Better late than never?

Greetings, faithful readers!  I’m sure you have both been wondering why the long hiatus — lots of reasons, mostly to do with laziness, but there’s one in particular I need to get out of the way right away.  I promised myself that I wouldn’t say anything on the blog until I’d corrected an error — and promptly stopped blogging for about two years!

But now I have things I want to talk about again, so it’s time (OK, way past time!) to do the necessary update.

In these two posts, I relied heavily on an NIH estimate of author-side charges, using it to calcluate page and colour charges on the basis of the assumption that most toll-access journals charge these.

On liblicense-L, Anthony Watkinson took me to task for that assumption, pointing out that it did not accord with his many years of experience as a publisher and going to the trouble of soliciting opinion from colleagues with similar backgrounds (all of whom agreed with him).

At the time, I could do no more than cede Anthony’s point that my claim was shaky at best. This followup is so long in coming because I kept fooling myself that I would do something about obtaining better data, but of course I have not managed to get around to that.  The references I do have for the NIH estimates are, shall we say, not up to the standard I would like:

2. warning, huge pdf:

and Anthony’s comments make it clear that more than half of the STM literature probably doesn’t levy page or colour charges — so if the NIH figures are to be believed and attributed to page/colour charges, someone must be really gouging!

I don’t know what’s up with the numbers, and I may never get around to figuring it out (though I still think the questions are interesting and would like to see whether, for instance, the NIH has better data available).  The point of this post is to highlight the problem with the figures I used, particularly the shaky nature of the references, about which I should have been much clearer in the first place.  I’ll update the old posts with links to this one.

My apologies to anyone who made use of the earlier posts for the unconscionably long time this update/correction has taken.

advantage, schmantage

In a recent post at The Scholarly Kitchen, Philip Davis takes issue with a recent article by Alma Swan regarding the controversial Open Access citation advantage, the idea that any given paper is, ceteris paribus, more likely to be cited if published under an Open Access model than it would be if published behind a paywall.
The FUD merchants want to claim that, if no citation advantage exists, there is no point to Open Access: that unless OA papers are currently garnering more citations than their TA equivalents, current levels of access must be adequate; or that if OA papers, which presumably are read more, are not cited more, then OA must be a repository for the second rate. Hence the controversy: it’s an easy way to obscure the debate, sending up a cloud of statistical argument like a fleeing cuttlefish squirting ink. “Look over there, OA proponents are wrong about this, surely they must be wrong about everything, pay no attention to the massive profits behind the curtain.”
Considering that:

  • only around 20% of the world’s scholarly journals are OA, and very few of those have been around for more than about a decade
  • the subscription model is propped up by systemic inertia and by the fact that it simultaneously makes competitors into complements and hides its costs in multiple places, thereby divorcing demand from the reality check that costs ought to provide; and
  • although we might wish it were otherwise, the practice of citing papers known only from their free-access abstracts or mention in another paper is hardly uncommon

it’s something of a miracle if any OA citation advantage shows up anywhere. More importantly, though, the citation advantage was always a minor point in the list of reasons to prefer Open to Toll Access:
(1) Not everyone who needs to read the primary literature is going to write anything citing it. That doesn’t make providing them with access to the literature any less important, and no payment or institutional affiliation is required to read Open Access information.
(2) Toll Access confines data- and textmining to isolated, artificial commercial sections of the body of knowledge, hindering progress on mining methodologies, restricting the reach of existing work and precluding any idea of a comprehensive protocol.
(3) OA provides better value for money than Toll Access. Regardless of where the money comes from, OA is a one-time up-front expense that covers all subsequent use: pay the midwife, but keep the baby. Peter Suber has written a careful exposition of this argument from the taxpayer perspective, but most if not all of his points map readily onto any research funder.
(4) Open Access scales where Toll Access doesn’t; my own recent estimate (caveat lector!) is that library access, even at the best funded libraries, runs to around half of the total available scholarly journal literature. What use is a system that enables publication without enabling access?The subscription model divorces (part of) the cost of dissemination from the overall cost of production of scholarly information, which has allowed research funders to overlook that part of the cost of their mission. It’s been historically picked up by libraries, but that’s easily revealed as a shell game when you look at where library funding comes from. Who loses the shell game? Academics whose work is less widely available than it should be, and anyone who wants to read the primary literature. Who wins? Publishers, whose prices have been allowed to escalate because they have largely escaped scrutiny (except by librarians, who for no good reason that I can see have been largely ignored, at least until relatively recently, by academic and political decision makers).
So I don’t think the citation advantage question has much bearing on the larger question of the value of Open Access. Existing access is clearly inadequate by comparison with Open Access by way of points (1) and (2) above, and OA is in any case preferable by way of point (3) and inevitable by way of point (4).

estimating ullage

Ullage, the word for the empty space at the top of a wine bottle, is Peter Suber’s term for the gap between a library’s actual holdings and its patrons’ access needs. That’s a difficult thing to measure, but I might have found a way to estimate it with reference not to patron needs but to all published journals, as follows.

