text:
Open Access Archivangelism http://openaccess.eprints.org/ by Stevan Harnad en http://openaccess.eprints.org/templates/default/img/s9y_banner_small.png RSS: Open Access Archivangelism - by Stevan Harnad http://openaccess.eprints.org/ 100 21 Brexit for UK Institutional Repositories? http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1181-Brexit-for-UK-Institutional-Repositories.html This exchange on jisc-repositories (about abandoning institutional repositories for Elsevier's "PURE" and/or for CRISes) is so outrageous that I could not resist a pause in my solemn self-imposed silence:
(1) I will assume (out of charity) that George McGregor was being supremely ironic when he quipped that Elsevier "Single handily inspired the global Open Access movement" and that

 (2) Elsevier's Alicia Wise has a tin ear for irony and took it as a compliment -- and a cue for some free advertising.

 (3) If UK universities are foolish and thoughtless enough to heed the siren call of "PURE" and again let in Elsevier's latest Trojan Horse (instead of just coupling CRIS functionality with their IRs) then (as in some other recent supremely foolish UK decisions) they will get exactly what's coming to them.

 See: Elsevier's PURE: self-interest and exploitation
My instinct tells me wiser (sic) heads will prevail (but I've been over-optimistic before...)

 Stevan Harnad
 Erstwhile Archivangelist Seconded to Higher Calling
 Open Access Archivangelism email@example.com (Stevan Harnad) Institutional Repositories, 2016-08-09T14:05:11Z http://openaccess.eprints.org/wfwcomment.php?cid=1181 1 http://openaccess.eprints.org/rss.php?version=1.0&type=comments&cid=1181 Brexit (from EU) and Myexit (from OA) http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1180-Brexit-from-EU-and-Myexit-from-OA.html Follow-up to:
 Harnad, S (2016) Open Access Archivangelist: The Last Interview?
 CEON Otwarta Nauka (Open Science)
Richard Poynder: Its an interesting interview. I have a following-on question for you, Stevan, if you feel like answering it: Much has been made of the likely impact that Brexit will have on science/the UK and European research communities, but what if any impact do you think it could have on the crisis facing liberal democracy?
Hi Richard. This is going to sound apocalyptic (and I certainly hope Im wrong):

 I think the British exit from the EU, including all the circumstances and factors that led to it, is one of the most tragic symptoms of the crisis in liberal democracy. As such, it is both cause and effect.

 The three worst features of the 20th century were war, racism and poverty. The remedy for poverty was meant to be socialism (communism in Russia and China and social democracy in the West). The remedy for racism was meant to be multiculturalism (immigration, integration, tolerance). And the remedy for war was meant to be increasing world federalism (the UN and the EU).

 But the cold war and the nuclear threat kept nations in a state of tension and consumed vast resources. The eventual economic (and moral) collapse of the Soviet Union seems to have had an effect rather like removing a diseased prostate but thereby disrupting a pro-tem equilibrium and precipitating kidney failure.

 I think the wrong objective conclusion was drawn from the collapse of the Soviet Union (the socialist experiment has proved to be a failure). As a result trickle-down capitalism has been triumphantly lionized while liberalism and striving for social equity have been equally triumphantly stigmatized.

 Meanwhile, two kinds of technology have developed at a stunning rate: destructive weapons and online media. One could not expect much good to come from the former, but great expectations were pinned on the latter (including open access). Yet one of the effects of both new technologies has been to empower (literally) the worst sides of human nature: the divisive and destructive tendencies toward intolerance, bigotry, fanaticism, paranoia and aggression.

 And these unleashed human tendencies have quickly found their way to the fatal weakness of democracy itself: The people decide what they want, but their wants are shaped by populism, and unreflective appeals to their basest inclinations. In this it is not surprising that the unreconstructed self-aggrandizing bigotry and xenophobia of petty, primitive countries (like my birthplace, Hungary) have flowered with the introduction of democracy in eastern Europe and the middle east. It had been festering there, lying in wait, all along.

 But one would have thought that the mature democracies would serve as a civilizing bulwark against that. Yet no, Brexit has shown that the same primitive, sinister, shameful inclinations are alive and well in the United Kingdom (and Trump is rallying them in the US too).

 No, freedom-of-information and open access did not serve as an antidote, as hoped. Disinformation profited more from the power of open media than the truth did. And the proliferation of destructive weapons is only beginning to be exploited by the genetic and cultural heirs of our most barbaric roots.

 Perhaps both democracy and liberalism were always doomed; perhaps it was just a matter of time before the law of large numbers, the regression on the mean, would bring out the meanest in us.

 All one can do is hope that there is an epidemiological ebb and flow also underlying all this, and that illiberalism will run its course, and kindness, decency, humaneness will again become popular.

 I (as you know) remain an unreconstructed social democrat. Ironically echoing the NRA motto in the US, I dont believe that socialism failed; I think we failed to implement it properly. No one can hope for justice in an unjust society, where a few have vastly more than they need at the expense of the many who just scrape by.

 I dont know how to fix that, but I suspect that the solution, if there is one, is still an informational one. (It used to be called education.) Alongside the basest tendencies of the human genome there are, I believe, humane ones too, at least in the majority if not all people. The hope had been that liberal democracy would ensure that a decent majority prevails, one that enacts laws that protect everyone from the worse sides of our nature (greed, intolerance, aggression).

 And (as you also know), I plan to focus my remaining years on what I hesitate to call a microcosm of it all because in fact there is nothing micro" about it: If the Holocaust was humanitys greatest crime against humanity, the Eternal Treblinka we inflict on victims unfortunate enough not to be our conspecifics is humanitys greatest crime tout court.

 So I am trying to mobilize the second technology open media to open peoples hearts. We have outlawed slavery, rape, violence and murder against human beings, but we all collaborate in them when practiced against species other than our own. Until the humane majority outlaws it all, our basest inclinations will keep being expressed and exercised against our own kind too.

 You will of course see this as an obsessive focus on my own narrow issue, far removed from Brexit and the crisis of liberal democracy. If so, Id rather go down trying to liberate the most savagely exploited and long-suffering of our victims than reserve liberalism for the victors.
Richard Poynder: Thanks for your response Stevan.
 I dont disagree with your gloomy conclusions. Personally, I think the core problem is that our political leaders (those who should have been sufficiently educated to know better) gave in to market fundamentalism, and behaved as if everything is a potential market, and that even when this means impoverishing and disenfranchising large sections of the population (thus opening the door to populism, racism and barbarism) it is a price that has to be paid. But perhaps that is what you are saying.
Yes, thats the trickle-down capitalism that has been (provisionally) dubbed the winner.
As to social media, I dont really think they have made the problem that much worse. One only has to visit pubs and clubs in certain parts of any city to realise that for many people the worst things one can read on the web are just part of their daily discourse.
I dont doubt that is and always was the pub discourse. But the social media put it on a global megaphone, incomparably magnifying and accelerating its reach. And the populist, wealth-creation politicos played to it, played it up, and helped it prevail.
The tragedy I see here is that the EU has itself increasingly given in to market fundamentalism, as the Greeks discovered.
I dont know or understand the details, but some have portrayed some of it as Skinnerian feedback against disproportionate corruption and abuse. Who knows? And surely there was some way of targeting the politicos and the oligarchs rather than the poor.
Lets hope the future proves less gloomy than we fear! -- Richard
Acting on the hypothesis that theres still a way to help is the only hope for the victims. Acting on the hypothesis of hopelessness is to betray them: a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 Stevan Harnad

 Open Access Archivangelism firstname.lastname@example.com (Stevan Harnad) News, 2016-07-13T22:16:13Z http://openaccess.eprints.org/wfwcomment.php?cid=1180 0 http://openaccess.eprints.org/rss.php?version=1.0&type=comments&cid=1180 Immediate OA in EU by 2020? http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1179-Immediate-OA-in-EU-by-2020.html The means are still somewhat vague but the determination to reach the goal of having all scientific articles freely accessible (OA) immediately by 2020 is welcome. The goal is definitely reachable, and well worth reaching in fact its long overdue.

 It would be helpful, however, if the means of reaching the goal were made much more explicit, and with equal determination:
1. The EU can only ensure that its own scientific article output is OA by 2020. The EU cannot ensure that the scientific article output from the rest of the world (which is also the scientific article output to the EU) is OA by 2020 too. But if the EU adopts the right means for providing its own output, there is a good chance that it will be matched by the rest of the world too.

 2. The right means for the EU to make all of its own scientific article output OA by 2020 is to require that it be deposited in the institutional repository of the author(s) of the article. This is called Green OA. The deposit should be made immediately upon acceptance for publication (because if the 2019 scientific article output is deposited in 2021, that is certainly not OA in 2020).

 3. The deposit need not be the published version of the article; it need only be the final, peer-reviewed, accepted version.

 4. The plan mentions Green OA, Gold OA (paying to publish in an OA journal) and hybrid combinations of the two. The EU is welcome to spend whatever funds it finds worthwhile to spend to pay for Gold OA, as long as immediate Green OA is required for all EU scientific article output. The rest of the world will match the EUs provision of Green OA, but it is much less likely that the rest of the world will match the EUs expenditure on Gold OA.
 Open Access Archivangelism email@example.com (Stevan Harnad) Self-Archiving Mandates, 2016-05-28T10:34:47Z http://openaccess.eprints.org/wfwcomment.php?cid=1179 0 http://openaccess.eprints.org/rss.php?version=1.0&type=comments&cid=1179 Evolutionarily Stable Strategies http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1177-Evolutionarily-Stable-Strategies.html [This comment was written before I read Richard Poynder's Interview of Tim Gowers. In part 2 I comment after having read the posting.]

 Part 1

 I don't know about Richard, but I have not despaired of green, or green mandates; I've just grown tired of waiting.

 I don't see pre-emptive gold (i.e., pre-green "fool's gold") as an alternative but as just another delay factor, the principal delay factor being human sluggishness.

 And I think the notion of a "flip" to fool's gold is incoherent -- an "evolutionary unstable strategy," bound to undo itself: not only because it requires self-sacrificial double-payment locally as well as unrealistic collaboration among nations, institutions, funders, fields and publishers globally, but because the day after it was miraculously (and hypothetically) attained globally it would immediately invite defection (from nations, institutions, funders, and fields) to save money (invasion by the "cheater strategy"). Subscriptions and gold OA "memberships" are simply incommensurable, let alone transformable from one into the other. (Memberships are absurd, and only sell -- a bit, locally -- while subscriptions still prevail, via local Big Deals.

