koglist

koglist@maillist.ttk.hu

4 participants
5930 discussions

Call for poster - Minds and Societies 2008 Summer Institute in Cognitive Science (fwd)

by Stevan Harnad

** Apologies for Cross-Posting ** ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:04:50 -0500 From: École été 2008 <summer08.isc(a)uqam.ca> To: École été 2008 <summer08.isc(a)uqam.ca> Subject: Call for poster - Minds and Societies 2008 Summer Institute in Cognitive Science Call for Posters The Minds and Societies Summer Institute in Cognitive Science June 27 July 6, 2008 Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Canada A Summer Institute organized by the Université du Québec à Montréal¹s Cognitive Science Institute (Pdf version of this call can be found here: http://www.summer08.isc.uqam.ca/ocs/custom/cfp-socialCognition.pdf ) OVERVIEW The main theme of the Minds and Societies Summer Institute is social cognition, understood both from a psychological and community point of views. From a psychological point of view, the fundamental problem of social cognition is to understand how the human mind processes social information; how it detects, categorizes and applies it in social situations. From a community point of view, the question is understanding how individual cognition is influenced, perhaps even improved and increased, or indeed hampered, by social interactions, for example by communicating and collaborating with intelligent agents, natural and artificial. The two dimensions of social cognition are linked, in that the psychological dimension makes the community dimension possible, and the latter can in return modify the first. More information about the Summer Institute's content can be found on its website: www.summer08.isc.uqam.ca REFEREED POSTER SUBMISSIONS Successful posters are carefully designed to convey ideas. They should also attract the attention of attendees as they stroll past the displays. The goal is to develop a poster that encourages and facilitates small groups of individuals interested in an issue to gather and interact. Posters will be reviewed and selected by the Poster Committee. An award will be given at the conference for the best poster. Submissions must include an abstract of up to 400 words. Authors of accepted submissions must provide a one or two page summary (and/or an electronic copy of the poster itself) for publication on the Summer Institute¹s web site. These summaries will be posted on the Summer Institute web site one week prior to Summer Institute to give all participants a chance to review the content of the presentation before the event. All participants must register, including those presenting a poster. PRACTICAL The posters will be located in a public area, close to the exhibition, viewable for all conference attendees. Posters shall fit in a 1,40x1.40m space. Push pins can be used to attach material to the board. A small table on which you can put leaflets or your laptop for a live demo is available upon request. The posters are to be set up before the first poster session, on June 30th. Someone must be present at the poster to interact with conference attendees on at least one of the two official occasions: July 30th and July 4th. It is also possible, but not required, to be present at other times. Putting a time schedule on the poster is recommended. Advice for the preparation of a poster can be found on ISC¹s website: http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/cogsci2/isc/article.php3?id_article=218. Most of the content is in French, but some of it is in English. IMPORTANT DATES Submission start: March 3, 2008 Submission due: March 17, 2008 Notification to authors: April 7, 2008 Summary due: May 30, 2008 Poster go up: June 28, 2008 Must be present to discuss poster: June 30 and/or July 4 Please send all inquiries to summer08.isc(a)uqam.ca -10-

18 years, 4 months

konferencia A magyar vall�studom�ny t�rt�nete

by Bulcsu Kal Hoppal

Tiztelt Kollégák! Csatolt fájlban találják a Magyar Vallástudományi Társaság konferencia felhívását. Kérem, terjesszék! Üdvözlettel: Hoppál Bulcsú Hoppál, Kál Bulcsú Ph.D. student International Academy of Philosophy, Pontificia Universidad Catolica Chile (IAP - PUC) Av. Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Macul Santiago, Chile Phone (sec.): (56 2) 354-1513 e-mail: khoppal(a)yahoo.com www.uc.cl/iapuc ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

