JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives


JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives

JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives


JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

JISC-REPOSITORIES Home

JISC-REPOSITORIES Home

JISC-REPOSITORIES  July 2010

JISC-REPOSITORIES July 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: The Mandate of Open Access Institutional Repository Managers

From:

Steve Hitchcock <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Steve Hitchcock <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:55:20 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (562 lines)

Jenny,     I understand that being a repository manager is not easy. Given what you say, in these difficult economic times for higher education institutions, how is the performance of an institutional repository, and therefore of the repository manager, going to be measured? The holistic approach may be worthy, but will it measure up? Is Charles' job spec. a fair approximation for most repository managers? I fear for those repositories that do not have clearly specified goals and policies, and strong leadership and management (at a higher level than the IR). I can't see this below.

Steve Hitchcock
IAM Group, Building 32
School of Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
Email: [log in to unmask]
Twitter: http://twitter.com/stevehit
Connotea: http://www.connotea.org/user/stevehit
Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 7698    Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 2865

On 30 Jul 2010, at 11:11, Delasalle, Jenny wrote:

> And surely the gold OA does not preclude green OA as well? Just because
> a publisher has already made an article available on OA does not mean
> that the repository can't (or shouldn't) also do so. Unless the
> publisher has the copyright and has forbidden it, of course. I'd advise
> an author to put their article in as many places as possible on OA, on
> the Web if their aim is to increase accessibility and discovery, whilst
> always pointing at the canonical published version as well. In my
> experience, researchers like it if the canonical published version, or
> the "version of record" is OA, and that is the gold OA model.
> 
> The repository game is certainly different to the publication one in so
> far as the aims of the repository are different than those of the
> publisher (especially all the aims of an IR - there are lots of
> institutional drivers beyond OA), and in that the readers' discovery
> route is different, which is partly because of those different aims.
> 
> OA is a big driver for repositories. It is a big feature of
> repositories, but, as Charles says, a professional repository manager
> takes a holistic approach and that means being aware of researchers'
> broader perspectives and diverse institutional needs that Graham Stone
> has demonstrated.
> 
> Jenny Delasalle
> Academic Support Manager (Research)
> 
> University of Warwick Library
> Gibbet Hill Road
> Coventry CV4 7AL
> United Kingdom
> 
> Tel: (+44) (0) 2476 15 12 75
> 
> My blog: http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/libresearch 
> Library Support for Research: http://go.warwick.ac.uk/lib-researchers 
> Submit your work to WRAP: http://go.warwick.ac.uk/irsubmit
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Repositories discussion list 
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of C Oppenheim
>> Sent: 30 July 2010 07:50
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: The Mandate of Open Access Institutional 
>> Repository Managers
>> 
>> 
>> Mr Stone's (and other repository managers') Job 
>> Specifications may say something like "your job is to ensure 
>> that articles produced by staff in this University are made 
>> OA, whether by means of the Institutional Repository or by 
>> any other means deemed appropriate."  So, whilst not 
>> disagreeing with the argument that the priority should be 
>> green repositories,  repository managers  should not ignore 
>> alternative approaches that also produce increased downloads 
>> and citations and promote the institution's reputation.  Even 
>> if their job specification is tied to their IR, it would be 
>> an unprofessional  Repository Manager who was not  interested 
>> in the pros and cons of alternative methods for achieving OA. 
>> Being professional means taking a holistic view of things! I 
>> see nothing incompatible therefore between Mr Stone's remarks 
>> and being chairman of UKCoRR.
>> 
>> And before Stevan explodes  at this posting, let me say  (yet 
>> again) that I am a strong supporter of the green approach to 
>> OA.  But I am not blind to the existence, and in some cases 
>> success, of alternative OA approaches.
>> 
>> Charles
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Repositories discussion list 
>> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad 
>> [[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: 29 July 2010 21:50
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: The Mandate of Open Access Institutional Repository Managers
>> 
>> Hyperlinked version of this posting: 
>> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/752-guid.html
>> 
>> Cross-Posted
>> 
>> SUMMARY: Open Access (OA) Institutional Repository (IR) 
>> managers need to remind themselves that their mandate is to 
>> see to it that their IRs are filled with OA's target content 
>> (peer-reviewed research journal articles) so as to maximize 
