the most influential developers of digital information services with a focus on scholarly communication. In 2001 the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) was published, a protocol for harvesting and description of documents in open archives. The protocol has been widely disseminated within the Open Access movement where it has become an established standard. What follows here is a short survey of the fundamentals of OAI-PMH.

An important concept in the OAI-PMH are the “data providers”, “service providers” and the relation between these two. A data provider is a service which makes the data about its publications accessible in accordance with the OAI-PMH specification. A service provider is a service which harvests data from different data providers in accordance with the OAI-PMH specification, indexes the harvested information and makes it accessible in a search service. The Lund University Open Archive, LU:research, for example, functions as a data provider in relation to a service provider like OAIster  which harvests and makes the information from LU:research and over 800 other archives searchable in one place.

The OAI-PMH standard describes how the harvesting robot and the open archive will communicate.

Service providers only harvest the descriptive information from a data provider, not the full-text documents. This means that any possible limitations of the right to parallel publish articles which the publishing companies may have will not be violated (the author may have permission to parallel publish on his or her own Web pages or in a local open archive but not in other archives).

The description of the information allows the use of the 15 elements described in the Dublin Core (unqualified) . You don’t have to use all the DC fields which opens for the harvesting of also “information-poor” posts (for example only author and title) as long as they are presented correctly in accordance with the DC standard for the harvesting robot.

The advantage of using a simple metadata standard like the DC without specifying that certain fields are compulsory is that many can get connected without any major problems or costs. The disadvantage is that it is not possible to build particularly sophisticated search services from the metadata that is collected.

Today it is almost a must for an open archive to be OAI-PMH compatible. Practically all software produced supports the standard and there is also free software that can be used to make other services compatible.

If you have a small collection of posts (1-5,000 posts) which needs rare updating, a simplified possibility exists to make your collection harvestable by service providers. It is called the OAI Static Repository. Stargate is an English project dealing with applications of the OAI Static Repository and the project has also developed tools.

Once you have made your open archive OAI-PMH compatible you have to validate  to make sure that it follows the standard. After that you report your archive to the OAI.  This means that you will be placed on the OAI list of data providers where service providers can find services. You should also state separately the services that you particularly want to be collected. A list of service providers can also be found on the OAI Web pages.

OAI-PMH search services
Here follows a survey of some of the most important service providers. Generally it may be said that the development of service providers has been weak, probably a reflection of the difficulty to bring about a critical mass of contents in the open archives. Subject-oriented archives built up with the OAI-PMH are few, the successful subject-oriented archives that exist, for example ArXiv (physics) and PubMed Central (biomedicine), are based on the authors and publishing companies providing publications and description directly to the services. The opposition which exists between local institutional repositories and subject-oriented archives which are based on central feeding has been further accentuated after the decision by some major research financiers in Great Britain to parallel publish all biomedical research which they fund in PubMed Central UK.

OAIster

URL: http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/index.html

Host: University of Michigan, Digital Library Production Service.

Covers: all subjects and document types. ” OAIster is a union catalogue of digital resources. Digital resources can range from an old-time advertisement of electric refrigerators from the Library of Congress American Memory project) to Harriet Beecher Stowe memoirs (from the University of Michigan Digital Library Production Service Making of America collection).”

Posts/Full text: mainly full text

Collection policy: “harvest everything and use anything that has a link to a digital object,  whether freely available or restricted”. Also collects from publishing companies like the Institute of Physics and Highwire

Size:  11,737,670 posts from 811 archives (15 May 2007). The number of posts includes a large quantity of duplicates as OAIster collects from the service provider CiteBase.

Search possibilities: Boolean search (AND, OR, NOT). Truncation with*, default phrase search  

Search limitations: author, title, subject, language, resource type.

Hit sorting: title, author, date, number of hits in a post

Comment: The largest of the OAI-PMH search services and the one with broadest coverage

BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine

Host: Bielefeld University Library

URL: http://www.base-search.net/index.php?i=b

Covers: ” multi-disciplinary search engine for scientifically relevant web resources”

Postsr/full text: mixed. Also contains commercial resources that may be filtered away in the advanced search.

Size: 4,715,354 posts from 363 archives

Search possibilities: Possibilities to filtrate for document type journal article/preprint and institutional repositories according to geographical residence. Possibility to limit search to author, title, subject, publishing company and part of URL.

CiteBase

URL: http://www.citebase.org/

An interesting experimental service which indexes metadata and full text from the major subject-oriented archives and from institutional repositories. From the full-text documents references are extracted, linked if possible, and citation lists are created. Since the material you work with constitutes a very limited part of the total amount (that which is freely accessible and which can be collected by means of OAI-PMH) the citation analysis should be seen as a development project indicating future possibilities rather than as a practical usable service. See Citebase Help. Full-text articles in CiteBase are, in the first place, retrieved from arXive.

Search possibilities: possible to search on author, word from title/abstract, publication, publication year and the combination of these using AND.

Other specialized search services

Here follows some other specialized search services that your archive should try to get indexed by for increased visibility.

Google Scholar

URL: http://scholar.google.com/schhp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=ws&q=

A broad service which indexes many types of free and commercial publications. Just like Google it has many users.

Thompson ISI - Current Web Contents (CWC)

URL: http://scientific.thomson.com/products/cwc/faq/

CWC is a service which describes specially chosen Web resources. The service is included in the Tomson-ISI database selection. The link above goes to information about the service and also to information about selection criteria and how to suggest the inclusion of your service.

Scirus

URL: http://www.scirus.com/

Scirus is a search service which indexes a selection of free and commercial Web services and archives.

The service is owned by Elsevier.

Google (et. al)

To be visible and to be well indexed in, above all, Google is also very important when it comes to making the contents of an institutional repository visible. The following visit statistics may serve as an example. The example comes from the Lund University dissertation database and the numbers show from where the visitors came in 2005.

Google: 77,559

Via the university’s main entrance to research: 15,436     

Via the Web of the libraries: 1,448

A short compilation of things to consider in order to optimize your visibility on Google is Peter Subers, How to facilitate Google crawling: Notes for open-access repository maintainers

Peter Hansson, 2007
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/se/

Description of the section
This section gives a short introduction to that which is important to note to make today’s e-resources readable and accessible in the future. The section deals with three important matters: the use of persistent identifiers, how an e-resource may be retrieved and matters of importance for the storing of information.

Persistent identifiers
To easily be able to identify an electronic document it should be assigned a persistent identifier, a unique symbol that establishes the identity of the document and that, in the ideal case, will exist for ever. There are different types of persistent identifiers. A few examples:

• Uniform Resource Name National Bibliography Number or URN:NBN (e.g. URN:NBN:see-2006-1)
• Digital Object Identifier or DOI (e.g. 10.1000/182)
• Handle (e.g. 2077/554).

Compare to how the ISBN (e.g. 91-7291-878-0) is used for printed books.

http://www.kb.se/isbn/

http://www.doi.org/

http://www.handle.net/

Making documents accessible
To easily find an electronic document it is important to have a description of the document, so-called metadata, which is indexed for searches. The metadata must then be made accessible in some way, for example via a Web-based search service. It is important to have at least one persistent identifier registered for each document so that there is a possibility to directly access the document that you are looking for. This is particularly important when the user is a computer system.

Electronic documents are sometimes moved from one place to another in similar ways as books are moved from one shelf to another or which after some time end up in storage or in a depot. To make possible a move of electronic documents without jeopardizing the accessibility a so-called resolution service for persistent identifiers may be used. The system has one sole task - to tell the user, given a persistent identifier, where the electronic document can be found at present. In other words, the resolution service provides the address to the requested document.

The National Library of Sweden (KB being the Swedish abbreviation) has a resolution service for the identifiers URN:NBN, DOI and Handle. The service can be accessed from the address http://urn.kb.se/

KB works to bring into being a legal deposit law for electronic documents, which would force publishing companies to also send a copy to KB after publication. At the earliest, such a law would come into force in 2008 (according to information from KB). When a document gets older the risk for its disappearance from the local storage spaces increases, among other things due to the ceasing or transforming of organisations and then the idea is (an idea yet not realized) to instead make the KB electronic legal deposit of the document accessible.

Storage

Format
It is difficult to predict the length of life of a specific storage format (also called file format when electronic documents are concerned), which is why it is easier to make the assumption that each data format, after some time, will cease to exist or will be replaced by another format.

In order to read an old file format in the future it will be necessary to know exactly how the file format was created and how it should be interpreted. An experiment with documenting known file formats and assigning each file format a unique identifier is in progress. The most known file format registry today is PRONOM http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pronom/

Two main directions of making accessible older electronic publications are often discussed by experts in the field: emulation and migration. To emulate means that you keep the original software also in future computer systems. In that way the receiver/reader can be sure of having the original document displayed in the same way over time (at least in theory). In the case of migration the technical platform is changed. This process generally requires a transformation/conversion of the original document into another, more current data format which can be used on the new technical platform. As the original document may need conversion there is a risk of loss or distortion of data.

Irrespective of whether emulation or migration is used there are many publishing centres in the university world that advocate the use of open file formats, meaning that the specification of the format is freely accessible and the format may be used freely, in order to facilitate to coming generations the reading of old electronic publications. Examples of open file formats are ODF (OpenDocument Format), PDF and XML. Some people are also of the opinion that you should limit yourself to using simple text-based file formats, like for example the XML.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_format

Protection against undesired changes
To be able to verify that the contents of a document have not been altered over time you need to create a check sum for the document. A check sum is calculated by means of a mathematical function. The created check sums should be publicly accessible so that anyone can carry out an authenticity control. A check sum is never altered once it has been created.

Storage space
Electronic documents should be stored in several different storage spaces (sometimes the concept archive is used), preferably spread out geographically over the entire world. This reduces the risk of losing electronic documents due to war and other catastrophes and it also makes the accessibility less vulnerable since you will be able to, for example at interruptions in communication connections, refer to other places of storage.

Aina Svensson, 2007
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/se/

Description of the section
The following section describes what is meant by Open Access journals and how these differ from traditional journals and hybrid journals. The text also describes where to find Open Access journals, how to publish in these and what it costs to publish in Open Access journals.

What distinguishes an Open Access journal from a traditional journal?
To understand how new publishing models for scholarly journals have developed and become established within the Open Access movement it is important, also, to understand how publishing of traditional journals works. That which the different journal models mentioned in this section have in common is the use of peer-review to assess the scientific quality of the articles.  

Scholarly journals may be divided up according to how the journals make their contents accessible, how the copyright is handled and how the expenses for publishing are financed:

• Traditional journals require subscriptions in order for a reader to have access to the contents which then result in limited dissemination and accessibility. The copyright is normally transferred from the author to the publishing company.
• Open Access journals provide free dissemination and accessibility of articles on the Internet and the copyright remains with the author. The expenses for publishing are normally covered by author fees or, in some cases, by membership fees and support by research institutions.
• Hybrid journals are traditional journals which offer the author to either choose a traditional publishing model or open access publishing, i.e., to either publish the article without any charge, but then with a limited dissemination since subscriptions in this case are needed for access, or to pay for having the article published with free access.  

Traditional journals
Publishing in traditional journals is still the dominating form and today, furthermore, in many subject fields it constitutes the only alternative for a researcher who desires to get published in a highly ranked scientific journal. Generally the author may publish free of charge in a traditional journal but author fees do occur for some journals. The expenses for publishing and distribution are primarily covered by subscription fees. However, most publishing companies that put out journals using a traditional publishing model allow researchers to parallel publish articles on certain conditions. Read more about how researchers can make their publications freely accessible in open archives in the section “Publishing in Open Archives”. 

Open Access journals
Open Access journals have been started as an alternative to and critique of the traditional journal market. The basic idea is to publish research results on the Internet, free of charge and accessible to everyone who wants to quote, read or download articles. Open Access journals are in part characterized by the making of the journal contents freely accessible on the Internet and in part by allowing the author to keep the copyright of the article. It is also important to note that Open Access journals, just like the traditional journals, carry out some form of quality review of the journal’s scientific contents. Of the peer-reviewed scientific journals about nine percent are freely accessible today. DOAJ, the Directory of Open Access Journals, listed 2,726 freely accessible journals in June 2007. A survey of today’s journal production conducted through a search in Ulrich’s International Periodicals, a reference database, shows that there are nearly 24, 000 actively publishing peer-reviewed journals.

There are different funding models for Open Access journals and there are both commercial and non-profit initiatives. In certain cases a publishing fee has to be paid by the author, the author’s institution or research funder and in certain cases no fee is charged. Research financiers may have special funds designed for the researcher’s publications.  

Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is an international search portal for freely accessible peer-reviewed scholarly journals. The purpose with the DOAJ is to maintain a shared entrance for Open Access journals and in this way make visible and contribute to an increased use of these journals. The DOAJ was launched in 2003 and today it lists more than 2,700 freely accessible journals. Anybody may suggest the inclusion of a particular scholarly journal but certain criteria exist for the selection of the journals. The journal must have some sort of editorial quality control or peer-review and a significant part of the journal contents need to be scientific articles with researchers as the target group. Another demand is that the material of the journal must be freely accessible in full text directly at the moment of publishing. The ambition of the DOAJ is to offer journals in all subject fields and all speaking areas. It is possible to search for a journal in the alphabetical index or to make a search using words in the title. It is also possible to search for Open Access journals in different subject categories. In the spring of 2004 the service was increased by the possibility to make searches on article level in the listed journals. At present it is possible to search for articles from about a third of the listed Open Access journals.

