Echinothrix calamaris, known commonly as the banded sea urchin or double spined urchin among other vernacular names, is a species of sea urchin in the family Diadematidae.

Description
The banded sea urchin has a slightly oval test (shell), reaching a diameter of about 5 cm.
Like almost all the Diadematidae (but it is in Echinothrix calamaris that it is most obvious) it has two different sets of spines, short and slender closed spines which go from yellow to dark (through brown) in colour and can deliver a nasty sting, and longer and thicker spines that are often banded with light and dark colour (but sometimes all dark or all white), and reaching 10 to 15 cm in length.
These radiolas can be blunt, and are hollow. The spines are grouped so as to let appear five naked zones on the central part of the test, in a star pattern (called "iridophores"): this pattern can be colored, often in blue.
The anal papilla is big, more or less translucent and very obvious on the aborale face; it is generally whitish and speckled with black and white dots, circled by a ring of visual receptors that grant it rudimentary vision.

In its darkest forms, it can be confused with its cousins Diadema setosum or Diadema savignyi (which can both keep banded radiola when adult) ; however, the latter is bigger, more uniformly black, has less discernible secondary radioles and is recognizable in five characteristic white points at the top of its test as well as in orange-colored circle around its anus.
The most common confusion is with the very close species Echinothrix diadema, which can have banded spines when young. But E. diadema has a very small anal papilla, all black, and the spines have a blue sheen ; the primary radiolas of E. calamaris are more fragile too, and can be crushed between two fingers (they are hollow), what is not the case for E. diadema.

Dark form

A dark form of this sea urchin is reported in Indian Ocean (Red Sea, Mascarene Islands, Seychelles, the Maldive Islands), with very dark radioles, often not banded, presenting generally a green sheen, and more or less reddish test (sometimes completely red, especially in the Red Sea). The anal papilla is black, more or less punctuated with white, but sometimes punctuated only with black which makes the distinction with Echinothrix diadema particularly difficult, as well as the absence of iridophores. The spines are also sharper and more solid, and cannot be crushed between two fingers. This could be a subspecies or even a separate species, especially as their ecological niche seems slightly différent.

Distribution and habitat
The banded sea urchin is widespread throughout the tropical waters of the Indo-Pacific region, from the eastern coast of Africa to French Polynesia, including Hawaii and the Red Sea.

It occurs from the surface to  depth and can be found in lagoons, external reef slopes and channels.

Behavior
This sea urchin is active at night, hiding in crevices or under rocks during the  day.

The thinner spines are venomous (but not dangerous).

Miscellaneous notes
Many juvenile fish of the family Apogonidae (cardinal fish) may hide in the spines for protection.

In Hawaii, E. calamaris is often host to a symbiotic crab, Echinoecus pentagonus.

References

External links
http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=213377

Fauna of Western Australia
Animals described in 1774
Diadematidae
Taxa named by Peter Simon Pallas
Fauna of the Red Sea
Echinoids of Hawaii

Echinothrix calamaris


Maltschacher See is a lake in Carinthia, Austria, 5 kilometers south-east of Feldkirchen in Kärnten. A swamp is located on the western side of the lake. The outflow from the lake feeds the Strußnigteich, a breeding ground where carps are grown, four kilometers southeast of the Maltschacher See.

Flora and fauna
The lake originally had a dense belt of reeds and aquatic plants. In 1975 the grass carp was introduced in the lake which destroyed both plants and reed belts. Since 1991, the grass carp is no longer observed. Fifteen fish species are presently living in the lake. The main species found are perch, bream, bleak, carp, tench and perch.

Tourism
At the shore of the Maltschacher See is a campsite, a bungalow park and restaurants. In the vicinity are another campground and several guesthouses.

References

External links
 Kärntner Institut für Seenforschung

Lakes of Carinthia (state)

Maltschacher See


Horacena J. Taylor (born November 21, 1940) is an American director and stage manager. She is best known for staging the original off-Broadway production of Steve Carter's critically acclaimed play Nevis Mountain Dew.

Biography

Taylor was born in Columbia, South Carolina and is a graduate of Hampton Institute.  She also attended Howard University where she was a business manager for the Howard Players. Relocating to New York City, she gained the reputation as "one of best stage managers in New York."

Starting in the early 1970s, Taylor has worked extensively as a stage manager on numerous productions for the Negro Ensemble Company (NEC) including The Sty of the Blind Pig, The First Breeze of Summer and The Brownsville Raid.

In 1978, she made her off-Broadway debut as a director with the play Nevis Mountain Dew by Steve Carter.  The critically acclaimed production was selected by the Burns Mantle Yearbook as one of the ten best plays of the 1978–1979 season. For her work as a director, Taylor received a Drama Desk Award nomination.

Selected Credits

Theatre

Awards and nominations
 1979 Drama Desk Award nomination, Outstanding Director of a Play for Nevis Mountain Dew

References

External links

1940 births
Living people
American theatre directors
American women theatre directors
People from Columbia, South Carolina

Horacena J. Taylor


Sampson Lennard (1545 - 20 September 1615), of Chevening in Kent, was an English Member of Parliament who represented an unusually large number of different constituencies during the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I.

A prominent member of the Kent and Sussex gentry, Lennard was High Sheriff of Kent in 1590–1. He entered Parliament in 1571 as member for Launceston (Cornwall). He subsequently also represented Bramber (1584–5), St Mawes (1586–7), Christchurch (1589), St Germans (1593), Rye (1597), Liskeard (1601) and Sussex (1614).

Lennard married Margaret Fiennes (1541–1612), daughter of Thomas Fiennes, 9th Baron Dacre, and after her brother's death in 1594 he successfully claimed the barony on her behalf, so that she became the 11th Baroness Dacre. They had seven children, and their younger son, Sir Henry Lennard (1570–1616), succeeded his mother as 12th Baron Dacre.

Sampson Lennard is buried at St. Botolph, Chevening, Kent, England

References

Sources
 J E Neale, The Elizabethan House of Commons (London: Jonathan Cape, 1949)

Year of birth missing
1615 deaths
High Sheriffs of Kent
Members of the pre-1707 English Parliament for constituencies in Cornwall
16th-century births
People from Chevening, Kent
English MPs 1571
English MPs 1584–1585
English MPs 1586–1587
English MPs 1589
English MPs 1593
English MPs 1597–1598
English MPs 1601
English MPs 1614

Sampson Lennard


Agop Dilâçar ( Hagop Martayan, Istanbul, 22 May 1895 – Istanbul, 12 September 1979) was a Turkish-Armenian linguist who specialized in Turkic languages and the first Secretary General and head specialist of the Turkish Language Association. He created the Latin-based modern Turkish alphabet and was proficient in 12 languages, and in addition to Armenian and Turkish, Dilâçar knew English, French, Greek, Spanish, Azerbaijani, Latin, German, Russian and Bulgarian.

Biography
Of Armenian descent, Agop Dilâçar was born Hagop Martayan in Constantinople in 1895. His father was Vahan Martayan and his mother Eugenie Martayan (née Sarafian). He studied English in the local American School editing the school's publication "School News" (1907). In 1910, Dilâçar studied at the Robert College where he also learned German, Latin and Classical Greek, graduating in 1915. After completing his studies, he served as an officer in the Ottoman Army's Second Division in Diyarbakır. Dilâçar was awarded for his bravery and continued serving in the Ottoman Army reserves. Because of his knowledge of English, he worked as a Turkish Army interpreter for the British prisoners of war held after the Siege of Kut south of Baghdad. Dilâçar was arrested and escorted to Damascus for alleged secret extrajudicial contacts with the British prisoners. In Damascus, he was introduced for the first time to Mustafa Kemal Pasha (later known as Atatürk). Mustafa Kemal Pasha was then the Commander of the Ottoman Army's Seventh Division. Mustafa Kemal was impressed by Dilâçar's intelligence and secured a pardon for him and took him into his headquarters.

In 1918, Dilâçar moved to Lebanon, where he became the headmaster of Beirut's Sourp Nshan Armenian National School. In Lebanon, he established Louys, an Armenian periodical (in Armenian Լոյս, meaning The Light). In 1919, he returned to Istanbul where he worked as a lecturer of English at the Robert College. In 1922, he married Méliné Martayan and the couple moved to Bulgaria where he taught Ottoman Turkish and ancient East languages at Sofia University in Sofia, Bulgaria. In Sofia he also published the Armenian weekly Mshagouyt (in Armenian Մշակոյթ, meaning Culture) and the monthly Armenian periodical Rahvira (in Armenian Ռահվիրայ).

Dilâçar published a study of Turkish language in Istanbul's Arevelk (in Armenian Արեւելք, meaning The East). A translated copy of the article gained the attention of Mustafa Kemal Pasha who invited him to return to Turkey where he lectured in Faculty of Languages, History and Geography.

On 22 September 1932, Dilâçar was invited as a linguist to the First Turkish Language Congress held in Dolmabahçe Palace supervised by Atatürk, the founder and first president of the Republic of Turkey, together with two other linguists of Armenian ethnicity, İstepan Gurdikyan and Kevork Simkeşyan. He continued his work and research on the Turkish language as the head specialist and Secretary General of the newly founded Turkish Language Association in Ankara. Following the issue of the Law on Family Names in 1934, Mustafa Kemal Pasha suggested him the surname Dilaçar (literally meaning language opener), which he gladly accepted. Nevertheless, he continued to use the surname Martayan to sign his articles in the Armenian language. In return, Agop Martayan openly proposed the name Atatürk to Mustafa Kemal Pasha in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey.

