[open-science] [Open-access] Fwd: [GOAL] Re: Don't Conflate OA with Peer-Review Reform

[Michelle Brook]

GIven how active our open-science group is, I've looped them into the
conversation.

Michelle


>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Jan Velterop <velterop at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the discussion on a wider set of reform issues of scholarly
>> publishing than just 'green' OA is better discussed on this list than the
>> GOAL one. May I start off (if it hasn't already been done) with a
>> discussion on publisher-mediated pre-publication peer review? I'll do that
>> in the form of reproducing a blog post I wrote a little while ago, entitled
>> "Essence of academic publishing" (original here:
>> http://theparachute.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/essence-of-academic-publishing.html
>> ).
>>
>> ——————
>> Let me start with a bit of context, all of which will be known,
>> understood and widely discussed. The blame of unaffordability of the
>> ever-increasing amount of scholarly literature, be it because of high
>> subscription prices or article processing fees for ‘gold’ open access, is
>> often laid at the door of the publishers.
>>
>> Of course, publishers, subscription-based ones as well as open access
>> outfits, have a business which depends to a very large degree on being the
>> organisers of PPR and few of them would like to see the imperative
>> disappear. The ‘need’ – real or perceived – for publisher-mediated PPR in
>> the academic ecosystem is the main raison d’être of most publishers. And it
>> is responsible for most of their costs (personnel costs), even though it is
>> actually carried out by academics and not publishers. The technical costs
>> of publishing are but a fraction of that, at least the cost of electronic
>> publishing (print and its distribution are quite expensive, but to be seen
>> as an optional service and not as part of the essence of academic
>> publishing).
>>
>> Despite it being the imperative in Academia, publisher-mediated PPR has
>> flaws, to say the least. Among causes for deep concern are its anonymity
>> and general lack of transparency, highly variable quality, and the
>> unrealistic expectations of what peer review can possibly deliver in the
>> first place. The increasing amount of journal articles being submitted is
>> making the process of finding appropriate reviewers not easier, either.
>>
>> Originally, PPR was a perfectly rational approach to ensuring that scarce
>> resources were not spent on the expensive business of printing and
>> distributing paper copies of articles that were indeed not deemed to be
>> worth that expense. Unfortunately, the rather subjective judgment needed
>> for that approach led to unwelcome side effects, such as negative results
>> not being published. In the era of electronic communication, with its very
>> low marginal costs of dissemination, prepublication filtering seems
>> anachronistic. Of course, initial technical costs of publishing each
>> article remain, but the amounts involved are but a fraction of the costs
>> per article of the traditional print-based system, and an even smaller
>> fraction of the average revenues per article many publishers make.
>>
>> Now, with the publishers’ argument of avoiding excessive costs of
>> publishing largely gone, PPR is often presented as some sort of quality
>> filter, protecting readers against unintentionally spending their valuable
>> time and effort on unworthy literature. Researchers must be a naïve lot,
>> given the protection they seem to need. The upshot of PPR seems to be that
>> anything that is peer reviewed before publication, and does get through the
>> gates, is to be regarded as proper, worthwhile, and relevant material. But
>> is it? Can it be taken as read that everything in peer-reviewed
>> publications is beyond doubt? Should a researcher be reassured by the fact
>> that it has passed a number of filters that purport to keep scientific
>> ‘rubbish’ out?
>>
>> Of course they should. These filtering mechanisms are there for a reason.
>> They diminish the need for critical thinking. Researchers should just
>> believe what they read in ‘approved’ literature. They shouldn’t just
>> question everything.
>>
>> Or are these the wrong answers?
>>
>> Isn’t it time that academics who are relying on PPR ‘quality’ filters –
>> and let us hope it’s a minority of them – should stop believing at face
>> value what is being presented in the ‘properly peer-reviewed and approved’
>> literature, and go back to the critical stance that is the hallmark of a
>> true scientist: “why should I believe these results or these assertions?”
>> The fact that an article is peer-reviewed in no way absolves researchers of
>> applying professional skepticism to whatever they are reading. Further
>> review, post-publication, remains necessary. It’s part of the fundamentals
>> of the scientific method.