From the Autumn of 2006 DOAJ has been increased by the resolution service “For Authors Service”, for authors who wish to publish their research using Open Access. This service makes it possible for a researcher to search for both journals that are solely Open Access and for so-called hybrid journals which offer Open Access publishing charging an author’s fee. Besides facts about the journal, as for example subject, publishing company and ISSN, the resolution service “for authors service” also provides information about any possible publishing fee that the journal applies.

The DOAJ is run by Lund University Library and supported by, among others, the National Library of Sweden, SPARC and the Open Society Institute and also by several research libraries and research centres around the world which use the service. In February 2007 the DOAJ program for membership was started to ensure continued support and development of the service and at present nearly 40 university libraries and research centres are sustaining members of the DOAJ at a cost of €400 per year.

BioMed Central
BioMed Central is a commercial publishing company for Open Access publishing which started in 1999 and published its first article in July 2000. Today the publishing company puts out peer-reviewed scholarly articles in 176 journals in medicine and biology. BioMed Central divides its journals into the BMC series, a group of independent journals and other journals. At present, the BMC series includes 60 journals, all of them administered by BioMed Central and with an editorial staff for each journal. The group of independent journals consists of 110 titles. These journals are run by research groups that have taken the initiative to start Open Access journals and who have taken on the editorial work themselves but with BioMed Central as contributor of the technical platform.   

All journals in the BMC series and the independent journals are Open Access and are only published electronically. The remaining 6 journals differ from the rest through their possibility of appearing in a printed edition or through the fact that parts of the contents require a subscription.

BioMed Central has a close collaboration with PubMed Central which means that all articles are immediately published in full text on PubMed Central and searchable via PubMed. The costs for a researcher who publishes via BioMed Central is usually $1,485 per article, but there is a number of journals that apply differing fees. Read more under BioMed Central’s “frequently asked questions” about price information. Universities and research institutes that are sustaining members of BioMed Central grant the researcher a 15 % discount per article. Several of the BioMed Central journals are ranked by Thomson ISI, see more under Impact factor information.

Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Public Library of Science is a non-profit organization of scholars that in 2003 started its first Open Access journal, PLoS Biology. Today the organization runs 8 journals in biology and medicine. Already from the beginning the goal was to establish top-ranked Open Access journals that could compete with, for example, Nature och Science, and a goal that also has been reached. PLoS Biology has an impact factor of 14.7.

Public Library of Science recently started PLoS One which differs from other journals in the sense that researchers have the possibility to comment on the published work afterwards. Articles which are published in PLoS One first undergo an assessment for their technical quality while the subject relevance and quality assessment of the article are carried out continuously by the journal readers.  

The costs for publishing an article in PLoS One is $1,250 and for other PLoS journals between $2,000 and $2,500.

Hybrid journals
Several publishing companies have started to use a publishing model in which the author has the possibility to choose Open Access publishing in so-called hybrid journals with the application of an author’s fee. Articles which are published with free access according to this model undergo the same quality control as traditionally published articles. In addition, the author keeps the copyright to his or her article. Some examples of publishing companies which use a hybrid model:

American Institute of Physics (AIP) - Author Select program
AIP is a non-commercial association with the goal of spreading science in physics and subject fields that lie near at hand. The possibility to choose Open Access publishing was introduced in 2004 for some journals and the option is today available for all AIP journals.

The cost per article may vary between $1,500 and $2,000.

http://www.aip.org/press_release/author_select_expands.html

APS Journals (American Physical Society) - FREE TO READ
Start in 2006. Cost per article: $975-$1,300

http://publish.aps.org/OpenAccessRelease.html

Blackwell Publishing - Online Open
Started in 2005. More than one hundred titles are included in Online Open, primarily in medicine and biomedicine. Cost per article: $2,600

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/static/onlineopen.asp

BMJ -  BMJ Unlocked Hybrid Journal program
Start in 2006. Cost per article: $3,145

http://adc.bmj.com/info/unlocked.dtl

Cambridge Journals - Cambridge Open Option
Start in 2006. 15 journals are included in Open Option. Cost: $2,700

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/forAuthors 

Elsevier - Sponsored-Article Hybrid Journal program
Start in 2006. Elsevier offers only a few journals for Open Access publishing. Cost: $3,000.

http://www.elsevier.com/ 

Oxford University Press - Oxford Open
Started in 2005. About 50 journals are included in Oxford Open. The cost per article is lower for authors from universities which subscribe to Oxford journals and no fees are charged to researchers from the third world. The cost per article where subscriptions exist: $1,500. Cost per article without a subscription: $2,800.

http://www.oxfordjournals.org/oxfordopen/

Royal Society - ExiS (Excellence in Science) Open Choice

Start in 2006. The Royal Society is a scholarly society which has existed for more than 300 years and at present the society puts out seven generally known journals in biology, physics and history of science. With ExiS (Excellence in Science) Open Choice the author may choose to pay for free access. Cost per article page: $370-$550

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/index.cfm?page=1334

Springer Open Choice
Springer was the first large publishing company that launched a program for hybrid journals in 2004. Articles that are published in Springer’s Open Choice are handled in the same way as traditionally published articles and they are also offered in print.  

Cost per article for the author: $3,000

http://www.springer.com/dal/home/open+choice

Wiley Interscience - Wiley Funded Access
Start in 2006. 44 journals are included in Funded Access. Cost per article: $3,000

http://www.wiley.com/

Jörgen Eriksson and Aina Svensson, 2007
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/se/

Description
This section describes what we mean with Open Access journals and how these differ from traditional journals and hybrid journals. The text also describes where to find Open Access journals and what it costs to publish in Open Access journals.

The purpose with the section is to describe publishing in Open Access journals.

The scholarly journal
The scholarly journal plays a central role for the dissemination and communication of research results. A survey of today’s journal production carried out through a search in the reference database Ulrich’s International Periodicals shows that there are close to 24, 000 actively publishing peer-reviewed journals. Together they produce around 2.5 million journal articles per year. The scholarly journal has a history of more than 300 years and builds on a system of an external peer-review system which guarantees the quality control of individual articles. To the individual researcher the scholarly journal is thus fundamental, partly as an information channel but partly also for quality assessment and research qualifications. Approximately 90 % of all scholarly journals are now accessible electronically, in most cases via subscriptions which the libraries pay dearly for.

Prehistory
The birth of the scholarly journal is normally set at 1665. This was the year in which the French Journal des Savants and the British Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society appeared. Henry Oldenburg, secretary at the Royal Society, had earlier acted as a hub in the mediation of news between researchers in Europe and he did this through an extensive private correspondence. As he writes in the preface to the first issue of Philosophical Transactions he saw the journal as a suitable alternative to the correspondence of letters.

“ — there is nothing more necessary for promoting the improvement of Philosophical Matters, than the communicating — [of] such things as are discovered or put in practice by others; it is therefore thought fit to employ the Press  — “

Up until the emergence of “Big Science” during the second half of the 20th century, and the general increase in the world regarding researchers and publications, the publishing of journals did not change very much. The majority of the scholarly journals were published by scholarly societies and universities and their subscribers were libraries and members.  

A crisis in scholarly information provision
From the 1950’s and onwards the picture changes and this is a consequence of the substantial increase of research and the resulting increase in the number of publications. Commercial publishing companies show an interest in the market and start new journals, principally within new emerging research areas produced as a result by the rapid advance by science. The powerful increase of publications together with the profit interest of the commercial publishing companies resulted in the commercial publishing companies taking over an increasingly larger part of the market from the scholarly societies.

The period between 1975 and 1995 has been referred to as “the serials crisis”, a crisis in the scholarly information provision, as the prices for primarily the commercially published journals during this period increased dramatically, more than 300 % over and above the inflation (the European Commission, 2006). This occurred during a period which preceded the great technical development in the publishing market. When the publishing companies at the end of the 90’s began to use the Internet as a parallel way to distribute their journals this, however, meant no reductions in price increases. Instead a new subscription model sometimes called “the Big Deal” emerged in which a subscriber is offered quantity discount when subscribing to a whole package of electronic journals from a specific publishing company. For a start, the model was welcomed by the libraries but later the model also proved to involve disadvantages. As “the Big Deals” swallowed an increasingly larger part of the common library budget the possibilities of making an active selection of individual journals were reduced. Access was instead given to journals of less interest at the cost of not being able to afford subscribing to individual top journals in a subject field not included in the packages. In addition, the heavy price increases of journals together with package purchasing have in many places meant that the purchases of monographs have been cut down considerably. Given that the amount of research and thus also the number of publications increase faster than the budgets of the libraries, the result is that an increasing number of the world’s research institutes can afford a diminishing share of relevant publications.

” Reed’s [Elsevier] adjusted pretax profit in the year to end-December [2006] rose 5 per cent to 1.052 billion pounds.” (Haycock, 2007)

Many researchers are of the opinion that the profit share of such surpluses should be returned to research instead of being converted into share dividends.

In his preface to the first issue of Philosophical Transactions, Henry Oldenburg mentioned the importance of “communicating,” i.e. dissemination of information as the reason for the journal’s existence. Through the years, the scholarly journal has also been given further tasks (Rowland, 1997). The articles undergo a quality control, either through a referee procedure, or the assessment of the editorial staff and through these means there is an attempt at keeping away inferior science. Journals are ranked according to quality, a so-called impact factor, and this ranking is practically universally accepted by both researchers and research financiers. This means, if stretching the argument, that it is more important where one gets published than what one gets published. A consequence of this is that the whole system becomes relatively slow since it takes time for new journals to establish themselves and advance in the hierarchy.  

Researchers’ initiative
In the beginning, open access journals were started on the initiative of individual researchers. Besides the fact that researchers saw possibilities of spreading information fast and easily in an electronic form new journals were also started as a protest against the increasingly higher journal prices. The first e-journals were started around 1990, i.e., already before the launching of the Web. The newly started journals were freely accessible e-journals and they were published with primitive technology. An early example of a freely accessible journal is Psycoloquy which in the year of 1989 was started by Stevan Harnad and sponsored by the American Psychological Association. Another example is the researcher Eddy van der Maarel who together with the main part of the editorial staff at the journal Vegetatio as a protest against the journal’s price increase left the journal and instead put Journal of Vegetation Science on the market in 1989.

In the 1990’s committed researchers began to worry more and more over the accelerated price level and the increasingly limited access to scholarly journals. One of the precursors was the Nobel Prize winner Harold Varmus. At that time he was the head of the National Institute of Health which is the world’s largest funder of biomedical research. Harold Varmus then introduced the idea of PubMedCentral, a freely accessible archive for scholarly articles in biomedicine. The purpose was to find a form of collaboration with the publishing companies where published articles would be deposited in PubMedCentral preferably 6 months but maximum 12 months after the publishing of the journal. After that the articles would be open for access. On the part of the publishing companies there was no great support, which contributed to the researchers pursuing the matter further, forming a lobby group, the Public Library of Science, and presenting a threat of boycott. The group formulated an open letter on the Webdemanding that the publishing companies deposit their articles for free access within 12 months after publishing. If not, the researchers threatened to boycott the journals, i.e., they would no longer write in the journals nor edit or make contributions of evaluations. 26, 000 researchers from practically all countries in the world signed the open letter. This was the start of an extensive debate that placed the research community’s focus on the publishing companies’ control of the journal market.

New economic models
Given this situation with a system for scholarly communication that was shaken to its foundation and given the possibilities for changes which Internet offers researchers, publishing companies and libraries have started to explore new solutions for the publishing of articles and for making them freely accessible to the user. Traditionally the costs and profits in connection with the publishing of scholarly journals have been directly linked to the subscriptions where the reader (often via his or her library) pays for access to the journal. The research society has contributed with article manuscripts, peer reviewing and editors, often without any financial compensation. The reward has instead come in the form of an increase in status resulting from having one of these positions and being published in the right journals.

In the Open Access movement there is a search for durable models with peer-reviewed journals freely accessible to the reader. This means that somebody who is neither the reader nor the subscriber will pay the costs. Today three different variants of financing Open Access publications can be seen:

• Publishing fee
• The costs are paid by the institutions that conduct the research
• OA journals without any author’s fee

Generally it can be said that the costs for printing and distribution of a printed edition disappear at a change-over to OA and electronic publishing. However, some OA journals offer a yearly collected volume or print-on-demand as a complement. In addition, the costs for handling subscriptions and access rights disappear at a change over to OA.

Publishing fee - the reader has free access
Two of the most noticed publishing company initiatives in the Open Access movement are based on the publishing fee as a business model, BioMed Central and the Public Library of Science (PLOS).

BioMed Central

BioMed Central is the first and largest commercial publishing company that goes in for the model with the publishing fee. With their concentration on biomedicine 175 titles are published today (2007-03-05). The models for quality review are the same ones as those used by traditional publishing companies, as is the agreement with the Dutch National Library in Haag concerning long-time archiving of the journals. Several of the journals have in short time gained recognition for their quality and are ranked by Tompson ISI.

BioMed Central has till now had problems with making their activities profitable. In 2002 it cost $500 to publish an article in BioMed Central and researchers from an institution which had paid for a membership were able to publish without an individual charge. After having experimented with prices and only a reduced cost for memberships there is now a model where the members pay for publications in advance which also grants a discount off the publications and the more you pay in advance the bigger the discount. The full price for publishing in a BMC journal without a membership is now $1480 and 2007 will supposedly be the first year without any financial loss.