 The only evolutionarily stable strategy is offloading onto green OA repositories all but one of the things that publishers traditionally do, leaving only the service of peer review to be paid for as fair-gold OA.

 But that requires universal green OA first, not flipped pre-emptive fool's gold.

 It will all eventually sort itself out that way after a huge series of false-starts. My loss of patience is not just with the needless loss of time but with the boringly repetitious nature of the recurrent false starts. I'd say my last five years, at the very least, have been spent just repeating myself in the face of the very same naive bright-eyed, bushy-tailed and non-viable non-starters. Locally in space and time, some people sometimes listened to my objections and my alternative strategy, but globally the very same non-starters kept popping up, one after the other, independently.

 So (with an occasional exception like this) I've stopped preaching. Time will either show that I was wrong or, like evolution, it will undo the maladaptive strategies and stumble blindly, but inevitably toward the stable strategy (which also happens to be the optimal one): universal green first, then a rapid downsizing and transition to scalable, affordable, sustainable fair-gold. Amen.

 Part 2

 1. Publisher green OA embargoes are ineffectual against the right green OA mandate: immediate deposit plus the almost-OA Button

 2. That a self-styled archivangelist has left the arena is neither news nor an OA development. It is indeed just symbolic.

 3. The fool's gold "flip" is an evolutionarily unstable strategy, fated to flop, despite the fond hopes RCUK, Wellcome, VSNU or MPG.

 4. The "impact factor" is, as ever, utterly irrelevant to OA, one way or the other. Metrics will only be diversified and enriched by OA.

 5. An immediate-deposit requirement is not an "onerous bureaucratic rule" but a few extra keystrokes per paper published: a no-brainer. Researchers are not "foot-soldiers" but finger-soldiers, and the immediate-deposit mandate is just intended to set those last few digits into motion (the publish-or-perish mandate having already mobilized the legions ahead of it).

 6. Leaders are welcome (if not Wellcome), but boycotts are busts (and there have been plenty).

 7. Exposés of publisher profiteering are welcome, but not solutions. In any case, the root problem is not affordability but accessibility, and providing access (via green OA) is also the solution, first to accessibility and then, as a natural matter of course, to affordability (post-green fair-gold).

 8. Founding a new gold OA journal is hardly new. Offloading everything but peer review onto green repositories is also not new (in fact it will be part of the post-green end-game: fair-gold). But making it scalable and sustainable pre-emptiively would be new...

 9. Subsidizing fair-gold costs would be fine, if someone had the resources to subsidize at least 30,000 journals across all disciplines. But while journals are being sustained by subscriptions, and there is no alternative way to access the contents, there is unlikely to be enough subsidy money to do the job. (Universally mandated green, in contrast, would allow journal subscriptions to be cancelled, releasing the money to pay for fair-gold out of just a fraction of the windfall savings.)

 10. The impact factor, it cannot be repeated often enough, is absolutely irrelevant to (green) OA. The known track-record of journals, in contrast, will always be a factor.

 11. Open "peer" review, or crowd-sourced quality control, likewise a notion aired many times, is, IMHO, likewise a non-starter. Suitable for peddling products and blog postings, but not for cancer cures and serious science or scholarship. (That said, anyone is everyone is already free to post their unrefereed work for all comers; that's what blogs and open commentary are for...)

 12. Open online collaboration is very welcome (and more and more widespread) but it is a supplement, not a substitute, for publishing peer-reviewed findings.

 13. Mathematics and, to a lesser extent, physics, are manifestly atypical fields in that their practitioners are (1) more willing than others to make their own unrefereed findings public and (2) eager to see and use the unrefereed findings of others. If this had been true of other fields, Arxiv would long ago have become the global unrefereed preprints and refereed postrprint repository for all fields, universal (central) green OA would already have been reached long ago, and the transition to fair gold would already have taken place. (Arxiv has been held up -- including, for a while, by me -- as the way to go since 1991. But things have not gone that way. That's why I switched to promoting distributed institutional repositories.)

 14. What if the "P" in APCs -- for those who are "imPlacably opposed" to article processing charges -- stood instead for Peer-Review, and paid only for the editorial expertise in the refereeing (the peers review for free): selecting referees, selecting which referee recommendations need to be followed, selecting which revisions have done so and are hence accepted. These are the sole costs of fair gold -- but they are predicated on universal green to "overlay" on...

 15. The two crucial features of peer review are expertise and answerability. This is what is provided by a qualified editor and established journal and absent in self-selected, crowd-sourced, take-it-or-leave-it vetting (already proposed many times, including by another distinguished mathematician). "Fair OA" is synonymous with fair gold, but universal green is the only viable way to get there.

 16. Open peer commentary is a fine idea (if I do say so myself) but it is a supplement to peer review, not a substitute for it.

 ...And let's get our figures straight

 Rick Anderson posted the following comment on Richard Poynder's posting in google+: Institutional Green OA mandates (as distinct from non-mandatory OA policies) are effectively nonexistent in the US, and it's difficult to see how they could ever become widespread at the institutional level. That's just the US, of course, but the US produces an awful lot of research publication.

 According to ROARMAP, which was recently upgraded to expand, classify and verify the entries, although it is probably not yet exhaustive (some mandates may not yet be registered) there are 764 OA policies worlwide, at least 629 of them Green (i.e., they either or request deposit)

 The following are the total(subset) figures broken down by country for
 total policies and the subset requiring - not requesting - deposit
 for Institional and Funder policies.

 Worldwide:
 Inst 632 (390)
 Fund 132 (82)

 US
 Inst 96 (69)
 Fund 34 (11)

 UK
 Inst: 93 (79)
 Fund 24 (23)

 Germany
 Inst 26 (2)
 Fund 1 (0)

 Netherlands
 Inst 11 (6)
 Fund 0

 France
 Inst 17 (3)
 Fund 3 (3)

 Canada
 Inst 15 (7)
 Fund 12 (9)

 Australia
 Inst 31 (15)
 Fund 2 (2)

Rick Anderson: Happy to provide examples.

 Duke University -- ROARMAP says deposit is required and that the policy does not specify whether or not a waiver is available. According to Duke's policy, "The Provost or Provost's designate will waive application of the license for a particular article... upon written request by a Faculty member."

 Harvard (Faculty of Arts & Sciences) -- ROARMAP says that deposit is required and may not be waived. The Harvard policy says that the institution "will waive application of the policy for a particular article upon written request by a Faculty member."

 Oberlin College -- ROARMAP says that deposit is required. Oberlin's policy says that while the submission of bibliographic metadata is required, "the Scholarly Communications Officer will automatically waive application of the policy for a particular article upon written request by the author."

 Bucknell University -- ROARMAP says that deposit is required and that the possibility of a waiver is "unspecified." The policy says that "the license granted to Bucknell University for an article will be automaticaly waived for any reason and without sanction at the sole discretion of the faculty member." (Deposit of bibliographic data is requested but not required.)

 That's probably enough for now. I can provide more upon request. In fact, if you'd like, I'd be happy to examine all 96 of the US institutional policies identified in ROARMAP, analyze the accuracy of the ROARMAP characterization of each one, and publish what I find (whatever the result might be). Would you like me to do that?

Stevan Harnad: The Harvard FAS OA Policy model (which may or may not have been adopted by the other institutions you cite without their fully understanding its conditions) is that:

 (1) Full-text deposit is required
 but
 (2) Rights-retention (and OA) may be waived on an individual article basis

 The deposit requirement (1) cannot be waived, and is not waived if the author elects to waive (2).

 This is the policy that Peter calls "dual deposit/release" (and I call immediate-deposit/optional-access, ID/OA):
 http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/7841.html
 (soton site temporarily down today, apologies)

Rick Anderson: Stevan, your characterisation of the Harvard policy seems to me to be simply inaccurate. The full text may be read at https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/policies/fas/. The relevant sentence reads as follows: "The Dean or the Dean's designate will waive application of the policy for a particular article upon written request by a Faculty member explaining the need." This language seems pretty clearly to me to refer to the policy as a whole, not just one component of it -- nor does the policy itself include an OA requirement; instead it provides the possibility that "the Provost's Office may make the article available to the public in an open-access repository" (note the word "may," not usually a prominent feature in mandatory instructions).

 For the avoidance of doubt, I am contacting Harvard's Office for Scholarly Communication to either confirm or correct my reading of its policy. I'll let you know what I find out.

Peter Suber: Stevan's restatement of the Harvard policy is correct. Our waiver option only applies to the license, not to the deposit.

Rick Anderson: OK, thanks for clearing that up, Peter. (You guys might want to consider revising the wording of your policy to resolve the ambiguity.)

 Stevan, do you disagree that ROARMAP's characterisations of the other policies I cited above are inaccurate?

Stevan Harnad: The other three policies you cited seem to have adopted the Harvard model policy. If they have diverged from it, they need to indicate that explicitly (and unambiguously). ROARMAP incorporates updates of corrections when it receives them. The ones you mention were either registered by the institutions themselves or derived from their documentation and sent to them for vetting.

 I cannot vouch for 100% compliance or accuracy. But your assertion was not about that. Your assertion was Institutional Green OA mandates (as distinct from non-mandatory OA policies) are effectively nonexistent in the US."

 Do you think your four examples show that? One out of the four, Harvard FAS, would already disconfirm "nonexistent" ("effectively" being a weasel-word) even without the added fact that Harvard is not just any university, and the one whose model many US universities have adopted. And even if you could show (as you certainly have not done) that not one of the remaining 65 US institutional mandates (out of the total 96 US institutional OA policies in ROARMAP) was a mandate. Do you disagree?

Rick Anderson: All of the examples I provided (including the Harvard example) constitute evidence in support of my statement, since they are instances in which Green OA is not mandatory. They don't constitute the entire evidence base. I made my statement based on the fact that I have read many OA policies from US institutions, and I have not yet encountered (nor heard of) a single one that requires faculty to make their work available on an OA basis. A policy that requires deposit but does not require OA is not a mandatory OA policy.

 If my assertion is wrong, it should be easy to refute. Can you cite a significant number of examples of US institutions that do require faculty to make their work available on an OA basis (as distinct from merely requiring deposit)?

 Stevan Harnad: I would like to avoid empty semiological quibbling. The US has 96 institutional OA policies. That is uncontested. Of these, 69 are registered as deposit mandates, hence mandates.

