Dear Dr. Qwerty,
Below is a link to the forthcoming BBS target article
WHAT CATATONIA CAN TELL US ABOUT "TOP-DOWN MODULATION":
A NEUROPSYCHIATRIC HYPOTHESIS
by
George Northoff
http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/Northoff
This article has been accepted for publication in Behavioral and Brain
Sciences (BBS), 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 nominated by a BBS Associate. To
be considered as a commentator for this article, to suggest other
appropriate commentators, or for information about how to become a BBS
Associate, please reply by EMAIL within three (3) weeks to:
calls(a)bbsonline.org
The Calls are sent to 10,000 BBS Associates, so there is no expectation
(indeed, it would be calamitous) that each recipient should comment
on every occasion! Hence there is no need to reply except if you wish
to comment, or to nominate someone to comment.
If you are not a BBS Associate, please approach a current BBS
Associate (there are currently over 10,000 worldwide) who is familiar
with your work to nominate you. All past BBS authors, referees and
commentators are eligible to become BBS Associates. A full electronic
list of current BBS Associates is available at this location to help
you select a name:
http://www.bbsonline.org/Instructions/assoclist.html
If no current BBS Associate knows your work, please send us your
Curriculum Vitae and BBS will circulate it to appropriate Associates to
ask whether they would be prepared to nominate you. (In the meantime,
your name, address and email address will be entered into our database
as an unaffiliated investigator.)
To help us put together a balanced list of commentators, please give
some indication of the aspects of the topic on which you would bring
your areas of expertise to bear if you were selected as a commentator.
To help you decide whether you would be an appropriate commentator for
this article, an electronic draft is retrievable from the online
BBSPrints Archive, at the URL that follows the abstract below.
_____________________________________________________________
WHAT CATATONIA CAN TELL US ABOUT "TOP-DOWN MODULATION":
A NEUROPSYCHIATRIC HYPOTHESIS
George Northoff, MD PhD, PhD
Harvard University
Beth Israel Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: Catatonia; Parkinson's disease; Top-down modulation; Bottom-up
modulation; Horizontal modulation; Vertical modulation
ABSTRACT: Differentialdiagnosis of motor symptoms, as for example
akinesia, may be difficult in clinical neuropsychiatry. They may be either
of neurologic origin, as for example Parkinson's disease, or psychiatric
origin, as for example catatonia, leading to a so-called "conflict of
paradigms". Despite their different origin symptoms may appear clinically
more or less similar. Possibility of dissociation between origin and
clinical appearance may reflect functional brain organisation in general
and cortical-cortical/subcortical relations in particular. It is therefore
hypothesized that similarities and differences between Parkinson's disease
and catatonia may be accounted for by distinct kinds of modulation between
cortico-cortical and cortico-subcortical relations. Comparison between
Parkinson's disease and catatonia reveals distinction between two kinds of
modulation "vertical and horizontal modulation". "Vertical modulation"
concerns cortical-subcortical relations and allows apparently for
bidirectional modulation. This is reflected in possibility of both
"top-down and bottom-up modulation" and appearance of motor symptoms in
both Parkinson's disease and catatonia. "Horizontal modulation" concerns
cortical-cortical relations and allows apparently only for unidirectional
modulation. This is reflected in one-way connections from prefrontal
cortex to motor cortex and absence of major affective and behavioural
symptoms in Parkinson's disease. It is concluded that comparison between
Parkinson's disease and catatonia may reveal the nature of modulation of
cortico-cortical and cortico-subcortical relations in further detail.
http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/Northoff
___________________________________________________________
Please do not prepare a commentary yet. Just let us know, after having
inspected it, what relevant expertise you feel you would bring to bear
on what aspect of the article. We will then let you know whether it was
possible to include your name on the final formal list of invitees.
_______________________________________________________________________
*** SUPPLEMENTARY ANNOUNCEMENT ***
(1) Call for Book Nominations for BBS Multiple Book Review
In the past, Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS) had only been able
to do 1-2 BBS multiple book treatments per year, because of our
limited annual page quota. BBS's new expanded page quota will make
it possible for us to increase the number of books we treat per
year, so this is an excellent time for BBS Associates and
biobehavioral/cognitive scientists in general to nominate books you
would like to see accorded BBS multiple book review.