  • In 2003, Kathy Varjabedian at LANL compared the electronic holdings at 12 (large, well funded research) libraries with the ISI Journal Citation Report’s top 100 most-cited journals for the previous year, producing an estimate for the ullage of those libraries of between 2% and a startling 54% (or 0% and 40%, if clinical titles were excluded).
  • Also in 2003, Carol Tenopir estimated that there were around 44,000 scholarly journals in publication, just over 21,000 of them “refereed”, which is the best proxy that Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory allows for “peer-reviewed”. Repeating Tenopir’s search just now returned 26,677 active, refereed, academic/scholarly journals.
  • Last year, I used a UCOSC dataset from 2004, a curated list of about 3000 titles, to estimate the average subscription price for a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (table 2 here) at $1238/title.
  • Here are some more data from the Library Journal Periodicals Price Survey:


    Sorry about the jpg, I still can’t make MT cope with tables. The spreadsheet is here. In case the image goes awry: the dataset covers more than 5,000 titles from 30 disciplines, and mean price/title is $723 in 2003 and $791 in 2004.
  • The mean serials expenditure for an ARL member institution was around $5.5 million in 2003 and $5.8 million in 2004.

At $1200/journal, $5.8 million1 would buy subscription access to about 4,800 titles, which is less than 23% of the number of active, refereed, academic/scholarly journals. At $700/journal, ARL members — some of the largest and best funded libraries in America (indeed, in the world) — are able to afford access to less than half of the scholarly literature.
This seems reasonably consistent with the earlier LANL estimate, given that Varjabedian looked only at the top 100 most-cited journals, which must surely be at the top of any research library’s “must-have” list.
It’s important to point out that what I’m estimating here is not ullage sensu Suber, but rather library holdings relative to all possible holdings. But I would argue that the access needs of all the scholars and other patrons served by ARL libraries is surely a decent proxy for “all possible journals”, if not a significantly larger body of information! Put another way, here I am estimating the gap between current access levels and the information availability of a 100% Open Access world.

1This calculation assumes that 100% of the serials budget goes to scholarly journals. That’s not true, but I’ve argued elsewhere that it’s at least 90%.

an interesting mind

This entry is especially for those of my readers who do not work in science or related fields (librarians, publishers, etc), and who are not quite sure why I am so obsessed with Open Science. (Hi, Mom and Dad!)
This is Pawel Szczesny at TED Warsaw, describing for the lay public what Open Science is, and what it can mean. Pawel’s is the interesting mind to which I refer in the title. I finally met him in person at Science Online earlier this year, but I have been following him around online for years. He never fails to come at a question or problem from an interesting and useful angle, and his TED talk is just the latest example.

What if?
What if I explain in simple words my research area? What if I point you to additional information so you could learn more and understand the topic I am working on? What if I make sure you have access to all relevant literature for free? What if I make sure you have access to all the data so you can play with it on your own? What if I take off this laboratory coat, so there is one artificial difference less between you and me? What if the only thing that mattered in this game of solving nature’s mysteries was skills, knowledge and passion? We have a name for that utopian vision: it’s called Open Science.

Do yourself a favour, watch the whole thing.

Where indeed?

AJ Cann has a post up that neatly summarizes the dilemma facing Open Science advocates/enthusiasts, and asks useful questions arising therefrom. In the current competition-focused environment, says Alan:

Open science is an iterated prisoner’s dilemma, which is a messy and unpredictable business. Too unpredictable for most people to try to build a career on. Thinking about strategies which are likely to be successful leads me towards the concept of an open science community rather than unilateral complete openness – a long term multiplayer collaboration. Does such a community already exist? If not, how do we build one?