 There are many other conditions (such as whether and when it is mandatory to make the deposit OA), but it may be helpful to understand that the reason mandatory (full-text) deposit is the crucial requirement is that if (and only if) the full-text is deposited, the repository's automated copy-request Button (if and when implemented) can provide almost-immediate, almost-OA to any user who clicks it (if the author too chooses to comply, with a click).

 The hypothesis (and it is indeed a hypothesis, not a certainty) is that this compromise mandate (DD/R, ID/OA), if universally adopted, will not only provide almost 100% Green OA, but will prove sufficient to eventually make subscriptions cancellable, thereby inducing journal publisher downsizing, the phasing out of obsolete products and services, and a transition to affordable, scalable and sustainable Fair-Gold OA, charging for peer-review alone, and paid for out of a fraction of the institutional subscription cancellation savings, instead of the over-priced, double-paid, and unnecessary Fool's Gold that is on offer now, paid for out of already over-stretched subscription as well as research funds.
 Open Access Archivangelism firstname.lastname@example.com (Stevan Harnad) Self-Archiving Mandates, 2016-04-20T11:19:29Z http://openaccess.eprints.org/wfwcomment.php?cid=1177 0 http://openaccess.eprints.org/rss.php?version=1.0&type=comments&cid=1177 Tribute to Timbl (Tim Berners-Lee) http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1175-Tribute-to-Timbl-Tim-Berners-Lee.html Introducing Tim Berners-Lee
 WWW2016 Keynote Speaker

 I.
 Jim Hendler,
 has strictly allotted me exactly three sentences
 to introduce Tim Berners-Lee,
 and now Ive gone and used up one of them telling you that,
 but fortunately,
 because of the nature of language
  Comma
 I can still add that each of us is, in a sense, unique,
 but the uniqueness of some of us
 approaches the cosmic;
  Pause
 and Tim Berners-Lee has changed the world
 for all future generations,
 forever
 Period.

 II.
 Nor can we remind ourselves enough
  Comma
 that although,
 because of todays absurd intellectual property and patent laws,
 Tims uniqueness might have been that he became the worlds richest man
  Pause
 he has instead opened his contribution to every one of us, and to all future generations
 Comma
 opening access to the web, world-wide,
 opening the door to open science, open data, open knowledge,
 on a scale for which the only analogy in human history
 is the advent of language itself
 Period.

 III.
 Thanks to Dame Wendy Hall,
 we can call Sir Tim Berners-Lee our colleague
 at the University of Southampton, Hants
 Open Parenthesis
 (although his physical body spends rather more real-time in Cambridge, Mass),
 Close Parenthesis
 but if Southampton has made some contributions of its own to Open Access
 those contributions,
 like so much of what is being done by just about everyone on the planet today
 would not have been possible
 without the gift
 and the gifts
 of Sir Tim Berners-Lee
 Period.

  Open Access Archivangelism firstname.lastname@example.com (Stevan Harnad) 2016-04-15T04:32:39Z http://openaccess.eprints.org/wfwcomment.php?cid=1175 0 http://openaccess.eprints.org/rss.php?version=1.0&type=comments&cid=1175 The Fool's Gold Rush Plods On... http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1174-The-Fools-Gold-Rush-Plods-On....html
Comment on: Enserink, Martin (2016) E.U. urged to free all scientific papers by 2020. Science 14 April 2016.

 Fools Gold is pre-Green Gold (pay-to-publish Gold: Im not, of course, referring to that tiny minority of journals that are Free Gold today because they are either (i) subsidized or (ii) their subscription publisher makes the online version free for all).

 The reasons it is Fools Gold are four:

 (1) its cost is vastly inflated with the cost of obsolete features with which it is co-bundled, such as the print edition and publisher PDF,

 (2) as long as most journals are still subscription journals, the authors institution is paying for both subscriptions and for Fools Gold,

 (3) in the case of (the growing number of) hybrid subscription/Gold journals (accessible to subscribers only, but individual Fools Gold articles are free for all if they have been paid for by the author) the same publisher is being double-paid for Fools Gold articles (subscriptions from subscribing institutions plus Fools Gold from individual authors)

 and, most important:

 (4) OA can be provided at no extra cost to anyone via Green OA self-archiving of the author's peer-reviewed, accepted final draft (with immediate OA or immediate-deposit plus Button-mediated OA if the author chooses to comply with a publisher OA embargo)

 Fair Gold is post-green Gold: That is the greatly reduced price of Gold after Green OA has been globally mandated (along the lines of what the HEFCE REF policy is doing):

 (a) Immediate deposit in the institutional repository is mandated by all research institutions and funders
 (b) Mandatory Green OA is provided universally
 (c) Journal subscriptions can then be cancelled by institutions
 (d) Journals are then forced to cut all obsolete costs by phasing out the print edition, the PDF edition (the publisher's "version of record"), archiving and access-provision and down-sizing to the only remaining essential in the Fair Gold OA era: just providing the service of peer review (the peers all review for free and always have_
 (e) The green eprint becomes the version of record

 The cost of this Fair Gold, which is just for peer review and, if accepted, certification with the journal name, will thus be affordable and sustainable (hence fair) because it can be paid out of just a fraction of the annual institutional windfall savings from having at last been able to cancel all journal subscriptions because of universal accessibility via Green OA.

 The institutionally archived Green OA author final-drafts then become the official version of record. No more publishers version.

 Harnad, S. (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed. D-Lib Magazine 16 (7/8)

 Harnad, S (2014) The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions unsustainable: Mandate Green Open Access. LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog 4/28

 Sale, A., Couture, M., Rodrigues, E., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2014) Open Access Mandates and the "Fair Dealing" Button. In: Dynamic Fair Dealing: Creating Canadian Culture Online (Rosemary J. Coombe & Darren Wershler, Eds.)

 Harnad, Stevan (2015) Open Access: What, Where, When, How and Why In: Ethics, Science, Technology, and Engineering: An International Resource eds. J. Britt Holbrook & Carl Mitcham, (2nd edition of Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics, Farmington Hills MI: MacMillan Reference)

 Harnad, Stevan (2015) Optimizing Open Access Policy. The Serials Librarian, 69(2), 133-141 Open Access Archivangelism firstname.lastname@example.com (Stevan Harnad) Publishing Costs, 2016-04-14T16:29:56Z http://openaccess.eprints.org/wfwcomment.php?cid=1174 1 http://openaccess.eprints.org/rss.php?version=1.0&type=comments&cid=1174 Orbáns Depredations http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1173-Orbans-Depredations.html Unlike Professor Éva Balogh, who has been monitoring, analyzing and reporting on Orbans depredations for nearly 20 years now, I only got my first clue in 2011, with the Philosopher Affair.

 But what I find remarkable is how just about every element of what was eventually going to become patently obvious to me and to everyone else who pays attention was already there, in its full, flagrant, foul odors and colors, in that formative and shocking affair, scarcely believable at the time, or even now.

 For me, as an academic, it has since become a life-long wake-up call and (academic) call-to-arms.

 The escalating and unending revelations since then are hardly surprises any more, though they still take ones breath away.

 Stevan Harnad
 External Member, Hungarian Academy of Sciences
 Open Access Archivangelism firstname.lastname@example.com (Stevan Harnad) News, 2016-02-08T00:22:54Z http://openaccess.eprints.org/wfwcomment.php?cid=1173 0 http://openaccess.eprints.org/rss.php?version=1.0&type=comments&cid=1173 Suspicions http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1172-Suspicions.html
RP: "I have repeatedly said that I harbour no suspicions about EOS. You repeatedly assert that I do.
      You likewise keep assigning a variety of different motivations to me that are not true (and how would you know what my motivations are anyway?)

I do read your posts, Richard, including the snippets you tweet, to garner traffic for your blog.

 But, by way of proof that I read your posts, here are a few snippets of my own, about suspicions, secretiveness and attributing motivations, to remind you:
RP: "I would like to thank Bernard Rentier for his detailed and frank account of EOS... That said, it does seem odd to me that it took Rick Anderson two attempts to get this response from EOS."

 RP: "To reiterate: I did not mention EOS in my post, and I harbour no suspicions about the organisation... That said, the defensive response to Ricks questions about EOS underlines for me the fact that OA advocates are not by nature inclined to be open in their processes."

 RP: "In fact, one might argue that the overly defensive responses to Ricks questions themselves flirt with paranoia. Certainly they confirm me in my belief that there is a strand within the OA movement that tends towards non-transparency and non-inclusiveness."

 RP: "Nor are they instinctively democratic. One need only monitor the Global Open Access List for a few weeks to see the hauteur with which OA old sweats pronounce on the topic, and castigate anyone who dares express a contrary view."
You seem to be (1) confusing derisiveness (about the risible) with defensiveness, Richard, and (for some longstanding reason I really cannot fathom) (2) confusing openly, publicly "castigat[ing] anyone who dares express a contrary view" with "non-transparency and non-inclusiveness... instinctively [un]democratic."

 I think you are quite mistaken. There is nothing undemocratic or non-transparent or non-exclusive about open, public criticism, quite the opposite (and regardless of the "hauteur" with which it might be expressed).

 And I continue to hold and air openly the view -- which you are democratically free to ignore or refute or deride -- that (insofar as EOS or BOAI or your humble servant are concerned) you are sowing suspicions -- about closedness and exclusiveness -- that have no substance whatsoever.

 I have two interpretations as to why you are doing this, one more charitable, the other less so:

 The charitable interpretation is that you really believe the suspicions, which are fuelled by (or themselves fuel) your longstanding hypothesis that the reason the open access movement is moving so slowly is that it does not have an umbrella organization that includes all interested parties. (I think the hypothesis is mistaken, and that the slow progress is because of conflicts of interest -- as well as apathy -- that would not be resolved even if it were possible to draw everyone into the same tent.)

 The uncharitable interpretation -- but even that one, since I know you, and know you have integrity, is only about what may be an unconscious "instinctive" tendency (dare I call it a journalistic one?), rather than a deliberate, calculating strategy -- is that you are airing the suspicions at times when there is no OA news of substance because they draw attention and traffic.
RP: "BOAI was a meeting between a small group of like-minded people, and organised by a philanthropist with a specific political agenda. In the wake of that meeting OSI committed several million dollars to fund a number of OA initiatives (and has continued to play a key role in the OA movement since then). As such, those who attended BOAI took the Soros money but did nothing to make the movement official or inclusive, or seek to engage the research community in their plans..."
I have to leave it to others to reply to this, as I do not think it deserves to be dignified by a response. If I made one it would undoubtedly be derisive...