Dilâçar taught history and language at Ankara University between 1936 and 1951. He also was the head adviser of the Türk Ansiklopedisi (Turkish Encyclopedia), between 1942 and 1960. He held his position and continued his research in linguistics at the Turkish Language Association until his death on 12 September 1979, in Istanbul.

Armenian publications
In addition to his work in Turkish language, Dilâçar also published in Istanbul's Armenian media, in particular with the Armenian daily Marmara (in Armenian Մարմարա).

In 1922, Dilâçar published his literary work Aratchin Portsutyun (in Armenian «Առաջին Փորձութիւն» meaning First Try). Also in 1922, he translated Armenian playwright Levon Shant's play Hin Asdvadzner (in Armenian «Հին աստվածներ» meaning Old Gods) to English. In 1929 he published his Armenological study "Kri Dzakoume yev Daradzoume" (in Armenian «Գրի ծագումը և տարածումը» meaning the origin and spread of language) and in 1929 "Hapetapanoutyun" (in Armenian «Հաբեթաբանութիւն») in addition to an Armenian translation of a collection of English poetry under the title Albyoni Bardezen (in Armenian «Ալբիոնի պարտէզէն» meaning from the garden of Albion) also in 1929.

In 1951, Dilâçar published his book Hazar Hink Harur Amyagi Khoher («1500ամեակի խոհեր» - meaning Thoughts on the 1500th Anniversary). In 1956 he published his book Asdvadzashountche yev Ashkharhapare (in Armenian «Աստուածաշունչը եւ Աշխարհաբարը» meaning The Holy  Bible and Modern Armenian language).

Dilâçar had numerous written works in linguistics, literature, studies and translations in Armenian. For example his literary work Salin Vra (Kragan Portser) (in Armenian Սալին Վրայ (գրական փորձեր), a collection of poems Khonchadz Yerazner (in Armenian «Խոնջած Երազներ»), a theatrical piece Tsaykatiter (in Armenian «Ցայգաթիթեռ») and studies like "Levon Shant, Ir Pilisopayoutyune yev Kegharvesde" (in Armenian Լեւոն Շանթ՝ Իր Փիլիսոփայութիւնը եւ Գեղարուեստը, meaning Levon Shant, his philosophy and artistry) and "Hay Tyutsaznavebe, Pakhtadadagan Himi Vera" (in Armenian Հայ Դիւցազնավէպը Բաղդատատական Հիմի Վրայ meaning The Armenian heroic epic novel on a comparative basis).

Armenian descent
After his death in 1979, in a news coverage, the then only Turkish TV channel TRT concealed the first name "Agop", which would suggest an Armenian descent, and instead mentioned "A. Dilaçar", using only the initial of his forename together with his surname. However, in a TV program in TRT, which Dilaçar joined, his first name was pronounced and spelled as well, crediting him "Agop Dilaçar".

Controversy
It is an issue of controversy whether Dilâçar was the person who officially proposed the surname Atatürk to the founder of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Pasha, or Saffet Arıkan's "Ulu Önderimiz Ata Türk Mustafa Kemal" (Our Great Leader Ata Türk Mustafa Kemal) sentence in the opening speech of the 2nd Language Day on 26 September 1934 became an inspiration for surname Atatürk. Contemporary newspapers and other articles favor the latter claim.

Publications
in Turkish
 Azeri Türkçesi (Azerbaijani Turkish), 1950
 Batı Türkçesi (Western Turkish), 1953
 Lehçelerin Yazılma Tarzı (Writing Style of Dialects)
 Türk Dil ve Lehçelerinin Tasnifi Meselesi (Classification Issue of the Turkish Languages and Dialects), 1954
 Devlet Dili Olarak Türkçe (Turkish as a State Language), 1962
 Wilhelm Thomsen ve Orhon Yazıtlarının Çözülüşü (Wilhelm Thomson and Encoding of the Orkhon Inscriptions), 1963
 Türk Diline Genel Bir Bakış (A General Look at the Turkish Language), 1964
 Türkiye'de Dil Özleşmesi (Language Purification in Turkey), 1965
 Dil, Diller ve Dilcilik (Language, Languages and Linguistics), 1968
 Kutadgu Bilig İncelemesi (Research of the Kutadgu Bilig), 1972
 Anadili İlkeleri ve Türkiye Dışındaki Uygulamalar (Native Language Principles and Applications Outside Turkey), 1978

in French
 Les bases bio-psychologiques de la Theorie Güneş Dil (1936)

in Armenian
 1500ամեակի խոհեր (Hazar Hink Harur Amyagi Khoher, Thoughts on the 1500th Anniversary), 1951
 Աստուածաշունչը եւ աշխարհաբարը (Asdvadzashountche yev Ashkharhapare, The Bible and the Armenian Modern Language), 1956
 Յօդուածներ (Hotvadzner, Articles), 2000
 Համայնապատկեր հայ մշակոյթի (Hamaynabadger Hay Meshagouyti Panorama of the Armenian Culture), vol. I, 2004
 Համայնապատկեր հայ մշակոյթի (Hamaynabadger Hay Meshagouyti Panorama of the Armenian Culture), vol. II, 2005

See also
 Turkish language
 Turkish Language Association
 Atatürk's Reforms
 Sun Language Theory
 Karamanoğlu Mehmet Bey

References

External links
Dilaçar's biography

1895 births
1979 deaths
Writers from Istanbul
Robert College alumni
Linguists from Turkey
Academic staff of Ankara University
Turkish people of Armenian descent
Linguists of Turkic languages
Schoolteachers from Istanbul
Burials at Şişli Armenian Cemetery
20th-century linguists

Agop Dilâçar


Devara Daasimayya (ದೇವರ ದಾಸಿಮಯ್ಯ), was an Indian mid-11th century poet and vachanakaara in Kannada. He was born in Mudanuru, a village in Shorapur Taluk, Yadagiri district in Karnataka. A weaver by profession,  his village had a Ramanatha temple among its many temples, dedicated to Shiva as worshiped by Rama. That is why Dasimayya's pen name (ankita nama) is Ramanatha, meaning Rama's Lord, i.e. Shiva.

Dasimayya's vachanas are dedicated to Ramanatha. He was one of the earliest propagator of Hinduism in India. He was a staunch worshipper of Shiva.

According to the legend, Dasimayya was performing intense ascetic practices in a jungle, when he claimed Shiva appeared to him. He allegedly told him to work in the practical world. As a result, Dasimayya renounced his practices and took up the trade of a weaver. He is also known as devar Dasimayya, "Dasimayya of the weavers". Today there is a large community of weavers called Devanga spread across the southern states of India who follow devara Dasimayya.

Today, popular tradition identifies several places where Dasimayya set up his weaver's looms in Mudanuru.

Dasimayya married Duggale, who grew up in Shivapura. He later became a teacher, eventually giving initiation to the wife of the local Chalukya king Jayasimha, Suggale.

A street in Bengaluru has been renamed after Dasimayya. After much opposition from Indian National Congress, on 12th October 2022, Jumma Masjid Street in the heart of Bengaluru was renamed "Sree Devara Dasimayya Road".

References

Kannada poets
Indian male poets
10th-century Indian poets

Devar Dasimayya


Open access (OA) is a set of principles and a range of practices through which research outputs are distributed online, free of access charges or other barriers. Under some models of open access publishing, barriers to copying or reuse are also reduced or removed by applying an open license for copyright.

The main focus of the open access movement is "peer reviewed research literature". Historically, this has centered mainly on print-based academic journals. Whereas non-open access journals cover publishing costs through access tolls such as subscriptions, site licenses or pay-per-view charges, open-access journals are characterised by funding models which do not require the reader to pay to read the journal's contents, relying instead on author fees or on public funding, subsidies and sponsorships. Open access can be applied to all forms of published research output, including peer-reviewed and non peer-reviewed academic journal articles, conference papers, theses, book chapters, monographs, research reports and images.

Since the revenue of most open access journals is earned from publication fees charged to the authors, OA publishers are motivated to increase their profits by accepting low-quality papers and by not performing thorough peer review. On the other hand, the prices for OA publications in the most prestigious journals have exceeded US$5,000 per article, making such publishing model unaffordable to a large number of researchers. This increase in publishing cost has been called the "Open-Access Sequel to [the] Serials Crisis".

Definitions
There are different models of open access publishing and publishers may use one or more of these models.

Colour naming system
Different open access types are currently commonly described using a colour system. The most commonly recognised names are "green", "gold", and "hybrid" open access; however, several other models and alternative terms are also used.

Gold OA
In the gold OA model, the publisher makes all articles and related content available for free immediately on the journal's website. In such publications, articles are licensed for sharing and reuse via Creative Commons licenses or similar.
Many gold OA publishers charge an article processing charge  (APC), which is typically paid through institutional or grant funding. The majority of gold open access journals charging APCs follow an "author-pays" model,
although this is not an intrinsic property of gold OA.

Green OA

Self-archiving by authors is permitted under green OA. Independently from publication by a publisher, the author also posts the work to a website controlled by the author, the research institution that funded or hosted the work, or to an independent central open repository, where people can download the work without paying.