Having taken a job in biotech, I feel a bit cut off from any such community — industry is notoriously protective of IP and fond of secrecy besides. I feel a bit of a fraud, for instance, taking part in discussions of Open Science issues on FriendFeed (such as the conversation kicked off by Alan’s blog post), knowing that I can’t talk openly about my own work. It doesn’t keep me from shooting off my yap, of course, but it’s a nagging icky feeling — and I keep getting the meta-feeling that it doesn’t have to be this way. Just as secrecy in academia only makes sense within the existing reward structure, secrecy in industry could be at least partly offset by policy decisions that recognize the gains in efficiency that collaboration can bring. I’ve heard multiple times from multiple sources that industry may close itself off from the rest of the world, but within a company, the teamwork ethic is amazing. Clearly, the value of co-operation is recognized. Why shouldn’t that also work for (larger and larger) groups of companies? What you lose by not being the only company to know something from which profit can be made (call it X) is offset by the fact that you might never have learned X without the collaboration — and in the meantime, the world gets X that much faster.
It seems clear, though, that such top-down decisions are more likely to be made in academia, and perhaps the nonprofit sector, than in profit-driven industry — at least until there are enough concrete examples of success to tip the perceived balance of risk. If I’m — if we Open Foo types are — right, it’s actually riskier to compete than to cooperate in the long term. Better to own a share of X sooner than to delay any return on your investment in the hope of owning X outright later. This is especially true when the resources required to try to own X could be used to get you shares in multiple other projects at the same time.
Even then, openness in industry seems to me unlikely to go beyond consortia. Complete openness (open notebook science) precludes patent protection, and in the dog-eat-dog world of business driven by the insatiable demands of disconnected shareholders, I don’t think we are ever going to wean the beancounters off their patents. (We could improve the situation by overhauling the patent process so that teeny incremental changes were not granted full protection, of course; but I digress, and don’t get me started.)
So to return to Alan’s analogy, “multiplayer” means different things in academia (and perhaps the nonprofit sector) and in business. In business, it means defined communities of co-operation; in academia, I see no good reason why it shouldn’t mean everyone (except, perhaps, where the two intersect and academics enter a business-defined collaboration1).
In academia, communities with an open science focus are beginning to form. The best example is still the one which continues to coalesce around Jean-Claude Bradley’s UsefulChem initiative, but it’s no longer the only one as it was just a few years ago. Chemist Mat Todd has funding for an open science project to improve synthesis of the anti-schistosomiasis drug, praziquantel. Biophysicist Steve Koch has a labful of open science enthusiast grad students. And so on; there’s a list of Open Notebook practitioners on wikipedia, and my own feeling is that technical rather than philosophical barriers are keeping quite a few labs from that list. By being discoverable on the public web, all of these labs can do what Jean-Claude is doing: accumulate collaborators and get more work done. Try searching Google for “DNA tweezers kinesin” — the second and fifth hits will hook you up with Steve Koch. “Praziquantel synthesis” — the third hit will take you to the schisto community on The Synaptic Leap, where you’ll soon meet Mat Todd, and the seventh hit will take you to a brief discussion of Mat’s project on the UsefulChem blog. “Antimalarial Ugi” — most of the first ten hits will introduce you to UsefulChem. If you’re doing something that’s in any way related to the work that goes on in these labs, you’re one Google search away from a collaboration.
In business, too, more and more companies are recognizing the benefits of wider sharing. Details of private collaborations are hard to come by, but just try searching for “precompetitive sharing” — even Big Pharma can see that they stand to make net gains from sharing their datasets. For an even better example, check out Sage Bionetworks. I was lucky enough to hear Stephen Friend speak at the Science Commons Symposium a couple of weeks ago, and one of the points he made was that the really big questions in biology require such immense amounts of data that the only way to collect them is to do it in the open. Any impediment at all, be it CC-BY attribution requirements or IP protections, will derail the whole process; the only answer in the end is the public domain.
So, the seeds are there. I think continued crystallization is inevitable, but it’s certainly worthwhile to try to monitor and direct the process — by way of questions like those Alan is asking.

1I don’t buy the argument, by the way, that unless academics work in secret and enable strong patent protection they will never get industry partners. If you invent something from which profit can be made, someone will want to make that profit. If, without outright patent ownership, it’s not enough money to tempt a Roche or an Intel, there will always be smaller, hungrier companies.

Panton Principles for Open Data in Science

The Open Knowledge Foundation has just announced the Panton Principles for Open Data in Science. Here’s the point-form version of the Principles (but do go and read the whole thing, including the concise but important preamble; and please consider endorsing):

Formally, we recommend adopting and acting on the following principles:

  1. When publishing data make an explicit and robust statement of your wishes
  2. Use a recognized waiver or license that is appropriate for data.
  3. If you want your data to be effectively used and added to by others it should be open as defined by the Open Knowledge/Data Definition – in particular non-commercial and other restrictive clauses should not be used.
  4. Explicit dedication of data underlying published science into the public domain via PDDL or CCZero is strongly recommended and ensures compliance with both the Science Commons Protocol for Implementing Open Access Data and the Open Knowledge/Data Definition.