>>
>> So, what about this: a system in which authors discuss, in-depth and
>> critically, their manuscripts with a few people who they can identify and
>> accept as their peers. And then ask those people to put their name to the
>> manuscript as ‘endorsers’. As long as some reasonable safeguards are in
>> place that endorsers are genuine, serious and without undeclared conflicts
>> of interest (e.g. they shouldn’t be recent colleagues at the same
>> institution as the author, or be involved in the same collaborative
>> project, or have been a co-author in, say, the last five years), the value
>> of this kind of peer-review – author-mediated PPR, if you wish – is
>> unlikely to be any less than publisher-mediated PPR. In fact, it’s likely
>> to offer more value, if only due to transparency and to the expected
>> reduction in the cost of publishing. It doesn’t mean, of course, that the
>> peer-endorsers should agree with all of the content of the articles they
>> endorse. They merely endorse itspublication. Steve Pettifer of the
>> University of Manchester once presented a perfect example of this. He
>> showed a quote from Alan Singleton about a peer reviewer’s report[1]:
>>
>> "This is a remarkable result – in fact, I don’t believe it. However, I
>> have examined the paper and can find no fault in the author’s methods and
>> results. Thus I believe it should be published so that others may assess it
>> and the conclusions and/or repeat the experiment to see whether the same
>> results are achieved."
>>
>> An author-mediated PPR-ed manuscript could subsequently be properly
>> published, i.e. put in a few robust, preservation-proof formats, properly
>> encoded with Unicode characters, uniquely identified and identifiable,
>> time-stamped, citable in any reference format, suitable for human- and
>> machine-reading, data extraction, reuse, deposit in open repositories,
>> printing, and everything else that one might expect of a professionally
>> produced publication, including a facility for post-publication commenting
>> and review. That will cost, of course, but it will be a fraction of the
>> current costs of publication, be they paid for via subscriptions, article
>> processing charges, or subsidies. Good for the affordability of open access
>> publishing for minimally funded authors, e.g. in the social sciences and
>> humanities, and for the publication of null results that, though very
>> useful, hardly get a chance in the current system.
>>
>> Comments welcome.
>>
>> Jan Velterop
>>
>> [1] Singleton, A. The Pain Of Rejection, Learned Publishing, 24:162–163
>> doi:10.1087/20110301
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> > From: Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
>> > Subject: [GOAL] Re: [***SPAM***] Don't Conflate OA with Peer-Review
>> Reform
>> > Date: 11 December 2013 09:02:01 GMT
>> > To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal at eprints.org>
>> > Reply-To: "Global Open Access List \(Successor of AmSci\)" <
>> goal at eprints.org>
>> >
>> > In the Open Knowledge Foundation we have a mailing list for exactly
>> that purpose and everyone will be very welcome there:
>> >
>> > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>> >
>> > We take the view that "open access" as defined in  BBB - declarations
>> is the appropriate use of the term:
>> >
>> > BOAI 2002: "By "open access" to this literature, we mean its free
>> availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read,
>> download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of
>> these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or
>> use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or
>> technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the
>> internet itself"
>> >
>> > This definition is clear and consistent with many other Open
>> definitions such as OSI (software) and the Open Knowledge Definition (
>> http://opendefinition.org/ )
>> >
>> > “A piece of data or content is open if anyone is free to use, reuse,
>> and redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement to
>> attribute and/or share-alike.”
>> >
>> > Many of us feel that the lax use of "Open" in scholarly publishing
>> causes great confusion, substandard products, widely differing practices
>> and even deception and it greatly impoverishes society.
>> >
>> > Please join us - you will be welcome to express a wide range of views
>> without being preached at to change them.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:30 PM, BAUIN Serge <Serge.BAUIN at cnrs-dir.fr>
>> wrote:
>> > Jeroen,
>> >
>> > Which list? Already existing or starting a new one, let us know, I’m
>> quite interested, and probably not the only one.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> >
>> > Serge
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > De : goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] De la
>> part de Bosman, J.M.