 There is a secondary hypothesis I also think you may hold, Richard (though I'm ready to say I'm mistaken, if you deny it), which is that you feel there is something undemocratic or contrary to academic freedom about OA mandates. I think the instincts that may be fuelling this secondary hypothesis in you are (1) the feeling that academics today are already far too put upon, along with (2) scepticism about metrics and perhaps about research evaluation in general, including peer review.

 This is scepticism that I may partly share, but that I regard as having nothing to do with OA itself, which is about access to published, peer-reviewed research, such as it is. Reforms would be welcome, but what's needed in the meanwhile is access.

 (And of course mandating a few dozen extra keystrokes per year for their own good is hardly a credible academic grievance; the real reasons for the resistance are not ergonomic but symbolic, ideological, psychological and wrong-headed. In a word, risible.)

 And last, I think you are (instinctively) conflating OA with FOI.

 Stevan Harnad

  Open Access Archivangelism email@example.com (Stevan Harnad) Whimsy, 2016-01-05T12:20:25Z http://openaccess.eprints.org/wfwcomment.php?cid=1172 0 http://openaccess.eprints.org/rss.php?version=1.0&type=comments&cid=1172 No Sweat http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1171-No-Sweat.html Richard Poynder and I are apparently both OA "Old Sweats": Richard has been banging on about OA's needing an open umbrella organization about as long as I've been banging on about OA's needing Green OA mandates.

 Now Richard is blaming OA's slow progress on his recommendation's not having been heeded; I do much the same.

 So what is the difference between us?

 I just keep banging on about the need for Green OA mandates, but Richard is now beginning to suspect that some secret conspiracy (because of the failure to create an OA open umbrella organization) is going on.

 Richard is no doubt right that publishers are up to something, and it has to do with Gold OA and prospective deals with institutions and funders. The dealing is not open, but the fact that it's going on is no secret.

 But it's trying to squeeze journalistic fodder out of a stone to seek anything of substance with these breath-takingly silly suspicions about BOAI and EOS.

 Lampoon my own efforts all you like, Richard, but the one whose credibility is being retroactively eroded is yourself, if you don't resist taking the tabloid track in lean years.

 And please de-conflate OA (open access to published research) from (FOI) freedom of information. Published research is already "free information" (in the FOI sense). It's the access to it (in the OA sense) that's not cost-free. FOI covers a lot more sinister territory, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with OA.

 It wouldn't hurt to de-conflate OA from yet another sexy topic too -- "academic freedom": No, neither mandating nor providing OA is an assault on or threat to academic freedom, quite the opposite.

 If you do decide to branch off into FOI and academic freedom, Richard, that will be splendid. There's much to do and learn there. -- But then forget about OA. There's no interesting connection whatsoever.

 Now peer-review reform (if there were anything new and interesting to say about it) would certainly be relevant to peer-reviewed research publication hence indirectly relevant to open access to peer-reviewed research publication. But only very indirectly. OAs goal is already ambitious enough (and still far-away enough) without enlarging it to include peer-review reform (let alone feeding the planet, curing disease or redistributing wealth). But peer-review reform would certainly be a useful journalistic topic if only there were something more than the already well-known speculations and failed experiments to report about it...

 Open Access Archivangelism email@example.com (Stevan Harnad) Whimsy, 2016-01-04T23:33:32Z http://openaccess.eprints.org/wfwcomment.php?cid=1171 0 http://openaccess.eprints.org/rss.php?version=1.0&type=comments&cid=1171 A caricature of its own making http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1170-A-caricature-of-its-own-making.html From the thread "A creature of its own making?" on GOAL (Global Open Access List).
Jean-Claude Guédon: "Alicia Wise always speaks with a forked tongue! I wonder how much she is paid to practise this dubious art?"

 Richard Poynder: "I am not aware that Alicia Wise has ever been anything other than polite to members of this list. It does not show open access in a good light that every time she posts to the list her comments generate the kind of response we see below."
I wonder what is going on here? Why are we getting lessons in etiquette on GOAL rather than discussing OA matters of substance?

 Yes, Alicia is paid to keep on talking Elsevier double-talk. Yes, she does it politely. That's not the point. The point is that it is double-talk:
Alicia Wise: "All our authors... have both gold and green Open Access publishing options."
 What that means is:

You may either (1) pay
 (always over and above what you pay for subscriptions overall, always heavily, and sometimes even doubly)
 for (gold) OA
 or else you may (2) wait
 (for twelve or more months*)
 for (green) OA.

That is indeed fork-tongued double-talk*: Say what sounds like one thing but mean another, and say it politely. (Why rile the ones you are duping?)

*Actually, it's double-double-talk, and, as pointed out many times before, if Elsevier authors were sensible they would realize that they can provide immediate, unembargoed green OA if they wish, ignoring Elsevier's never-ending attempts at updating their pseudo-legal double-talk to sound both permissive and prohibitive at the same time.

So, yes, Richard is right -- and others (including myself: google harnad pogo) have already said it time and time again in this self-same Forum -- that Elsevier is not the only one to blame. There are the dupers (Elsevier) and the duped (universities and their researchers). We all know that.

 But it is not a co-conspiracy -- much as conspiratorial thinking comes in handy at lean times when there is nothing new to talk about.

 So although the dupees have themselves to blame for allowing themselves to be duped, that does not put them on the same plane of culpability as the dupers. After all, it is the dupers who gain from the duping, and the dupees who lose, whether or not they have themselves to blame for falling for it.

 Blaming the victim, as Richard does, below, also has a long pedigree in this Forum, but I will not rebut it again in detail. The short answer is that adopting effective Green OA mandates (rather than vilifying the victims for their foolishness) is the remedy for all the damage the victims have unwittingly allowed to be done them for so long.

 And stop fussing about metrics. They too will sort themselves out completely once we have universally mandated (and provided) green OA.
Richard Poynder: "What Jean-Claudes criticism of large publishers like Elsevier and Wiley omits is the role that the research community has played in their rise to power, a role that it continues to play. In fact, not only has the research community been complicit [emphasis added] in the rise and rise [sic] of the publishing oligarchy that Jean-Claude so deprecates, but one could argue that it created it i.e. this oligarchy is a creature of its own making.
     "After all, it is the research community that funds these publishers, it is the research community that submits papers to these publishers (and signs over copyright in the process), and it is the research community that continues to venerate the brands (essentially a product of the impact factor) that allow these publishers to earn the high profits that Jean-Claude decries.
     "And by now seeking to flip this oligarchys journals to OA the research community appears to be intent on perpetuating its power (and doubtless profits).
     "One might therefore want to suggest that Jean-Claudes animus is misdirected. [emphasis added]"
And so are Richard's reproaches...

 Your increasingly bored archivangelist,

 Stevan Harnad
 Open Access Archivangelism firstname.lastname@example.com (Stevan Harnad) Whimsy, 2015-12-29T13:09:17Z http://openaccess.eprints.org/wfwcomment.php?cid=1170 0 http://openaccess.eprints.org/rss.php?version=1.0&type=comments&cid=1170 "EOS" Exposed! http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1169-EOS-Exposed!.html Rick Anderson: "Stevan, is it really true that any institution can join the EOS? According to the webpage, membership is "available to approved institutions" (emphasis mine). I assume that EOS itself does the approving -- is that correct? And if so, that means that it's not really true that "any institution can join," is it?"

 Ok. You caught me, Rick! I guess I'll have to 'fess up now: EOS is a secret organization whose true goals I am not at liberty to divulge. The approval of the approved institutions (just a small subset of the many who have applied for approval across the years) is done by an invisible college whose identities are all classified, along with the identities of the institutions and the true goal of the organization, but if you make a formal FOI request it might be possible to provide you with an edited transcript of the list (with identities coded for confidentiality).

 Rick Anderson: "Stevan, Is it really true that the EOS is "public"? I don't see any list of its members anywhere on the site. (If I'm missing it, please do provide a link.) I would assume that an organization that is "public" (as distinct from a "secret society," the term at which you took such umbrage) would at the very least make its institutional membership a matter of public record, wouldn't it?"

 You're right again, Rick. EOS is indeed not public: It is a secret society whose true purposes (which have no relation to what it says on the website) I am not free to reveal.

 Rick Anderson: "And does the EOS really make all of its documents public? On the site I see a small list of briefing papers -- are those the only documents the organization has produced? No minutes, no agendas, no other documents that would normally characterize the work of an organization committed to transparency and public openness?"

 I'm truly embarrassed now, Rick. Fact is, you've got me again! The documents on the website have nothing to do with the true objectives and activities of EOS. We do have minutes and agendas, but those are all confidential (especially our true goals) as we are in fact not committed to transparency and public openness -- or, for that matter, to openness of any kind.

 [Please get out the clippers. Many quotes here suitable for clipping and using in the context of your choice, Rick!]

 Rick Anderson: "To be clear, the EOS is under no more obligation to be public and transparent in its work than any other organization is -- this isn't about legal or ethical obligation. It's just about commitment to principles of openness and transparency."

 You're quite right Rick, and I'm really grateful to you (and to Richard too) for giving me this opportunity to unburden my conscience, which has been weighed down for years with remorse about all the play-acting we've been doing. Indeed Yuletide is almost the optimal moment for at last coming clean about this shabby business. (I can think of only one early spring date that might have been even better.)

 Congratulations on your successful sleuthing! You have both (and of course the intrepid PMR too!) performed an invaluable service to the academic community and the public at large for unmasking this sordid affair. Please do keep up the courageous and insightful work in the service of openness, transparency and verity. In the world we live in today, one can't be too careful.

 "Stevan Harnad"

Instalment #2 (2015/12/28)

 Yule-Foolery

 Despite the season, I am beginning to take a less jolly view of this exchange than Bernard Rentier does (if only because I have been less successful in my planned holiday catch-up than I had hoped, which makes the diminishing returns from this sort of dawdling increasingly diminutive).

 In particular, although the suspicions about EOS were silly from the get-go -- they didn't even have the elementary support of a putative motive that even amateur detective novels know they need in order to generate suspicion -- they seem now to have sunk into abject absurdity. Levity is clearly unavailing to restore common sense, so let me provide a motive (in fact three) -- not for the suspected lack-of-transparency on the part of the suspects, but for the suspiciousness on the part of the sleuths:
(1) For PMR the motive is an inordinate fondness for open data, even if it is at odds with OA -- a motive EOS clearly does not share.

 (2) For RA the motive is unfondness of OA itself, which EOS again clearly cannot share (I won't venture an ulterior motive for RA's unfondness).