I’ve written elsewhere about my feeling that Open Data/Open Science will eventually need a set of core Declarations to do for the wider movement what the BBB definitions have done for Open Access. A set of widely accepted terms and definitions provides a framework within which ongoing discussions can be much more efficient, focused and useful, as well as a point of reference and a standard introduction for newcomers to a field. Kudos to OKF and partners for making a strong start in this direction.
I do have one small quibble. Following Peters Suber and Murray-Rust, I want Open licenses to be three things:

  • explicit
  • conspicuous
  • machine-readable

The Panton Principles come right out and say “explicit”, and “machine-readable” is largely covered because the recommended licenses are available in machine-readable versions (though I’d have preferred to see that actual phrase in the text of the Principles). What’s missing, to my mind, is “conspicuous”. The point of Open licensing is to enable and promote re-use, so it’s important to make your license as obvious as possible to potential users. This might seem trivial, but I think it bears spelling out.
My own Open Data mantra is:

  • where are the data?
  • can I have them?
  • what can I do with them?

and again, the PPs are 2 for 3 by my count. The licensing covers what I can have and what I can do with it, but there’s no mention of where I can find it in the first place. When we’re talking about a database, the question doesn’t arise since the license is in the same place as the data. But if we’re talking about data which underlie a published paper, those data are very often not in the same place as the paper, even if the license is there. So it’s important to make sure that your data are available: find or build them a stable online home and then let potential users know where it is. There’s not much point in placing something in the Public Domain if the only copy is on your desktop. I’d have liked to see an explicit discussion of storage, access and signposting in the Principles… though come to think of it, this is really a different (and enormous) set of questions. So perhaps “conspicuous” covers this as well, and the missing Principle is simply that there should be a highly visible link to the license and the data themselves in every place where they are used, mentioned or otherwise likely to be encountered.
Of course, there are always unresolved questions no matter how carefully you craft your Declarations and Statements and Principles — which is why the OKF has wisely built a companion tool, the Is It Open Data? web service. This is a brilliant way to remove ambiguity once and for all, on a case by case basis, by making public enquiry into the openness or otherwise of specific data sets. You can browse previous enquiries, so as to avoid redundant questioning of data owners; and naturally, recipients of multiple enquiries can use the service in a different way, simply linking to the record of their first response by way of answer to subsequent queries. Searchability might be a concern once the database of enquiries starts to grow, but that functionality can be added as needed. A central public service for asking questions about data availability and archiving the answers could go a long way towards improving access to data, simply by making clear the level of demand for Openness, and the degree to which supply falls short.

Science Commons Symposium, Redmond WA

I am going to follow Antony’s lead here and shamelessly steal Cameron’s post to introduce the topic:

… sometimes someone puts together a programme that means you just have to shift the rest of the world around to make sure you can get there. Lisa Green and Hope Leman have put together the biggest concentration of speakers in the Open Science space that I think I have ever seen for the Science Commons Symposium — Pacific Northwest to be held on the Microsoft Campus in Redmond on 20 February. If you are in the Seattle area and have an interest in the future of science, whether pro- or anti- the “open” movement, or just want to hear some great talks you should be there. If you can’t be there then watch out for the video stream.

Along with [Cameron Neylon] you’lll get Jean-Claude Bradley, Antony Williams, Peter Murray-Rust, Heather Joseph, Stephen Friend, Peter Binfield, and John Wilbanks. Everything from policy to publication, software development to bench work, and from capturing the work of a single researcher to the challenges of placing several hundred million dollars’ worth of drug discovery data into the public domain. All with a focus on how we make more science available and generate more innovation. Not to be missed, in person or online…

I’m going to be there, but don’t let that put you off — I’ll be sitting quietly in the audience soaking up the amazing array of expertise on offer. You won’t even notice me, I promise.
If you have any interest at all in Open Science (and why on Earth would you be reading me, if you didn’t?), you should make every effort to attend this symposium. I’m a bit skeeved out by its being held on a Microsoft campus — actually, I’m a lot skeeved out, and if it were any other lineup I probably wouldn’t go for that reason alone. But this is simply too good to miss. Seriously, do yourself a favor and be there if you possibly can.