Public Library of Science (PLoS)

Public Library of Science was started as a roll call and it is a non-profit association of scholars. The purpose of the organization is to make the world’s scholarly medical publications freely accessible and the publishing of journals constitutes one of the paths chosen . From the start in 2003 the goal was to show that OA journals can indeed be among the leading ones and of the same class as, for example, Science and Nature. This has been successfully proven and the journals PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine are already counted among the top journals in their respective subjects. The cost for publishing in these journals was, from the beginning, considerably higher than in the BioMed Central journals ($1500 compared to $500 in BioMed Central) and today it is $2500.

PLoS has, since, moved on with a few more specialized titles and in 2007 PLoS One was started as a contrast to PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine in the sense that the objective is to publish all qualitative research that is submitted and not only exceptional research. Therefore the price for publishing is $1250, significantly lower than the other two.

PLoS has till now presented losses and is partly financed by grants from non-profit foundations. When the PLoS business model has been criticized for being long-term untenable it has been argued that PLoS is also to be seen as a non-profit experiment for the marketing of OA and that a dependence on external proceeds will be needed also in the near future.

Criticism against publishing fees
The criticism directed against the business model which uses publishing fees may be summarized in the following arguments:

The model debars authors from poor institutions and by that also researchers from great parts of the world’s developing countries. The reaction to this has been that both BioMed Central and PLoS publish articles which have passed the peer review without charging the author if he or she can not afford it.

Since the journals depend on proceeds from the authors it may be tempting to publish articles which really do not pass the quality control, for economic reasons. This argument has been met by the assurance that a strict distinction is made between financial aspects and quality controls. The researcher who assesses a submitted article does not know, for example, whether the colleague who has submitted the article is in the position to pay the fee or not.

The model with author’s fees only works in subjects where there is a lot of money in the form of big research grants, with biomedicine as the major example. In great parts of the humanities and the social sciences this is not a feasible business model. This critique has not been challenged in any good way and after the first enthusiasm the experiences show that if you run a major publishing company that offers services like SFX/CrossRef linking, help with indexing in relevant index- and abstract services, long-term preservation, qualified peer review, marketing etc., the cost will end up somewhere between $1000 and $3000 per article. Neither are there any good examples yet of publishing companies offering social sciences- or humanities journals that have adopted the model.

Another problem with this model is that during a transition period, when you pay both subscription and publishing fees, extra resources will be needed as it is difficult to imagine a symmetric cost reduction for subscriptions that follow the cost increase for publishing fees.

The cost is paid by the institutions that conduct the research
An interesting but rather special variant is an initiative taken by CERN, the world’s largest laboratory in particle physics. The idea is for institutions which fund research in particle physics to form a consortium which purchases general Open Access to a number of chosen key journals within the subject field. Neither the author nor the reader needs to pay. The process has begun, the consulted publishing companies are positive and the division of the funding is in progress. This model is probably difficult to transfer to other subject fields.  The prerequisites of the subject of particle physics are special with a manageable number of involved financiers and institutions and with a great part of the subject field covered by relatively few journals. An interesting aspect is here the fact that though a very large share of the publications in particle physics are made freely accessible as pre-prints in ArXiv a definite surplus value in the formally published article is considered to arise in connection to further searching, long-term preservation and accessibility (Kaiser, 2006).

OA journals without an author’s fee
The Kaufman-Wills investigation from 2005 showed that 53 % of the studied OA journals did not apply publishing fees. The business models used instead to cover costs are little studied or discussed. As Peter Suber writes in the SPARC Newsletter  #103 

” I wish I could tell you how many different ways the no-fee journals have found to pay their bills, and which methods work best in which disciplines and countries.  But I can’t.  No one has done the studies yet.  A few ships have approached the coastline of this land mass but we haven’t come close to penetrating the interior or producing a map.”

Most of them seem to be funded by means of direct or indirect support from institutions connected to the journal’s editorial staff or from non-profit work carried out by the editorial staff. Other methods mentioned are advertisements, financing of an electronic OA version by means of sales of a printed edition, membership fees and probably combinations of the above mentioned methods. That it is possible to publish quality journals at a low cost if you give up part of the supplementary services is something that has been shown by Ulf Rehmann who uses the example of Documenta Mathematica (indexed by Thompson-ISI), which in 1999 had a total annual cost of ca €200 for the publishing of 20 articles.

To sum up it may be said that this is still a time of experimenting and that several different business models will surely exist side by side in the future depending on the needs of different disciplines. Most traditional publishing companies experiment with variants of publishing fees in the form of so-called hybrid journals where the author may choose between publishing in the usual way, and then behind a subscription barrier, or pay a fee which results in the article becoming freely accessible.  

Sources

European Commission (2006). Study on the economic and technical evolution of the scientific publication markets in Europe. Final Report - January 2006 [Electronic] Access: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf  [15 April 2007].

Haycock, G. Reed Elsevier to sell education arm. (15 February 2007) Scotsman.com [Electronic] Access: http://business.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=246662007

Rowland, F. (1997). Print Journals: Fit for the Future? Ariadne [Electronic], 7. Access: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue7/fytton/ [14 May 2007].

Kaiser, J. 2006. Particle Physicists Want to Expand Open Access Science [Electronic], 313 (1), 1215. Access: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/313/5791/1215.pdf  [14 May 2007].

Kaufman, C. &  Wills, A. (2005). The facts about open access. A study of the financial and non-financial effects of alternative business models for scholarly journals. ALPSP (the Association of Learned & Professional Society Publishers) [Electronic] 128 p. Access: http://www.alpsp.org/publications/pub11.htm  [15 April 2007].

Tomas Lundén, 2008
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/se/

Description
This section deals with the publishing of research publications in open archives. It is a way for the researcher to make his or her publications freely accessible (Open Access). First a background to the phenomena is given, and then follow matters that in a practical manner explain which problems may be encountered and how these may be solved or avoided. These problems concern, for example, the author’s rights, policies of the publishing companies and other practical matters.

The purpose with the section is to explain the signification of publishing in open archives and to give practical advice in relation to this.

Introduction
In the following text the term parallel publishing is used for articles which have undergone peer review and which have been published in a scholarly journal (postprints) and pre-publishing for articles which have not yet been accepted or undergone a review (preprints). When I discuss other document types I will simply use the terms publishing or depositing.

One way for the researcher to make his or her publications freely accessible is to use so-called parallel publishing (the expressions self-publishing or self-archiving are sometimes used as well). This is normally referred to as “the green road” to Open Access, in relation to “the golden road”, which means to get published in Open Access journals.  Parallel publishing means that the researcher deposits a copy of a document written by him/her in another context and published digitally (usually in a scholarly journal) on a freely accessible Web page (Self-Archiving FAQ). Preferably this will be done in the open archive of the researchers’ own seat of learning (also referred to as the institutional repository). Today most Swedish universities and university colleges have an open archive of this kind.

In some subject fields researchers have been practising parallel publishing for quite some time, for example in computer science and physics. Already in 1991, Paul Ginsparg at Los Alamos National Laboratory established a digital archive named ArXiv for physics, where researchers deposit their articles so that their colleagues may take part of them before the articles get accepted and published in a scholarly journal. ArXiv is thus a subject-based open archive and there are more archives of this type, like for example RePEc (economics), CogPrints (cognition science) and CiteSeer (computer science).

One of the earliest advocators for parallel publishing was the cognition researcher Stevan Harnad, who already in 1994 published what he called “The subversive proposal” (Harnad 1995, p.13-14). Influenced by the establishing of ArXiv, Harnad propagated for researchers all over the world and in all disciplines to make their publications freely accessible via a “public ftp”, which by then was the prevailing technology.

The technical development has moved on since then but the basic idea remains. Beside the subject-oriented archives, individual researchers have also (with or without direct influence) responded to Harnad’s summons by making their publications freely accessible, on their own Web pages or on pages that belong to the research group, the department or the institution. The extent of this parallel publishing has, however, still not reached the level that Harnad propagated for.

In the last years many universities, university colleges and other research institutions within and outside of Sweden have established their own open archives. More often it is these, rather than subject-oriented archives, that are referred to when it comes to parallel publishing (Harnad 2006). A suitable definition of an open archive in this context has been given by Raym Crow: “…a digital archive of the intellectual product created by the faculty, research staff, and students of an institution and accessible to end users both within and outside of the institution.” (Crow 2002, p. 16). Further, Crow means that an archive should be interoperable and its contents should have a scholarly character. Interoperability here refers to a system that can make accessible its contents (metadata and full texts) to search engines and other services on the Internet. The standard protocol used for this purpose is the OAI-PMH (Open Archives Initiative - Protocol for Metadata Harvesting).

Different software exists for the open archives. Some of it is co-called open-source software and is free to download and to start using, like for example Eprints and DSpace. DiVA is developed at Uppsala University Library and universities and university colleges can, at a charge, get connected to the system. Several seats of learning have developed their own systems for electronic publishing. For a survey of systems used in Sweden (per 2005) see  Holmqvist & Johansson 2005.

OpenDOAR - The Directory of Open Access Repositories which is run by the University of Nottingham registers all open archives within academic institutions all over the world and keeps statistics on the growth of the archives. Out of a total of 1,020 registered archives 33 of them are from Sweden (3 January 2008).

Rights, publishing company policies and other practical matters

Scholarly articles
When you speak of Open Access through parallel publishing you first of all, as mentioned above, refer to articles which have undergone peer review and which have been published in a scholarly journal, so-called postprints. This was stated in the Budapest Open Access Initiative 2002 (see also Harnad 2001 and Harnad 2006). To make an article which has been published in a scholarly journal freely accessible the journal publishing company needs to allow this. Information about most publishing companies’ regulations can be found in the service Sherpa/Romeo, also run by the University of Nottingham.

A postprint is in Sherpa defined as an article which has been accepted for publishing and undergone peer review, and with possible changes resulting from the peer review having been revised in the article. A preprint on the other side is an article which has not yet been accepted or undergone peer review (see definitions in Sherpa/Romeo).

Sherpa/Romeo divides the publishing companies’ policies according to a colour range:

Green = permits parallel publishing of postprints and pre-publishing of preprints.

Blue = only permits parallel publishing of postprints.

Yellow = only permits pre-publishing of preprints.

White = permits neither parallel- nor pre-publishing

It is not unusual for researchers to indicate hesitation in regard to parallel publishing as a result of a fear of violating an agreement with the publishing company. The truth is that in the present situation a majority of the publishing companies, 66 per cent, permits parallel- or pre-publishing, according to Sherpa/Romeo. The numbers for postprints are 56 per cent and for preprints 43 per cent (7 January 2008).

On journal level the numbers get higher. According to Eprints.org 62 per cent of the journals permit parallel publishing of postprints and 29 per cent permit pre-publishing of preprints. Totally, then, this adds up to 91 per cent for some form of publishing (7 January 2008). The reason why the numbers for publishing companies and journals differ is because several of the publishing companies which permit parallel publishing of postprints are very large and put out a considerable amount of journals, like for example Elsevier.

It should be noted that Eprints.org uses a somewhat different colour range than Sherpa/Romeo:

Eprints full green = Sherpa green + blue (permits postprints and in some cases preprints).

Eprints pale green = Sherpa yellow (only permits preprints).

It can of course happen that the publishing company that the researcher uses for publishing is “white”, meaning thus that the company does not generally permit parallel publishing or it might not exist in the Sherpa/Romeo database at all. In this case you can simply send a letter to the publishing company and ask for permission. You can also, already before signing the publishing contract but after the article has been accepted, request to keep the right to deposit a copy of the article in the open archive of your own seat of learning. (Read more in the section called Copyright for researchers.)

The publishing company versus the author’s article version 
In addition to the distinction between postprint and preprint it is important to also differentiate between two variants of postprints, namely the publishing company’s published PDF file and the author’s final approved manuscript. The publishing company’s PDF is quite simply put the PDF which is published in the journal. The author’s last version is in the ideal case identical in terms of contents, but unformatted and does not contain the journal’s pagination or logotype. Most large publishing companies today only permit parallel publishing of the author’s version and not the publishing company’s PDF. This information will in this case be found under “Conditions” in the Sherpa/Romeo database.

A few examples of how this may be expressed:

• Publisher’s PDF cannot be used

• Publisher’s version cannot be used

• Author’s version of post-prints may be archived

Due to the circumstance that it is often only the author’s version that may be deposited it is important for the author to verify that the final version returned to him/her by the publishing company is identical to the published version in terms of contents. This is not least important when articles are deposited by representatives (librarians or administrative staff) and not by the researcher himself/herself. This may, for example, require technical skills from the staff, like inserting images and diagrams correctly in the article, something which the Medical Faculty Library at Lund University has experience from (Hultman-Özek 2005). Uncertainties regarding the status of the version may, naturally, also arise. The only way to definitely guarantee the author’s version as identical to the publishing company’s version really consists of comparing the texts (Antelman 2006, p. 87). Most people would probably consider this to be much too resource-demanding work for the library/administration. If you have a work flow which involves representatives it is reasonable to see the handling of the versions as, primarily, the author’s responsibility.

As regards potential differences between the versions, a couple of studies have been published which show that there are often differences and sometimes outright faults in the articles. Most often the faults are found in the author’s version, but there are also examples of faults being introduced in the published version which did not exist in the author’s manuscript. None of the studies pointed to any major inaccuracies, the faults concerned mainly minor things which did not affect the scientific result or the understanding of this result (Goodman, Dowson & Yaremchuk 2007; Wates & Campbell 2007). However, more and larger studies on this matter are needed in order to clear away hesitance in regard to parallel-published versions.  