 (3) For RP the motive is seasonal shortage of substance.
So let me propose three topics of substance, any of which would make a jolly basis for seasonal discussion in "Open and Shut":

 I. Can anyone provide a substantive link between the need for open access to published, peer-reviewed research and the need for peer review reform?

 II. Can anyone provide a substantive link between the need for open access to published, peer-reviewed research and the need for academic freedom?

 III. Can anyone provide a substantive link between the need for open access to published, peer-reviewed research and the need for freedom of information?

 (And can anyone still remember what the words "access to research" meant before they somehow got conflated with re-use rights or with "transparency"?)

 I've been on this ride a long time now but I can't help noting that as we get exercised over all these other worthy matters, we are still rather far from having open access to published, peer-reviewed research...
 Open Access Archivangelism firstname.lastname@example.com (Stevan Harnad) Whimsy, 2015-12-25T02:33:00Z http://openaccess.eprints.org/wfwcomment.php?cid=1169 0 http://openaccess.eprints.org/rss.php?version=1.0&type=comments&cid=1169 New journal - "Animal Sentience" - on the other-minds problem http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1168-New-journal-Animal-Sentience-on-the-other-minds-problem.html The only feelings we can feel are our own. When it comes to the feelings of others, we can only infer them, based on their behavior unless they tell us. This is the other-minds problem.

 Within our own species, thanks to language, the other-minds problem arises only for states in which people cannot speak (infancy, aphasia, sleep, anaesthesia, coma). Our species also has a uniquely powerful empathic or mind-reading capacity: We can (sometimes) perceive from the behavior of others when they are in states like our own. Our inferences have also been systematized and operationalized in biobehavioral science and supplemented by cognitive neuroimagery. Together, these make the other-minds problem within our own species a relatively minor one.

 But we cohabit the planet with other species, most of them very different from our own, and none of them able to talk. Inferring whether and what they feel is important not only for scientific but also for ethical reasons, because where feelings are felt, they can also be hurt.

 Animal Sentience [ASent] is a new international, interdisciplinary journal devoted to the other-minds problem across species. As animals are at long last beginning to be accorded legal status and protection as sentient beings, ASent will explore in depth what, how and why organisms feel. Individual target articles (and sometimes précis of books) addressing different species sentient and cognitive capacities will each be accorded open peer commentary, consisting of multiple shorter articles, both invited and freely submitted ones, by specialists from many disciplines, each elaborating, applying, supplementing or criticizing the content of the target article, along with responses from the target author(s).

 The members of the nonhuman species under discussion will not be able to join in the conversation, but their spokesmen and advocates, the specialists who know them best, will. The inaugural issue launches with the all-important question (for fish) of whether fish can feel pain.

 ASent is a publication of the Humane Society Institute for Science and Policy (HSISP). Based in Washington DC, HSISPs mandate is to advance the application of scientific and technical analysis and expertise to animal welfare issues and policy questions worldwide. The HSISP is an affiliate of The Humane Society of the United States, the worlds largest animal protection organization.

 ASent is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal. Thanks to HSISP sponsorship, ASent need not charge either publication fees to authors or subscription fees to readers.

 Authors' opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher or editors.

 The table of contents of the inaugural issue of ASent follow below. Commentaries by scientists, scholars, practitioners, jurists and policy-makers are invited on any of the target articles (in bold); continuing commentary is also invited on the commentaries and responses. And of course the journal now calls for the submission of target articles. All target articles are peer-reviewed and all commentaries are editorially reviewed. Open peer commentary is intended particularly for new target articles written specifically for ASent, but updated versions of articles that have appeared elsewhere may also be eligible for publication and open peer commentary.

 (Open peer commentary is modelled on the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS), of which the editor-in-chief of ASent was also the founder and editor-in-chief for 20 years.)

 TABLE OF CONTENTS: Inaugural Issue (2016)<big>
 Harnad, Stevan (2016) Inaugural Editorial - Animal sentience: The other-minds problem Animal Sentience 2016.001

 Safina, Carl (2016) Animals think and feel: Précis of Beyond words: What animals think and feel (Safina 2015) Animal Sentience 2016.002

 Key, Brian (2016) Why fish do not feel pain Animal Sentience 2016.003</big>
Balcombe, Jonathan (2016) Cognitive evidence of fish sentience Animal Sentience 2016.008

 Braithwaite, Victoria A. and Droege, Paula (2016) Why human pain cant tell us whether fish feel pain Animal Sentience 2016.009

 Broom, Donald M. (2016) Fish brains and behaviour indicate capacity for feeling pain Animal Sentience 2016.010

 Brown, Culum (2016) Comparative evolutionary approach to pain perception in fishes Animal Sentience 2016.011

 Chella, Antonio (2016) Robot fish do not need sentience Animal Sentience 2016.012

 Dinets, Vladimir (2016) No cortex, no cry Animal Sentience 2016.013

 Haikonen, Pentti O. (2016) On the sentience of fish Animal Sentience 2016.014

 Hart, Paul J.B. (2016) Fighting forms of expression Animal Sentience 2016.015

 Jones, Robert C. (2016) Fish sentience and the precautionary principle Animal Sentience 2016.016

 Manzotti, Riccardo (2016) No evidence that pain is painful neural process Animal Sentience 2016.017

 Mather, Jennifer A. (2016) An invertebrate perspective on pain Animal Sentience 2016.018

 Ng, Yew-Kwang (2016) Could fish feel pain? A wider perspective Animal Sentience 2016.019

 Seth, Anil K. (2016) Why fish pain cannot and should not be ruled out Animal Sentience 2016.020

 Striedter, Georg (2016) Lack of neocortex does not imply fish cannot feel pain Animal Sentience 2016.021
Key, Brian (2016) (Response I) Going beyond just-so stories Animal Sentience 2016.022
Baluka, Frantiek (2016) Should fish feel pain? A plant perspective Animal Sentience 2016.023

 Burghardt, Gordon (2015) Mediating claims through critical anthropomorphism Animal Sentience 2016.024

 Derbyshire, Stuart W.G. (2016) Fish lack the brains and the psychology for pain Animal Sentience 2016.025

 Elwood, Robert W. (2016) A single strand of argument with unfounded conclusion Animal Sentience 2016.026

 Gagliano, Monica (2016) What would the Babel fish say? Animal Sentience 2016.027

 Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2016) Pain in parallel Animal Sentience 2016.028

 Gonçalves-de-Freitas, Eliane (2016) Pain and fish welfare Animal Sentience 2016.029

 Merker, Bjorn (2016) Drawing the line on pain Animal Sentience 2016.030

 Panksepp, Jaak (2016) Brain processes for good and bad feelings: How far back in evolution? Animal Sentience 2016.031

 Rose, James D. (2016) Pain in fish: Weighing the evidence Animal Sentience 2016.032

 Segner, Helmut (2016) Why babies do not feel pain, or: How structure-derived functional interpretations can go wrong Animal Sentience 2016.033

 Shriver, Adam J. (2016) Cortex necessary for pain but not in sense that matters Animal Sentience 2016.034

 Sneddon, Lynne U. and Leach, Matthew C. (2016) Anthropomorphic denial of fish pain Animal Sentience 2016.035

 Stevens, E. Don (2016) Why is fish feeling pain controversial? Animal Sentience 2016.036

 Van Rysewyk, Simon (2016) Nonverbal indicators of pain Animal Sentience 2016.037

 Wadiwel, Dinesh Joseph (2016) Fish and pain: The politics of doubt Animal Sentience 2016.038/
Key, Brian (2016) (Response II) Falsifying the null hypothesis that fish do not feel pain" Animal Sentience 2016.039
Brown, Culum (2016) Fish pain: An inconvenient truth Animal Sentience 2016.058

 Damasio, Antonio and Damasio, Hanna (2016) Pain and other feelings in humans and animals Animal Sentience 2016.059

 Devor, Marshall (2016) Where is pain in the brain? Animal Sentience 2016.060

 Diggles, B. K. (2016) Fish pain: Would it change current best practice in the real world? Animal Sentience 2016.061

 Edelman, David B. (2016) Leaving the door open for fish pain: Evolutionary convergence and the utility of just-so stories Animal Sentience 2016.062

 Walters, Edgar T. (2016) Pain-capable neural substrates may be widely available in the animal kingdom Animal Sentience 2016.063

 <big>King, Barbara J. (2016) Animal mourning: Précis of How animals grieve (King 2013) Animal Sentience 2016.004</big>
Botero, Maria (2016) Death in the family Animal Sentience 2016.040

 Fox Hall, Tara (2016) Anticipatory grief Animal Sentience 2016.041

 Gardiner, Martin (2016) Modulation of behavior in communicating emotion Animal Sentience 2016.042

 Glymour, Clark (2016) The object of grief Animal Sentience 2016.043

 Probyn-Rapsey, Fiona (2016) Loves claim on grief Animal Sentience 2016.044

 Proctor, Helen (2016) Monkey say, monkey do, monkey grieve? Animal Sentience 2016.045

 Ristau, Carolyn (2016) Evidence for animal grief? Animal Sentience 2016.046
King, Barbara J. King (2016) (Response) Understanding emotional suffering Animal Sentience 2016.047

 <big>Broom, Donald M. (2016) Considering animals feelings: Précis of Sentience and animal welfare Animal Sentience 2016.005
</big>Chandrasekera, Charukeshi (2016) From sentience to science: Limits of anthropocentric cognition Animal Sentience 2016.048

 Clarke, Nancy (2016) Sentience and animal welfare: Affirming the science and addressing the skepticism Animal Sentience 2016.049

 Copeland, Marion W. (2016) Life in translation Animal Sentience 2016.050

 Donaldson, Sue and Kymlicka, Will (2016) Linking animal ethics and animal welfare science Animal Sentience 2016.051

 Duncan, Ian J.H. (2016) Is sentience only a nonessential component of animal welfare? Animal Sentience 2016.052

 Durham, Debra (2016) The science of sentience is reshaping how we think about animals Animal Sentience 2016.053

 Rolle, M.E. (2016) Animal welfare and animal rights Animal Sentience 2016.054

 Rowlands, Mark (2016) Mentality and animal welfare Animal Sentience 2016.055

 Sammarco, Andrea L. (2016) Is humanitarianism recent? Animal Sentience 2016.056
Broom, Donald M. (2016) (Response) Sentience and animal welfare: New thoughts and controversies Animal Sentience 2016.057

 <big>Lachance, Martine (2016) Breaking the silence: The veterinarians duty to report Animal Sentience 2016.006

 Ng, Yew-Kwang (2016) How welfare biology and commonsense may help to reduce animal suffering Animal Sentience 2016.007</big> Open Access Archivangelism firstname.lastname@example.com (Stevan Harnad) News, 2015-12-21T19:43:21Z http://openaccess.eprints.org/wfwcomment.php?cid=1168 0 http://openaccess.eprints.org/rss.php?version=1.0&type=comments&cid=1168 Berlin Stonewalling -- or Flip-Flop http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1167-Berlin-Stonewalling-or-Flip-Flop.html 1. Richard Poynder's take on Berlin 12 is basically valid (even though perhaps a touch too conspiratorially minded).