“Guerrilla OA” done right.

I was reminded recently (when Graham Steel uploaded this photo) of something I’ve been meaning to write about for nearly two years.
For those who don’t know him (which must surely exclude nearly everyone involved with Open Access!), Graham (blog, FF) is a patient advocate, which work has made him a staunch supporter of OA and all things Open. (Those of us who promote OA from an academic or research perspective sometimes, I think, forget about the incalculable value that OA offers other professionals and the lay public.)
Graham’s first foray into “guerrilla OA” (most emphatically not to be confused with these well-meaning idiots) was in September 2007, when he attended a conference and ran a one-man unofficial promotional campaign. Do read his own description, but the basic strategy was to be a human signpost (wearing “Research Made Public” and “I’m Open” t-shirts) and distribute OA promotional materials in such a way as to give most of the delegates at least a brief exposure to the concept.
(Pause here to marvel at the dedication of the man whose belief in the possibilities of OA makes him willing, entirely at his own instigation, to arrange attendance, travel and accomodation, collect up the necessary materials and then physically go and do all this.)
Sadly, we can’t yet clone Graham; but perhaps we can duplicate some of his efforts. I wonder how much it would cost to make “guerrilla OA” kits like the one Graham made for himself, but aimed at conference delegates so that researchers could turn into “Steel lite” activists at every conference we attend. Here are a few ideas:

  • t-shirts to start conversations
  • a badge instead of a t-shirt (“free your research, ask me how”) for those who prefer more formal attire
  • “OA in a nutshell” cards the size and shape of regular business cards, for handing out in conversation and leaving on appropriate tables
  • slides for your talk: start with Cameron’s “Presentation Rights” and end with a “Basics of OA” slide
  • equivalent add-ons for your poster, such as a Copyright Notice and an OA Basics placard, about the size of a postcard so they should fit on most posters as an afterthought and would be easy to incorporate into the poster itself

Here’s another idea: it would only take half a dozen delegates to run an “OA stall”, similar to the vendor stalls with which we are all only too familiar. This would mean working with conference administration, so maybe they would even help with “recruiting”; alternatively, it should be simple to set up a website where one can advertise for help in running such a stall at a particular conference. OA publishers could contribute materials (perhaps in return for help with costs), but I think transparent independence from any particular commercial effort would help tremendously in establishing credibility and producing a positive response. A prominent “who are we and why are we doing this?” banner might be a good idea. Flyers could include “OA:what’s in it for you?”, “Why the Impact Factor should be retired”, and “Elsevier: just another greedy bottom-feeder, or SPAWN OF SATAN????”. (OK, maybe not that last one… though a single page with this graph on it, or a reprint of this if I ever get around to publishing it, might be a good idea.)


I’m swamped (new job), but just had to point this out: if you are interested in scholarly communication, Open Science, bibliometrics or anything related (and if you’re not, why the hell would you read me?), then you must read this post from Deepak and the related post from PLoS ONE. Bora suggests that we mark our calendars; I think he’s right, and this will prove to be one of those milestones whose importance will be clear in hindsight.
So — what they said, especially Neil.

Paying for toll access.