18 years, 4 months

Theoretical Philosophy Forum, Gergely Ambrus

by Laszlo E. Szabo

THEORETICAL PHILOSOPHY FORUM Institute of Philosophy Faculty of Humanities, Eotvos University Room 226 Monday 4:00 PM Muzeum krt. 4/i, Budapest Web site: http://phil.elte.hu/tpf 11 February 4:00 PM Room 226 Gergely Ambrus Philosophy, University of Miskolc A tudat problemaja a logikai empirizmusban (The problem of mind in logical empirism) Abstract: http://phil.elte.hu/tpf/2007-2008/February/#2 ___________________________________ The Forum is open to everyone, including students,visitors, and faculty members from all departments and institutes! Format: 60 minute lecture, 10 minute coffee break, followed by a 30-60 minute discussion. The language of presentation is English or Hungarian. A printable poster is available from here: http://phil.elte.hu/tpf/2007-2008/February/poster.pdf Please feel free to post it in your institution! The organizer of the Forum: Laszlo E. Szabo (leszabo(a)phil.elte.hu) -- L a s z l o E. S z a b o Department of Logic, Institute of Philosophy Faculty of Humanities, Eotvos University, Budapest http://phil.elte.hu/leszabo

18 years, 4 months

álláshirdetés

by Miklósi Ádám

Az ELTE TTK Etológia Tanszéke FP7-es (2008-2012) „Living with interactive companions” (LIREC) pályázatának megvalósításához keres olyan állati és emberi viselkedéssel foglalkozó kutatót, akit érdekel komplex viselkedésű rendszerek (ember és kutya) leírása illetve a tapasztalatok robotikai megvalósításának kérdése. Keressük azt a kutyaszerető, vezetői készségekkel is rendelkező angolul beszélő és külföldi partnereinkkel is kapcsolatot tartó agilis kutató munkatársat, aki egy lelkes munkaközösség tagja szeretne lenni. Posztdoktori státusz illetve hosszabb dokumentált tudományos tapasztalat előnyt jelent. A jelentkezéshez kérünk szakmai önéletrajzot, publikációs listát és az eddigi tudományos munkásság rövid összefoglalóját. Munkakezdés várhatóan március 1. és 31. között az EU projekt elkezdésének függvényében. A kiválasztott jelölt tudományos munkatárs munkakörben dolgozik majd, bérezése szakmai felkészültségének függvénye a munkaköri lapbért meghaladó mértékben. Jelen felhívás az állás sikeres betöltéséig érvényes várhatóan március 1-ig. Jelentkezés Etológia tanszék postai címén (Budapest 1117 Pázmány P sétány 1c) vagy amiklósi62(a)gmail.com <mailto:amikl%F3si62@gmail.com> emailen. A témához kapcsolódóan PhD jelöltek és szakdolgozók jelentkezését is várjuk! Érdeklődés: Miklósi Ádám egyetemi docens, amiklósi62(a)gmail.com <mailto:amikl%F3si62@gmail.com> ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/ict/docs/2008-jan-projects-resulting-from-call-1-short-abstracts_en.pdf LIREC will establish a multi-faceted (memory, emotions, cognition, communication, learning, etc.) theory of artificial long-term companions, embody it in innovative technology, verify the theory and technology experimentally in real social environments, and provide guidelines for designing and using such companions. The project draws on studies of human-pet interaction and builds upon existing robotics technologies such as Pioneers, Peoplebots, & iCat in order to develop and evaluate experimentally the theoretical framework. Companions will have different capabilities, based on a common cognitive-affective architecture, depending on their intended use. This may involve the ability to respond sensitively to the user, regard his or her possible motives and intentions, and encompass several forms of communication. Different scenarios will be set up, such as the "robot house", "spirit of the building" and "my mentor", and several activity types will be tested in each. The scenarios will involve humans interacting with robots and/or graphical companions in their day-to-day lives over periods of weeks or months. The migration of companions to different “bodies”, for instance a mobile phone, will also be explored.