As Antelman further points out in his article it is a fact that an author’s version of a postprint-due to it being unformatted-almost looks like a preprint. “Without the contextual branding of a journal or pagination, such a document is not, according to the norms of most disciplines, citable.” (Antelman 2006, p. 87). When a published article is deposited in an open archive it is therefore important to fill in bibliographic information correctly (see more below under the section How to do it and why?) and also to link to the officially published version of the article (which is something required by almost all publishing companies). Furthermore, when the full text is an author’s version it is highly recommendable to add a standardized front endpaper which in a clear way gives the reference and which states that the version has been peer-reviewed. The front endpaper is placed as the first page in the PDF file.

Here is an example of how you may formulate such a front endpaper of a scholarly article:

This is an author-produced version of a paper published in Journal of example science.

This paper has been peer-reviewed but does not include the final publisher proof-corrections or journal pagination.

Citation for the published paper:

Andersson, A., “Example of a paper”,

Journal of example science, 2007, volume 5, issue 5, pp. 5-10.

URL to article at publisher’s site: http://dx.doi.org/13234567889

Access to the published version may require journal subscription.

Published with permission from: Elsevier

Embargo
An embargo in this context refers to a restriction, for example from a publishing company, regarding how soon an article can be made public in an open archive.

It can, for example, be a matter of 6 or 12 months after publication in the journal. This information is found under “Restrictions” or “Conditions” in Sherpa/Romeo, and can, for example, be expressed in the following way:

• 12 months embargo

• Publisher’s version/PDF may be used after 12 months.

Recommendation or requirements from research financiers
To an increasingly higher degree research financiers recommend or require that a copy of publications resulting from research funded by them be deposited in an open archive. Sherpa runs a sister service to Romeo called Juliet, which lists the financiers who have adopted a policy for this procedure. Sherpa/Juliet lists three criteria for considering the financier’s policy as entirely Open Access:

That depositing is required (meaning then mandatory)

That the deposited version be the postprint version of the article (either the publishing company’s PDF or the author’s version)

That the depositing must take place directly when the article is accepted by a journal (i.e. without any embargo period)

In the present situation (7 January 2008) no financier meets all three criteria but several of the research councils in Great Britain (UK Research Councils) meet the two first ones. Still, an embargo is accepted, most of them indicate 6 months.

Other document types
Research publications which have not been published in scholarly journals can also be deposited in open archives. This may be conference contributions, book chapters, entire books or reports of various kinds. Publications which have been published externally (outside of the seat of learning) need, just as articles, to get the publisher’s permission to parallel publish. This is done most simply through contacting the publishing company/publisher and request permission. Commercial publishing companies, but often also national authorities or organisations of different types, may be concerned here. Experience shows that strikingly often such permission is granted.

Many of these other types of documents consist of what is called “grey literature.” The open archives offer a possibility for the grey literature to become visible and accessible in a completely different way compared to before (Correia & Neto 2002 ; Banks 2005). One definition of grey literature reads: “Information produced on all levels of government, academics, business and industry in electronic and print formats not controlled by commercial publishing i.e. where publishing is not the primary activity of the producing body” (GreyNet : The Grey Literature Network Service). Grey literature does normally not undergo peer review but can still be publications of scholarly character. In this context this refers for example to material published at the seat of learning or material which is not published at all. To publications published within the seat of learning the author owns the copyright and can make the publication freely accessible unless no special agreement made with the institution, faculty or seat of learning has been signed. Parts of dissertations, report series, some local journals etc. are included in this group. Without any problem the author may publish a copy of unpublished material, such as working papers, in the local open archive.

According to statistics at OpenDOAR (7 January 2008) the most common document types in the open archives, globally seen, are still theses and dissertations together with unpublished reports and working papers, and not peer-reviewed journal articles.

How to do it and why?
A common objection from researchers against depositing their publications in open archives is that they believe or experience that it takes a lot of time and that it is complicated. The matter is not only about uploading a file somewhere, but also about describing the publication through bibliographic information (metadata). But studies show, de facto, that it is neither particularly time-consuming nor difficult to deposit publications in open archives.

A study at the University of Southampton based on the software Eprints and with server logs being studied showed that the average time for deposition of an article was ca 10 minutes. The median time was even less, 5 minutes and 37 seconds (Carr & Harnad 2005, p. 5). Basing themselves on an average number of authors who per article spent 3.33 minutes, Carr and Harnad further calculated that a researcher who published one article per month would spend about 39 minutes per year depositing his or her articles (Carr & Harnad 2005, p. 6). Another study carried out by Swan and Brown at Key Perspectives Ltd. and based on questionnaires sent out to researchers all over the world shows a similar result. 52 per cent of the respondents were of the opinion that it took only a few minutes to deposit an article (Swan & Brown 2005, p. 53f; see also Swan 2006, p. 55). Furthermore, both these studies show that the time it takes to register metadata is considerably reduced after the first article. Carr and Harnad also demonstrate that the more articles an author deposits, the faster it goes.

As regards the difficulty of depositing, Swan and Brown report that after the first article 72 per cent of the researchers found depositing easy or very easy. Only 9 per cent experienced it as difficult (Swan & Brown 2005, p. 54; Swan 2006, p. 55f).

Why is then metadata needed? Because good and structured metadata increases the chance for use and citing of the article, which is what researchers desire. In the Swan and Brown study 92 per cent of the researchers meant that the reason for any type of publishing is the desire to spread research results to colleagues (”communicate results to their peers”) (Swan & Brown 2005, p. 23). A number of studies have shown that articles that are freely accessible on the Web are cited earlier and more than articles that are only accessible via subscription-based journals (Open Citation Project: “The effect of open access and downloads (’hits’) on citation impact: a bibliography of studies”).

The institutional repositories provide the possibility to make deposited publications visible and accessible on the Web by adding structured metadata and by having the OAI-PMH protocol make sure that the data can be “harvested” and made visible in different search services and search engines (see further under Increased exposure and accessibility  - the OAI-PMH protocol and search services).

For this reason it is important to add metadata to the publication. Even if the full text for some reason may not be deposited, the information will make it easier for someone who has found the reference on the Web to decide whether the article is of interest to him/her, and in that case get hold of the full text in another way.                                                                                     

References

Antelman, K. (2006). Self-archiving practice and the influence of publisher policies in the social sciences. Learned Publishing 19(2), pp. 85-95 (Electronic). Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/095315106776387011 (7 January 2008). Parallel-published version: http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00006023/

Banks, M. (2005). Towards a continuum of scholarship : the eventual collapse of the distinction between grey and non-grey literature, In D. Farace & J.Frantzen (eds.), Open access to grey resources : seventh international conference on grey literature ; INIST-CNRS, Nancy, France, 5 - 6 December 2005. Amsterdam : TextRelease. ISBN 90-77484-06-X (Electronic). Access: http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00005803/  (7 January 2008).

Carr, L. & Harnad, S. (2005). Keystroke economy : a study of the time and effort involved in self-archiving. Technical report, ECS, University of Southampton (Electronic). Access: http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10688/ (7 January 2008).

Correia, A.M.R. & Neto, M.D. (2002). The role of eprint archives in the access to, and dissemination of, scientific grey literature : LIZA - a case study by the National Library of Portugal. Journal of Information Science 28 (3), pp. 231-41 (Electronic). Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016555150202800305 (7 January 2008).

Crow, R. (2002). The case for institutional repositories : a SPARC position paper. Washington, DC : SPARC (The Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition) (Electronic). Access: http://www.arl.org/sparc/bm~doc/ir_final_release_102.pdf (7 January 2008).

Goodman, D., Dowson, S. & Yaremchuk, J. (2007). Open access and accuracy : author-archived manuscripts vs. published articles. Learned Publishing 20(3), pp. 203-215 (Electronic). Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/095315107X204012  (7 January 2008). Parallel-published version: http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1968/

Harnad, S. (1995). Overture : the subversive proposal, In A. Okerson & J. O’Donnell (eds.), Scholarly journals at the crossroads : a subversive proposal for electronic publishing. Washington, DC : Association of Research Libraries. ISBN: 0-918006-26-0 (Electronic). Access: http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/subversive.pdf  (7 January 2008).

Harnad, S. (2001). The self-archiving initiative. Nature 410, pp. 1024-25 (Electronic). Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35074210 (7 January 2008). Parallel-published version: http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/5947/

Harnad, S. (2006). Optimizing OA self-archiving mandates : what? where? when? why? how?. Technical report, ECS, University of Southampton (Electronic). Access: http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13098/ (7 January 2008).

Holmqvist, K. & Johansson, T. (2005). Organiserad vetenskaplig elektronisk publicering vid universitet och högskolor i Sverige [Organised scholarly electronic publishing at universities and university colleges in Sweden]. Master’s thesis in Computer- and Information Science, Lund University (Electronic). Access: http://theses.lub.lu.se/archive/2005/06/21/1119362831-12377-21/Organiserad_vetenskaplig_elektronisk_publicering.pdf  (7 January 2008).

Hultman-Özek, Y. (2005). Lund Virtual Medical Journal makes self-archiving attractive and easy for authors. D-Lib Magazine 11(10) (October 2005) (Electronic). Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/october2005-ozek (7 January 2008).

Swan, A. (2006). The culture of open access: researchers’ views and responses, In N. Jacobs (ed.), Open access: key strategic, technical and economic aspects, pp. 52-59. Oxford : Chandos. ISBN: 1-84334-204-9 (Electronic). Access: http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12428/ (7 January 2008).

Swan, A. & Brown, S. (2005). Open access self-archiving : an author study. Truro, UK : Key Perspectives Ltd (Electronic). Access: http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10999/   (7 January 2008).

Wates, E. & Campbell, R. (2007). Author’s version vs. publisher’s version: an analysis of the copy-editing function. Learned Publishing 20(2), pp. 121-129 (Electronc). Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/174148507X185090  (7 January 2008).

Ingegerd Rabow, 2007
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/se/

Description
The purpose of the section is to inform members of scholarly societies, journal editors and publishers. Besides researchers, the information in this section is also directed at he or she who needs to give advice to researchers about how to look after copyright issues. The section also provides a survey of the various existing possibilities concerning how to make the contents in an already existing journal more accessible or how to start a new Open Access journal.  

This survey only deals with the regulation which concerns text-based works and not the so-called closely related rights which protect creators/producers of other types of works as, for example, practicing artists, photographers, etc. .

The presentation is to be is seen as an outline wherefore supplementary information may be needed in specific cases.

Background
Traditionally the legislation aims at creating a reasonable balance between the originator’s need of protection for his or her work and the user’s need of access to the work. The copyright law therefore combines the protection of the origin with reasonable exceptions and restrictions for the public’s best interest.

However, different factors have lately led to a loss of balance; the publishing companies’ strong demands on the transfer of copyright have transformed the author’s intellectual property into a material asset of the publishing companies. It is no long the authors but the publishing companies which regulate access and use. To their service they have sophisticated digital technology. The result of the publishing companies having all rights reserved is a monopolization of scholarly information. The development has increasingly come to be questioned by the research community.

What is meant by copyright?
Protection by copyright arises when a work meets the high standard requirements for copyright. The work must in some way be unique, possess certain independence and originality.  

Protection by copyright does not include ideas, factual matters, information or facts, but does include photographs, drawings and maps that form part of a text.

He or she who has the copyright to a work has the exclusive rights to determine the use of the work and is protected against having the work used by others without permission. There are restrictions of the exclusive rights. Among other things other people may, without the originator’s approval, copy for personal use or refer to or quote from works made public.

The protection arises automatically - no registration is required - and according to the principal rule the protection lasts for the lifetime of the originator + 70 years.

From the beginning, the copyright always belongs to a natural person. This natural person has two types of rights, economic and non-material ones.

Economic rights consist, in part, of the right to produce copies of the work in any form, and in part of the right to make the work accessible to the public, for example through different types of dissemination. 

Non-material rights are, in part, the right to always be named when the work is used and in part the right to oppose any use of the work that might violate the artistic reputation of the originator.

The Swedish Copyright Legislation 1960:729 relating to copyright of literary and artistic works, the so-called Copyright Act, regulates the originator’s rights and also the limitations and exceptions that the copyright may be subjected to. On 1 July  2005, amendments were made to the Copyright Act (Swedish Code of Statutes, SFS 2005:359), brought about by an EU Directive 2001/29/EG from 5 May 2001 regarding the harmonizing of copyright and closely related rights in the EU countries.

Besides being regulated by national legislation, the copyright is also regulated by international agreements. Two such important agreements are the Berne Convention and the World Convention. Sweden belongs to the countries which have acceded to these conventions and with that Sweden is given protection by copyright in all participating countries. (See the WIPO Guide)

Transfer or concede rights?
The originator may choose to entirely or partially transfer or concede the economic rights to others through some type of agreement, which should always be in writing. Read more about agreements below.

Transfer means that the originator declines or hands over the complete or partial economic ownership of the work to somebody else, who then becomes the owner of this right.  

Concession means that the originator concedes the right to somebody else to in certain ways use the complete or partial work, for example to publish the work as an article in printed or electronic form. In the case of a concession the ownership remains with the originator, only certain usufructs are conceded.

In most cases a concession is valid for a specific period. After that the usufruct goes back to the originator. If the conceded usufruct does not give the receiver sole right to this (=a non-exclusive licence) the originator may give a similar right to others.

The non-material rights can not be conceded or transferred. They can only be given up. To give up your non-material rights should only occur in exceptional cases.

Licence by agreement
A licence means the entitlement to make use of a right in certain limited respects. A licence means a concession to somebody who will make use of the work in accordance with the stipulated conditions of the licence. That which is stipulated in a licence by agreement applies irrespective of whether the copyright law says anything different.