>> > Envoyé : mardi 10 décembre 2013 21:50
>> > À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
>> > Objet : [GOAL] Re: [***SPAM***] Don't Conflate OA with Peer-Review
>> Reform
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Stevan,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I think it is perfectly possible to discuss and promote experiments
>> with more effective and useful review whilst keeping full force in
>> switching to 100% OA. They are not prerequisites for one another. We cannot
>> stop thinking and hypothesizing about innovation in scholarly
>> communication, but maybe we should take that discussion to another list.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Jeroen
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Op 10 dec. 2013 om 18:46 heeft "Stevan Harnad" <amsciforum at gmail.com>
>> het volgende geschreven:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Armbruster, Chris <
>> Chris.Armbruster at eui.eu> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Same inkling as Jan & Laurent.  The way fwd for OAP would be some form
>> of accreditation by repository & publisher. One would need to show what
>> review & quality assurance mechanism is used, e.g. Pre- Post- Open peer
>> review and demonstrate annually to the accreditation agency that this is
>> what you are doing. The rest can be left to authors, readers and
>> reviewers...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Ah me! Are we going to go yet another round of this irrelevant loop?
>> http://j.mp/OAnotPReform
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The purpose of OA (it's not "OAP", it's OA) is to make peer-reviewed
>> research freely accessible online to all of its potential users, webwide,
>> not just to subscribers -- by freeing peer-reviewed research from access
>> tolls, not by freeing it from peer review (nor by first reforming and
>> "reassigning" peer review).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Haven't we already waited long enough?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Stevan Harnad
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
>> > Von: Laurent Romary
>> > Datum:10.12.2013 17:31 (GMT+01:00)
>> > An: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)"
>> > Betreff: [GOAL] Re: Pre-publication peer review (was: Jeffrey Beall
>> Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List)
>> >
>> > Each further day of thinking makes me feel closer and closer to this
>> view. As an author, I just like when colleagues are happy with one of my
>> texts online. As a reviewer I am fed up with unreadable junk.
>> >
>> > Let us burn together, Jan.
>> >
>> > Laurent
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Le 10 déc. 2013 à 15:36, Jan Velterop <velterop at gmail.com> a écrit :
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Sally,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > May I join you in the ranks of those who risk being pilloried or
>> branded heretics? I think the solution is clear. We should get rid of
>> pre-publication peer review (PPPR) and publish results in open
>> repositories. PPPR is the one thing that keeps the whole publishing system
>> standing, and expensive – in monetary terms, but also in terms of effort
>> expended. It may have some benefits, but we pay very dearly for those.
>> Where are the non-peer-reviewed articles that have caused damage? They may
>> have to public understanding, of course (there's a lot of rubbish on the
>> internet), but to scientific understanding? On the other hand, I can point
>> to peer-reviewed articles that clearly have done damage, particularly to
>> public understanding. Take the Wakefield MMR paper. Had it just been
>> published without peer-review, the damage would likely have been no greater
>> than that of any other drivel on the internet. Its peer-reviewed status,
>> however, gave it far more credibility than it deserved. There are more
>> examples.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > My assertion: pre-publication peer review is dangerous since it is too
>> easily used as an excuse to absolve scientists – and science journalists –
>> from applying sufficient professional skepticism and critical appraisal.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Doing away with PPPR will do little damage – if any at all – to
>> science, but removes most barriers to open access and saves the scientific
>> community a hell of a lot of money.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The 'heavy lifting is that of cultural change' (crediting William Gunn
>> for that phrase), so I won't hold my breath.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Jan Velterop
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:36, Sally Morris <sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > At the risk (nay, certainty) of being pilloried by OA conformists, let
>> me say that – whatever ithe failings of his article – I thank Jeffrey Beall
>> for raising some fundamental questions which are rarely, if ever, addressed.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I would put them under two general headings:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 1)         What is the objective of OA?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I originally understood the objective to be to make scholarly research
>> articles, in some form, accessible to all those who needed to read them.