18 years, 4 months

faculty work in progress lectures

by Krisztina Biber

Dear All, Please find enclosed Katalin Farkas` abstract for the next faculty work in progress lecture (Tuesday, 5. February, from 4.30 PM in room 412) Best Kriszta ******************************************************************************** Katalin Farkas Can one be immoral in a dream? Dreams in philosophy are usually considered in the theory of knowledge. The classic sceptical Dream Argument goes something like this: since dreams are subjectively indistinguishable from wakeful experiences, the qualitative character of experience doesnt guarantee that I am not dreaming now, and therefore I cannot exclude the possibility that I am not dreaming now. But then I cannot t know anything based on my present experiences. I shall refer to the conception of dreams embodied in this argument as the "usual conception of dreams. The key feature of the usual conception is that dreams are subjectively the same as wakeful experiences. I think the usual conception is wrong, and considering the moral significance of dreams helps to bring this point out. The question of the moral status of dreams is raised for example in the following passage in St. Augustines Confessions: "Obviously thou commandest that I should be continent from the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. Thou commandest me to abstain from fornication, and as for marriage itself, thou hast counseled something better than what thou dost allow. And since thou gavest it, it was done--even before I became a minister of thy sacrament. But there still exist in my memory--of which I have spoken so much--the images of such things as my habits had fixed there. These things rush into my thoughts with no power when I am awake; but in sleep they rush in not only so as to give pleasure, but even to obtain consent and what very closely resembles the deed itself. Indeed, the illusion of the image prevails to such an extent, in both my soul and my flesh, that the illusion persuades me when sleeping to what the reality cannot do when I am awake. Am I not myself at such a time, O Lord my God? And is there so much of a difference between myself awake and myself in the moment when I pass from waking to sleeping, or return from sleeping to waking? Where, then, is the power of reason which resists such suggestions when I am awake--for even if the things themselves be forced upon it I remain unmoved? Does reason cease when the eyes close? Is it put to sleep with the bodily senses? But in that case how does it come to pass that even in slumber we often resist, and with our conscious purposes in mind, continue most chastely in them, and yield no assent to such allurements? Yet there is at least this much difference: that when it happens otherwise in dreams, when we wake up, we return to peace of conscience. And it is by this difference between sleeping and waking that we discover that it was not we who did it, while we still feel sorry that in some way it was done in us." (Book 10, ch. 30): As Augustine notes, one of the most troubling aspect of dreams from a moral point of view is that we seem to consent to all sorts of things in dream that we would never do in waking life. So much so that Augustine even considers - though immediately discards - the possibility that he isnt really himself when dreaming. Of course there is an important difference between wakeful acts and apparent dream acts: that the latter dont really happen. It seems that this leads Augustine to conclude that one shouldnt feel guilty - though one may not help feeling sorry - about things done in a dream. However, some commentators argued that Augustine is in fact committed to some assumptions which entail that one can be immoral in a dream. One of these assumption is the usual conception of dreams. It is also instructive to compare the moral status of acts apparently committed in dreams with the moral status of acts apparently committed in a hypothetical situation of perfect simulation (like the Matrix). It is common to both cases that the act doesnt actually happen; yet I claim that the moral status of the two situations are different. I argue that the usual conception of dreams is mistaken, and dreams are in fact states of diminished responsibility (like being drugged or drunk), which are subjectively very different from waking experiences. Since dreams are such states, I dont think that one can be immoral in a dream.

18 years, 4 months

postdoc in philosophy or cognitive science, Lund University

by Zvolenszky Zsofia

Three year post-doc employment, open for applicants in philosophy and cognitive science, available at Lund University. Applications shall contain complete CV, copy of Ph.D. exam (exam must not be older than three years), list of publications, and research project plan (not exceeding five pages) for the period. Reference number: 4918. Six copies of the complete application must have been received before February 20th Address: Vice Chancellor, Lund University, Box 117, 221 00 Lund, Sweden Directives and information at http://www.lu.se/o.o.i.s/11294 Information about salary etc: Senior Administrative Officer Lena Kandefelt (+46 46-222 7224, lena.kandef...(a)kansliht.lu.se). About Philosophy in Lund: Professor Wlodek Rabinowicz (+46 46 222 75 95, wlodek.rabinow...(a)fil.lu.se), Professor Erik J Olsson (+46 46 222 09 25, erik_j.ols...(a)fil.lu.se) About Cognitive Science in Lund: Professor Peter Gärdenfors (+46 46 222 48 17, peter.gardenf...(a)lucs.lu.se) Björn Petersson http://www.fil.lu.se/staff/person.asp?id=12&lang=se