As no form requirements exist for a transfer or concession also verbal agreements are, formally, valid. However, it is to recommend, definitely, to always come to a written agreement. Otherwise it may be difficult to determine the specifics.

An agreement should clearly specify what it is that has been transferred or conceded and to what party as the parts of the right that have not been transferred or conceded remain with the originator. A licence concession can be exclusive or non-exclusive.

Contract models
Both nationally and internationally, universities have worked on producing contract models as support for their researchers.

Lund University has worked out two contract models. One of them regulates the relationship between the author and Lund University at the publishing in the open archives of the university.  

The other one - “Licence to publish” - applies to the publishing of journal articles with publishing companies and regulates the rights that have been conceded and on what terms the concession is done. The contract gives the publishing company an exclusive right to publish the article, i.e., the sole right to duplicate and spread the article. However, this right includes the following important limitations. The author keeps the right to

• use the article in continued research and teaching
• put the article on a server within the Lund University domain or on another publicly accessible server
• publish the article in a future doctor’s dissertation
• use the article as a foundation or basis of future publications or presentations

The non-material right, i.e., the right to be named as originator and the right to respect for the work, remains with the author.

Several different contract models exist that may be used. Three examples follow here:

SPARC “Author´s Addendum”
This is an addendum to a publishing company contract. The addendum reserves some important rights for the author, among other things the right to parallel publish in an open archive and to make and distribute copies for his or her own teaching.
http://www.library.upenn.edu/scholcomm/AuthorsAddendum4.pdf.
(Anm.SPARC Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition).

SURF/JISC “Licence to Publish”
Like the Lund contract model this is a complete licence agreement. It gives the publishing company the exclusive right to publish and sell the article together with a few other rights of commercial character. The author keeps all rights which have not specifically been transferred to the publishing company. In addition, the most important rights that the author keeps are specified in the licence agreement. http://copyrighttoolbox.surf.nl/copyrighttoolbox/authors/licence/
(Note that SURF is a collaboration between universities and research institutions in the Netherlands to optimize the use of ICT in higher education and research. JISC is an equivalent organization in Great Britain).

The Creative Commons licences
The project was launched in 2002 in the US by prominent law professors who wanted to create a more balanced copyright. With a Creative Commons licence you keep your copyright but you concede to others certain defined rights. The licences exist in many countries and in many languages. Below you find the link to the Swedish site. Here you can enter and choose which type of licence would fit your publication.
http://creativecommons.org/license/

It is important for authors to carefully consider what rights to give to their publishing company, if they at the same time want to self-archive a peer-reviewed and accepted article in an open archive, so-called parallel publishing. The British SHERPA/RoMEO database lists publishing companies and their copyright regulations. Here you may see which publishing companies accept that preprints (a manuscript which has not yet undergone peer-reviewing) and/or postprints (a reviewed and approved manuscript) are put up in open archives.

A principal rule in negotiations with publishing companies is, then, to always and carefully read through the contract proposition and make sure that you at least keep the right to parallel-publish your accepted manuscript in the open archive of the university and/or in another open archive (for example a subject-based archive like PubMed Central) and the right to use your article in a possible future doctor’s dissertation and in your teaching.

Links and references

Lag om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk [Act on copyright in literary and artistic works] SFS 1960:729
http://62.95.69.15/cgi-bin/thw?%24%7BHTML%7D=sfst_lst&%24%7BOOHTML%7D=sfst_dok&%24%7BSNHTML%7D=sfst_err&%24%7BBASE%7D=SFST&%24%7BTRIPSHOW%7D=format%3DTHW&BET=1960:729%24

Nilsson, Annette. Upphovsrätt - En översikt [Copyright-A survey]. 2006. Department of Law, Lund University  http://www.lub.lu.se/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Upphovsraett_-_en_oeversikt.pdf      

SHERPA/ RoMEO - Publisher copyright policies & self-archiving
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php

WIPO Guide to Intellectual Property Worldwide. Second Edition (Publication 479 E) http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/ipworldwide/ (Note. WIPO - World Intellectual Property Organisation - is one of 16 specialist organizations within the UN system and administrates 23 international treaties dealing with different aspects of the copyright and the organization has 179 member countries)

Jörgen Eriksson, 2007
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/se/

Description
The information in this section is directed to the individual who needs to inform members of scholarly societies, journal editors and publishers. The purpose of the section is to provide a survey of the different possibilities that exist when you want to make the contents in an existing journal more accessible or if you want to start a new Open Access journal.  

Making a subscription-based journal freely accessible (or lowering the subscription fee)
If you form part of a journal editorial staff or belong to a scholarly society which puts out journals there are possibilities to influence how and where the journal should be published. A step-by-step description of how to proceed practically follows here.

1. Try to find out whether the journal is reasonably priced. Part of this information can be found by using Bergstrom-McAfees  Journal cost-effectiveness search.

The price per article and price per quoting is listed there and the journal is also given an index number. A colour coding system is also used with “expensive” journals marked in red and those worth their price marked in “green”. It is recommendable to make your own investigation apart from this [1]

If the journal appears to be unreasonably expensive the next step may be to

2. Contact the publishing company and ask for a price reduction. This measure will of course carry more weight if done collectively, as editorial staff or society. If the publishing company is not willing to lower the price so as to reach an acceptable level there are different ways to proceed depending on whether you are a member of a society which owns its journal or member of the editorial staff of a journal owned by a commercial publishing company.

3. If the journal is owned by a scholarly society you may try to influence the society to change publisher. Here are also two alternatives. Either you continue to base the business model on subscription revenues, but you use a traditional publishing company with more reasonable pricing, or you change business model and make the journal freely accessible.

4. If the journal is owned by a commercial publishing company the editorial staff may move and start an alternative journal at another publishing company which either applies a more reasonable pricing or where the journal will become freely accessible.

Examples of such alternative journals are Evolutionary Ecology Research, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming. Cambridge University Press published the TPLP as an alternative to the Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming.

A highly interesting letter in which Donald Knuth, a legend in computer science, explains to the other members of the editorial staff why he has come to decide that he wants to break off the collaboration with the Journal of Algorithms, started by Knuth himself, constitutes valuable reading. The letter resulted in the editorial staff breaking off the collaboration with Elsevier to start a new journal, Transactions on Algorithms, published by ACM.

The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) provides guides and can also offer advice and in certain cases financial support to processes which aim to increase the accessibility of journals through price reductions or change-overs to OA.

Starting a new OA journal or making an already existing journal freely accessible: the practice
Once you have decided to start an OA journal you may either do it at an existing OA publishing company or publish it at your own publishing company.

There are not many existing publishing companies with an absolute OA profile. Without any claim to a complete list some of them follow here.

BioMed Central, which besides biomedicine also publishes journals in biology, ecology and chemistry, has an entry with information about that which is required to start a new journal or add an existing one.  

Hindawi is a rapidly growing publishing company that publishes journals in technology, physics, biosciences and mathematics. Information about how to proceed is obtained through contacting the publishing company.

Linköping University Electronic Press offers the possibility to use their services to publish OA journals.

Another Swedish initiative for primarily medical journals is medicaljournals.se which at present puts out two medical journals (Acta Dermato-Venerologica and Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine) and which has changed over from a commercial publishing company to publishing under their own direction. The possibility to buy OA for separate articles at a publication fee exists here and the long-term goal is a complete OA solution. Other journals that are interested in using the same platform may contact the Editorial Manager of the journals.

One alternative is to use a Web Hotel service where the host answers for the technical solution and the remaining work is managed by the journal. Two examples of services with an OA direction and special software for journal publishing are the Simon Fraser University Library and the Scholarly Exchange .

Here, for example, lies another possibility for a library to offer the service of publishing the local series which are produced at most seats of learning.

Finally, one can also set up one’s own system and manage the publishing of a journal privately. SPARC maintains a list of accessible software. The one mostly used today is Open Journals Systems.

Indexing/Visibility/Standards
In order to draw attention to that which is published in the new journal, and read and quoted, it is important for the journal to be as visible as possible. Google and Google Scholar are important services for indexing but there are also the traditional index- and abstract databases. The journal subject will be decisive for which services to choose for visibility. SPARC gives a short introduction to becoming visible in this type of services and a presentation of some of the larger ones.  

It is also important to think of a type of new specialized search services which collect data from institutional repositories and other open scholarly services which use the OAI-PMH protocol (see module 3). An important service here is the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) which, if you are OAI-PMH compatible, also makes the journal contents searchable on article level (http://www.doaj.org/ ).

Long-term preservation
Traditionally, libraries have handled the long-term preservation and the accessibility of journals. When it comes to electronic journals the situation is less clear. Certain publishing companies like Elsevier and BioMed Central have entered into agreements with the Dutch Royal Library in The Hague which has undertaken the preservation of their journals. In Sweden e-deposit legislation is in progress which will make the National Library responsible for the long-term preservation. The legislation is expected to come sometime in 2008 or 2009 and it has not been clarified yet what needs preservation. A complement to the electronic archiving is to make a number of print-outs (using paper of archival quality) and, for example, bind yearly volumes and send to the National Library and the university libraries for archiving. A new report from JISC describes the work with finding new ways for the preservation of e-journals:

[1] “I speak from first-hand experience of what happens when profits take over. In 1986, I started a journal in the field of evolutionary ecology. The initial subscription price was $35 per year for individuals, $100 for libraries. Within a twelve year period, during which the journal changed ownership twice, the price for libraries had grown to nearly $800 per year, an average annual increase of 19%. I did the math. I estimated that my publisher pocketed profit of between $170,000 and $220,000 annually, a mark-up of about 275% and a profit margin of nearly 75%.”

Michael L. Rosenzweig, Editor-in-Chief, Evolutionary Ecology Research Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona

http://www.arl.org/sparc/bm~doc/Declaring_Independence_Selection.pdf

Further reading

General literature on scholarly communication and its development

Garfield, Eugene (1980). Has Scientific Communication Changed in 300 Years?. In Essays of an Information Scientist. Vol:4, pp.394-400, 1979-80 Current Contents, #8, pp.5-11, February 25 (Electronic). Access: http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v4p394y1979-80.pdf (14 May 2007)

Guédon, Jean-Claude (2001). In Oldenburg’s Long Shadow : Librarians, Research Scientists, Publishers, and the Control of Scientific Publishing. Proceedings Creating the Digital Future : Association of Research Libraries 138th Annual Meeting (Electronic). Access:http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00003951/01/ARL_Proceedings_138_In_Oldenburg’s_Long_Shadow,_by_Guedon.htm (14 May 2007).

Rosendaal, Hans E. and Geurts, Peter A. Th. M (1998). Forces and functions in scientific communication: an analysis of their interplay. In CRISP97. Cooperative Research Information Systems in Physics (Electronic). Access:  http://www.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/conferences/crisp97/roosendaal.html

OA journals

Hedlund, Turid and Gustafsson, Tomas and Björk, Bo-Christer (2004). The Open Access Scientific Journal: An Empirical Study. Learned Publishing, Vol. 17, pp. 199-209 (Electronic). Access: http://oacs.shh.fi/publications/199-210.pdf  (14 May 2007).

Heylighen, Francis (2006). Why is Open Access Development so Successful? Stigmergic organization and the economics of information. In B. Lutterbeck, M. Baerwolff & R. A. Gehring (eds.), Open Source Jahrbuch 2007, Lehmanns Media (Electronic). Access: http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs.CY/0612071 (ArXiv) (14 May 2007).

Morris, Sally (2003). Open Publishing: How Publishers are Reacting. Information Services and Use, Vol. 23, No. 2-3, pp. 99-101 (Electronic). Access:http://www.metapress.com/content/blnkwkj0wvvjbfg8/fulltext.pdf (14 May 2007). Sally Morris, who represents the Association of Learned & Professional Society Publishers, gives the existing publishing companies’ view on OA.

Poynder, Richard (2007). Open Access: The War in Europe. Blog (Electronic). Access: http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/parade/df04/The_War_in_Europe.pdf (14 May 2007). A brilliant and current analysis of the journal market and OA.

Waltham, Mary (2005). Learned Society Open Access Business Models. JISC (Electronic). Access: http://www.marywaltham.com/JISCReport.pdf  http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Learned%20Society%20Open%20Access%20Business%20Models.doc (14 May 2007).

Willinsky, John (2003). Scholarly Associations and the Economic Viability of Open Access Publishing. Journal of Digital Information, Vol. 4, Issue 2, Article No. 177 (Electronic). Access: http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v04/i02/Willinsky/ (14 May 2007).

Worlock, Kate (2004). Open access and learned societies - Will open access prove a blessing or a curse to learned societies? Nature web focus (Electronic). Access: http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/8.html (2007-05-14).

Long-term preservation

Jones, Maggie (2007).  About e-Journals: Archiving and Preservation. JISC (Electronic) Access:  http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/publications/pub_ejournalspreservationbp (14 May 2007).

Linda Sohlberg, 2007 controlled 091021
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/se/

Description of the section
This section lists and describes the most important international and national initiatives that have been taken in the last years in the Open Access movement. The thing in common for these initiatives is that they originate from discontentment with how the scholarly publication system works and that they display a great commitment to increase the accessibility and the dissemination of research results.

The purpose of the section is to provide a general view of the most important initiatives and steps taken by researchers, libraries, universities and in some cases also publishing companies.