(Authors may self-nominate, but books can only be selected on the
basis of multiple nominations.) It would be very helpful if you
indicated in what way a BBS Multiple Book Review of the book(s) you
nominate would be useful to the field (and of course a rich list of
potential reviewers would be the best evidence of its potential
impact!).
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Please note: Your email address has been added to our user database for
Calls for Commentators, the reason you received this email. If you do
not wish to receive further Calls, please feel free to change your
mailshot status through your User Login link on the BBSPrints homepage,
using your username and password above:
http://www.bbsonline.org/
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Ralph
BBS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph DeMarco
Associate Editorial Coordinator
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Journals Department
Cambridge University Press
40 West 20th Street
New York, NY 10011-4211
UNITED STATES
bbs(a)bbsonline.org
http://bbsonline.org
Tel: +001 212 924 3900 ext.374
Fax: +001 212 645 5960
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is addressed to scholars and scientists and it concerns the
Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) http://www.soros.org/openaccess
launched on 14 February by George Soros's Open Society Institute.
To be useful, research must be used. To be used (read, cited, applied,
extended) it must be accessible. There are currently 20,000
peer-reviewed journals of scientific and scholarly research worldwide,
publishing over 4 million articles per year, every single one of them
given away for free by its researcher-authors and their
research-institutions, with the sole goal of maximizing their uptake
and usage by further researchers, and hence their impact on worldwide
research, to the benefit of learning and of humanity.
Yet access to those 4 million annual research articles can only be had
for a fee. Hence they are accessible only to the lucky researchers at
that minority of the world's research institutions that can pay for
them. And even the wealthiest of these institutions can only afford a
small and shrinking proportion of those annual 20,000 journals. The
result is exactly as if all those 4 million articles had been written
for royalties or fees, just the way most of the normal literature is
written, rather than having been given away for free by their authors
and their institutions for the benefit of research and humanity.
As a consequence, other researchers' access to all this work, and hence
its potential impact on and benefit to research progress, is being
minimized by access tolls that most research institutions and
individuals worldwide cannot afford to pay.
Those access tolls were necessary, and hence justified, in the
Gutenberg era of print-on-paper, with its huge real costs, and no
alternatives. But they are no longer necessary or justified, and are
instead in direct conflict with what is best for research, researchers,
and society, in today's PostGutenberg era of on-line-eprints, when
virtually all of those Gutenberg costs have vanished, and those
remaining costs can be covered in a way that allows open access.
The Budapest Open Access Initiative is dedicated to freeing online
access to this all-important but anomalous (because give-away)
literature, now that open access has at long last become possible, by
(I) providing universities with the means of freeing online access
to their own annual peer-reviewed research output (as published in
the 20,000 established journals) through institutional
self-archiving,
as well as by
(II) providing support for new alternative journals that offer open
online access to their full text contents directly (and for
established journals that are committed to making the transition to
offering open full-text access online).
It is entirely fitting that it should be George Soros's Open Society
Institute that launches this initiative to open access to the world's
refereed research literature at last. Open access is now accessible,
indeed already overdue, at a mounting cost in lost benefits to research
and to society while we delay implementing it. What better way to open
society than to open access to the fruits of its science and
scholarship, already freely donated by its creators, but until now not
freely accessible to all of its potential users? Fitting too is the
fact that this initiative should originate from a part of the world
that has known all too long and all too well the privations of a closed
society and access denial.
Please have a look at the BOAI at http://www.soros.org/openaccess
and, if you or your organization are implementing, or planning to
implement either Strategy I or Strategy II, I hope you will sign
the BOAI, either as an individual or an organization.
Below, I append links to some of the press coverage of the BOAI so far.