Green OA is gratis for the author. Some publishers (less than 5% and decreasing as of 2014) may charge a fee for an additional service such as a free license on the publisher-authored copyrightable portions of the printed version of an article.

If the author posts the near-final version of their work after peer review by a journal, the archived version is called a "postprint". This can be the accepted manuscript as returned by the journal to the author after successful peer review.

Hybrid OA
Hybrid open-access journals contain a mixture of open access articles and closed access articles. A publisher following this model is partially funded by subscriptions, and only provide open access for those individual articles for which the authors (or research sponsor) pay a publication fee. Hybrid OA generally costs more than gold OA and can offer a lower quality of service. A particularly controversial practice in hybrid open access journals is "double dipping", where both authors and subscribers are charged. For these reasons, Hybrid Open Access journals have been called a "Mephistophelian invention", and publishing in Hybrid OA journals is not considered as meeting the open access mandate.

Bronze OA
Bronze open access articles are free to read only on the publisher page, but lack a clearly identifiable license. Such articles are typically not available for reuse.

Diamond/platinum OA

Journals that publish open access without charging authors article processing charges are sometimes referred to as diamond or platinum OA. Since they do not charge either readers or authors directly, such publishers often require funding from external sources such as the sale of advertisements, academic institutions, learned societies, philanthropists or government grants. There are now over 350 platinum OA journals with impact factors over a wide variety of academic disciplines, giving most academics options for OA with no APCs. Diamond OA journals are available for most disciplines, and are usually small (<25 articles per year) and more likely to be multilingual (38%).

Black OA

The growth of unauthorized digital copying by large-scale copyright infringement has enabled free access to paywalled literature. This has been done via existing social media sites (e.g. the #ICanHazPDF hashtag) as well as dedicated sites (e.g. Sci-Hub). In some ways this is a large-scale technical implementation of pre-existing practice, whereby those with access to paywalled literature would share copies with their contacts. However, the increased ease and scale from 2010 onwards have changed how many people treat subscription publications.

Gratis and libre

Similar to the free content definition, the terms 'gratis' and 'libre' were used in the Budapest Open Access Initiative definition to distinguish between free to read versus free to reuse.

 <

Gratis open access () refers to free online access, to read, free of charge, without re-use rights.

Libre open access () also refers to free online access, to read, free of charge, plus some additional re-use rights, covering the kinds of open access defined in the Budapest Open Access Initiative, the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing and the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. The re-use rights of libre OA are often specified by various specific Creative Commons licenses; all of which require as a minimum attribution of authorship to the original authors. In 2012, the number of works under libre open access was considered to have been rapidly increasing for a few years, though most open-access mandates did not enforce any copyright license and it was difficult to publish libre gold OA in legacy journals. However, there are no costs nor restrictions for green libre OA as preprints can be freely self-deposited with a free license, and most open-access repositories use Creative Commons licenses to allow reuse.

FAIR

FAIR is an acronym for 'findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable', intended to more clearly define what is meant by the term 'open access' and make the concept easier to discuss. Initially proposed in March 2016, it has subsequently been endorsed by organisations such as the European Commission and the G20.

Features

The emergence of open science or open research has brought to light a number of controversial and hotly-debated topics.

Scholarly publishing invokes various positions and passions. For example, authors may spend hours struggling with diverse article submission systems, often converting document formatting between a multitude of journal and conference styles, and sometimes spend months waiting for peer review results. The drawn-out and often contentious societal and technological transition to Open Access and Open Science/Open Research, particularly across North America and Europe (Latin America has already widely adopted "Acceso Abierto" since before 2000) has led to increasingly entrenched positions and much debate.

The area of (open) scholarly practices increasingly see a role for policy-makers and research funders giving focus to issues such as career incentives, research evaluation and business models for publicly funded research. Plan S and AmeliCA (Open Knowledge for Latin America) caused a wave of debate in scholarly communication in 2019 and 2020.

Licenses

Subscription-based publishing typically requires transfer of copyright from authors to the publisher so that the latter can monetise the process via dissemination and reproduction of the work. With OA publishing, typically authors retain copyright to their work, and license its reproduction to the publisher. Retention of copyright by authors can support academic freedoms by enabling greater control of the work (e.g. for image re-use) or licensing agreements (e.g. to allow dissemination by others).

The most common licenses used in open access publishing are Creative Commons. The widely used CC BY license is one of the most permissive, only requiring attribution to be allowed to use the material (and allowing derivations and commercial use). A range of more restrictive Creative Commons licenses are also used. More rarely, some of the smaller academic journals use custom open access licenses. Some publishers (e.g. Elsevier) use "author nominal copyright" for OA articles, where the author retains copyright in name only and all rights are transferred to the publisher.

Funding
Since open access publication does not charge readers, there are many financial models used to cover costs by other means. Open access can be provided by commercial publishers, who may publish open access as well as subscription-based journals, or dedicated open-access publishers such as Public Library of Science (PLOS) and BioMed Central. Another source of funding for open access can be institutional subscribers. One example of this is the Subscribe to Open publishing model introduced by Annual Reviews; if the subscription revenue goal is met, the given journal's volume is published open access.

Advantages and disadvantages of open access have generated considerable discussion amongst researchers, academics, librarians, university administrators, funding agencies, government officials, commercial publishers, editorial staff and society publishers. Reactions of existing publishers to open access journal publishing have ranged from moving with enthusiasm to a new open access business model, to experiments with providing as much free or open access as possible, to active lobbying against open access proposals. There are many publishers that started up as open access-only publishers, such as PLOS, Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Frontiers in... journals, MDPI and BioMed Central.

Article processing charges

Some open access journals (under the gold, and hybrid models) generate revenue by charging publication fees in order to make the work openly available at the time of publication. The money might come from the author but more often comes from the author's research grant or employer. While the payments are typically incurred per article published (e.g. BMC or PLOS journals), some journals apply them per manuscript submitted (e.g. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics until recently) or per author (e.g. PeerJ).

Charges typically range from $1,000–$3,000 ($5,380 for Nature Communications) but can be under $10 or over $5,000. APCs vary greatly depending on subject and region and are most common in scientific and medical journals (43% and 47% respectively), and lowest in arts and humanities journals (0% and 4% respectively). APCs can also depend on a journal's impact factor. Some publishers (e.g. eLife and Ubiquity Press) have released estimates of their direct and indirect costs that set their APCs. Hybrid OA generally costs more than gold OA and can offer a lower quality of service. A particularly controversial practice in hybrid open access journals is "double dipping", where both authors and subscribers are charged.

By comparison, journal subscriptions equate to $3,500–$4,000 per article published by an institution, but are highly variable by publisher (and some charge page fees separately). This has led to the assessment that there is enough money "within the system" to enable full transition to OA. However, there is ongoing discussion about whether the change-over offers an opportunity to become more cost-effective or promotes more equitable participation in publication. Concern has been noted that increasing subscription journal prices will be mirrored by rising APCs, creating a barrier to less financially privileged authors.

The inherent bias of the current APC-based OA publishing perpetuates this inequality through the 'Matthew effect' (the rich get richer and the poor get poorer). The switch from pay-to-read to pay-to-publish has left essentially the same people behind, with some academics not having enough purchasing power (individually or through their institutions) for either option. Some gold OA publishers will waive all or part of the fee for authors from less developed economies. Steps are normally taken to ensure that peer reviewers do not know whether authors have requested, or been granted, fee waivers, or to ensure that every paper is approved by an independent editor with no financial stake in the journal. The main argument against requiring authors to pay a fee, is the risk to the peer review system, diminishing the overall quality of scientific journal publishing.

Subsidized or no-fee
No-fee open access journals, also known as "platinum" or "diamond" do not charge either readers or authors. These journals use a variety of business models including subsidies, advertising, membership dues, endowments, or volunteer labour. Subsidising sources range from universities, libraries and museums to foundations, societies or government agencies. Some publishers may cross-subsidise from other publications or auxiliary services and products. For example, most APC-free journals in Latin America are funded by higher education institutions and are not conditional on institutional affiliation for publication. Conversely, Knowledge Unlatched crowdsources funding in order to make monographs available open access.

Estimates of prevalence vary, but approximately 10,000 journals without APC are listed in DOAJ and the Free Journal Network. APC-free journals tend to be smaller and more local-regional in scope. Some also require submitting authors to have a particular institutional affiliation.

Preprint use

A "preprint" is typically a version of a research paper that is shared on an online platform prior to, or during, a formal peer review process. Preprint platforms have become popular due to the increasing drive towards open access publishing and can be publisher- or community-led. A range of discipline-specific or cross-domain platforms now exist. The posting of pre-prints (and/or authors' manuscript versions) is consistent with the Green Open Access model.

Archiving

The "green" route to OA refers to author self-archiving, in which a version of the article (often the peer-reviewed version before editorial typesetting, called "postprint") is posted online to an institutional and/or subject repository. This route is often dependent on journal or publisher policies, which can be more restrictive and complicated than respective "gold" policies regarding deposit location, license, and embargo requirements. Some publishers require an embargo period before deposition in public repositories, arguing that immediate self-archiving risks loss of subscription income.

Embargo periods
 Embargoes are imposed by between 20 and 40% of journals, during which time an article is paywalled before permitting self-archiving (green OA) or releasing a free-to-read version (bronze OA). Embargo periods typically vary from 6–12 months in STEM and >12 months in humanities, arts and social sciences. Embargo-free self-archiving has not been shown to affect subscription revenue, and tends to increase readership and citations. Embargoes have been lifted on particular topics for either limited times or ongoing (e.g. Zika outbreaks or indigenous health). Plan S includes zero-length embargoes on self-archiving as a key principle.