>> Subsequent refinements such as 'immediately', 'published version' and 'free
>> to reuse' may have acquired quasi-religious status, but are surely
>> secondary to this main objective.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > However, two other, financial, objectives (linked to each other, but
>> not to the above) have gained increasing prominence.  The first is the
>> alleged cost saving (or at least cost shifting).  The second - more
>> malicious, and originally (but no longer) denied by OA's main proponents -
>> is the undermining of publishers' businesses.  If this were to work, we may
>> be sure the effects would not be choosy about 'nice' or 'nasty' publishers.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2)         Why hasn't OA been widely adopted by now?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > If – as we have been repetitively assured over many years – OA is
>> self-evidently the right thing for scholars to do, why have so few of them
>> done so voluntarily?  As Jeffrey Beall points out, it seems very curious
>> that scholars have to be forced, by mandates, to adopt a model which is
>> supposedly preferable to the existing one.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Could it be that the monotonous rantings of the few and the tiresome
>> debates about the fine detail are actually confusing scholars, and may even
>> be putting them off?  Just asking ;-)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I don't disagree that the subscription model is not going to be able to
>> address the problems we face in making the growing volume of research
>> available to those who need it;  but I'm not convinced that OA (whether
>> Green, Gold or any combination) will either.  I think the solution, if
>> there is one, still eludes us.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Merry Christmas!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Sally
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Sally Morris
>> >
>> > South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
>> >
>> > Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
>> >
>> > Email:  sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On
>> Behalf Of David Prosser
>> > Sent: 09 December 2013 22:10
>> > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
>> > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility
>> ofBeall's List
>> >
>> > 'Lackeys'? This is going beyond parody.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > David
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 9 Dec 2013, at 21:45, Beall, Jeffrey wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Wouter,
>> >
>> > Hello, yes, I wrote the article, I stand by it, and I take
>> responsibility for it.
>> >
>> > I would ask Prof. Harnad to clarify one thing in his email below,
>> namely this statement, "OA is all an anti-capitlist plot."
>> >
>> > This statement's appearance in quotation marks makes it look like I
>> wrote it in the article. The fact is that this statement does not appear in
>> the article, and I have never written such a statement.
>> >
>> > Prof. Harnad and his lackeys are responding just as my article predicts.
>> >
>> > Jeffrey Beall
>> >
>> > From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On
>> Behalf Of Gerritsma, Wouter
>> > Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 2:14 PM
>> > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
>> > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of
>> Beall's List
>> >
>> > Dear all.
>> >
>> > Has this article really been written by Jeffrey Beall?
>> >
>> > He has been victim of a smear campaign before!
>> >
>> > I don’t see he has claimed this article on his blog
>> http://scholarlyoa.com/ or his tweet stream @Jeffrey_Beall (which
>> actually functions as his RSS feed).
>> >
>> > I really like to hear from the man himself on his own turf.
>> >
>> > Wouter
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On
>> Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
>> > Sent: maandag 9 december 2013 16:04
>> > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
>> > Subject: [GOAL] Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of
>> Beall's List
>> >
>> > Beall, Jeffrey (2013) The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open
>> Access. TripleC Communication, Capitalism & Critique Journal. 11(2):
>> 589-597 http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514
>> >
>> > This wacky article is going to be fun to review. I still think Jeff
>> Beall is doing something useful with his naming and shaming of junk OA
>> journals, but I now realize that he is driven by some sort of fanciful
>> conspiracy theory! "OA is all an anti-capitlist plot." (Even on a quick
>> skim it is evident that Jeff's article is rife with half-truths, errors and
>> downright nonsense. Pity. It will diminish the credibility of his valid
>> exposés, but maybe this is a good thing, if the judgment and motivation
>> behind Beall's list is as kooky as this article! But alas it will now also
>> give the genuine "predatory" junk-journals some specious arguments for
>> discrediting Jeff's work altogether. Of course it will also give the
>> publishing lobby some good sound-bites, but they use them at their peril,
>> because of all the other nonsense in which they are nested!)
>> >
>> > Before I do a critique later today), I want to post some tidbits to set
>> the stage:
>> >
>> > JB: "ABSTRACT: While the open-access (OA) movement purports to be about
>> making scholarly content open-access, its true motives are much different.
>> The OA movement is an anti-corporatist movement that wants to deny the
>> freedom of the press to companies it disagrees with. The movement is also
>> actively imposing onerous mandates on researchers, mandates that restrict
>> individual freedom. To boost the open-access movement, its leaders
>> sacrifice the academic futures of young scholars and those from developing
>> countries, pressuring them to publish in lower-quality open-access
>> journals.  The open-access movement has fostered the creation of numerous
>> predatory publishers and standalone journals, increasing the amount of
>> research misconduct in scholarly publications and the amount of
>> pseudo-science that is published as if it were authentic science."