Sincerely,
Stevan Harnad
Declan Butler, Soros Offers Access to Science Papers (for Nature)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U21535A6
Ivan Noble, Boost for Research Paper Access (for BBC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1818000/1818652.stm
Michael Smith, Soros Backs Academic Rebels (for UPI)
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=12022002-031227-9710r
[Alexander Grimwade, Open Societies Need Open Access (The Scientist)
http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2002/feb/comm_020218.html ]
[Denis Delbecq, L'abordage des revvues scientifiques (Liberation,
Paris)
http://www.liberation.com/quotidien/semaine/020214-050019088SCIE.html ]
[http://slashdot.org/]
>
>From: MX%"Marc.Bekoff(a)Colorado.EDU" 14-FEB-2002
02:09:20.50
>To: MIKLOSA
>CC:
>Subj: RE: PLAN TO REAR BABY CHIMPANZEES AS HUMANS DRAWS
FIRE (fwd)
>
>Return-Path: <bekoffm(a)spot.colorado.edu>
>Received: from spot.colorado.edu by ludens.elte.hu (MX
V4.2 AXP) with SMTP;
> Thu, 14 Feb 2002 02:09:20 +0100
>Received: from localhost (bekoffm@localhost) by
spot.colorado.edu
> (8.11.6/8.11.2/ITS-5.0/standard) with ESMTP id
g1E16AP17803;
>Wed, 13
> Feb 2002 18:06:11 -0700 (MST)
>Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:06:10 -0700 (MST)
>From: BEKOFF MARC <Marc.Bekoff(a)Colorado.EDU>
>To: Undisclosed recipients: ;
>Subject: RE: PLAN TO REAR BABY CHIMPANZEES AS HUMANS DRAWS
FIRE (fwd)
>Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0202131805240.14918-
100000(a)spot.colorado.edu>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: BINARY
>X-MX-Comment: QUOTED-PRINTABLE message automatically
decoded
>
> >
> > > IDA News Release
> > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> > > February 13, 2002
> > > Contact: Elliot M. Katz, DVM, 415/388-9641 x 25
> > > www.idausa.org
> > >
> > > PLAN TO REAR BABY CHIMPANZEES AS HUMANS DRAWS FIRE:
Despite Criticism,
> > > University of Louisiana Set to Approve Controversial
Experiments
> > >
> > > MILL VALLEY, Calif. Â The University of Louisiana-
Lafayettešs (ULL)
>New
> > > Iberia Research Center (NIRC) is set to approve a
controversial łcross
> > > fosteringË› study that seeks to raise infant
chimpanzees with humans,
>In
> > > Defense of Animals (IDA) announced today. Two years
ago, the
>University
> > > declined to proceed with the study amid widespread
criticism from
> > > primatologists and chimpanzee experts, including the
eminent Dr. Jane
> > > Goodall.
> > >
> > > The proposed project, conducted by ULL researcher
Daniel Povinelli and
> > > funded with a $1 million grant from the James S.
McDonnell Foundation
>of
> > > St. Louis, involves recruiting eight human foster
parents to live in
> > > specially constructed facilities at NIRC and raise
infant chimpanzees
> > > for five years.
> > >
> > > łDaniel Povinelli wants to separate vulnerable baby
chimpanzees from
> > > their natural mothers, allow them to bond with foster
parents for five
> > > years, then irrevocably break that bond by ripping
the trusting
> > > youngsters away from the only parents they have known
and sending them
> > > back to a cage in a laboratory,Ë› said Elliot Katz,
DVM, IDA president.
> > > łAll this to answer the burning question of whether
chimpanzees raised
> > > by humans in an artificial human laboratory
environment differ
> > > developmentally and cognitively from chimpanzees
raised by other
> > > chimpanzees in an artificial animal laboratory
environment.Ë›
> > >
> > > łPovinellišs real agenda is clear,˛ Katz continued.
łAt the cost of
> > > immense suffering and eight irreparably broken lives,
he is attempting
> > > to give credence to his absurd theory that
chimpanzees do not think,
>or
> > > have self-awareness, like humans.Ë›
> > >
> > > Katz noted that overwhelming scientific evidence
contradicts
>Povinelli,
> > > who is so far out of the mainstream that his work is
routinely cited
>by
> > > fundamentalist creationists in their battles against
the theory of
> > > evolution. Katz also observed that Povinellišs
attempts to prove a
> > > łcognitive chasm˛ between humans and chimpanzees just
happen to take
> > > place at a facility that uses hundreds of chimpanzees
in invasive
> > > biomedical research.
> > >
> > > Primate experts have criticized both the science
behind the study and
> > > the ethical cost of pursuing the experiments.
> > >
> > > łThe Povinelli project is clearly not original and
appears to be
> > > redundant,Ë› said renowned sign language researcher
and chimpanzee
>expert
> > > Roger Fouts, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology at
Central Washington
> > > University in Ellensburg, WA. In a statement against
the proposed
> > > experiments, Fouts noted that cross-fostering
research has been done
> > > many times.
