Who Pays For Open Access? : http://url4.eu/24aXR (via @OpenAccessNow)
Authors : John W. Maxwell with Meghan MacDonald, Travis Nicholson, Jan Halpape, Sarah Taggart, and Heiko Binder
Book publishers have struggled in recent years to find ways to adopt XML-based editorial and production workflows. Complexity, unfamiliarity, and uncertainty about implementation details contribute to a kind of impasse among publishers—particularly small and medium-sized firms that lack the resources to maintain innovative IT departments that might push them into 21st-century processes.
While the benefits of XML-based processes are trumpeted widely , and the general business case for adopting and investing in XML and related technology has existed for 20 years, gathering the energy and resources to move into an XML-based environment has eluded many.
Could it be that XML-based workflows are simply too complicated to be readily adopted by smaller publishers? And if that is so, what are the implications as we move into the digital era?
The International Standard Text Code (ISTC): A Work in Progress : http://www.bisg.org/contentweb/wp-content/uploads/istc_paper.pdf
Author Identifiers in Scholarly Repositories :
Bibliometric and usage-based analyses and tools highlight the value of information about scholarship contained within the network of authors, articles and usage data. Less progress has been made on populating and using the author side of this network than the article side, in part because of the difficulty of unambiguously identifying authors. I briefly review a sample of author identifier schemes, and consider use in scholarly repositories. I then describe preliminary work at arXiv to implement public author identifiers, services based on them, and plans to make this information useful beyond the boundaries of arXiv.
URL : http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.1345
Comparing Repository Types – Challenges and barriers for subject-based repositories, research repositories, national repository systems and institutional repositories in serving scholarly communication :
After two decades of repository development, some conclusions may be drawn as to which type of repository and what kind of service best supports digital scholarly communication, and thus the production of new knowledge. Four types of publication repository may be distinguished, namely the subject-based repository, research repository, national repository system and institutional repository. Two important shifts in the role of repositories may be noted. With regard to content, a well-defined and high quality corpus is essential. This implies that repository services are likely to be most successful when constructed with the user and reader uppermost in mind. With regard to service, high value to specific scholarly communities is essential. This implies that repositories are likely to be most useful to scholars when they offer dedicated services supporting the production of new knowledge. Along these lines, challenges and barriers to repository development may be identified in three key dimensions: a) identification and deposit of content; b) access and use of services; and c) preservation of content and sustainability of service. An indicative comparison of challenges and barriers in some major world regions such as Europe, North America and East Asia plus Australia is offered in conclusion.
URL : http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4187
Economic Implications of Alternative Publishing Models: Self-archiving and Repositories :
A knowledge economy has been defined as one in which the generation and exploitation of knowledge has come to play the predominant part in the creation of wealth. It is not simply about pushing back the frontiers of knowledge; it is also about the more effective use and exploitation of all types of knowledge in all manner of economic activities. One key question is whether there are new opportunities and new models for scholarly publishing that might better serve researchers and more effectively communicate and disseminate research findings.
Building on previous work, this paper looks at the costs and potential benefits of alternative models for scientific and scholarly publishing, describing the approach and methods used and summarising the findings of a study undertaken for JISC in the United Kingdom. It concludes that different publishing models can make a material difference to the costs faced by and benefits realised from research communication, and it seems likely that more open access would have substantial net benefits.
Archivage pérenne des fichiers stockés dans l’archive ouverte HAL :
A partir du 29 mars 2010 l’archivage pérenne des fichiers déposés dans l’archive ouverte HAL est effectué auprès de notre partenaire le CINES(Centre Informatique National de l’Enseignement Supérieur).
Chaque fichier principal du dépôt est copié sur le système d’archivage du CINES – les fichiers contenus en annexe ne sont pas concernés par cette nouvelle fonctionnalité.
Les 140000 dépôts déjà présents sur HAL seront progressivement traités. Les nouveaux dépôts sont envoyés au CINES 3 mois après leur mise en ligne. Un test de validité du fichier pdf est maintenant effectué et une demande de modification est envoyée au contributeur pour qu’il puisse modifier son dépôt en tenant compte des contraintes d’archivage.
URL : http://www.ccsd.cnrs.fr/spip.php?article142