In response to the persuasive argument that online and peer reviewed journal audiences have significantly less than 100% overlap, I’m going to start trying to re-publish some of my Open Access writing. I’m considering submitting the draft below as a letter to the editor of Haematologica, in response to this editorial; comments, corrections and suggestions for where to send it are welcome.
In particular, I’d like input on the following: the draft letter is basically an abbreviated version of this post — should I, instead, work the full post (including this revision of Phil Davis’ Cornell study) up into a paper/essay/article and submit that somewhere?
If so, should I include only the self-reported figures for average TA journal author-side costs (see below), or should I pick a number of prominent journals and estimate their average author-side costs as I did in this post?
If the latter, obviously the methodology for the blog post is inadequate for a formal publication — so how would one go about getting a reliable estimate — that is, how many issues would one need to sample? And which journals should I include?
(I’m inclined to think I should just send the letter, because to do the paper properly would be a lot of work. The Davis update should be more than just plugging in new assumptions, it should really be repeated with the latest ARL numbers and new searches in Web of Science and/or Scopus. On top of that, estimating average page number and number of color figures for a single journal, let alone a selection, is an enormous task. So, frankly, it probably won’t get done — although I’m up for a collaboration if anyone out there is interested.)
Finally, one for the statisticians out there: if I do include the update to the Davis study, how would one go about a formal analysis of what is shown in Figure 3 of this post? The question is this: to what extent is high ranking on the list of predicted expenses in an all-OA world predictive of high ranking on lists of serials expenditure, enrolment or articles published? And is such an analysis (some kind of rank correlation, right?) really any better than the simple eyeball explanation I used in the linked post?
—-draft letter—–
Dear Sir/Madam:
last month’s issue of Haematologica featured an editorial entitled “Paying for open access” [1]. I write to point out that subscription-model (“toll access”, TA) journals also impose author-side fees such as page and color figure charges. In fact, in a 2005 survey, a greater proportion of TA journals than of Open Access (OA) journals charged such fees [2]. Recent financial and publishing estimates have made it possible to compare fees across the two models, as follows.
The NIH estimates that it spends $80 to $100 million/year [3] on the publication costs of some 80,000 papers [4], and approximately 5% of research publications worldwide are available through Gold OA with no embargo period [5]. On the overly conservative [6] assumption that the average author-side fee for Gold OA is triple the average author-side fee levied by toll access journals, the average publication charge paid by the NIH to toll access journals is between $909 and $1136 per paper.
Further, OA advocate Peter Suber has pointed out (pers. comm.) that this number is certainly an underestimate since some fraction of those 80,000 articles did not use NIH funds, either because they were published in no-fee journals or because the authors found other ways to pay. Bearing this in mind, the NIH estimate is consistent with the handful of self-reported figures I have been able to find:

journal …………………………… avg. author-side fee
Molecular Biology of the Cell ………………. $1829 [7]
American Physiological Society (14 journals) …. $1000 [8]
Molecular Biology and Evolution …………….. $922  [9]
Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions ………… $1275 [10]

For comparison, the same issue last two issues of Haematologica in which the aforementioned editorial appeared also included 33 original research articles. On the basis of current page and color figure charges (and including submission fees), I calculate that the authors of these papers paid an average of around €600 560 ($840 790) per paper. Though the sample is hardly representative, it seems likely that the average cost of a Haematologica paper is in this ballpark. Such a figure is consistent with fees charged by other Gold OA publishers [6].
Authors considering the affordability of OA fees should bear in mind that they may well pay as much or more in page and color charges at a toll access journal, and should also ask what it is that they are paying for. Readers of toll access journals must bear a further cost, either directly or through subscriptions, whereas OA articles are immediately and permanently free for anyone to read.

Update 090717: corrected the calculation; you can grab the data here if you want to check my work or do something else with it. This is another argument for re-publishing: it makes you check your work! I got things wrong, and forgot to make the data available, the first time around.
I’ve submitted the letter; the full study I suggested is so much larger that I don’t see it as salami publishing to submit that separately, if it ever gets done. Following a suggestion from Heather Morrison in comments, I’m going to try putting it up as a research project on the OAD and try to coordinate a team project. I felt compelled to point out this blog entry, the CCZero license and the fact that, if they accept the letter, I intend to use a CC/SPARC Author Addendum to retain enough rights from their copyright transfer (why does an OA journal need that?!) to offer CC-BY-NC. We’ll see what happens.

[1] Paying for open access. Haematologica, Vol 94, Issue 6, p. 764 doi:10.3324/haematol.11505
[2] The Facts About Open Access. Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC 2005 URL: Accessed: 2009-07-17. (Accessed July 16 2009)
[3] US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property Hearing on H.R. 6845, the “Fair Copyright in Research Works Act”. Thursday 09/11/2008 URL: (Archived by WebCite® at
[4] US National Institutes of Health Public Access Frequently Asked Questions. URL: (Archived by WebCite® at
[5] Björk B-C., Roosr A and Lauri M. Global annual volume of peer reviewed scholarly articles and the share available via different open access options. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Electronic Publishing ISBN 978-0-7727-6315-0, 2008, pp. 178-186 (
[6] Comparison of BioMed Central’s Article Processing Charges with those of other publishers. URL: (Archived by WebCite® at
[7] American Society for Cell Biology Newsletter, April 2007: MBC and the Economics of Scientific Publishing. URL: available from URL: (Archived by WebCite® at
[8] American Physiological Society AuthorChoice Frequently Asked Questions. URL: Accessed: 2009-07-14. (Archived by WebCite® at
[9] Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution: Editor’s Annual Report 2008. URL: available from URL: (Archived by WebCite® at
[10] American Phytopathological Society Reports of Publications 2000. URL: (Archived by WebCite® at