Motivations

Open access (mostly green and gratis) began to be sought and provided worldwide by researchers when the possibility itself was opened by the advent of Internet and the World Wide Web. The momentum was further increased by a growing movement for academic journal publishing reform, and with it gold and libre OA.

The premises behind open access publishing are that there are viable funding models to maintain traditional peer review standards of quality while also making the following changes:
 Rather than making journal articles accessible through a subscription business model, all academic publications could be made free to read and published with some other cost-recovery model, such as publication charges, subsidies, or charging subscriptions only for the print edition, with the online edition gratis or "free to read".
 Rather than applying traditional notions of copyright to academic publications, they could be libre or "free to build upon".

An obvious advantage of open access journals is the free access to scientific papers regardless of affiliation with a subscribing library and improved access for the general public; this is especially true in developing countries. Lower costs for research in academia and industry have been claimed in the Budapest Open Access Initiative, although others have argued that OA may raise the total cost of publication, and further increase economic incentives for exploitation in academic publishing. The open access movement is motivated by the problems of social inequality caused by restricting access to academic research, which favor large and wealthy institutions with the financial means to purchase access to many journals, as well as the economic challenges and perceived unsustainability of academic publishing.

Stakeholders and concerned communities

The intended audience of research articles is usually other researchers. Open access helps researchers as readers by opening up access to articles that their libraries do not subscribe to. All researchers benefit from open access as no library can afford to subscribe to every scientific journal and most can only afford a small fraction of them – this is known as the "serials crisis".

Open access extends the reach of research beyond its immediate academic circle. An open access article can be read by anyone – a professional in the field, a researcher in another field, a journalist, a politician or civil servant, or an interested layperson. Indeed, a 2008 study revealed that mental health professionals are roughly twice as likely to read a relevant article if it is freely available.

Research funders

Research funding agencies and universities want to ensure that the research they fund and support in various ways has the greatest possible research impact. As a means of achieving this, research funders are beginning to expect open access to the research they support. Many of them (including all UK Research Councils) have already adopted open-access mandates, and others are on the way to do so (see ROARMAP).

Universities
A growing number of universities are providing institutional repositories in which their researchers can deposit their published articles. Some open access advocates believe that institutional repositories will play a very important role in responding to open-access mandates from funders.

In May 2005, 16 major Dutch universities cooperatively launched DAREnet, the Digital Academic Repositories, making over 47,000 research papers available. From 2 June 2008, DAREnet has been incorporated into the scholarly portal NARCIS. By 2019, NARCIS provided access to 360,000 open access publications from all Dutch universities, KNAW, NWO and a number of scientific institutes.

In 2011, a group of universities in North America formed the Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions (COAPI). Starting with 21 institutions where the faculty had either established an open access policy or were in the process of implementing one, COAPI now has nearly 50 members. These institutions' administrators, faculty and librarians, and staff support the international work of the Coalition's awareness-raising and advocacy for open access.

In 2012, the Harvard Open Access Project released its guide to good practices for university open-access policies, focusing on rights-retention policies that allow universities to distribute faculty research without seeking permission from publishers. Rights retention is currently being explored in the UK by UKSCL.

In 2013 a group of nine Australian universities formed the Australian Open Access Strategy Group (AOASG) to advocate, collaborate, raise awareness, and lead and build capacity in the open access space in Australia. In 2015, the group expanded to include all eight New Zealand universities and was renamed the Australasian Open Access Support Group. It was then renamed the Australasian Open Access Strategy Group , highlighting its emphasis on strategy. The awareness raising activities of the AOASG include presentations, workshops, blogs, and a webinar series  on open access issues.

Libraries and librarians
As information professionals, librarians are often vocal and active advocates of open access. These librarians believe that open access promises to remove both the price and permission barriers that undermine library efforts to provide access to scholarship, as well as helping to address the serials crisis. Open access provides a complement to library access services such as interlibrary loan, supporting researchers' needs for immediate access to scholarship. Librarians and library associations also lead education and outreach initiatives to faculty, administrators, the library community, and the public about the benefits of open access.

Many library associations have either signed major open access declarations or created their own. For example, IFLA have produced a Statement on Open Access. The Association of Research Libraries has documented the need for increased access to scholarly information, and was a leading founder of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC). Librarians and library associations also develop and share informational resources on scholarly publishing and open access to research; the Scholarly Communications Toolkit developed by the Association of College and Research Libraries of the American Library Association is one example of this work.

At most universities, the library manages the institutional repository, which provides free access to scholarly work by the university's faculty. The Canadian Association of Research Libraries has a program to develop institutional repositories at all Canadian university libraries. An increasing number of libraries provide publishing or hosting services for open access journals, with the Library Publishing Coalition as a membership organisation.

In 2013, open access activist Aaron Swartz was posthumously awarded the American Library Association's James Madison Award for being an "outspoken advocate for public participation in government and unrestricted access to peer-reviewed scholarly articles". In March 2013, the entire editorial board and the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Library Administration resigned en masse, citing a dispute with the journal's publisher.  One board member wrote of a "crisis of conscience about publishing in a journal that was not open access" after the death of Aaron Swartz.

Public
The public may benefit from open access to scholarly research for many reasons. Advocacy groups such as SPARC's Alliance for Taxpayer Access in the US argue that most scientific research is paid for by taxpayers through government grants, who have a right to access the results of what they have funded. Examples of people who might wish to read scholarly literature include individuals with medical conditions and their family members, serious hobbyists or "amateur" scholars (e.g. amateur astronomers), and high school and junior college students. Additionally, professionals in many fields, such as those doing research in private companies, start-ups, and hospitals, may not have access to publications behind paywalls, and OA publications are the only type that they can access in practice.

Even those who do not read scholarly articles benefit indirectly from open access. For example, patients benefit when their doctor and other health care professionals have access to the latest research. Advocates argue that open access speeds research progress, productivity, and knowledge translation.

Low-income countries
In developing nations, open access archiving and publishing acquires a unique importance. Scientists, health care professionals, and institutions in developing nations often do not have the capital necessary to access scholarly literature.

Many open access projects involve international collaboration. For example, the SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), is a comprehensive approach to full open access journal publishing, involving a number of Latin American countries. Bioline International, a non-profit organization dedicated to helping publishers in developing countries is a collaboration of people in the UK, Canada, and Brazil; the Bioline International Software is used around the world. Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), is a collaborative effort of over 100 volunteers in 45 countries. The Public Knowledge Project in Canada developed the open-source publishing software Open Journal Systems (OJS), which is now in use around the world, for example by the African Journals Online group, and one of the most active development groups is Portuguese. This international perspective has resulted in advocacy for the development of open-source appropriate technology and the necessary open access to relevant information for sustainable development.

History

Extent
Various studies have investigated the extent of open access. A study published in 2010 showed that roughly 20% of the total number of peer-reviewed articles published in 2008 could be found openly accessible. Another study found that by 2010, 7.9% of all academic journals with impact factors were gold open access journals and showed a broad distribution of Gold Open Access journals throughout academic disciplines. A study of random journals from the citations indexes AHSCI, SCI and SSCI in 2013 came to the result that 88% of the journals were closed access and 12% were open access. In August 2013, a study done for the European Commission reported that 50% of a random sample of all articles published in 2011 as indexed by Scopus were freely accessible online by the end of 2012. A 2017 study by the Max Planck Society put the share of gold access articles in pure open access journals at around 13 percent of total research papers.

In 2009, there were approximately 4,800 active open access journals, publishing around 190,000 articles. As of February 2019, over 12,500 open access journals are listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals.

A 2013-2018 report (GOA4) found that in 2018 over 700,000 articles were published in gold open access in the world, of which 42% was in journals with no author-paid fees. The figure varies significantly depending on region and kind of publisher: 75% if university-run, over 80% in Latin America, but less than 25% in Western Europe. However, Crawford's study did not count open access articles published in "hybrid" journals (subscription journals that allow authors to make their individual articles open in return for payment of a fee). More comprehensive analyses of the scholarly literature suggest that this resulted in a significant underestimation of the prevalence of author-fee-funded OA publications in the literature. Crawford's study also found that although a minority of open access journals impose charges on authors, a growing majority of open access articles are published under this arrangement, particularly in the science disciplines (thanks to the enormous output of open access "mega journals", each of which may publish tens of thousands of articles in a year and are invariably funded by author-side charges—see Figure 10.1 in GOA4).

The adoption of Open Access publishing varies significantly from publisher to publisher, as shown in Fig. OA-Plot, where only the oldest (traditional) publishers are shown, but not the newer publishers, that use the Open Access model exclusively (such as MDPI and OMICS).This plot shows, that since 2010 the Institute of Physics has the largest percentage of OA publications, while the American Chemical Society has the lowest. Both the IOP and the ACS are non-profit publishers. The increase in OA percentage for articles published before ca. 1923 is related to the expiration of a 100-year copyright term. Some publishers (e.g. IOP and ACS made many such articles available as Open Access, while others (Elsevier in particular) did not.

The Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR) indexes the creation, location and growth of open access open access-repositories and their contents. As of February 2019, over 4,500 institutional and cross-institutional repositories have been registered in ROAR.