International initiatives

OAI, the Open Archives Initiative
The Open Archives Initiative, OAI, was created by some scholars in collaboration with research libraries in the USA in 1999. The purpose was to develop a service through which the authors of scholarly publications could deposit their material in an e-print archive. Furthermore, there was a desire for developing technical solutions for joint searching in the different archives and for facilitating an efficient dissemination of the contents in the different e-print archives. Within the OAI a standard called OAI-PMH, the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting, was developed for data exchange between different databases that make possible the re-utilization of information. The standard is completely independent of the contents in the database. Today, most archives with scholarly material support the OAI-PMH. One example is the OAIster which retrieves scholarly material from approximately 800 college universities, universities, research organizations and institutes.

PLoS, the Public Library of Science
The leading idea with the PLoS, the Public Library of Science, is the general public and the scholars’ right to take part of results produced through research. Therefore, it is considered that an archive with research material should not be owned by commercial publishing companies. The initiative to the PLoS came from a group of scholars in the field of natural science in 2000. The group composed a call to academics throughout the world and published it on the Web. In this call scholars were encouraged to sign the PLoS agreement which meant that the scholars would only publish themselves in journals whose articles become open for access after six months or earlier. The letter was signed by 34, 000 scholars from over 180 countries. The letter also encouraged publishing companies to make their journals open for access.

The goal with the initiative was to give scholars, students and the general public all over the world unlimited access to the latest research. Today the PLoS has developed into a successful international organization which continuously pursues matters concerning the right to research results.

In 2003 the PLoS began to publish quality-checked, peer-reviewed, Open Access journals in natural science and medicine. The journal PLoS Biology came first. The idea was to demonstrate that journals of high quality can be published without high subscription fees. All the articles in the PLoS journals become open for access directly at their publication. Today PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine are ranked among the leading journals in biology and medicine with impact factors of 14.7 and 8.4.

Together with among others BOAI, the Budapest Open Access Initiative, see below, PLoS can be seen as the start of the debate and commitment that Open Access has enjoyed here in Sweden.

BioMed Central
BioMed Central is an Open Access publishing company and runs a full-text archive with peer-reviewed articles in biology and medicine. The publishing company has more than 170 scholarly journals. The articles are searchable also in PubMed Central and PubMed. The publishing company does not charge any author fees and the authors keep the copyright to their articles. Instead the revenues come from memberships, advertisers and from material such as survey articles and news. BioMed Central was started in 2000.

BOAI, the Budapest Open Access Initiative
In the winter of 2001 scholars met in Budapest to make a joint international contribution to the accessibility of research results. There was a desire to speed up the development and with that make research articles within all academic fields open for access on the Internet. The result of the meeting was the Budapest Open Access Initiative, BOAI, which is an essential and strategic position and commitment for Open Access publication. The initiative is also known through an open letter which was addressed to the world of research and in which there was support for open access journals and which, furthermore, gave its support to journal publishing companies that changed their prices policy, thus making the scholarly journals more accessible. Researchers and research organizations were encouraged to sign the initiative and the result was that over 4,700 organizations and interested parties across the world signed.

The Berlin declaration
In October 2003 a conference was held in Berlin that bore the title “Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities”. This was the origin of a far-reaching movement with the purpose to increase the accessibility of scholarly material and the origin of the Berlin Declaration on Open Access. In short the declaration means that knowledge should be freely accessible globally and that the organizations that sign the declaration engage to:

• Encourage researchers to publish their work in accordance with the principles of Open Access.
• Encourage administrators of the cultural heritage to make accessible resources on the Internet through Open Access.
• Develop means and ways to assess Open Access contributions and online journals with the purpose of maintaining the standard of quality and good scholarly practice.
• Recommend that Open Access publication is viewed as a qualification at the promotion of posts and at the assessment of appointments.
• Help develop an Open Access infrastructure through software development, the creation of metadata or the publication of individual articles.

Today (2007) 226 organizations and institutes within the world of research and universities have signed the declaration. In Sweden the declaration has, among other things, been signed by the Association of Swedish Higher Education (SUHF), the Swedish Research Council, the National Library and several universities and university colleges.

PubMed Central
PubMed Central is a full-text archive of scholarly articles in biomedicine and medicine. Several of the major journals in these subject fields are found in the archive, e.g. PNAS, the Journal of Virology, Infection and Immunity and the Journal of Clinical Investigation. The archive is run by the US National Library of Medicine (NLM) and was started on the initiative of the National Institute of Health. More information about the NIH can be found in another section. PubMed Central is an integrated part of PubMed. The archive started containing scholarly material in 2000. Recently a British version of PubMed Central was launched, the UK PubMed Central. British research financiers joined and required that in order to be granted money from their funds the research had to be freely accessible, fully searchable and fully linked to other information resources. The British Library manages the database.

The Wellcome Trust
The Wellcome Trust is the world’s largest research foundation for the improvement of human and animal health. In the medical field the foundation is a precursor when it comes to the demands for freely accessible research material. The Wellcome Trust has, for example, begun to demand that articles from supported research projects must be deposited in the database PubMed Central (Nilsson, 2006). In the research foundation’s policy for freely accessible research, the “Wellcome Trust position statement in support of open and unrestricted access to published research,” it says that the Wellcome Trust has a fundamental interest in guaranteeing that the accessibility and access of research results are not affected negatively by the concerns of the publishing companies regarding copyright, marketing strategies or distribution strategies (irrespective of these being commercial, non-commercial or academic publishing companies).

The Wellcome Trust gives its support to free access of published research, considering this to be one of the most significant parts of the foundation’s assignments. Four items are listed by the Wellcome Trust as their most important commitments (Position statement…, 2007):

• “expects authors of research papers to maximise the opportunities to make their results available for free and, where possible, to retain their copyright
• will provide grant holders with additional funding to cover open access charges levied by publishers who offer this option and can meet the Trust’s requirements
• requires electronic copies of any research papers that have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, and are supported in whole or in part by Wellcome Trust funding, to be deposited into PubMed Central (PMC) or UK PMC once established, to be made freely available as soon as possible and in any event within six months of the journal publisher’s official date of final publication
• affirms the principle that it is the intrinsic merit of the work, and not the title of the journal in which an author’s work is published, that should be considered in making funding decisions and awarding grants.”

SPARC
SPARC, The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, is an international alliance between research-, university college- and university libraries. The coalition started in 1998 with the purpose of stimulating the growth of new models for scholarly communication.

What does SPARC do?

• Educates in matters and problems which exist within scholarly publishing and the possibilities for changes of the system.
• Demonstrates company- and publication models which lead to changes that are advantageous to research and the academy.
• Brings out the fact that new journals compare favourably and successfully with traditional publishing in terms of quality.
• A lot of effort has been spent on lowering the costs for existing journal subscriptions.
• Stimulates the development of increased publishing capacity in the non-commercial sector and encourages the start-up of new journals.
• Offers assistance and advice to researchers and librarians who are interested in creating change.

SPARC has ca 800 members in the world and funds its activities with membership fees and with means from different funds. Up to 2001 SPARC concentrated on the North American research world. But many of the problems in scholarly publishing are global and therefore a European division was also started in 2001, SPARC Europe. SPARC now also exists in other locations in the world. More information about the work carried out by SPARC can be found in their current Program Plan.

NIH, National Institutes of Health
NIH - the National Institutes of Health is the largest funder of research in medicine and health in the USA. NIH stands behind the big scientific databases PubMed, PubMed Central and MEDLINE. Their long-term policy from 2002 states that “As part of NIH’s long-standing policy to share and make available to the public the results and accomplishments of the activities that it funds, NIH announced and invited comments on a draft statement about the sharing of final research data on March 1, 2002″ (”Enhanced Public Access to NIH Research Information“). In 2004, the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives in the USA recommended NIH to “lay down conditions for their research grants and demand that articles based on NIH-funded research be deposited in  PubMed Central” (Rabow, 2004, translated from Swedish).

Political initiatives in the USA and Europe

The House of Representatives of the USA
In June 2003, member of congress Martin Olav Sabo presented “the Public Access to Science Act”, or, as it is also called, the “Sabo bill”, to the American congress. The suggestion meant a change of the copyright of all research done with substantial federal support with the purpose of making it accessible to everyone. The suggestion created a sensation and many discussions. While it was welcomed by open-access advocates it was criticized severely by a number of persons representing, principally, the world of the publishing companies.

The “Public Access to Science Act” was not passed. However, one year later, in July 2004, the American House of Representatives passed a number of recommendations regarding free accessibility of research funded by NIH, the National Institutes of Health (see above).

The British Parliament
In December 2003, the British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee began an investigation of prices and accessibility of scholarly publications and the results were reported in July 2004. The final report “Scientific Publications: Free for All?” contains a minute questioning of important actors in scholarly publishing. It contains several sharp recommendations regarding open access, among other things the recommendation that the government should fund universities to set up institutional repositories and demands on authors for depositing articles based on publicly funded research in the open archives of the universities. The British government’s response to the report was, however, a disappointment to the committee, since there was not an acceptance of the committee’s recommendations.

The research councils Wellcome Trust and Research Councils UK have later, independently of the government’s position, introduced their own recommendations regarding open access (see above).

The European Commission
In January 2006, the report “Study on the Economic and Technical Evolution of the Scientific Publication Markets of Europe” was published. The report was written by order of the European Commission and is based upon a detailed analysis of the scientific journal market and upon several interviews with researchers, publicists and contributors. A petition based on the contents of the report was published later and it encourages the Commission to formally pass the suggestions in the report. The initiative to the petition comes from a number of European research-, higher education- and library authorities.

The petition urges the European Commission to work for free access to scholarly information on the Internet and, above all, to place demands on those who are granted research funding from the European Union to make their results open for access shortly after publication. A number of organizations in Europe have by now signed the petition.

National initiatives
In the last few years, several authorities in Sweden have paid attention to the problems around scholarly publication. The Association of Swedish Higher Education and the Swedish Research Council have laid down the guiding principles and offered recommendations to their members and to the research community. The universities and the university colleges have been active in the development of local digital archives with open access to the research produced at the local university or university college. The driving force behind this activity has come, above all, from the libraries at the institutes of higher education. This explains why we, to a great extent, find most information about Open Access at the universities on the libraries’ Web sites and why the entrances to the digital archives often are found on the library Web sites.

The SVEP project
Through a great investment in the electronic publishing of university colleges and universities the National Library’s Department for National Coordination and Development, BIBSAM, initiated a project which came to be called the SVEP project, Coordination of the Electronic Publishing of Swedish Universities and University Colleges. During the years between 2003 and 2005 the project was running with the task of promoting coordination and development of e-publishing at the universities. A number of Swedish universities and university colleges participated and the focus was on freely accessible publications at the seats of learning. The results of the project have, among other things, turned into a search service for degree theses, “Uppsök,” run by the National Library and which retrieves metadata from a great many electronic archives of degree theses at universities and university colleges.

The project led to recommendations of a national format for publication databases (local registers of academic publications). This format was then recommended in 2005 by SUHF, the Association of Swedish Higher Education. A part of the project meant looking at the long-term preservation of electronic documents and files. The result was a basic infrastructure between the local seat of learning and other producers of electronic documents and the national archive at the National Library. The coordination facilitates and rationalizes the collection of documents. The project group says on the SVEP Web site that “this infrastructure is needed to ensure that deliveries from document producers are done under controlled forms, regularly and in a standardized form” (translated from Swedish).

Furthermore, the results have aroused “a great interest internationally and the project has built up a global network, which contributes to the introduction of the Swedish development into an international context, and which also secures the usefulness of the project results in a broader perspective” (the Svep project, 2003, translated from Swedish).

OpenAccess.se
The program OpenAccess.se was started in 2006 by the National Library’s Department for National Cooperation and builds on the SVEP project but uses a broader purpose. The program tasks are described on the program Web site and the six items are quoted here:

• Coordinate and develop standards and tools for e-publishing
• Increase the volume and diversity of contents in open archives
• Promote the use of material in open archives and OA journals
• Develop the quality of contents and services
• Promote long-term access to the digital publications of the seats of learning
• Support the publishing in OA journals and the transition to OA models for Swedish scholarly journals.

Basic education for researchers in Open access forms part of the program. Further projects that are included in the program are, among others, Inventory of Advantages and Disadvantages with Open Access for Biomedical Journals which is led by Acta Dermato-Venereologica (ADV) and the Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine (JRM), Research Data in Open Archives and University Archives which is led by the Göteborg University Library and which is run in collaboration with Lund University and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Self-archiving and decision support to researchers at publishing - a usage case study led by Karlstad University Library and which is carried out in collaboration with Umeå University, the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and Malmö University. The program OpenAccess.se runs until and including 2009.

SUHF, the Association of Swedish Higher Education
SUHF, the Association of Swedish Higher Education has also committed itself to the matter of accessibility of research material. SUHF is an association of universities and university colleges in Sweden and was founded to look after the external interests of the higher education institutes and to work with coordination between the seats of learning. The board of SUHF decided already in 2005 to “recommend the members to take the following steps with the purpose of implementing the Berlin declaration:

• Introduce a policy which strongly recommends that their researchers deposit a copy of each published article in an open, digital archive and
• Encourage the researchers to publish their research articles in open access scholarly journals when a suitable journal exists and give the support required for this to be possible” (Rabow ed. 2005, translated from Swedish).

SUHF has also supported the petition to the European Commission regarding free access to publicly funded research, see further under the title “The Swedish Research Council.”