18 years, 4 months

Christiansen & Chater/Language as Shaped by the Brain: BBS Call for Commentators

by Behavioral & Brain Sciences

Dear Dr. Qwerty, ================================================================== *** CALL RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS *** ================================================================== Please DO NOT respond to this email. Please note that this is NOT a formal invitation. If you wish to submit a proposal for commentary and/or suggest potential commentators, please go to the Online Commentary Proposal System at the following URL: http://www.bbsonline.org/perl/commentary/commproposal?authordir=Christianse… * If you only wish to suggest potential commentators, please ignore prompts to submit a proposal with expertise information. * If you experience technical difficulties, please email bbs(a)bbsonline.org. * Please respond to this Call no later than February 25, 2008 NOTE: Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS) is an international, interdisciplinary journal providing Open Peer Commentary on important and controversial current research in the biobehavioral and cognitive sciences. Commentators must be BBS Associates, or suggested by a BBS Associate. If you are not a BBS Associate, please follow the instructions linked below: http://www.bbsonline.org/Instructions/associnst.html ================================================================== ** Target Article Information ** ================================================================== To help you decide whether you would be an appropriate commentator for this article, an unedited, uncorrected target article is retrievable at the URL that follows the abstract and keywords below. This unedited draft has been prepared only for potential commentators who wish to nominate themselves for formal commentary invitation. Please DO NOT write a commentary until you receive a formal invitation. If you are invited to submit a commentary, a copyedited, corrected version of this paper will be posted in the invitation letter. The commentary invitation list is compiled by the Editors so as to balance proposals, areas of expertise, and frequency of prior commentaries in BBS. TITLE: Language as Shaped by the Brain AUTHORS: Morten H. Christiansen & Nick Chater ABSTRACT: It is widely assumed that human learning and the structure of human languages are intimately related. This relationship is frequently suggested to derive from a language-specific biological endowment, which encodes universal, but communicatively arbitrary, principles of language structure (a universal grammar or UG). How might such a UG have evolved? We argue that UG could not have arisen either by biological adaptation or non-adaptationist genetic processes, resulting in a logical problem of language evolution. Specifically, as the processes of language change are much more rapid than processes of genetic change, language constitutes a "moving target" both over time and across different human populations, and hence cannot provide a stable environment to which language genes could have adapted. We conclude that a biologically determined UG is not evolutionarily viable. Instead, the original motivation for UG--the mesh between learners and languages--arises because language has been shaped to fit the human brain, rather than vice versa. Following Darwin, we view language itself as a complex and interdependent "organism,"which evolves under selectional pressures from human learning and processing mechanisms. That is, languages themselves are shaped by severe selectional pressure from each generation of language users and learners. This suggests that apparently arbitrary aspects of linguistic structure may result from general learning and processing biases deriving from the structure of thought processes, perceptuo-motor factors, cognitive limitations, and pragmatics. KEYWORDS: biological adaptation, cultural evolution, grammaticalization, language acquisition, language evolution, linguistic change, natural selection, universal grammar FULL TEXT: http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/Christiansen-12292006/Referees/ ================================================================== *** CALL RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS *** ================================================================== Please DO NOT respond to this email. Please note that this is NOT a formal invitation. If you wish to submit a proposal for commentary and/or suggest potential commentators, please go to the Online Commentary Proposal System at the following URL: http://www.bbsonline.org/perl/commentary/commproposal?authordir=Christianse… * If you only wish to suggest potential commentators, please ignore prompts to submit a proposal with expertise information. * If you experience technical difficulties, please email bbs(a)bbsonline.org. * Please respond to this Call no later than February 25, 2008 NOTE: Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS) is an international, interdisciplinary journal providing Open Peer Commentary on important and controversial current research in the biobehavioral and cognitive sciences. Commentators must be BBS Associates, or suggested by a BBS Associate. If you are not a BBS Associate, please follow the instructions linked below: http://www.bbsonline.org/Instructions/associnst.html ================================================================== ================================================================== Paul Bloom - Editor Barbara Finlay - Editor Behavioral and Brain Sciences bbs(a)bbsonline.org http://www.bbsonline.org -------------------------------------------------------------------