Effects on scholarly publishing

Article impact

Since published articles report on research that is typically funded by government or university grants, the more the article is used, cited, applied and built upon, the better for research as well as for the researcher's career.

Some professional organizations have encouraged use of open access: in 2001, the International Mathematical Union communicated to its members that "Open access to the mathematical literature is an important goal" and encouraged them to "[make] available electronically as much of our own work as feasible" to "[enlarge] the reservoir of freely available primary mathematical material, particularly helping scientists working without adequate library access".

Readership
OA articles are generally viewed online and downloaded more often than paywalled articles and that readership continues for longer. Readership is especially higher in demographics that typically lack access to subscription journals (in addition to the general population, this includes many medical practitioners, patient groups, policymakers, non-profit sector workers, industry researchers, and independent researchers). OA articles are more read on publication management programs such as Mendeley. Open access practices can reduce publication delays, an obstacle which led some research fields such as high-energy physics to adopt widespread preprint access.

Citation rate

A main reason authors make their articles openly accessible is to maximize their citation impact. Open access articles are typically cited more often than equivalent articles requiring subscriptions. This 'citation advantage' was first reported in 2001. Although two major studies dispute this claim, the consensus of multiple studies support the effect, with measured OA citation advantage varying in magnitude between 1.3-fold to 6-fold depending on discipline.

Citation advantage is most pronounced in OA articles in hybrid journals (compared to the non-OA articles in those same journals), and with articles deposited in green OA repositories. Notably, green OA articles show similar benefits to citation counts as gold OA articles. Articles in gold OA journals are typically cited at a similar frequency to paywalled articles. Citation advantage increases the longer an article has been published.

Alt-metrics
In addition to format academic citation, other forms of research impact (altmetrics) may be affected by OA publishing, constituting a significant "amplifier" effect for science published on such platforms. Initial studies suggest that OA articles are more referenced in blogs, on Twitter, and on English Wikipedia. The OA advantage in altmetrics may be smaller than the advantage in academic citations, although findings are mixed.

Journal impact factor

Journal impact factor (JIF) measures the average number of citations of articles in a journal over a two-year window. It is commonly used as a proxy for journal quality, expected research impact for articles submitted to that journal, and of researcher success. In subscription journals, impact factor correlates with overall citation count, however this correlation is not observed in gold OA journals.

Open access initiatives like Plan S typically call on a broader adoption and implementation of the Leiden Manifesto and the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) alongside fundamental changes in the scholarly communication system.

Peer review processes

Peer review of research articles prior to publishing has been common since the 18th century. Commonly reviewer comments are only revealed to the authors and reviewer identities kept anonymous. The rise of OA publishing has also given rise to experimentation in technologies and processes for peer review. Increasing transparency of peer review and quality control includes posting results to preprint servers, preregistration of studies, open publishing of peer reviews, open publishing of full datasets and analysis code, and other open science practices. It is proposed that increased transparency of academic quality control processes makes audit of the academic record easier. Additionally, the rise of OA megajournals has made it viable for their peer review to focus solely on methodology and results interpretation whilst ignoring novelty. Major criticisms of the influence of OA on peer review have included that if OA journals have incentives to publish as many articles as possible then peer review standards may fall (as aspect of predatory publishing), increased use of preprints may populate the academic corpus with un-reviewed junk and propaganda, and that reviewers may self-censor if their identity of open. Some advocates propose that readers will have increased skepticism of preprint studies - a traditional hallmark of scientific inquiry.

Predatory publishing

Predatory publishers present themselves as academic journals but use lax or no peer review processes coupled with aggressive advertising in order to generate revenue from article processing charges from authors. The definitions of 'predatory', 'deceptive', or 'questionable' publishers/journals are often vague, opaque, and confusing, and can also include fully legitimate journals, such as those indexed by PubMed Central. In this sense, Grudniewicz et al. proposed a consensus definition that needs to be shared: "Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices."

In this way, predatory journals exploit the OA model by deceptively removing the main value added by the journal (peer review) and parasitize the OA movement, occasionally hijacking or impersonating other journals. The rise of such journals since 2010 has damaged the reputation of the OA publishing model as a whole, especially via sting operations where fake papers have been successfully published in such journals. Although commonly associated with OA publishing models, subscription journals are also at risk of similar lax quality control standards and poor editorial policies. OA publishers therefore aim to ensure quality via auditing by registries such as DOAJ, OASPA and SciELO and comply to a standardised set of conditions. A blacklist of predatory publishers is also maintained by Cabell's blacklist (a successor to Beall's List). Increased transparency of the peer review and publication process has been proposed as a way to combat predatory journal practices.

Open irony

Open irony refers to the situation where a scholarly journal article advocates open access but the article itself is only accessible by paying a fee to the journal publisher to read the article. This has been noted in many fields, with more than 20 examples appearing since around 2010, including in widely-read journals such as The Lancet, Science and Nature. A Flickr group collected screenshots of examples. In 2012 Duncan Hull proposed the Open Access Irony award to publicly humiliate journals that publish these kinds of papers. Examples of these have been shared and discussed on social media using the hashtag #openirony (e.g. on Twitter). Typically these discussions are humorous exposures of articles/editorials that are pro-open access, but locked behind paywalls. The main concern that motivates these discussions is that restricted access to public scientific knowledge is slowing scientific progress. The practice has been justified as important for raising awareness of open access.

Infrastructure

Databases and repositories
Multiple databases exist for open access articles, journals and datasets. These databases overlap, however each has different inclusion criteria, which typically include extensive vetting for journal publication practices, editorial boards and ethics statements. The main databases of open access articles and journals are DOAJ and PMC. In the case of DOAJ, only fully gold open access journals are included, whereas PMC also hosts articles from hybrid journals.

There are also a number of preprint servers which host articles that have not yet been reviewed as open access copies. These articles are subsequently submitted for peer review by both open access or subscription journals, however the preprint always remains openly accessible. A list of preprint servers is maintained at ResearchPreprints.

For articles that are published in closed access journals, some authors will deposit a postprint copy in an open-access repository, where it can be accessed for free. Most subscription journals place restrictions on which version of the work may be shared and/or require an embargo period following the original date of publication. What is deposited can therefore vary, either a preprint or the peer-reviewed postprint, either the author's refereed and revised final draft or the publisher's version of record, either immediately deposited or after several years. Repositories may be specific to an institution, a discipline (e.g.arXiv), a scholarly society (e.g. MLA's CORE Repository), or a funder (e.g. PMC). Although the practice was first formally proposed in 1994, self-archiving was already being practiced by some computer scientists in local FTP archives in the 1980s (later harvested by CiteSeer). The SHERPA/RoMEO site maintains a list of the different publisher copyright and self-archiving policies and the ROAR database hosts an index of the repositories themselves.

Representativeness in proprietary databases
Uneven coverage of journals in the major commercial citation index databases (such as Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed) has strong effects on evaluating both researchers and institutions (e.g. the UK Research Excellence Framework or Times Higher Education ranking). While these databases primarily select based on process and content quality, there has been concern that their commercial nature may skew their assessment criteria and representation of journals outside of Europe and North America. At the time of that study in 2018, there were no  comprehensive, open source or non-commercial academic databases. However, in more recent years, The Lens emerged as a suitable outside-paywalls universal academic databse.

Distribution

Like the self-archived green open access articles, most gold open access journal articles are distributed via the World Wide Web, due to low distribution costs, increasing reach, speed, and increasing importance for scholarly communication. Open source software is sometimes used for open-access repositories, open access journal websites, and other aspects of open access provision and open access publishing.

Access to online content requires Internet access, and this distributional consideration presents physical and sometimes financial barriers to access.

There are various open access aggregators that list open access journals or articles. ROAD (the Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources) synthesizes information about open access journals and is a subset of the ISSN register. SHERPA/RoMEO lists international publishers that allow the published version of articles to be deposited in institutional repositories. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) contains over 12,500 peer-reviewed open access journals for searching and browsing.

Open access articles can be found with a web search, using any general search engine or those specialized for the scholarly and scientific literature, such as Google Scholar, OAIster, base-search.net, and CORE Many open-access repositories offer a programmable interface to query their content. Some of them use a generic protocol, such as OAI-PMH (e.g., base-search.net). In addition, some repositories propose a specific API, such as the arXiv API, the Dissemin API, the Unpaywall/oadoi API, or the base-search API.

In 1998, several universities founded the Public Knowledge Project to foster open access, and developed the open-source journal publishing system Open Journal Systems, among other scholarly software projects. As of 2010, it was being used by approximately 5,000 journals worldwide.

Several initiatives provide an alternative to the English language dominance of existing publication indexing systems, including Index Copernicus (Polish), SciELO (Portuguese, Spanish) and Redalyc (Spanish).

Policies and mandates

Many universities, research institutions and research funders have adopted mandates requiring their researchers to make their research publications open access. For example, Research Councils UK spent nearly £60m on supporting their open access mandate between 2013 and 2016. New mandates are often announced during the Open Access Week, that takes place each year during the last full week of October.

The idea of mandating self-archiving was raised at least as early as 1998. Since 2003 efforts have been focused on open access mandating by the funders of research: governments, research funding agencies, and universities. Some publishers and publisher associations have lobbied against introducing mandates.