 2. The much-too-long series of Berlin X meetings, huffing on year after year, has long been much-ado-about-next-to-nothing.

 3. The solemn 2003 "Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities," with its unending list of signatories, was never anything more than a parroting of the 2003 "Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing [sic]," which was, in turn, a verbose reiteration of half of the 2002 Budapest Open Access Initiative -- skewed toward only BOAI-II ("gold" open access publishing), virtually ignoring BOAI-I ("green" open access self-archiving).

 4. For what it's worth, I attended Berlin 1 in Berlin in 2003 (out of curiosity, and in the hope it would lead to something) and we hosted Berlin 3 in Southampton in 2005 (at which it was officially recommended to require BOAI-I, green OA self-archiving, and to encourage BOAI-II, gold OA publishing -- exactly as had been recommended in 2004 by the UK House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology).

 5. After Berlin 3 in 2005 the Berlin X series went on and on, year after year (I never attended again), but the progress on implementing the Southampton/Berlin-3 recommendations was transpiring (though still much too slowly) elsewhere (with the ROARMAP mandates being adopted in the UK, Australia, EU, and US, starting from 2003 and continuing today).

 6. As far as I can tell, the Berlin X series just continues fussing about gold OA, and although I am less suspicious than Richard, I too suspect that the "secrecy" was because the institutional reps attending Berlin 12 are trying to forge a common front for working out a gold-OA "flip" deal with publishers.

 And my prediction, for reasons I've repeated, unheeded, many, many times, is that any such flip will be a flop. Open Access Archivangelism email@example.com (Stevan Harnad) Definition of Open Access, 2015-12-18T18:34:18Z http://openaccess.eprints.org/wfwcomment.php?cid=1167 0 http://openaccess.eprints.org/rss.php?version=1.0&type=comments&cid=1167 Why Scholars Scull http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1166-Why-Scholars-Scull.html Disagreement is always good creative, even. I am not trying to change Richard Poynder's mind, just openly airing points and counterpoints, in the spirit of open peer commentary...

 1. I agree that the home pages of Institutional Repositories that simply tout their generic overall deposit counts are doing numerology.

 2. "Dark deposit" is rather ominous-sounding. The reality is that there are:
(i) undeposited articles,
 (ii) metadata-only deposits,
 (iii) full-text non-OA article immediate-deposits (which are non-OA for varying intervals),
 (iv) full-text OA delayed-deposits and
 (v) full-text OA immediate-deposits.
 And there's the Button to supplement them. One can always describe cups as X% full or as (1-X)% empty.

 3. No, to calculate yearly deposit ratios using WoS or SCOPUS in order to estimate total yearly deposit ratios is definitely not "deceptive": it is valid for WoS-indexed or SCOPUS-indexed output (which also happens to be the output that the OA movement is mostly about, and for), but it might be an underestimate or overestimate for non-WoS/SCOPUS output, if for some reason their ratio differs. So what?

 4. Numerology is meaningless numbers, counted for their own sake, and interpreted according to taste (which can be occult, ornate or obtuse). Calculating correlations between mandate conditions and deposit ratios and drawing predictive conclusions from correlations whose probability of having occurred by chance is less that 5% is conventional predictive statistics (which only turns into numerology if you do a fishing expedition with a very large number of tests and fail to adjust your significance level for the likelihood that 5% of the significant correlations will have occurred by chance). We did only a small number of tests and had predicted a-priori which ones were likely to be significant, and in what direction.

 5. Yes, there are far too few mandates, just as there are far too few deposits. Nevertheless, there were enough to detect the statistically significant trends; and if they are put into practice, there will be more effective mandates and more deposits. (The HEFCE/Liege immediate-deposit condition for eligibility for research evaluation turned out to be one of the statistically significant conditions.)

 6. I heartily agree that academics are excessively micromanaged and that evaluative metrics can and do become empty numerology as well. But I completely disagree that requiring scholars and scientists to do a few extra keystrokes per published article (5 articles per year? 5 minutes per article?) counts as excessive micro-management, any more than "publish or perish" itself does. Both are in fact close to the very core of a scholar's mission and mandate (sic) qua scholar: To conduct research and report their findings -- now updated to making it OA in the online era. Justifiable animus against excessive and intrusive micromanagement is no excuse for shooting oneself in the foot by resisting something that is simple, takes no time, and is highly beneficial to the entire scholarly community.

 7. Cultures don't change on a wish or a whim (or a "subversive proposal"!); they change when the pay-off contingencies (not necessarily financial!) change. That's how publish-or-perish worked (publication- and citation-bean-counting for employment, promotion, tenure, funding) and the online era now requires a tiny, natural extension of publish-or-perish to publish-and-deposit for eligibility for bean-counting.

 8. And if we remind ourselves, just for a moment, as to why it is that scholars scull in the first place -- which is not for the sake of publication- and citation-bean-counting for employment, promotion, tenure, funding), is it not so that their findings can be accessed, used and built upon by all their would-be users?

 Stevan Harnad Open Access Archivangelism firstname.lastname@example.com (Stevan Harnad) Definition of Open Access, 2015-12-07T13:10:05Z http://openaccess.eprints.org/wfwcomment.php?cid=1166 0 http://openaccess.eprints.org/rss.php?version=1.0&type=comments&cid=1166 On Horses, Water, and Life-Span http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1165-On-Horses,-Water,-and-Life-Span.html
"I have a feeling that when Posterity looks back at the last decade of the 2nd A.D. millennium of scholarly and scientific research on our planet, it may chuckle at us... I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind as to what the optimal and inevitable outcome of all this will be: The [peer-reviewed journal| literature will be free at last online, in one global, interlinked virtual library... and its [peer review] expenses will be paid for up-front, out of the [subscription-cancelation] savings. The only question is: When? This piece is written in the hope of wiping the potential smirk off Posterity's face by persuading the academic cavalry, now that they have been led to the waters of self-archiving, that they should just go ahead and drink!" -- Harnad (1999)
I must admit I've lost interest in following the Open Access Derby. All the evidence, all the means and all the stakes are by now on the table, and have been for some time. Nothing new to be learned there. It's just a matter of time till it gets sorted and acted upon; the only lingering uncertainty is about how long that will take, and that is no longer an interesting enough question to keep chewing on, now that all's been said, if not done.
Comments on: Richard Poynder (2015) Open Access, Almost-OA, OA Policies, and Institutional Repositories. Open And Shut. December 01, 2015
A few little corrections and suggestions on Richard's paper:

 (1) The right measure of repository and policy success is the percentage of an institution's total yearly peer-reviewed research article output that is deposited as full text immediately upon acceptance for publication. (Whether the deposit is immediately made OA is much less important, as long as the copy-request Button is (properly!) implemented. Much less important too are late deposits, author Button-request compliance rates, or other kinds of deposited content. Once all refereed articles are being deposited immediately, all the rest will take care of itself, sooner or later.)

 (2) CRIS/Cerif research-asset-management tools are complements to Institutional Repositories, not competitors.

 (3) The Australian ERA policy was a (needless) flop for OA. The UK's HEFCE/Ref2020 policy, in contrast, looks like it can become a success. (None of this has anything to do with the pro's or con's of either research evaluation, citations, or metrics in general.)

 (4) No, "IDOA/PEM" (Deposit mandates requiring immediate deposits for research evaluation or funding, with the Button) will not increase "dark deposit," they will increase deposit -- and mandate adoption, mandate compliance, OA, Button-Use, Almost-OA, access and citations. They will also hasten the day when universal IDOA/PEM will make subscriptions cancellable and unsustainable, inducing conversion to fair-Gold OA (instead of today's over-priced, double-paid and unnecessary Fool's-Gold OA. But don't ask me "how long?" I don't know, and I no longer care!)

 (5) The few anecdotes about unrefereed working papers are completely irrelevant. OA is about peer-reviewed journal articles. Unrefereed papers come and go. And eprints and dspace repositories clearly tag papers as refereed/unrefereed and published/unpublished. (The rest is just about scholarly practice and sloppiness, both from authors and from users.)

 (6) At some point in the discussion, Richard, you too fall into the usual canard about impact-factor and brand, which concerns only Gold OA, not OA.
RP: "Is the sleight of hand involved in using the Button to promote the IDOA/PEM mandate justified by the end goal which is to see a proliferation of such mandates? Or to put it another way, how successful are IDOA/PEM mandates likely to prove?"
No sleight of hand -- just sluggishness of hand, on the part of (some) authors (both for Button compliance and mandate compliance) and on the part of (most) institutions and funders (for the design and adoption of successful IDOA/PEM mandates (with Button). And the evidence is all extremely thin, one way or the other. Of course successful IDOA/PEM mandates (with Button) are (by definition!) better than relying on email links at publisher sites. "Successful" means near 100% compliance rate for immediate full-text deposit. And universal adoption of successful IDOA/PEM mandates (with Button) means universal adoption of successful IDOA/PEM mandates (with Button). (Give me that and worries about author Button-compliance will become a joke.)