>> >
>> > JB: "[F]rom their high-salaried comfortable positions…OA advocates...
>> demand that for-profit, scholarly journal publishers not be involved in
>> scholarly publishing and devise ways (such as green open-access) to defeat
>> and eliminate them...
>> >
>> > JB: "OA advocates use specious arguments to lobby for mandates,
>> focusing only on the supposed economic benefits of open access and ignoring
>> the value additions provided by professional publishers. The arguments
>> imply that publishers are not really needed; all researchers need to do is
>> upload their work, an action that constitutes publishing, and that this act
>> results in a product that is somehow similar to the products that
>> professional publishers produce….
>> >
>> > JB:  "The open-access movement isn't really about open access. Instead,
>> it is about collectivizing production and denying the freedom of the press
>> from those who prefer the subscription model of scholarly publishing. It is
>> an anti-corporatist, oppressive and negative movement, one that uses young
>> researchers and researchers from developing countries as pawns to
>> artificially force the make-believe gold and green open-access models to
>> work. The movement relies on unnatural mandates that take free choice away
>> from individual researchers, mandates set and enforced by an onerous cadre
>> of Soros-funded European autocrats...
>> >
>> > JB: "The open-access movement is a failed social movement and a false
>> messiah, but its promoters refuse to admit this. The emergence of numerous
>> predatory publishers – a product of the open-access movement – has poisoned
>> scholarly communication, fostering research misconduct and the publishing
>> of pseudo-science, but OA advocates refuse to recognize the growing
>> problem. By instituting a policy of exchanging funds between researchers
>> and publishers, the movement has fostered corruption on a grand scale.
>> Instead of arguing for openaccess, we must determine and settle on the best
>> model for the distribution of scholarly research, and it's clear that
>> neither green nor gold open-access is that model...
>> >
>> > And then, my own personal favourites:
>> >
>> > JB: "Open access advocates think they know better than everyone else
>> and want to impose their policies on others. Thus, the open access movement
>> has the serious side-effect of taking away other's freedom from them. We
>> observe this tendency in institutional mandates.  Harnad (2013) goes so far
>> as to propose [an]…Orwellian system of mandates… documented [in a] table of
>> mandate strength, with the most restrictive pegged at level 12, with the
>> designation "immediate deposit + performance evaluation (no waiver
>> option)". This Orwellian system of mandates is documented in Table 1...
>> >
>> > JB: "A social movement that needs mandates to work is doomed to fail. A
>> social movement that uses mandates is abusive and tantamount to academic
>> slavery. Researchers need more freedom in their decisions not less. How can
>> we expect and demand academic freedom from our universities when we impose
>> oppressive mandates upon ourselves?..."
>> >
>> > Stay tuned!…
>> >
>> > Stevan Harnad
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > GOAL mailing list
>> > GOAL at eprints.org
>> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > GOAL mailing list
>> > GOAL at eprints.org
>> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > GOAL mailing list
>> > GOAL at eprints.org
>> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Laurent Romary
>> >
>> > INRIA & HUB-IDSL
>> >
>> > laurent.romary at inria.fr
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity
>> to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
>> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
>> forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
>> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
>> prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received
>> this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the
>> material from any computer.
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > GOAL mailing list
>> > GOAL at eprints.org
>> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > GOAL mailing list
>> > GOAL at eprints.org
>> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > GOAL mailing list
>> > GOAL at eprints.org
>> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Peter Murray-Rust
>> > Reader in Molecular Informatics
>> > Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>> > University of Cambridge
>> > CB2 1EW, UK
>> > +44-1223-763069
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > GOAL mailing list
>> > GOAL at eprints.org
>> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-access mailing list
>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
>
>


-- 



*Michelle BrookCommunity coordinator, Open Education | @MLBrook
<https://twitter.com/MLBrook>The Open Knowledge Foundation
<http://okfn.org/>Empowering through Open Knowledgehttp://okfn.org/
<http://okfn.org/>  |  @okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN>  |  OKF on Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork>  |  Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>  |
 Newsletter <http://okfn.org/about/newsletter>LinkedUp | *
http://linkedup-project.eu| @LinkedUpProjec<http://twitter.com/LinkedUpProject>
*t* | linking data for education
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20131212/e34ce0e9/attachment-0002.html>