18 years, 4 months

Christiansen & Chater/Language as Shaped by the Brain: BBS Call for Commentators

by Behavioral & Brain Sciences

================================================================== *** CALL RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS *** ================================================================== Please DO NOT respond to this email. Please note that this is NOT a formal invitation. If you wish to submit a proposal for commentary and/or suggest potential commentators, please go to the Online Commentary Proposal System at the following URL: http://www.bbsonline.org/perl/commentary/commproposal?authordir=Christianse… * If you only wish to suggest potential commentators, please ignore prompts to submit a proposal with expertise information. * If you experience technical difficulties, please email bbs(a)bbsonline.org. * Please respond to this Call no later than February 25, 2008 NOTE: Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS) is an international, interdisciplinary journal providing Open Peer Commentary on important and controversial current research in the biobehavioral and cognitive sciences. Commentators must be BBS Associates, or suggested by a BBS Associate. If you are not a BBS Associate, please follow the instructions linked below: http://www.bbsonline.org/Instructions/associnst.html ================================================================== ** Target Article Information ** ================================================================== To help you decide whether you would be an appropriate commentator for this article, an unedited, uncorrected target article is retrievable at the URL that follows the abstract and keywords below. This unedited draft has been prepared only for potential commentators who wish to nominate themselves for formal commentary invitation. Please DO NOT write a commentary until you receive a formal invitation. If you are invited to submit a commentary, a copyedited, corrected version of this paper will be posted in the invitation letter. The commentary invitation list is compiled by the Editors so as to balance proposals, areas of expertise, and frequency of prior commentaries in BBS. TITLE: Language as Shaped by the Brain AUTHORS: Morten H. Christiansen & Nick Chater ABSTRACT: It is widely assumed that human learning and the structure of human languages are intimately related. This relationship is frequently suggested to derive from a language-specific biological endowment, which encodes universal, but communicatively arbitrary, principles of language structure (a universal grammar or UG). How might such a UG have evolved? We argue that UG could not have arisen either by biological adaptation or non-adaptationist genetic processes, resulting in a logical problem of language evolution. Specifically, as the processes of language change are much more rapid than processes of genetic change, language constitutes a "moving target" both over time and across different human populations, and hence cannot provide a stable environment to which language genes could have adapted. We conclude that a biologically determined UG is not evolutionarily viable. Instead, the original motivation for UG--the mesh between learners and languages--arises because language has been shaped to fit the human brain, rather than vice versa. Following Darwin, we view language itself as a complex and interdependent "organism,"which evolves under selectional pressures from human learning and processing mechanisms. That is, languages themselves are shaped by severe selectional pressure from each generation of language users and learners. This suggests that apparently arbitrary aspects of linguistic structure may result from general learning and processing biases deriving from the structure of thought processes, perceptuo-motor factors, cognitive limitations, and pragmatics. KEYWORDS: biological adaptation, cultural evolution, grammaticalization, language acquisition, language evolution, linguistic change, natural selection, universal grammar FULL TEXT: http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/Christiansen-12292006/Referees/ ================================================================== *** CALL RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS *** ================================================================== Please DO NOT respond to this email. Please note that this is NOT a formal invitation. If you wish to submit a proposal for commentary and/or suggest potential commentators, please go to the Online Commentary Proposal System at the following URL: http://www.bbsonline.org/perl/commentary/commproposal?authordir=Christianse… * If you only wish to suggest potential commentators, please ignore prompts to submit a proposal with expertise information. * If you experience technical difficulties, please email bbs(a)bbsonline.org. * Please respond to this Call no later than February 25, 2008 NOTE: Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS) is an international, interdisciplinary journal providing Open Peer Commentary on important and controversial current research in the biobehavioral and cognitive sciences. Commentators must be BBS Associates, or suggested by a BBS Associate. If you are not a BBS Associate, please follow the instructions linked below: http://www.bbsonline.org/Instructions/associnst.html ================================================================== ================================================================== Paul Bloom - Editor Barbara Finlay - Editor Behavioral and Brain Sciences bbs(a)bbsonline.org http://www.bbsonline.org -------------------------------------------------------------------