 The rest just depends on the speed of the horses -- and I am not a betting man (when it comes to predicting how long it will take to reach the optimal and inevitable). (Not to mention that I am profoundly against horse-racing and the like -- for humanitarian reasons that are infinitely more important than OA ever was or will be.) Open Access Archivangelism email@example.com (Stevan Harnad) Self-Archiving Mandates, 2015-12-02T18:53:54Z http://openaccess.eprints.org/wfwcomment.php?cid=1165 0 http://openaccess.eprints.org/rss.php?version=1.0&type=comments&cid=1165


text:
Take the party outside with 4th of July table decorations. With beautiful weather and a backyard barbecue, guests will want to celebrate from sunup to sundown. Find all the stars and stripes themed tableware that will quickly glamorize your outdoor space. Choose from Independence Day table decorations like red, white and blue paper straws and patriotic cups.
For even more July 4th tableware decorating ideas, look no further! Shindigz offers an assortment of party packs to make decorating for your party as easy as apple pie. With dinner plates, napkins, dessert plates, plastic cutlery and a plastic table cover, the American Pride party pack includes everything you need to host your event. Jazz up the tables with 4th of July centerpieces, or add a few streamers to the fence to keep guests smiling. The beautiful weather will do the rest of the work.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Cassandra DeverneyShared publicly -
#believetourtickets My daughter is the BIGGEST fan. She is only 5 and she swears she is in LOVE with him:) She has all the cds and dvds, and she also has his Justin books. She also made her own scrap book. It would mean the WORLD to her to win these tickets!!!!!
Add a comment...


text:
Top Definition
Slang term for an obsolete, worn-down machine or hardware device. Derived from the misspelling of the word "Jalapa", which is the name of some town in Mexico that is famous for the Jalapeno pepper, and its former junk-car-scrapping industry.
In the ghettos and the trailer parks, you will even find some people living in jalopies.
από AYB 28 Αύγουστος 2003
Trending Now
Can you define these popular missing words?
Photos & Videos
A shitty car
"I can pull James Bond stunts in a jalopy."
από watson 20 Νοέμβριος 2002
an old beat-up piece-of-shit car/truck
Mike Germanaro looked at himself as the King of the Road! But the truth was that he was fooled into buying the old busted-ass red piece-of-shit jalopy.
από PAforIdiots 6 Ιούνιος 2010
an old worn out car
That jalopy ain't worth selling because nobodyelse would be caught dead with it.
από The Return of Light Joker 10 Ιανουάριος 2010
all swear words
you are bare jalopy
από crazed chic 21 Νοέμβριος 2015
Big ole fat ass saggy, worn out, feed bag titties
Dang yo, that bitch look like she done fed the whole projects wit dem jalopies
από ryder69 13 Ιούνιος 2013
Slang for a car, usually old cars, somewhat of the ford model T Design. Some cars that can be seen as "classic" today can be considered a jalopy, but mostly anything before "classic" like a old old classic.
There goes old man Jenkins in his jalopy.
από John Penix 19 Δεκέμβριος 2003


text:
risk assessment Companies in Albania
Current filtering criteriaYou can remove a filter by clicking on the x
based in Tirana, ALBANIA
ILLYRIAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS (ICE) is a private consulting company in the field of engineering, founded in Albania on 2006. ICE is composed of a wide number of professional's engineers and academicians that have been working together even before the establishment of company. The mission of well qualified and long-experienced of our professionals in various disciplines is ...
Ludwig Pfeiffer Hoch- und Tiefbau GmbH & Co.KG
Office in Shkodra, ALBANIA
Our company started out in 1933 as a construction firm based in Kassel, initially specialising in the construction of pipelines and sewers. As we took on new challenges and gained experience over the years, we expanded steadily. Today, we have over 600 employees serving customers across Europe. In the field of pipeline and sewer construction, our range of activity soon ...


text:
Good value. Toll-free fax number. Clear usage-statistics page. Can schedule fax sends. Inexpensive international rates.
No free version. Doesn't work with Firefox. Convoluted Web interface. So-so quality on received faxes.
Bottom Line
MyFax offers a solid, no-frills fax service. It makes the most sense for SOHO users who just want to send and receive faxes via e-mail.
If you send a lot of faxes, MyFax offers the best value in this roundup. For $10 per month you get a total of 300 send and receive pages, which is more than what eFax and Send2Fax offer. If you stay under 100 total pages per month, however, Send2Fax is cheaper, and if you're just receiving faxes (no more than 20 per month), eFax does it for free. MyFax's e-mail faxing works great (provided that you roll your own cover pages). If you want to use the Web interface, however, be prepared for a lot of aggravation.
The MyFax Web site doesn't remember your log-on information, and it doesn't work with Mozilla Firefoxtwo minor annoyances. More significantly, sending a fax using the MyFax Web interface is a real pain. For example, to attach your document, you have to click Add Document first, wait for another Web page to open, and then click Browse, which opens a third dialog box. eFax and Send2Fax, on the other hand, put everything you need on one page, which you access via a single Send Fax button. MyFax does offer clear user statistics and your account balance laid out on the account home page. This way you won't unwittingly go over your allotted charges.
MyFax has its own address book, called eContacts, which you can access through the Web interface. You'll also need the Web interface if you want to use the default MyFax cover page. You won't want to, thoughit's stripped down, not visually appealing, and buried under Advanced Settings for some reason.
Fortunately you can bypass this entire mess by sending documents via e-mail, either directly from your e-mail application, or by clicking on File | Send To | Mail Recipient (as an attachment) from an application such as Word or Excel. MyFax supports 45 different file formats, including a couple of bizarre choices (does anyone out there really still use XyWrite or DisplayWrite?). It also misses a few important ones, such as GIF and Photoshop, but it hits all the most common formats, such as PDFs, JPEGs, and Microsoft Office documents. MyFax offers a free download for Outlook users that gives you a toolbar button for sending faxes, which is a helpful addition.
Received faxes looked great, but sent faxes showed slightly dark and distorted text in our tests. It was clear enough to read, but not without some strain at smaller font sizes. Received JPEG graphics were again too dark, and details were sometimes difficult to make out. That's good enough for everyday use, but a professional architect might want higher quality when sending out finished designs to clients.
When you send and receive faxes, MyFax sends easy-to-read notification messages to your e-mail account. Aside from whether or not the transmission was successful, MyFax tells you how much the fax cost (if it was international or went over your allotted number of pages), including any taxes. eFax tells you only if a fax was successful and how long it took, while Send2Fax also adds in the number of attempts it made.
MyFax offers 24-hour technical support during the week, and 10-hour days on Saturday and Sunday (with remote e-mail support available the rest of the time). MyFax is preparing a new release for August that works with Firefox. International send rates are very reasonable, such as $0.10 per page to the U.K. and $0.20 per page to Greece; we were told international fax-receive capability was on the horizon. Its Web interface needs a complete overhaul; we recommend that you skip it entirely, prepare your own cover page, and send faxes via e-mail. If you do that, and your business needs are relatively modest, MyFax offers the best value for the money.


text: The Part 5 wiki last edited by pikahyper on 10/22/13 12:11PM View full history BIG TIME concludes for the biggest criminal in the Marvel Universe! FREE OSBORN! The former Green Goblin, Iron Patriot and war-criminal director of H.A.M.M.E.R. gets his day in the sun, as the atrocities of his top-secret incarceration are revealed. Norman Osborn stands poised to win the day…will the super villain walk free to plague the Marvel Universe again?


text:
Rent The State Parks 1st edition today, or search our site for other textbooks by Freeman Tilden. Every textbook comes with a 21-day "Any Reason" guarantee. Published by Literary Licensing, LLC.
Need help ASAP? We have you covered with 24/7 instant online tutoring. Connect with one of our tutors now.


text:
Added by AnyClip Subscribe 2 727
Published 13 Nov 2011
The clip Dante and Becky discuss Florida from Clerks II (2006) Shit. Well, hello, Miss Scott. Well, here h...
The clip Dante and Becky discuss Florida from Clerks II (2006) Shit. Well, hello, Miss Scott. Well, here he is, the escape artist. I'm not gone yet. Please. You've been gone for the last month. When do you guys leave? Well, we start driving tomorrow morning. Oh, uh, I left you the forwarding address for my last check on the calendar there. So you did. That's her parents's house, right? Yes, but only until the wedding. And then, from what I hear, her parents are giving us a house. Nice! So I guess dowries are making a comeback. Oh, yeah. Her dad sweetened the pot with two fatted calves and a goat. I'm gonna miss you, Hicks. Yeah, I'm gonna miss you, too. I still can't believe you're just gonna leave me alone in this place... with Randal Graves, of all people. Quit. Move to Florida. You could work at the car wash with me. Wow, you make it sound so tempting. How can I say no? Oh, yeah... 'cause it's a fucking car wash in Florida. Like it's any worse than this place. Hurl the insults all you want, buddy man. As soon as my uncle's on his feet again, it's not like I'm gonna be staying here. Hey, how's he doing? A lot better. It only took two years and a shitload of chemo, but... his red cell count's almost back to normal. That's great. Yeah, it's great for me, too. Couple of weeks in this crap shack turned into a couple of years a little too quickly. But, Hicks, we can sit here making small talk about your last day and what it is I'm going to do once you're gone, or we can treat this like any other workday. Ding-a-ling-a-ling!


text: The Never Alone wiki last edited by susurniek on 01/02/15 08:05AM View full history Joe Ledger (Doctor Spectrum) is sent to investigate the blast site where General Casey attempted to kill Hyperion (Mark Milton) using a twenty-kiloton blast with Hyperion at ground zero. His handlers particularly want to know whether Hyperion has survived the blast. Using the crystal, Ledger locates the cave that Hyperion took shelter in following the attack. Joe's persona loses control and he has no memory for a period of about ten minutes.Zarda tells Hyperion their origin. They were released from a large ship in small cradle-pods in pairs to seed planets. As they were released, an enemy attacked their parent ship, and their two cradle-pods went by different paths to the same destination. Zarda arrived on Earth two thousand years earlier than Mark. She tells him the story again, this time wrapped in the language of myth, they are the children of gods, who went to war but left their children behind, and begins to tell the story a third time, only to realize that her mind is clouded with confusion. The one thing she is certain of is their purpose: to conquer, kill, and rule the Earth in preparation for a wave of their people.Kyle Richmond (secretly Nighthawk) awards Stanley Stewart (the Blur) a giant check which will be used to fund a scholarship in his name to promote the education and rise of African Americans. After the ceremony, Kyle takes Stanley aside and asks him tough questions about what he intends to actually do with his life other than collect endorsement money from big businesses. Kyle entrusts Stewart with his secret vigilante identity and challenges him to join him that night. When they meet later, it emerges that Nighthawk is investigating the deaths of prostitutes in the Chicago area. They sneak into a building avoiding guards and in the basement find a massive pile of human limbs, rent from bodies by sheer force. Nighthawk speculates that the killer is another super powered being, full of evil.General NotesRichard Isanove contributes inks to the cover only.