> > >
> > > łAll this evidence points to the very high
probability that the end of
> > > Povinellišs experiment will have a devastating effect
on the
> > > psychological well-being of the chimpanzees involved
when they are
> > > abandoned by their human foster parents,Ë› Fouts
continued. łThis does
> > > not mention the potential devastation that the
natural mothers will
> > > suffer when their babies
> > > are taken from them.Ë›
> > >
> > > In his statement, Fouts recalled the litany of
tragedies associated
>with
> > > previous cross-fostering research, including the
deaths of several
> > > chimpanzees after being abandoned by their human
łparents.˛ Foutsš
> > > statement can be viewed at
http://www.vivisectioninfo.org/fouts.html.
> > >
> > > Dr. Goodall shared Dr. Foutsš view when she wrote of
the original
> > > Povinelli proposal: łCross-fostering is very
unethical in my view.
>Even
> > > when captive infant chimps are rejected by their
mothers they should
>be
> > > introduced into groups of their own species as soon
as possible.
>Failure
> > > to do this results in long term, sometimes permanent,
behavioural
> > > disorders. . . . Detailed observations have been made
in the past by
> > > psychologists on a number of home raised chimpanzees.
In my view there
> > > can be little justification for further separation of
infant
>chimpanzees
> > > from their social groups for the purpose of
humanizing them for
> > > research.˛ Dr. Goodallšs statement is available at
> > > http://www.ethologicalethics.org/cross_fostering.htm.
> > >
> > > Katz said that sources have informed his organization
that Povinelli
>has
> > > recently re-submitted his proposal for review by
NIRCšs Institutional
> > > Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Katz
suggested that pressure
> > > from a university administration anxious to bring a
$1 million grant
> > > into its coffers could account for the pending
approval of the
> > > controversial study despite rejection two years ago.
> > >
> > > According to Katz, the reasons the IACUC should again
reject the study
> > > are many and include the:
> > >
> > > *devastating impact of separating chimpanzee mothers
from their
>infants;
> > > *immense cruelty and devastation that will result
when the infant
> > > chimpanzees raised by humans with toys, bedrooms and
other amenities
>are
> > > abandoned and returned to the lab;
> > > *lack of justification for breeding eight chimpanzees
at a time when a
> > > łsurplus˛ of chimpanzees in laboratories numbers 700
or more;
> > > *lack of scientific validity in a study that proposes
to compare two
> > > groups
> > > of chimpanzees both raised in highly unnatural and
artificial
>settings;
> > > *redundancy of the cross-fostering research; and
> > > *overwhelming scientific evidence contradicting
Povinellišs theory
>that
> > > chimpanzees lack self-awareness and the capacity for
true thought.
> > >
> > > łTo the McDonnell Foundation, New Iberia and
Povinelli, these baby
> > > chimpanzees are not unique and vulnerable individuals
who need vast
> > > emotional, psychological and social nourishment just
like human
>babies,
> > > but are simply research objects to be used and
ultimately discarded on
> > > the altar of unadulterated human arrogance,Ë› said
Katz. łThis project
> > > wonšt help human children, as claimed by Povinelli.
The only humans
>it
> > > will help are those, like Povinelli and New Iberia,
who will profit
>from
> > > this willful devastation of these innocent baby
chimpanzees.Ë›
> > >
> > > - end -
> > >
> > > WHAT YOU CAN DO:
> > > Oppose this needless suffering, and the waste of
money that could be
> > > used to help countless human children, by strongly
protesting to the
>New
> > > Iberia IACUC, the president of the University of
Louisiana, Daniel
> > > Povinelli, and the James S. McDonnell Foundation.