18 years, 4 months

MTA PKI elo"adások

by Gaál Zsófia Anna

Tisztelt Kollégák! Az MTA Pszichológiai Kutatóintézet elo"adássorozatának következo" elo"adása: *Ero"s Ferenc: Miért érdemes/érdekes a pszichoanalízis történetével foglalkozni?* Ido"pont: 2008. február 8. (péntek) 14.00. Helyszín: 1132 Budapest, Victor Hugo u. 18-22. A31-es (alagsori) elo"adóterem. Minden érdeklo"do"t szeretettel várunk. Üdvözlettel: Gaál Zsófia Anna

18 years, 4 months

European University Association Open Access Recommendations

by Stevan Harnad

[Apologies for Multiple Posting] These recommendations by the EUA Working Group on Open Access were adopted unanimously by the Council of the European University Association on January 25 2008. Many thanks to Professor Bernard Rentier, Rector, University of Liege and founder of EurOpenScholar, who has forwarded them to the American Scientist Open Access Forum for posting, with permission. Below are the highlights of the recommendations, followed by the recommendations in full. The recommendation is that all European Universities should create institutional repositories and should mandate that all research publications must be deposited in them immediately upon publication (and made Open Access as soon as possible thereafter), as already mandated by RCUK, ERC, and NIH, and as recommended by EURAB. EUA also recommends that this self-archiving mandate should be extended to all research results arising from EU research programme/project funding. HIGHLIGHTS: A. Recommendations for University Leadership The basic approach... should be the creation of an institutional repository. These repositories should be established and managed according to current best practices (following recommendations and guidelines from DRIVER and similar projects) complying with the OAI-PMH protocol and allowing inter-operability and future networking for wider usage.... University institutional policies should require that their researchers deposit (self-archive) their scientific publications in their institutional repository upon acceptance for publication. Permissible embargoes should apply only to the date of open access provision and not the date of deposit. Such policies would be in compliance with evolving policies of research funding agencies at the national and European level such as the ERC. B. Recommendations for National Rectors' Conferences All National Rectors' Conferences should work with national research funding agencies and governments in their countries to implement the requirement for self-archiving of research publications in institutional repositories and other appropriate open access repositories according to best practice models of the ERC and existing national research funding agencies operating open access mandates... C. Recommendations for the European University Association EUA should continue to contribute actively to the policy dialogue on Open Access at the European level with a view to a self-archiving mandate for all research results arising from EU research programme/project funding, hence in support of and building upon the ERC position and other international initiatives such as that of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Recommendations from the European University Association Working Group on Open Access I. WG: Aims and Scope In January 2007 EUA established a 'Working Group on Open Access' for a one year period as a platform of expert opinion to provide both a voice for, and visibility to European universities as stakeholders in the policy debate. Its mission was dual-fold: to raise awareness of the importance of 'open access' issues to the wider university community, both in terms of its impact upon the research process and its financial implications for university libraries, and to develop recommendations for a common strategy for the university sector as key stakeholders in policy development in the field. The decision to set up the Working Group had reflected the general view that the interests of universities were not being heard in the growing policy debate on the issue of the wide implications of rapid development of digital ICT for publishing which tended to be dominated by the commercial interests of the major scientific publishing companies. The Working Group membership drew upon the range of different university perspectives on the concept of 'Open Access' from those of academic researchers, librarians and university management. In the course of its three meetings in 2007 the Working Group gathered expert opinion on open access publishing business models, legal and copyright issues, technical development of national digital repositories and their European networking, and the policies being developed towards open access publishing by funding agencies at the national level and the European Commission. Professor Sijbolt Noorda (Chair of the WG) and members contributed also to several European Conferences held in 2007 including the major conference on 'Scientific Publishing in the Digital Age' held jointly by the European Commission DG Research and DG Information and Media in Brussels in February 2007 in which the university sector were recognised formally as a major 'stakeholder' in the open access policy debate. In reaching its recommendations that are addressed to three audiences - university leaders at the institutional level,Â National Rectors Conferences and the EUA - the Working Group has borne in mind the full spectrum of issues involved; these range from the clear opportunity offered to widen access to the results of research, to the implications of open access publishing for peer review and quality assurance in academic research and the rapidly rising costs of scientific publications for university libraries (through high subscription prices for both electronic and printed journals, including 'bundling' marketing strategies by publishers). II. European and Global Context of the Recommendations The WG recommendations seek to build upon the findings of the 'Study on the Economic and Technical Evolution of Scientific Publications