The Swedish Research Council
The Swedish Research Council was one of the first organizations in Sweden to sign the Berlin declaration. The council writes on their Web site that they have “a national responsibility to support and promote the development of Swedish basic research within the entire scientific field” (translated from Swedish) and  the director-general of the Council, Pär Omling, says that “results from research funded by public means should be accessible to everyone, not only to those who can afford to pay” (translated from Swedish). In 2007, the Swedish Research Council investigates “the conditions for introducing the demand that researchers who receive grants make their results open for access” (translated from Swedish) which will result in a plan of action at the announcement of research grants. The Research Council has also signed a petition addressed to the European Commission. The petition builds on suggestions from the report called “Study on the Economic and Technical Evolution of the Scientific Publication Markets of Europe” which is written by order of the European Commission. The petition urges the Commission to formally accept the suggestions in the report presented in the beginning of 2006. The main theme of the report is the suggestion of how a broad public may be given access to scholarly articles containing the latest research results. A number of organizations in Europe have by now signed the petition.

Policies at different seats of learning
Several seats of learning have started to prepare their own policies for how to use Open Access publishing. Lund University has, since 2006, a publication policy in which the University Board recommends researchers to “if possible make their research publications open for access” (translated from Swedish). The policy recommends researchers to publish their scholarly work in Open Access journals, or, if this is not possible, to keep the right to parallel publish their work. It has further been decided that the “Transfer of publication rights should be avoided. A minimum demand from the author is the right to parallel publishing” (translated from Swedish). On 14 November 2005, vice-chancellor Göran Bexell said in a press release that “Free access to the publications leads to increased use and increased penetration of the research. With that the visibility and impact of the Lund University researchers also increases” (translated from Swedish).

Stockholm University was also one of the first seats of learning to compose a policy for publishing. In June 2006, vice-chancellor Kåre Bremer decided to sign the Berlin declaration and to recommend that researchers as far as possible deposit a copy of each published scholarly article in the digital archive of the university.

Institutional repositories in Sweden
Most universities and university colleges in the world have now some form of electronic filing of publications and this also applies to Sweden. Universities and university colleges often offer researchers and students ready tools for publishing on the Web. Common for the tools is that the publications which are uploaded into the system also become searchable and accessible in, among other things, Web search services such as Google, Yahoo and All the Web. The majority of the archives use the OAI-PMH protocol, which was mentioned earlier, which makes it easy to collect metadata from the archives and compile it to build new databases, e-archives and search services. An example of this is OAIster where the e-published material of ca 800 departments is searchable under one umbrella.  The principal argument from the universities and the university colleges regarding electronic publishing in archives is to increase accessibility and with that also the use of research material and at the same time obtain a joint entrance and filing of the research conducted by the department. An institutional repository may also be defined as “collection and preservation of digital collections of scholarly publications at one or several universities” (Raym 2002, p. 4, translated from Swedish). The institutional repository is also a way to market research material versus the rest of the research world.

Examples of institutional repositories in Sweden:

Blekinge Institute of Technology

Chalmers University of Technology

Högskolan Dalarna [Dalarna University College]

The Academic Archive Online - DiVA

Ediffah (A digital infrastructure for cataloguing and searching archival collections at Swedish research libraries)

University of Gävle

GUPEA - University of Gothenburg

Jönköping University

University of Kalmar will be started in 2007

Karlstad University

Karolinska Institutet

Royal Institute of Technology

Linköping University

Luleå University of Technology

LU:research - Lund University

Mid Sweden University

Mälardalen University

Stockholm University

Södertörn University College

Umeå University

Uppsök - Full-text degree theses (Libris)

SLU Epsilon

Uppsala University

Växjö University

Örebro University

Mandatory publishing at more and more seats of learning
At the same time as the full-text archives have been set up the seats of learning have made decisions about how to get more material into the databases. At some seats of learning there is compulsory registration of all scholarly publications and other university colleges and universities have gone even farther demanding that, for example, dissertations and degree theses should be entered in full-text format. The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) was one of the first seats of learning to decide about compulsory full-text publication. The decision was made already in 2003 and applies to both doctoral dissertations and licentiate dissertations. Similar decisions have later been taken at most seats of learning with somewhat different formulations. Lawyers at the university colleges and universities have interpreted the copyright in slightly different ways and for that reason one finds different formulations regarding compulsory publishing at the different universities.

References

Budapest Open Access Initiative (Electronic) Access:http://www.soros.org/openaccess/ (1 May 2007).

EU-commission (2007) Petition for guaranteed public access to publicly-funded research results (Electronic) Access: http://www.ec-petition.eu/ (2 May 2005).

The Final NIH Statement on Sharing Research Data (Electronic) February 26, 2003 Access: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-032.html (1 May 2007).

Guidelines on Good Research Practice (2005) Wellcome Trust (Electronic) Access: http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD002753.html (2 May 2007).

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2004). Scientific publications: free for all?, Tenth report of session 2003-04, Volume I: Report. (Electronic). Access: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399.pdf (10 August 2007)

Nilsson, Andreas, Forskningen vinner på Open Access [Research profits from Open Access] (Electronic), Forska 2006:4. Access: http://forska.vr.se/Tidigare+nummer/Visa+ett+tidigare+nummer/Detalj+tidigare+nummer/?contentId=5792&issueContentId=5788 (2 April 2007)

Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Harvesting (latest version from 12 October 2004) (Electronic) Access: http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/openarchivesprotocol.html (2 April 2007).

Public library of Science (Electronic) Access:http://www.plos.org (1 May 2007).

Policy för Stockholm universitet rörande hantering av Open Access publicering [Policy for Stockholm University regarding the handling of Open Access publishing]. (Electronic) Protocol act Reg No 301-1350-05, Stockholm University, 060629 Access: www.sub.su.se/epublicering/doc/OpenAccesspolicy.pdf (1 May 2007).

Position statement in support of open access publishing (Last updated: 14 March 2007) Wellcome Trust (Electronic) Access: http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD002766.html (2 May 2007).

Public Access to Science Act. (Electronic). Access: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.2613: (10 August 2007)

The SVEP project: Coordination of the Electronic Publishing of Swedish Universities and University Colleges. (Created 27 October 2003) (Electronic) Access: http://www.svep-projekt.se/ (2 May 2007).

Rabow, Ingegerd (2004). NIH planerar för tillgänglighet [NIH plans for accessibility] (Electronic) ScieCom info, 2004:1, Access: http://www.sciecom.org/sciecominfo/artiklar/notiser_04_3.shtml (1 May 2007).

Raym, Crow (2002) The Case for Institutional Repositories: A SPARC Position Paper.

Washington, DC: Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition.

Universitetets forskning ska bli mer tillgänglig [University research will become more accessible] (2005) Press release from Lund University 2005-11-14 (Electronic) Access: http://www.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id=1383&visa=pm&pm_id=395 (2 May 2007).

Peter Linde, 2007 (updated 2009)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/se/

Description of the section
This section attempts to provide a historical background to today’s situation in scholarly communication. Important events from the creation of the printing press to today’s initiative of Open Access are taken up and described briefly.

The purpose of this section is to give a concise historical background to today’s situation in scholarly publishing and to explain relations and indicate certain continuity.

Introduction
Scholarly communication, in its widest definition, is a thousand-year-old phenomenon. Generally, you probably associate the concept with the classical Greek philosophers’ academies and with how in the Middle Ages they collected and passed on ancient knowledge by way of large quantities of translations from Arabic and Greek to Hebrew and Latin.

But throughout the years the scholarly communication has undergone several paradigm shifts. One of the most radical shifts began in the mid-15th century and culminated with the 18th century breakthrough of the art of printing. The very latest paradigm shift is taking place in our age and is made possible through the sensation of our time, the Internet, together with a liberalization of the view on rights and access. The parallels with the medieval knowledge society after the introduction of the mechanical printing press are evident.

Gutenberg’s legacy
With the printing press channels were opened for faster communication at the same time as confidence for the material printed was low. Book historians have pointed at the scepticism which the educated part of the people shared when it came to printed texts. The new technology offered new possibilities for lies and falsifications, something that had earlier been inaccessible to impostors (Johns 2000).

Undoubtedly the increasing amount of printed material brought about a feeling of the transience of being and of objects, which had earlier not been as tangible. An additional reason that contributed to this attitude was the fact that suddenly it was no longer possible to read everything and get a general view of matters and by that the required knowledge to distinguish between a lie and the truth. The English theologian Edward Fisher provided thus in 1644 the following comment on the contemporary knowledge climate: “One day this is a truth, and almost an Article; the next week it is no such matter, but some other thing is the right” (Johns 1998).

The printers, on the other hand, did not have the same negative approach. They travelled to where the money was - to trading centres, bank centres, large commercial ports as e.g. Venice, and to the courts. The universities were, however, few and of little interest to the printers. There the scribes continued their trade. Gradually the art of printing was developed and production time as well as the cost per book were reduced and by that the scribes were finally driven out of business.

Through the entry of the printed book new professional categories emerged- printers, book vendors, publishers and librarians who at the medieval universities systematized, arranged and procured manuscripts from encyclopedists and translators.

At this time it was the printer who in all senses of the word owned the word. The printer chose which manuscript to print, and then edited, printed and sold the books. There is nothing strange, thus, about the fact that it was a printer who created the first publishing company in Milan in 1472.

In spite of all the objections, for the learned the new printing technology meant that it was possible to mass produce uniform copies and that also illustrations could be printed in a simple manner. Approximately 35,000 incunabula were produced during the 15^th century. About 3,000 of these had scientific contents. In contrast to their precursors, the learned of the Renaissance did not want to limit themselves to take down and collect existing knowledge within a subject. They instead tried to embrace several fields of knowledge. The ideal Renaissance man had many and varied occupations and was an experimenter who set free and analysed knowledge which did not fit within the existing systems. Leonardo Da Vinci, Copernicus and Francis Bacon are well-known names from these times. The ways of attack, which included looking ahead and not looking back, also required new ways of communicating that were faster and supplementary. To organise in societies and to make use of the printing press, a relatively new invention, in order to circulate scientific ideas and discoveries constituted such important communication methods.

It is, however, not until the beginning of the 17^th century that the first scientific society is formalised and founded in Italy.  Accademia dei Lincei was founded in Rome and the society’s scientific results and experiments were related in the publication “Gesta Lyceorum”. This initiative was followed by similar ones in Spain and England. Scientists met here to discuss their results and new projects. To write a letter was no longer experienced as efficient enough to spread information about new studies. Why not use the printing press to circulate scientific newsletters?

In January 1665, the French lawyer Denis de Sallo printed such a weekly newsletter called “Journal des scavans”. He wrote: “The newsletter has been invented to relieve the pressure on those who are either too lazy or too busy to read entire books. It is a way to satisfy your curiosity and become a learned man without any trouble” (!) (Vickery 2000).

De Sallo’s newsletter inspired Henry Oldenburg, member of the world’s most famous scholarly society -The Royal Society- to create a journal for the society and the first issue was published in March 1665. The journal was given the name “Philosophical Transactions” and is the oldest scholarly journal still published.

Towards the end of the 17th century more than a million books had been printed and the first scholarly journals had made their appearance.

The significance of the scholarly societies
The learned societies provided for the first time a structure and platform for reviewed scientific material. This had earlier been done through personal correspondence but suddenly a new possibility was given.

When the Royal Society, by way of example, had taken an active interest in a journal this meant that material of good scientific quality had to be found in order to be published. At the beginning this was problematic as the members of the Royal Society at this time were not scholars-despite the fact that the roll mainly consisted of the majority of the learned English and quite a few learned men from abroad. In addition, it was difficult to procure texts as the scholars were sceptical to publishing their material. Scientific findings were still surrounded by extreme secrecy and discoveries were often only revealed to a few chosen friends. The scepticism to the printed medium was considerable. The risk for theft of ideas seemed obvious. The Royal Society and other similar societies now had the possibility to change this secretive behaviour for a more open attitude.

To guarantee the reliability of the experiments that were conducted in the name of the Royal Society witnesses were invited whose task was to corroborate the experiments. This was, naturally, a complicated procedure and the articles in the new journal were therefore designed in such a way that the readers of the journal could serve as virtual witnesses (Shapin 1994). The scientists wished for their work to be evaluated and reviewed and the Royal Society was gradually able to offer expert reviewing through its members. This provided an accepted article with a type of authority- and quality label and must be seen as a development of the idea of witnessing.

To employ equals or colleagues for quality reviewing also had the advantage, at least from the publisher’s point of view, of being cheap. The system still exists, which arguably indicates how efficient the system is considered to be. And it could be said that this review system has forcefully contributed to the establishing of the journal as the leading method of publishing scholarly work.

Yet another factor to this was the 1709 copyright act in England. Before 1709, an author did not own the copyright to his or her own work. The copyright act of 1709 establishes that it is only the author who may have an interminable copyright. However, authors were often forced to transfer the copyright of their material in order for it to be published. In the 18^th century the view on copyright was thus changed and was now rather seen as the author’s property than that of the publisher or the printer.

In the 18^th century the scholarly journal article thus turned into a channel for the improvement of communication between researchers but it also became a way of registering origin and authorial responsibility of a given theory, process or method (Fjällbrant 1997).

During the second half of the 18th century hundreds of scholarly societies and academies were founded around Europe. Specialised societies became common and several natural history museums were founded. In 1753, the British Museum was founded and in 1786 the Swedish Academy was founded. Scholars published their discoveries in the proceedings and annals of the societies and this is also where summaries and translations and attempts at popular science articles could be found.