They can be reached
> > > at the following:
> > >
> > > University of Louisiana, 337-482-1000 (switchboard)
> > >
> > > Ray Authement, president; <president(a)louisiana.edu>;
482-6203
> > > Duane Blumberg, vice-president for research;
><dblumberg(a)louisiana.edu>;
> > > 482-5811;
> > > Dana Hasselschwert, veterinarian/IACUC member;
<dlh8344(a)louisiana.edu>
> > > Cary Heath, Prof. Economics/IACUC member;
<cary(a)louisiana.edu>
> > > Cheryl Lynch, Prof. of Psychology/IACUC member;
><csm5689(a)louisiana.edu>;
> > > 482-6596
> > > Daniel Povinelli; <djp3463(a)louisiana.edu>; 482-5180
> > >
> > > James S. McDonnell Foundation, 314-721-1532
> > > John Bruer, president; <mailto:bruer@jsmf.org>
> > > Susan Fitzpatrick, vice-president;
<mailto:susan@jsmf.org>
> > >
> > > In Defense of Animals, located in Mill Valley, CA, is
a national
>animal
> > > protection organization dedicated to ending the abuse
and exploitation
> > > of
> > > animals by protecting their rights, welfare and
habitats.
> > > IN DEFENSE OF ANIMALS
> > > 131 CAMINO ALTO
> > > MILL VALLEY, CA 94941
> > > 415-388-9641 phone
> > > 415.388-0388 fax
> > > www.idausa.org
> > >
> >
>
dr Adam Miklosi
Dept of Ethology
Univ. of Eotvos
Budapest
Pazmany P. s. 1/c
H-1117 Hungary
____________________________________________________________
_____
Join the worldÂ’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------
--------~-->
Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck
Monitoring Service trial
http://us.click.yahoo.com/ACHqaB/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/HKE4lB/TM
------------------------------------------------------------
---------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
familydogproject-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:30:12 -0500
From: Peter Suber <peters(a)earlham.edu>
The Budapest Open Access Initiative
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/
Today marks the official launch of the Budapest Open Access Initiative
(BOAI), the most important FOS initiative in a long time. This is the
public statement and plan of action that emerged from the conference in
Budapest I attended in early December (and described briefly in FOSN
for 12/5/01). Between the conference and today, the participants have
been drafting the statement and a few other documents to accompany it.
I'm very pleased with the result and very proud to have played a role
in it. Let me give you a quick tour.
The drafters of BOAI represent many perspectives on FOS, many different
nations, and many different FOS initiatives. The experience around the
table came from university research, libraries, philanthropy, and
non-profit and for-profit publishing. You can find the individual
drafters and their affiliations at the bottom of the main document, so
I won't repeat them here. The first point to make, though, is that
while disagreements were plentiful, we all saw that agreements were
more basic than disagreements. This diverse group agreed on a common
plan to achieve FOS.
The initiative endorses the goal of "open access", the term used by
BOAI for what I tend to call free online access. BOAI calls for open
access to peer-reviewed research articles in all academic fields and
the preprints that might precede them. It can easily and naturally be
extended to all digital content that its authors consent to disseminate
without payment.
BOAI endorses two strategies to achieve open access, and supports
experiments with other strategies that might prove effective. The first
strategy is what Stevan Harnad calls self-archiving. Authors put
preprints in institutional or disciplinary archives that comply with
the protocols of the Open Archives Initiative. When their articles are
published in peer-reviewed journals, they also archive either the
refereed postprint or a list of corrigenda (differences between the
preprint and the postprint), depending on the journal's permission
policies. The second strategy is to launch a new generation of journals
committed to provide open access to all their contents. The two
strategies are not only compatible; they are complementary. Putting
them together creates synergy and the acceleration of parallel
processing.
Both strategies are sustainable in the long term. We know this because
providing open access costs much less than traditional forms of
dissemination and much less than the money currently spent on journal
subscriptions. The only problem is the transition from here to there.
The BOAI is especially promising because it understands this and
mobilizes the financial resources to help make the transition possible.
George Soros' Open Society Institute (OSI), which convened the original
meeting in Budapest, is committing one million dollars a year for three
years to BOAI, and recruiting other foundations to add their support to
the cause.
What makes BOAI special is the way it embraces different approaches and
combines principle, strategy, tested means to the desired end, and
cash.
I'm especially pleased with the BOAI's friendliness toward the many
players in the landscape and its focus on constructive steps toward the
goal. The BOAI doesn't demand that existing journals change their
prices or their access policies. We hope they will, and we will even
help pay the costs of converting to a different business model for
journals willing to change. But if not, we'll just pursue our goal
without their participation. BOAI doesn't call for boycotts of any kind
of literature, any kind of journal, or any kind of publisher. It
doesn't call for violations of copyright or even for changes in
copyright law. It doesn't demand, and needn't wait for, any changes
from publishers, markets, or legislation. Scientists and scholars have
all the means within their grasp. The BOAI calls on scientists and
scholars to take up these means and use them, and it invites the
cooperation of all those disposed to help.