In 2002, the University of Southampton's School of Electronics & Computer Science became one of the first schools to implement a meaningful mandatory open access policy, in which authors had to contribute copies of their articles to the school's repository. More institutions followed suit in the following years. In 2007, Ukraine became the first country to create a national policy on open access, followed by Spain in 2009. Argentina, Brazil, and Poland are currently in the process of developing open access policies. Making master's and doctoral theses open access is an increasingly popular mandate by many educational institutions.

In the US, the NIH Public Access Policy has required since 2008 that papers describing research funded by the National Institutes of Health must be available to the public free through PubMed Central (PMC) within 12 months of publication. In 2022, US President Joe Biden's Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a memorandum calling for the removal of the 12-month embargo. By the end of 2025, US federal agencies must require all results (papers, documents and data) produced as a result of US government-funded research to be available to the public immediately upon publication.

In 2023, the Council of the European Union recommended the implementation of an open-access and not-for-profit model for research publishing by the European Commission and member states. These recommendations are not legally binding and received mixed reactions. While welcomed by some members of the academic community, publishers argued that the suggested model is unrealistic due to the lack of crucial funding details. Furthermore, the council's recommendations raised concerns within the publishing industry regarding the potential implications, and they also emphasized the importance of research integrity and the need for member states to address predatory journals and paper mills.

Compliance
As of March 2021, open-access mandates have been registered by over 100 research funders and 800 universities worldwide, compiled in the Registry of Open Access Repository Mandates and Policies. As these sorts of mandates increase in prevalence, collaborating researchers may be affected by several at once. Tools such as SWORD can help authors manage sharing between repositories.

Compliance rates with voluntary open access policies remain low (as low as 5%). However it has been demonstrated that more successful outcomes are achieved by policies that are compulsory and more specific, such as specifying maximum permissible embargo times. Compliance with compulsory open-access mandates varies between funders from 27% to 91% (averaging 67%). From March 2021, Google Scholar started tracking and indicating compliance with funders' open-access mandates, although it only checks whether items are free-to-read, rather than openly licensed.

Inequality and open access

Gender inequality
Gender inequality still exists in the modern system of scientific publishing.
In terms of citation and authorship position, gender differences favoring men can be found in many disciplines such as political science, economics and neurology, and critical care research. For instance, in critical care research, 30.8% of the 18,483 research articles published between 2008 and 2018 were led by female authors and were more likely to be published in lower-impact journals than those led by male authors. Such disparity can adversely affect the scientific career of women and underrate their scientific impacts for promotion and funding. Open access (OA) publishing can be a tool to help female researchers increase their publications' visibility, measure impact, and help close the gendered citation gap. OA publishing is a well-advocated practice for providing better accessibility to knowledge (especially for researchers in low- and middle-income countries) as well as increasing transparency along with the publishing procedure [21,22]. Publications' visibility can be enhanced through OA publishing due to its high accessibility by removing paywalls compared to non-OA publishing.

Additionally, because of this high visibility, authors can receive more recognition for their works.
OA publishing is also suggested to be advantageous in terms of citation number compared to non-OA publishing,  but this aspect is still controversial within the scientific community. The association between OA and a higher number of citations may be because higher-quality articles are self-selected for publication as OA. Considering the gender-based issues in academia and the efforts to improve gender equality, OA can be an important factor when female researchers choose a place to publish their articles. With a proper supporting system and funding, OA publishing is shown to have increased female researchers' productivity.

High-income–low-income country inequality
A 2022 study has found "most OA articles were written by authors in high-income countries, and there were no articles in Mirror journals by authors in low-income countries." "One of the great ironies of open access is that you grant authors around the world the ability to finally read the scientific literature that was completely closed off to them, but it ends up excluding them from publishing in the same journals" says Emilio Bruna, a scholar at the University of Florida in Gainesville.

By country

 Australia
 Austria
 Belgium
 Canada
 Denmark
 France
 Germany
 Greece
 Hungary
 India
 Republic of Ireland
 Italy
 Netherlands
 New Zealand
 Norway
 Poland
 Portugal
 Russia
 South Africa
 Spain
 Sweden
 Ukraine

See also

 Access to knowledge movement
 Altmetrics
 Copyright policies of academic publishers
 Freedom of information
 Guerilla Open Access
 List of open access journals
 Open Access Button
 Open access monograph
 Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association
 Open Access Week
 Open data
 Open educational resources
 Open government
 Predatory open access publishing
 Right to Internet access
 Category:Open access journals
 Category:Open access by country
 Category:Publication management software

Notes

References

Sources

Further reading

 Kirsop, Barbara, and Leslie Chan. (2005) Transforming access to research literature for developing countries. Serials Reviews, 31(4): 246–255.

 "Open and Shut?" Blog on open access by Richard Poynder, a freelance journalist, who has done a series of interviews with a few of the leaders of the open access movement.

 .

 In Oldenburg's Long Shadow: Librarians, Research Scientists, Publishers, and the Control of Scientific Publishing

External links

 OAD: Open Access Directory, an "open-access, wiki-based, community-updated encyclopedia of OA factual lists" (started by Peter Suber and Robin Peek). . Published by Simmons School of Library and Information Science in US.
 OASPA: Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association, a community of organisations engaged in open scholarship with a mission to encourage and enable open access as the predominant model of communication for scholarly outputs
 OATP: Open Access Tracking Project, a crowd-sourced tagging project providing real-time alerts about new OA developments and organizing knowledge of the field (started by Peter Suber).
 GOAP: UNESCO's Global Open Access Portal, providing "status of open access to scientific information around the world"

Academic publishing
Social movements
Electronic publishing
Scholarly communication
Free culture movement
Articles containing video clips

Open access


The Battle of Inkerman was fought during the Crimean War on 5 November 1854 between the allied armies of Britain and France against the Imperial Russian Army. The battle broke the will of the Russian Army to defeat the allies in the field, and was followed by the Siege of Sevastopol. The role of troops fighting mostly on their own initiative due to the foggy conditions during the battle has earned the engagement the name "The Soldier's Battle."

Prelude to the battle
The allied armies of Britain, France, Sardinia, and the Ottoman Empire had landed on the west coast of Crimea on 14 September 1854, intending to capture the Russian naval base at Sevastopol.  The allied armies fought off and defeated the Russian Army at the Battle of Alma, forcing them to retreat in some confusion toward the River Kacha.  While the allies could have taken this opportunity to attack Sevastopol before Sevastopol could be put into a proper state of defence, the allied commanders, British general FitzRoy Somerset, 1st Baron Raglan and the French commander François Certain Canrobert could not agree on a plan of attack.

Instead, they resolved to march around the city, and put Sevastopol under siege. Toward this end the allies marched to the southern coast of the Crimean peninsula and established a supply port at the city of Balaclava.  However, before the siege of Sevastopol began, the Russian commander Prince Menshikov evacuated Sevastopol with the major portion of his field army, leaving only a garrison to defend the city. On 25 October 1854, a superior Russian force attacked the British base at Balaclava, and although the Russian attack was foiled before it could reach the base, the Russians were left holding a strong position north of the British line. Balaclava revealed the allied weakness; their siege lines were so long they did not have sufficient troops to man them. Realising this, Menshikov launched an attack across the Tchernaya River on 4 November 1854.

Battle

Assault

On 5 November 1854, the Russian 10th Division, under Lt. General , launched a heavy attack on the allied right flank atop Home Hill east from the Russian position on Shell Hill.  The assault was made by two columns of 35,000 men and 134 field artillery guns of the Russian 10th Division.  When combined with other Russian forces in the area, the Russian attacking force would form a formidable army of some 42,000 men.  The initial Russian assault was to be received by the British Second Division dug in on Home Hill with only 2,700 men and 12 guns.  Both Russian columns moved in a flanking fashion east towards the British. They hoped to overwhelm this portion of the Allied army before reinforcements could arrive.  The fog of the early morning hours aided the Russians by hiding their approach. Not all the Russian troops could fit on the narrow 300-meter-wide heights of Shell Hill. Accordingly, General Soymonov had followed Prince Alexander Menshikov's directive and deployed some of his force around the Careenage Ravine.  Furthermore, on the night before the attack, Soymonov was ordered by General Peter A. Dannenberg to send part of his force north and east to the Inkerman Bridge to cover the crossing of Russian troop reinforcements under Lt. General . Thus, Soymonov could not effectively employ all of his troops in the attack.

When dawn broke, Soymonov attacked the British positions on Home Hill with 6,300 men from the Kolyvansky, Ekaterinburg and Tomsky regiments.  Soymonov also had a further 9,000 in reserve. The British had strong pickets and had ample warning of the Russian attack despite the early morning fog. The pickets, some of them at company strength, engaged the Russians as they moved to attack. The firing in the valley also gave warning to the rest of the Second Division, who rushed to their defensive positions. De Lacy Evans, commander of the British Second Division, had been injured in a fall from his horse so command of the Second Division was taken up by Major-General John Pennefather, a highly aggressive officer. Pennefather did not know that he was facing a superior Russian force. Thus he abandoned Evans' plan of falling back to draw the Russians within range of the British field artillery which was hidden behind Home Hill.  Instead, Pennefather ordered his 2,700 strong division to attack. When they did so, the Second Division faced some 15,300 Russian soldiers.  Russian guns bombarded Home Hill, but there were no troops on the crest at this point.