Markets in Europe' (European Commission, DG Research, project report, January 2006), and public statements issued by the European Research Council (ERC) and the European Research Advisory Board (EURAB) on Open Access as well as the current practices of some funding agencies such as UK Research Councils and the newly adopted policy of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States concerning open access mandates for peer-reviewed publications arising from grants. In the European context the most recent significant development has been the ERC announcement on 17th December 2007 of its position on open access, as follows: "The ERC requires that all peer-reviewed publications from ERC-funded research projects be deposited on publication into an appropriate research repository where available, such as PubMedCentral, ArXiv or an institutional repository, and subsequently made Open Access within 6 months of publication." WG recommendations seek also to provide support to European level initiatives promoting institutional repositories, their networking and wider accessibility through the future Confederation of European Repositories being developed by the DRIVER project consortium (funded under the European Commission 7th Research Framework Programme) and other university-led initiatives such as EurOpenScholar and the UNICA network. III. Recommendations The WG recommendations (below) are based upon the following core premises: the university's role and responsibility as guardian of research knowledge as a 'public good'; the results of publicly-funded research should be publicly-available as soon as possible; and quality assurance peer review processes are pre-conditions for scholarly publishing and therefore are essential to be maintained in the digital publishing mode. It is important to emphasise that the scope of the WG recommendations cover as a priority the need for the enhancement of open access to peer-reviewed published research literature only, and not scientific research data, teaching materials etc. Issues of access to research data, its archiving and preservation need further attention from universities, funding agencies and scientific professional bodies, and are subject to several initiatives at the national and European level which are not addressed here (e.g. the Alliance for Permanent Access and European Digital Information Infrastructure). A. Recommendations for University Leadership 1. Universities should develop institutional policies and strategies that foster the availability of their quality controlled research results for the broadest possible range of users, maximising their visibility, accessibility and scientific impact. 2. The basic approach for achieving this should be the creation of an institutional repository. These repositories should be established and managed according to current best practices (following recommendations and guidelines from DRIVER and similar projects) complying with the OAI-PMH protocol and allowing inter-operability and future networking for wider usage. 3. University institutional policies should require that their researchers deposit (self-archive) their scientific publications in their institutional repository upon acceptance for publication. Permissible embargoes should apply only to the date of open access provision and not the date of deposit. Such policies would be in compliance with evolving policies of research funding agencies at the national and European level such as the ERC. 4. University policies should include copyright in the institutional intellectual property rights (IPR) management. It should be the responsibility of the university to inform their faculty researchers about IPR and copyright management in order to ensure the wider sharing and re-use of the digital research content they have produced. This should include a clear policy on ownership and management of copyright covering scholarly publications and define procedures for ensuring that the institution has the right to use the material produced by its staff for further research, educational and instructional purposes. 5. University institutional policies should explore also how own resources could be found for author fees if 'author pays model' of open access publishing prevails in the future in some scientific fields/domains. B. Recommendations for National Rectors' Conferences 1. All National Rectors' Conferences should work with national research funding agencies and governments in their countries to implement the requirement for self-archiving of research publications in institutional repositories and other appropriate open access repositories according to best practice models of the ERC and existing national research funding agencies operating open access mandates. National Rectors' Conferences should encourage government to work within the framework of the Council of the European Union Conclusions on Scientific Information in the Digital Age: Access, Dissemination and Preservation" adopted at the EU Competitiveness Council meeting on 22nd-23rd November 2007. 2. National Rectors' Conferences should attach high priority to raising the awareness of university leadership to the importance of open access policies in terms of enhanced visibility, access and impact of their research results. C. Recommendations for the European University Association 1. EUA should continue to contribute actively to the policy dialogue on Open Access at the European level with a view to a self-archiving mandate for all research results arising from EU research programme/project funding, hence in support of and building upon the ERC position and other international initiatives such as that of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). 2. EUA should continue to be visible and to rally expertise from Europe's universities on Open Access issues to provide input to European and International events advancing open access to scientific publications, research data and their preservation.

18 years, 4 months

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

koglist