My considered judgment is that the primary obstacle faced by BOAI,and
the FOS movement in general, is misunderstanding. Most of the
objections we hear (about copyright, about quality and peer review,
about financing...) are based on misunderstanding. That's good news
insofar as it means that most resistance will melt away when our ends
and means are properly understood. But of course it's bad news if our
efforts to date have not done more to clarify our ends and means. The
BOAI is taking steps to disarm as many objections as possible with a
detailed FAQ. Not everyone will read it, of course. But for those who
do, it will answer 95% of the questions, objections, and anxieties that
similar initiatives have provoked in the past. Of course, FAQ's don't
change the world, and we have other tools for changing the world. But
if our primary obstacle really is misunderstanding, then the FAQ is one
of our most potent tools.
HOW YOU CAN HELP. You can help the BOAI by signing it, persuading your
institution to sign it, and spreading the word about it. A signature
indicates a pledge of assistance and participation. If you [or your
institution] are willing to self-archive your own papers, or submit
them to open-access journals, help launch new open-access journals [or
archives], or any of a number of things listed at the site, then you
[or your institution] should sign. Signatures don't call on others to
act, but demonstrate that someone is acting. The growing list of
signatures is a measure of our strength.
If you have questions about BOAI, send them to me (peters [at] earlham.edu)
and I'll try to answer them in the newsletter or the discussion forum.
BOAI Home page
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/
What you can do to help
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/help.shtml
(Separate sections for reseearchers, universities, libraries, journals,
foundations, professional societies, governments,and citizens.)
FAQ
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm
(The FAQ and the list of ways you can help, above, will remain open to
revision.)
See who has signed
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/view.cfm
Sign it yourself
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/sign.shtml
Open Society Institute
http://www.osi.hu/infoprogram/
* Postscript. I like the term "open access" and will start to use it
more often in the newsletter. It's not perfect, however. It's short but
not self-explanatory. We decided that this was better than a long
phrase that contained all the needed nuances. ("Free online access" is
more self-explanatory but still falls short; a truly self-explanatory
phrase would be very long.) The BOAI defines the term explicitly, which
frees it to trade off perspicuity for brevity. If the term and its
definition can spread, then we'll have a useful new tool for discussing
FOS issues. --Now all we need is a short term for the body of
literature to which this applies.
* PPS. The term "open access" is already spreading in this context. The
Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) supports
both free and affordable scholarly journals, and has now flagged the
free ones on its web list with a bright yellow "Open Access" icon.
SPARC is an institutional signatory of the BOAI, and SPARC's director,
Rick Johnson, is one of the BOAI drafters.
http://www.arl.org/sparc/core/index.asp?page=c0
* PPPS. I expected to have no news accounts of BOAI to cite until the
next issue. But here are a few that just came out as I prepare to click
SEND.
Declan Butler, Soros Offers Access to Science Papers (for Nature)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U21535A6
Ivan Noble, Boost for Research Paper Access (for BBC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1818000/1818652.stm
Michael Smith, Soros Backs Academic Rebels (for UPI)
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=12022002-031227-9710r
[Alexander Grimwade, Open Societies Need Open Access (The Scientist)
http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2002/feb/comm_020218.html ]
[Denis Delbecq, L'abordage des revvues scientifiques (Liberation,
Paris)
http://www.liberation.com/quotidien/semaine/020214-050019088SCIE.html ]
[http://slashdot.org/]
More to come!
NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing free
access to the refereed journal literature online is available at the
American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01):
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/september98-forum.html
or
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html
You may join the list at the amsci site.
Discussion can be posted to:
september98-forum(a)amsci-forum.amsci.org
Februar 12-en d.e. 11 oratol A Szilard Leo professzori osutondij
atadasa lesz az ELTE TTK Aulajaban (Pazmany Peter setany 1/a fsz.).
a Dijazottak kozott lesz Barkoczi Ilona is.
A dijazottak eloadast tartanak, melyre szerettel varunk minden
erdeklodot!
K.j.