The Second Division in action; the Russians in the valley

The Russian infantry, advancing through the fog, were met by the advancing Second Division, who opened fire with their Pattern 1851 Enfield rifles, whereas the Russians were still armed with smoothbore muskets. The Russians were forced into a bottleneck owing to the shape of the valley, and came out on the Second Division's left flank. The Minié balls of the British rifles proved deadly accurate against the Russian attack. Those Russian troops that survived were pushed back at bayonet point.  Eventually, the Russian infantry were pushed all the way back to their own artillery positions. The Russians launched a second attack, also on the Second Division's left flank, but this time in much larger numbers and led by Soymonov himself.  Captain Hugh Rowlands, in charge of the British pickets, reported that the Russians charged "with the most fiendish yells you can imagine." At this point, after the second attack, the British position was incredibly weak. If Soymonov had known the condition of the British, he would have ordered a third attack before the British reinforcements arrived. Such a third attack might well have succeeded, but Soymonov could not see in the fog and thus did not know of the desperate situation of the British. Instead, he awaited the arrival of his own reinforcements—General Pavlov's men who were making their way toward the Inkerman battlefield in four different prong attacks from the north. However, the British reinforcements arrived in the form of the Light Division which came up and immediately launched a counterattack along the left flank of the Russian front, forcing the Russians back. During this fighting Soymonov was killed by a British rifleman.  Russian command was immediately taken up by Colonel Pristovoitov, who was himself shot a few minutes later. Colonel Uvazhnov-Aleksandrov assumed command of the Russian forces but was also killed in the withering British fire.  At this point, no officer seemed keen to take up command and Captain Andrianov was sent off on his horse to consult with various generals about the problem.

The rest of the Russian column proceeded down to the valley where they were attacked by British artillery and pickets, eventually being driven off. The resistance of the British troops here had blunted all of the initial Russian attacks. General Paulov, leading the Russian second column of some 15,000, attacked the British positions on Sandbag Battery. As they approached, the 300 British defenders vaulted the wall and charged with the bayonet, driving off the leading Russian battalions. Five Russian battalions were assailed in the flanks by the British 41st Regiment, who drove them back to the River Chernaya.

Home Hill

General Peter A Dannenberg took command of the Russian Army, and together with the uncommitted 9,000 men from the initial attacks, launched an assault on the British positions on Home Hill, held by the Second Division. The Guards Brigade of the First Division (The Highland Brigade was guarding Balaclava), and the Fourth Division were already marching to support the Second Division, but the British troops holding the Barrier withdrew, before it was re-taken by men from the 21st, 63rd Regiments and The Rifle Brigade. This position remained in British hands for the rest of the battle, despite determined attempts to take it back. The Russians launched 7,000 men against the Sandbag Battery, which was defended by 2,000 British soldiers. So began a ferocious struggle which saw the battery change hands repeatedly. The division commander Prince George, Duke of Cambridge, had a horse shot under him, and he found himself with around 100 men, the rest pushing down the slope. He was nearly cut off by another advancing Russian column, but he and his aide managed to get back.

Meanwhile, the Light Division occupied Victoria Ridge throughout the day. Its commander, Sir George Brown (British Army officer) was wounded, so General William Codrington (British Army officer) took command. He refused the help of other troops, perpetually sending them back to the battle.

Fourth Division in action
When the British Fourth Division arrived under General George Cathcart, they were finally able to go on the offensive, but confusion reigned. The Duke requested him to fill the 'gap' on the left of the Guards, to prevent them from being isolated; when Cathcart asked Pennefather where to help, Pennefather replied "Everywhere.", so Cathcart dispersed his men in different directions, until about 400 men were left. Quartermaster general Richard Airey (1st Baron Airey) told to "Support the Brigade of Guards. Do not descend or leave the plateau... Those are Lord Raglan's orders." Cathcart moved his men to the right. The courage of Cathcart and his men had the unexpected effect of encouraging other British units to charge the Russians. However, the flanking troops were caught in the rear by an unexpected Russian counter-attack, during which Cathcart, believing that the Guards had mistaken them for Russians, ordered his men to remove their greatcoats, but the firing intensified, and Cathcart was shot from his horse and killed as he led 50 men of the 20th Regiment of Foot up a hill, leaving his troops disorganized and the attack was broken up. This gave the Russian army an opportunity to gain a crest on the ridge. However, as the Russian troops were coming up, they were attacked and driven off by newly arrived soldiers from the French camps. The French, with marvelous rapidity, brought up a division from five miles away and poured reinforcements into the entire line, reducing the Russians' advantage in numbers.

Defence of Home Hill by the British and French forces
At this point in the battle the Russians launched another assault on the Second Division's positions on Home Hill, but the timely arrival of the French Army under Pierre Bosquet and further reinforcements from the British Army repelled the Russian attacks. The Russians had now committed all of their troops and had no fresh reserves with which to act. Two British 18-pounder guns along with field artillery bombarded the 100-gun strong Russian positions on Shell Hill in counter-battery fire. With their batteries on Shell Hill taking withering fire from the British guns, their attacks rebuffed at all points, and lacking fresh infantry, the Russians began to withdraw. The allies made no attempt to pursue them. Following the battle, the allied regiments stood down and returned to their siege positions.

Aftermath
Despite being severely outnumbered, the allied troops held their ground in a marvelous display of discipline and tenacity. The amount of fog during the battle led to many of the troops on both sides being cut off, in battalion-sized groups or less. Thus, the battle became known as "The Soldier's Battle". The Russian attack, although unsuccessful, had denied the allies any attempt at gaining a quick victory in the siege of Sevastopol. Following this battle, the Russians made no further large-scale attempts to defeat the allies in the field.

Alexander Kinglake obtained the official casualty returns for the battle. By his account allied casualties were: 2,573 British, of whom 635 were killed, and 1,800 French, of whom 175 were killed. Russia lost 3,286 killed within a total (including men taken prisoner) of 11,959 casualties.

Legacy

The battle popularised the use of the name Inkerman in placenames in Victorian England, including Inkerman Road in Kentish Town, London; Inkerman Road, St Albans, and Inkerman Way in Knaphill. There is an Inkerman Street in St Kilda, Victoria, Australia, in between Balaclava Rd and Alma Rd. Inkerman, a locality in South Australia, was named in 1856. There is also an Inkerman, New Brunswick named after the battle.

On Operation Herrick in Afghanistan, there was a Forward Operating Base called FOB Inkerman.

The third company of the Grenadier Guards is known colloquially as the "Inkermann Company" for their part in the battle.

See also
 John Prettyjohns

Notes

Citations

References

External links
 Report in the Times of 1 Feb 1875
 Report in the Times of 4 Feb 1875

Conflicts in 1854
1854 in the Russian Empire
Battles of the Crimean War
Battles involving the United Kingdom
Battles involving France
Battles involving the French Foreign Legion
Taurida Governorate
November 1854 events
Military history of Sevastopol

Battle of Inkerman


DataEase is a relational database management system (RDBMS), and is considered a rapid application development tool for developing relationally-organized, data-intensive software applications for personal computers. DataEase was created in the early 1980s by software developers Arun Gupta and Joseph Busch. The first version of the software was released in 1981 by Software Solutions Inc. The principals sold the company to Sapphire International Corporation of the United Kingdom in 1991. Sapphire continues to develop and market the product. There are two distinct product arcs in DataEase's history: DataEase for DOS and DataEase for Windows.

As of October 2023, DataEase appears to have disappeared. Its website and that of it's last owner, Sapphire Groups, could not be found.

DataEase for DOS
Originally called Datamaster, DataEase's early hallmark was the ease with which non-programmers found they could rapidly develop useful software applications. DataEase's design emphasized the visual design of screen forms and reports while hiding almost all of the arcane details such as properties of the underlying data structure. In addition, complex data management processes that would typically require a multitude of complex steps to complete with traditional programming tools were handled automatically and transparently as a user made changes to his/her application. For example, when editing an existing form, if the user removed a field, added another, indexed another and changed the data type of yet another, the necessary steps required to reflect those changes in the data structure underlying the form were automatically and non-destructively applied when the form was saved.

Report writing was similarly streamlined. The user simply defined access to the desired data using a simple procedural language known as DataEase Query Language (DQL). A prompting script editor, which permitted any user to instantly create DQL script with no prior knowledge of DQL syntax, remains one of DataEase's most overlooked and beneficial features. One was not required to memorize details about the application's components or DQL syntactical construction prior to writing a valid DQL script.

Sample DQL Script

  For Employees with (Salary < 50000 and YearsOfService > 4 and LastReviewGrade > 85)
  List Records
    LastName in order;
    FirstName ;
    CurrentSalary : item sum ;
    CurrentSalary * data-entry EnterRaiseAmount : item sum .
  Modify Records
    CurrentSalary := CurrentSalary * data-entry EnterRaiseAmount .

In addition to simplified definition of data forms, reports and procedures, DataEase for DOS provided facilities for defining an application's user access, navigational menus, multi-format importing of data from other sources, data exporting, data backup and restoration, system documentation and user help, backing up and restoring data and integrating external programs into the application. DataEase for DOS applications provided record-level locking meaning they could be accessed simultaneously by many other users.

DataEase on Unix

A group in Palo Alto around 1991 came up with a product they named XDOS.

It was binary-level conversion software that would transfer executable DOS files onto a prescribed Unix version and thereby DataEase for DOS became DataEase for Unix. Everything was transported so that the application made under DataEase for DOS would be ported to the UNIX environment - everything, including data.