Towards the end of the century the scholarly journal was well-established. Between 1665 and 1730 more than 300 new journals were started up. Towards the end of the 18th century the trend was also towards an increasing specialization. There were at least three reasons for the increasing extent of the number of journals:

1. A reaction against too long lead time between submitted material and publication.

2. The journals of the societies were published in a great variety of languages which made it impossible to keep track of what happened in other countries.

3. With an increasing number of scholars letter writing became an impossibility and the solution was to publish journals directed at a specialised international circle of scholars. The first journals dealt with subjects like physics and chemistry which was natural in times that saw the chemical- and processing industries as the developers of prosperity and authority.

Towards the end of the 18^th century there were outcries at the incredible growth of scholarly literature, low scientific quality and the difficulty of getting the source material. Do we not recognize these opinions?

An exchange of abstracts became a common way of dealing with this problem and also a basic symptom of how scholarly communication had become increasingly faster. And it is now towards the end of the 18^th century, the peak of the Age of Enlightenment, that the philosopher Immanuel Kant describes how the spirit of the times is characterized by the freedom to make public use of one’s reason. Through the printed publication philosophers and scientists may come out of the private use of reason and instead speak publicly. Knowledge does not become reliable until then (Kant 1989). In such a system of thought the general public’s free access to information constitutes a condition for scholarly work.

During the 19th century, which was the golden century of the patents, applied science and engineering together with modern industrial development dominated the scene. The industrialization speeded up and large industries employed scientists. Important means of communication in the shape of the telegraph and the telephone saw the light of the day and great progress was made within printing technology.

The specialization among the scientists continued to grow. At the beginning of the 20^th century approximately 9 million book titles had been published in all subjects. Two-thirds of these were printed in the 19^th century. About two million scholarly articles were published in this century.

The 20th century
Among the events and trends that most influenced the scholarly communication in the 20th century were the establishing of multinational companies, the emergence of national research institutes and institutions; Big Science with its team and inter-institutional collaboration; increased specialization, increasing processing speed and storage capacity of computers for filing, analyzing or seeking and displaying data.; Increasing gaps of GNP between countries; The establishing of English as the dominating scholarly language and increasing collaboration between international organisations.

But while the scientific development and the industrialization have advanced the last hundred years in the Western World the extent of the advance has not been as great in other parts of the world. Proportionally, the population in the world’s least developed countries has increased. Statistics from the UN show that in 1990 the industrialized countries had 81 scientists and technicians per thousand inhabitants corresponding to 8 in the developing countries. The technological and scientific gap between poor and rich countries has increased during the later part of the 20th century, in part owing to the fact that scientific information, articles, patents, etc. have become increasingly more expensive and more and more surrounded by restrictions.

The total amount of scientific literature published in the 20th century has been estimated to approximately fifty times the amount produced up to the end of the 19th century. Scientific books and journals have continuously increased in numbers as have the societies that publish them. Naturally, this also applies to other publishers such as academic institutes, research institutes and authorities but during the second half of the century it applies above all to commercial publishing companies.

After almost 350 years of scholarly journals the scholarly publication is today concentrated at three major commercial companies: Reed Elsevier with just under 2,000 journals, Taylor and Francis with slightly more than 1,000 and Springer with ca. 500. Together they control ca. 60% of the material that is indexed in the world’s leading indexing database ISI Web of Science.

To buy up smaller publishing companies and continually raise the subscription rates has been the policy throughout of these publishing giants.

Up to the 1950’s the scholarly societies dominated as publishers. But in response to the postwar increasing investment in research and development the commercial publishing companies saw a possibility in offering new journals with the publication of discoveries stemming from the increasing amount of scientific research areas. The scholarly societies were, on the other hand, very careful about starting new publications.

A study of economics journals has shown what this development led to. In 1960 there were within the subject of economics ca. 30 major journals; almost all of them run on by non-profit sponsored scientific organizations. Twenty years later the number of titles had risen to 120 of which half were published by commercial publishing companies and in the year of 2000 the commercial share was two-thirds of the ca. 300 available journals. The average subscription price for the commercial journals ranked among the top twenty was ca. 1,700 dollars/year compared to 180 dollars/year for the non-commercial top twenty (Willinsky 2006).

Paradigm shift
Not even ten years into the new millennium and quite a few things have happened in the field of scholarly communication. We speak of a new paradigm shift. The reasons for this are primarily two:

1. The Internet and the possibility of transferring and distributing heavy files via broadband networks.

2. Substantial price increases of subscriptions to scholarly journals.

The publication model for scholarly journals, which has been accounted for above, and which caught on in the 18th century is still used. A publisher receives an article from a scholar who wishes to get published in order to spread his or her discoveries and for qualification. The phrase “publish or perish” has great relevance within the scholarly world. The journal’s editors, themselves scholars, decide whether to publish the article or not. They send the article over to a number of reviewers who will determine the scientific quality of the article. These reviewers are scientific specialists in different subject fields. In most cases, the authors, editors and reviewers and their colleagues also constitute the journal’s readership. More often than not they have access to the journal via their library.

Since the 1990’s librarians and scholars have complained about the continually increasing costs for subscriptions to scholarly journals and particularly about the fact that commercial publishing companies make a great profit on research that is publicly funded. The scholar, the editor and the reviewer, all of them coming from the sphere of science, receive no pay or minimal pay for their contributions. Their pay consists of qualification and status. The contribution made by the commercial publishing company is primarily distribution and design.

For many universities and institutes of higher education it is a bitter experience to purchase expensive texts from their own scholars; scholars who have given the articles free of charge to a publishing company that packs and sells them back to the universities and institutes at a good profit.

When the prices skyrocketed, at times up to 4 times the consumer price index, libraries were forced to cancel subscriptions and instead rely on distant loans and copying.

In the middle of the 1990’s people had great expectations on the electronic journal databases and the package solutions that were offered by the big publishing companies of scholarly journals. For a while these databases purchased by consortiums seemed like a solution to the dilemma. The libraries were offered to jointly buy a package of databases that could contain thousands of digital journals, at a favorable cost which was much lower than the subscriptions to each individual journal. Certainly, a considerable amount of titles that were not of interest to the library formed part of the package but all in all it was still, to begin with, a good deal for the libraries. Right up to the point when the prices started to increase again and the difficulty of keeping the subscriptions to the important journals presented itself again. In the USA the New York Times, among others, commented on how university libraries and scholars refused to buy the journals with a yearly increase in costs of up to 10 % (Kutz, 2002).

Already in the beginning of the 1990’s the scholar Paul Ginsparg had, as he started the Los Alamos Physics e-Print Archive, shown how efficient the Internet could be when it came to distribution of scientific research. The archive is a freely accessible archive that today contains more than 400,000 articles self-published by physicians and mathematicians from the whole world.

The possibilities provided by the Internet in combination with the galloping journal prices was also the reason why the association of American research libraries (ARL) in 1999 started “The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition - SPARC” in order to spread information to scholars about self-publication and to encourage new independent scholarly journals. Through new publication models there was hope of being able to keep down costs and subscription rates and also to “give back research to the researchers”.

Open Archives Initiative
The source of inspiration for SPARC is largely the organization the Open Archives Initiative whose prominent figures are Carl Lagoze, Cornell University and Herbert van de Sompel, Los Alamos National Laboratory. The idea that has been worked out here is that authors should themselves deposit reviewed articles in open digital archives. This would mean that journal publishers could concentrate on quality control and authorization via reviewing and editing, which, in turn, should be paid by the author or his or her organization instead of by the reader.

In order for the idea of self-archiving to work the deposited articles must be searchable and compatible with technical standards for them to be transferable via the Internet. One of the greatest tasks of the OAI has been to develop such standards as The Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting - OAI-PMH. This makes possible an application-independent interoperable framework for exchange of data between so-called data providers (in whose archives the articles are found) and service providers (those who collect the data from the providers rendering it searchable). The development of software for open archives and protocols for transfer has taken place with, among other things, support from the English state.

Since the beginning of the 21st century the networks acting for Open Access have grown increasingly stronger. Not least because of a number of important initiatives like the Budapest Open Access Initiative (2001) and the Berlin Declaration (2003) which have functioned as a call for free access to scholarly information. As a result of these initiatives representatives for leading research institutes and public authorities have signed declarations which support the two most important corner-stones of the Open Access movement whose purpose it is to act on the behalf of making research results freely accessible as soon and as widely as possible through, principally, two steps:

1. To implement a policy, locally, regionally and nationally, which requires researchers to parallel publish a copy of their work in a freely accessible digital archive.

2. To encourage researchers to publish their articles in freely accessible journals, if available, and to encourage attempts at starting journals with free accessibility.

Parallel publication is today made possible through an increasing amount of open archives at universities and college universities all around the world where researchers parallel publish a copy of articles which have been published in scholarly journals. To a large extent these archives (so-called data providers) follow The Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting - OAI-PMH, thereby making its contents accessible for retrieval and indexing of central services, so-called service providers. An example of such a major provider is OAISTER.

Lists of data providers can be found at the Directory of Open Access Repositories and at the Registry of Open Access Repositories .

Scholarly journals which offer free access to articles constitute a phenomenon from this millenium. The publishing company BioMedCentral has been particularly successful. Researchers in biomedicine are here offered publication possibilities in close to 200 quality journals. The cost is charged to the author who has to pay between ca. 1,500 - 3.000 USD to see his/her accepted article freely accessible.

By the end of 2009 there were more than 4.000 free scholarly journals accessible according to “The Directory of Open Access Journals“, an archive set up to collect and make visible Open Access journals.

Both the number of parallel-published documents and the number of open access journals are increasing. In the last years several national committees (House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, the US Congress, the National Institute of Health etc.) recommended that the results of nationally funded research must also be made publicly and freely accessible.

In 2006, a study ordered by the EU Commission led to the publication of a report on how the future scholarly publication should be structured. Among other things the report “Study on the Economic and Technical Evolution of the Scientific Publication Markets in Europe” recommends free access to publicly funded research results as soon as possible after publication (the European Commission 2006).

At the same time as the possibilities and the advantages of publishing scholarly material openly increase it is still only a minority of the researchers who actually have tested the possibility. However, investigations indicate considerable understanding and a positive approach among the researchers when it comes to making their material open for access. More than 70 % of the authors who were asked and who had published in open sources declared that they would be willing to do so again (JISC 2004).

Also publishers are thinking of how to position themselves in relation to the Open Access movement. In the so-called Washington DC Principles for Free Access to Science some 50 or so non-commercial publishers declare that they, on principle, support the idea of open access. The majority of the commercial publishers have also accepted, on certain conditions, that their authors parallel publish postprints (published articles) in the digital research archives of their organizations. Via SHERPA/RoMEO Publisher copyright policies & self-archiving you can find the policy of both publishing companies and journals when it comes to their approach to parallel publishing. The service grades the policy documents using the colours white (prohibition) to green (go-ahead).

Several commercial publishing companies have also reacted to the competition from OA journals and are offering publication within their toll access journals with open access at a cost. At a cost of between ca. 1.500 - 3,000 USD an author can make his/her accepted article open for access via these so called hybrid journals.

Conclusion
We have seen how principally three ideas from the 17th and 18th centuries shaped the scholarly communication of the last 300 years: The idea of peer review, the idea of the author as the responsible originator and the idea of free access to information as a prerequisite of scholarly work.

These ideas keep inspiring scientists across the world, the difference being that the Internet is now used as recourse for the spreading of ideas and for the guarantee of free access. As in the 17^th century, the new medium is looked at with great scepticism as are the new models that are used for scholarly communication. However, the basic thinking seems solid and so does the insight that it is time to win back the research to the researchers. In this context it is also important to understand that the commercial publishing companies many times function more as “brake blocks” than as engines.

Sources

Eisenstein, Elizabeth L (1979). The Printing Press as an Agent of Change. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

European Commission (2006). Study on the economic and technical evolution of the scientific publication markets in Europe. Final Report - January 2006 (Electronic). Access: < http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf> (17 April 2007).

Fjällbrant, Nancy (1979). Scholarly Communication - Historical Development and New Possibilities (Electronic) I IATUL Conference in Trondheim - Scholarly Communication in Focus. Access: http://www.iatul.org/conference/proceedings/vol07/papers/full/nfpaper.html (17 April 2007).

JISC/OSI (2004). Journal Authors Survey - Report, March 2004 (Electronic). Access: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/ACF655.pdf (17 April 2007).

Johns, Adrian (2000). Miscellaneous Methods: Authors, Societies and Journals in Early Modern England. British Journal for the History of Science, vol. 33, pp. 159-86.

Johns, Adrian (1998). The Nature of the Book. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, pp. 171-2.

Kant, Immanuel (1989). Svar på frågan: Vad är upplysning? [Answer to the question: What is enlightenment?] In Östling, Brutus (ed.). Vad är upplysning? : Kant, Foucault, Habermas, Mendelssohn, Heidegren [What is enlightenment?: Kant, Foucault, Habermas, Mendelssohn, Heidegren]. Symposium : Eslöv. pp.27-36.

Kutz, Myer (2002). The Scholars Rebellion Against Scholarly Publishing Practices: Varmus, Vitek and Venting. Searcher. The Magazine for Database Professionals, vol. 10:1 (Electronic). Access: http://www.infortoday.com/searcher/jan02/kutz.htm (1 June 2007).

Shapin, Steven (1994). A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.

Vickery, Brian C (2000). Scientific Communication in History. Boston : Scarecrow Press.

Willinsky, John (2006). The Access Principle. The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship (Electronic) Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press. Access: http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/willinsky/TheAccessPrinciple_TheMITPress_0262232421.pdf (17 April 2007).