text:
Interest Level
Grades 8 - 12
Reading Level
Grade level Equivalent: Not Available
Lexile® Measure: Not Available
DRA: Not Available
Guided Reading: Not Available
- Informational
- Basketball
About This Book
Relive spectacular moments from the history of basketball that illustrates the grace, speed, and power of the game. Whether it's Michael Jordan's last jump shot as a Chicago Bull, Dr. J's spectacular baseline moves in the 1980 Finals, or a jaw-dropping dunk by Kobe Bryant, Basketball's Best Shots shows some of the greatest athletes in the world performing the most stunning, gravity-defying feats ever caught on film. Brought to you by NBA Entertainment photographers, this is basketball at its most thrilling. Including more than 300 photographs and a foreword by Walt "Clyde" Frazier, this book captures the grace, passion, and energy of one of the world's most popular sports.
Items Added to Cart:
1 Paperback
2 Hardcover
1 Teacher's Edition
$48.99 Subtotal


text:
© All rights reserved. Use without permission is illegal. Unauthorized use, copy, editing, reproduction, publication, duplication and distribution of my photos, or any portion of them, is not allowed.
About this series
Wow. It's number #20 … in seven months. Mmmh, that's not much compared all the other strangers series. But I feel no pressure to shoot, publish every day, week whatsoever. Could you imagine seeing people in the streets in (three) pieces all the time? Well, I couldn't - haha. That's why things keep going on rather slow.
So I call this the 20th anniversary because I have only four more left and stranger #25 might take some time again ;-). Thanks for your encouraging comments and faves during this series.
Story about this shot
I was sticking around London Fields. If you make it there on a Saturday you
should must visit the Broadway Market. It`s a less crowded Market compared to Sunday Up Market and feels
like being among locals. A few pubs and cafes, but also a small market
very selected tasty delicacies, clothes, music, a neat atmosphere in
general … a stall selling old prints of old London: The place where I
recognized his awesome camera … Yeah, it's a photographer. Asking a
like-minded to participate in any photographic project is as easy as
pie. The weakest victim you might find in the streets wherever you
are, bird of prey.
About this stranger
Meet the Stranger #20 with the melodic name Kim Tae Hwan. He is 35 years old and maybe our first real celebrity - he is a fashion/editorial photographer mostly working for Elle, Dazed and Confused or Cosmopolitan. But I also enjoyed his efforts in street and beauty.
His clients book him because of his very own signature. Now you are right to say: that's the minimum you should expect from a professional photographer. But most of his releases for fashion are on polaroid, at least they are in fact analog. I think that's quite unusual … so in that very moment he was telling me his story with this antique jewel in this hands … I thought this guy must be an analog lover.
Look a his amazing work on his Website.
Kim Tae Hwan
lives is from Busan, the second biggest city in South Korea. He spends most
of the time traveling around the world - a citizen of the world. I
really wonder how many stamps he might have in his passport. He just
finished a video shoot in London and had a few days left to spend.
It was really fun talking to him. We had some minor lost in translation kinda like problems, but luckily his was his korean entourage of two and one of them was actually living in London.
-- ---
sets London, Triptychs of Strangers or Strangers | follow flickr, google+, tumblr or twitter
maktub street-dog, and 1536 other people added this photo to their favorites.
Hey nice Works!
We have an Art and Design Agency based in Vienna and working with young and confirmed Artists and Designers as Freelancer.
If you're interested to appear in our online and Office Catalog, please contact us!
Ubik Agency | Art & Design
Ubik Werbeagentur Wien | blog
Wow, superb imagery!! congratulations on a fabulous work!!!
Awesome images!! I love the expression, and the color is wonderful!! A unique subject too, and a wonderful camera! Perfecttt!
You are awesome! Jesus!
so interesting set!
I'm speachless! This is such a good idea! Beautiful!!!!!
really nice
Nice series! I am following a photography course and my teacher came up with an exercise inspired by your work. (results are in my photostream of you're interested)
Stunning triptych. Probably my favourite from the set.
Wow!! I LOVE this triptychs idea, and you really, really execute it perfectly. Is this with the Pan/Leica 25mm f/1.4?
Seen in your Your picks (Most interesting) set. ( ?² )
Congratulations on this photo being featured in the latest Digital Photo magazine. Superb image.
Love it, great style. :)
I honestly enjoy all your images! :) <3
I love your work!
nice set
This series in particular is wonderful.
Thanks for adding me as a contact. Your photostream I'm sure will provide me with plenty of inspiration as I'm looking to take more people shots this year.
really like this series


text:
Bookings high at new hotel despite downturn
Published 23/04/2009
One of Belfast's newest hotels has reported higher than expected occupancy levels despite the economic downturn.
The Park Inn Hotel opened on the site of the old Belfast Superbowl off Bedford Street in December.
At the official opening of the £26m, 145-bedroom hotel, general manager Gerard Kelly revealed they had been booked out every weekend since February.
To date the hotel, employing 60 staff, has sold approximately 6,000 room nights, with corporate business generating high midweek occupancy and sales figures higher than forecast for the period, he said.
Mr Kelly revealed: "We have enjoyed a very successful introduction into the marketplace, against the backdrop of a challenging economic climate, and I am confident about the future growth potential of the Park Inn within Northern Ireland."
He said the hospitality sector was an extremely competitive market in which hoteliers had to constantly strive to deliver levels of service beyond the competition.
"During the current economic climate you also have to provide value for money without compromising on service and at the Park Inn we have the necessary skill and experience to deliver on these principles," he said.
Lord Mayor Tom Hartley said: "This is further evidence that 2009 is truly a significant year for Belfast.
"This is an exciting time for our city and the Park Inn is an exciting addition to our portfolio of world-class hotels delivering our famous hospitality to visitors from far and near."
He said over the course of the year more than £500m of new developments and major refurbishment schemes would come to fruition.
Belfast Telegraph


text:
What is IMOS and why do we need it?
In our latest 'IMOS in MOcean' video, IMOS Director, Tim Moltmann, explains how IMOS is a unique collaboration of Australia's leading research organisations, deploying a network of advanced technologies to deliver data about...[more]
IMOS communicators head to sea on the RV Investigator
The IMOS Communication Managers Marian Wiltshire and Warrick Glynn have just returned from a 5-day Transit voyage on board the Marine National Facility RV Investigator. [more]
EAC Eddies are coming to Tasmania
Around the globe 2015 was an exceptionally warm year for both land and ocean temperatures. For Tasmania though, the heat continues with sea surface temperatures off the east coast hotter than ever this year.[more]
Minister Birmingham visits the IMOS Office
The Education and Training Minister took time out of his busy schedule to learn more about NCRIS-funded national research infrastructure.[more]
Seals reveal how melting ice shelves in East Antarctica affect the global climate system
Elephant seals tagged by IMOS have helped scientists to discover that fresh water from Antarctica's melting ice shelves slows the production of powerful deep-water ocean currents responsible for regulating global temperatures.[more]
Chance spotting leads to recovery of broken IMOS mooring on the Yorke Peninsula
A member of the public last month found a large orange buoy, with instrumentation attached, washed up on a remote beach on the Yorke Peninsula, South Australia.[more]


text:
(Notes from the) Presenter: Will Reynolds from seerinteractive.com "We need to stop begging", says Will, "And stop looking so pathetic". Target the 'big shots' – the people you want to be connected to you, the influentual guys. And these guys, unfortunately, don't follow you. You need to start getting their attention, start a relationship. target acquired […]
Latest thoughts for: seo
(Notes from the) Presenter: Rand Fishkin from SEOmoz Rand did his usual and gave a very compelling talk about the value of great content, no matter what industry or niche you are in. Much of Google's linking algorithm is based on links and their interpretation as a 'vote' for that site. But links were never […]
Link Love Notes: Putting the luurve back into links #LinkLoveContinue reading >
Link Love London: SEO Conference Coverage from Attacat Joel #LinkLoveContinue reading >
Link Love Notes: Golden link building #LinkLoveContinue reading >
Thoughts by subject
Like the Brain? Sign up for the packed-full-of-tips monthly newsletter


text:
you are viewing a single comment's thread.
during those extended midnight sessions, does AP send out for Tacos and Dos Eqos?If so,are they on him,or is he selling them?(Please,he says,NO COUPONS!)(Selling alcohol w/o a permit is nono.)
No... but they do have Laura Quatela strip to her skivvies and dance around AP's sombrero.
joe---I loved the dance thing!A rumor I heard about said that a Wall St.Psychatrist had an EKDEQ stockholder enter his office.Said man had a fried egg on his head,and a strip of bacon draped over each ear.Doc: "how can I help you?"Guy,"Doctor,I am OK but I am worried about my brother."


text:
The Fein 63502097027 HSS Circular Saw Blade is a versatile blade used for cutting a range of different materials such as plastic fibreglass wood and putty. It is also robust enough to cut through sheet metal up to 1mm thick and offers excellent value for money. Diameter 80mm
Price: £42.46
Price: £49.96
Price: £17.96
Price: £319.96
Price: £179.96
Specialist advice that you can trust.
Tailored help from our customer services team


text:
2 posts tagged with oil by semmi.
Displaying 1 through 2 of 2.
Back from a vigorous and exhausting vacation of petty but life sustaining activities, I find this overview of our larger reality, without the noisy claptrap of narrowly self serving ideologies, yet worrisome enough to shake the world's boat I'm travelling in with some comfort and some reasonable concern spiced with anxiety. (NYT)
Oil makes the world go round.
Oil makes the world go round. The Senate yesterday defeated an effort to increase fuel efficiency standards for cars, sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks by 50 percent over 13 years, voting instead for a measure backed by the auto industry.
Page: 1


text:
Macy's Black Friday 2012 Deals
America's best-loved department store for fashion and affordable luxury, Macy's stores offer home goods, handbags, and fragrances also. Shop Macy's stores to find designer names like Calvin Klein, Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger, Jessica Simpson and Michael Kors. Macy's coupons and discounts can be found here as they are released throughout the year. For Black Friday 2015, stores will open at 6PM on Thanksgiving Day, run through the night until 1PM on Friday and continue again on Saturday at 7AM.
The Macy's Black Friday 2015 Ad is coming soon!
The Macy's Black Friday ad has not yet been released, but sign up for the BFAds mailing list and be the first to know when the Macy's Black Friday ad leaks!
Note: These are the items for the 2012 Macy's Black Friday sale. See this year's deals.
This is the Macy's Black Friday Ad from 2012
You've reached the archived page of the Macy's Black Friday Ad from 2012. Click below to see the current Macy's Black Friday 2015 ad.See the Macy's Black Friday 2015 Deals
Apparel » Accessories
(was $128.00)
(was $79.00)
(was $89.00)
Apparel » Jewelry
(was $690.00)
(was $690.00)