XDOS was able to be applied against an array of popular applications at the time  (in the professional sense as PCs were , then , rarely seen outside of the IT Department or on desktops at work , ni the library or occasionally in the home of an IT professional developer.

Some of the XDOS compatible applications included DataEase, MS Word, Lotus 123 (spreadsheet) and others.

XDOS was provided for specific nominated variants of the UNIX system. Not for HP but most others. The UNIX variant maker had to agree to hand over certain required technicals that HP, in the day, found impossible to agree with. Just about all variants of UNIX had no such trouble or met the criteria due to compatibility between UNIX/XENIX variants.

I was able to port our enterprise-capable HRMS application RDBMS made with DataEase for DOS ( the WHOLE application )  to a Sun Microsystems under Solaris in the space of an hour and away we went with our systems able to be ported to the benefits if the UNIX environment and acting like a genuine UNIX development with the full power of the UNIX environment available including seamless networking without any protocol setup issues .

It just went.and a demonstration had our db on a box in the capital city centre connected to a series of remote personal computers, acting as terminals, 2,000 kilometres away on site via private network. Quite precisely, plug and play.

The XDOS developers went on to develop XWindows for UNIX.

When the decision eventually came that the DataEase for DOS would not be able to port to DataEase for Windows, the arse fell from the massive worldwide user base, in 13 languages including Russian and Japanese

DataEase at Work

DataEase for DOS gained an eclectic following among application developers and those responsible for managing proprietary business processes in the corporate world. The DataEase Resource Guide, published by DataEase International in the late 1980s lists approximately two hundred commercially available applications spanning specialized domains from Waste Management to Law Enforcement. Indeed, many corporate users deployed business-critical applications using DataEase including organizations such as NASA, Ford Motor Co., Citimortgage (FKA Lomas Financial Corporation), and the American Automobile Club.

DataEase for DOS was distributed worldwide and, according to information provided by Sapphire International, peaked at an installed base of approximately 2 million seats. Despite the fact that Sapphire ceased distribution of DataEase for DOS in 2003, a significant number of DataEase for DOS applications remained in active use worldwide as of 2008.

Awards

DataEase for DOS was recognized with a number of prestigious industry awards, including:

 PC Magazine Editor's Choice: 1986, 1988, 1989
 PC Magazine Best of Award: 1988, 1990
 PC Week Labs Database Challenge development Shootout - Olympia PC User show: Winner 1989 (Julian Brearley & Gary Cowan), 1990 (Julian Brearley & Simon Irwin)

DataEase for Windows

DataEase for Windows (DFW) is a rapid application development tool for constructing Windows database applications. DataEase for Windows abandoned many of the intuitive features of its DataEase for DOS ancestor. The DataEase for Windows product was designed and positioned to address the needs of the more technical programmer. This was due to the belief at the time that soon all data would be stored in SQL-based client-server platforms, and that DataEase itself would evolve into a SQL development tool.

DataEase for Windows was initially released in 1994, as a follow up to DataEase Express, which lacked the DQL procedural language. The user interface was overhauled and the automatic creation of data structures along with screens (Forms) was abandoned. Despite the fact that DataEase for Windows incorporated both an automated migration tool (from DE DOS 4.53) and the ability to directly acquire tables and data from DFD5, many long-time DataEase for DOS users found it difficult to break out from the hierarchical CUI paradigm and make best use of the new tools in the Windows product.

DataEase for Windows' acceptance by existing DataEase for DOS users was therefore significantly hindered, and those who delayed the decision to move and instead upgraded to more recent DOS versions found that while they could share data with Windows versions, to achieve a full Windows application, forms and report layouts all had to be re-created from scratch in DFW. Even though business rules could be imported with the tables, and DQL's could be imported also either by cutting and pasting or by the 'DOS report' facility in DFW version 5.5 on, the difficulty still remained that an application designed with a work-flow for the single-tasking DOS environment was frequently unsuited for the multi-session Windows environment.  The difficulty and the considerable expense posed by the task of re-writing their applications forced many otherwise-satisfied DataEase users to reconsider their choice of the DataEase platform.

Conversely, new users of DataEase for Windows with no previous experience found it an effective tool, and some important systems were written using it during the second half of the 1990s.

Since DataEase version 7 (2006) interoperability has been abandoned as being too restrictive for the product's development to be a good 'Windows citizen'.

DataEase 7.2

In 2008 a new DataEase development team was appointed under the leadership of Ulrik Krohn to take DataEase into a new era which will eventually culminate in a completely web based product.

DataEase 7.2 was officially launched on July 1, 2009. This version is the first to use the 64 bit operating system and was extensively reworked to contain more than 1,000 improvements and fixes

The release of 7.2 also marked the time when DataEase International Ltd. became once again an independent product company solely focused on the product and its development.

References

External links
 Connectease - A Family of Tools and Services Supporting DataEase Users
 A DataEase User's Forum/BBS
 DataEase Services User's Forum

Database administration tools
DOS software

DataEase


The Southern Provinces (, ) or Moroccan Sahara (, ) are the terms utilized by the Moroccan government to refer to the disputed territory of Western Sahara. These designations encompass the entirety of Western Sahara, which spans three of Morocco's 12 top-level administrative regions. The term "Southern Provinces" frequently appears in Moroccan state television (e.g., weather forecasts, news maps, and official statements).

Background
Western Sahara was formerly a Spanish colony known as the Spanish Sahara. In the 1970s, Spain faced mounting pressure from Morocco to relinquish the territory, culminating in the Green March, a large-scale demonstration organized by the Moroccan government on November 6, 1975. The Green March was orchestrated to compel Spain to transfer Western Sahara to Morocco. The Madrid Accords, ratified just 12 days after the Green March, stipulated that Spain would exit Western Sahara by February 28, 1976 at the latest. Subsequently, Morocco and Mauritania signed the Western Sahara partition agreement on April 14, 1976. This agreement led to Morocco assuming control over Saguia el-Hamra and the northern portion of Río de Oro, while Mauritania took charge of the remaining part of Río de Oro, renaming it as Tiris al-Gharbiyya.

A locally based Sahrawi national liberation movement, known as the Polisario Front, initiated a guerrilla war on February 27, 1976, with significant financial and logistical support from Algeria and Libya. Their goal was to achieve independence for the territory under the banner of the "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" (SADR). Following clashes with Polisario forces (SPLA) and strained relations with Algeria, Mauritania withdrew in 1979, relinquishing its claim on Western Sahara to avoid further complications with the Sahrawi Republic, Algeria, and Morocco. Capitalizing on the opportunity, Morocco extended control over the remaining part of Río de Oro, which had previously been recognized as Mauritanian.

Since a United Nations-brokered ceasefire agreement in 1991, approximately two-thirds of the territory has been administered by Morocco, encompassing most of the coastline. This area is separated from the eastern third controlled by the Polisario Front by the Moroccan Western Sahara Wall or "the Berm," referred to by the Polisario Front as the "Free Zone."

The ceasefire line corresponds to the route of the Berm, with both sides asserting sovereignty over the entire territory of Western Sahara. The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic has received recognition from 84 nations and is a full member of the African Union, though not of the UN. The Arab League implicitly recognizes Moroccan territorial integrity, albeit with significant reservations from Algeria and Syria.

Overview

The Moroccan government exercises control over approximately two-thirds of Western Sahara (the portion west of the Berm), while the remaining part constitutes the Polisario Front-controlled Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

Morocco treats the two-thirds of Western Sahara under its control as integral Moroccan territory. The government implements various economic and social development initiatives, incorporating these "Southern Provinces" into the national budget for government funding, national sports competitions, educational programs, and national parliamentary elections. The total population of Western Sahara is around 576,000. Coastal areas are utilized for fishing, and land areas are exploited for phosphate mining by both government and private entities.

In terms of administration, Morocco divided its controlled territory into administrative units (wilayas). Flags and coats of arms were established for the three wilayas of Boujdour, Smara, and Laayoune. In 1983, further changes occurred, resulting in the establishment of four wilayas, with the addition of Dakhla. In 1990, Wadi al-Dhahab (Río de Oro) was also incorporated.

As of 2022, the Southern Provinces are organized into three regions: Guelmim-Oued Noun in the north, Laâyoune-Sakia El Hamra in the center, and Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab in the south. These regions are further subdivided into ten provinces. The regions of Guelmim-Oued Noun and Laâyoune-Sakia El Hamra encompass parts of the Western Saharan territory as well as undisputed Moroccan territory to the north.

Morocco has designated a dedicated satellite TV channel for the "Southern Provinces," known as Laayoun TV.

Moroccan settlers

Following the 1975 Green March, the Moroccan state initiated settlement programs that encouraged numerous Moroccans to relocate to the Moroccan-administered portion of Western Sahara (accounting for 80% of the territory). By 2015, it was estimated that Moroccan settlers constituted at least two-thirds of the 500,000 inhabitants. In addition to offering a right of return for the Sahrawi refugees, the Sahrawi government in exile expressed a willingness to grant Sahrawi citizenship to Moroccan settlers and their descendants in a prospective independent state.

References

Former regions of Morocco
History of Western Sahara
Disputed territories in Africa
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
States and territories established in 1971
States and territories disestablished in 1997
1971 establishments in Morocco
1970s establishments in Western Sahara
1997 disestablishments in Africa
Geographical naming disputes

Southern Provinces