>> the accessibility, visibility, usage and impact of their 
>> institution's research output. Their mandate is not to seek 
>> or provide alternative "business models" for journal publishing.
>> 
>> In a UKSG Serials News posting 
>> http://www.ringgold.com/UKSG/si_pd.cfm?AC=3650&Pid=10&Zid=5538
>> &issueno=225 -- "Are we nearly there yet? On the road to open 
>> access" -- Graham Stone [GS], Repository Manager, University 
>> of Huddersfield and Chair, UK Council of Research 
>> Repositories (UKCoRR) wrote:
>> 
>>> GS: "Not too long ago, I took a phone call from an academic 
>> colleague from the Health Sciences regarding the submission 
>> of an article to Biomed Central. [The colleague] phoned me as 
>> I am the 'Repository guy' and [the colleague was] learning to 
>> play the 'Repository game', that is getting their work out 
>> there on open access and increasing their citations. [The 
>> colleague was] very impressed that so many people downloaded 
>> their last paper within days of it appearing in the Repository."
>> 
>> This upbeat-sounding paragraph is unfortunately a series of 
>> (familiar) misunderstandings and non-sequiturs about Open 
>> Access (OA) and Institutional Repositories (IRs):
>> 
>> (1) Biomed Central (BMC) is a gold OA (pay-to-publish) 
>> journal publisher.
>> 
>> (2) Publishing in a BMC journal has nothing to do with 
>> depositing an article in "the Repository."
>> 
>> Which Repository -- Huddersfield's? You don't need to publish 
>> in a pay-to-publish gold OA journal in order to deposit in a 
>> green OA Institutional Repository (IR) like Huddersfield's, 
>> nor in order to benefit from the increased downloads and 
>> citations that OA makes possible. All you do is publish in 
>> whatever journal you publish in, and deposit the final 
>> refereed draft in your OA IR as soon as it is accepted for 
>> publication.
>> 
>> Or was the deposit in PubMed Central (PMC, not BMC)? Likewise 
>> no payment required (but what does deposit in that 
>> institution-external repository have to do with U. 
>> Huddersfield's IR, or its IR manager?).
>> 
>> (3) There is no "Repository game". There is just the research 
>> and publication game.
>> 
>> (Providing OA maximizes research access, usage and impact, 
>> and OA can be provided in two ways. I. "Gold OA": by 
>> publishing in an OA journal (of which the major ones require 
>> payment to publish); or II. "Green OA": by publishing in any 
>> journal at all -- whether subscription-based or OA -- and 
>> also depositing the final draft in your OA IR: no payment 
>> required. The "game" is merely ensuring that all potential 
>> users have online access to your published articles, not just 
>> those whose institutions can afford to subscribe to the 
>> journal in which it happened to be published.)
>> 
>>> GS: "It struck me as very interesting that to [this 
>> colleague], the next stage of the 'game' was to consider 
>> switching from green to gold open access - providing someone 
>> would pay of course!"
>> 
>> The colleague sounds like a researcher who has just deposited 
>> an article for the first time in an OA repository (perhaps 
>> PMC, though it should have been Huddersfield's IR), and not a 
>> researcher who has just paid BMC for gold OA publication 
>> (otherwise the colleague would know who was paying!).
>> 
>> Something has definitely been garbled here...
>> 
>>> GS: "This is not the first time that this topic has come up 
>> in conversation in the past few weeks. At the recent LIBER 
>> conference at Aarhus University in Denmark discussion over 
>> dinner turned to open access. One comment from a colleague 
>> was that green open access could not be successful in the 
>> long run as this was a compromise, and 'compromises never work'."
>> 
>> How is providing OA to one's published article by depositing 
>> it in one's IR a "compromise"?
>> 
>> A compromise of what, with what, for whom?
>> 
>> Depositing an article in an IR consists of a few minutes' 
>> worth of keystrokes that maximize the access, usage and 
>> impact of one's article.
>> 
>> But perhaps the LIBER discussion was not among (1) 
>> researchers, discussing the problem of how to "get their work 
>> out there on open access and increase their citations" rather 
>> than continue to allow access to it to be restricted only to 
>> those researchers whose institutions can afford to pay for 
>> subscription access to the journal in which it happens to be 
>> published...
>> 
>> Perhaps the LIBER discussion was instead among (2) 
>> librarians, discussing the problem of how to afford to pay 
>> for subscription access?
>> 
>> Or perhaps the LIBER discussion was among (3) publishers, 
>> discussing the problem of how to guarantee current 
>> subscription revenue streams in a growing climate of demand 
>> for open access on the part of researchers, their 
>> institutions, their funders, and the tax-paying public that 
>> funds the research?
>> 
>> To repeat: In what sense is green OA self-archiving a "compromise"?
>> 
>> A compromise of what, with what, for whom?
>> 
>> Is a university repository manager a representative of the 
>> immediate interests of the university's researchers (and 
>> their institutions, funders, and the tax-paying public that 
>> funds the research), or of the interests of publishers and 
>> their present and future business models?
>> 
>> If librarians are to fulfill the role of repository managers, 
>> they need to re-think what they are doing, and why, and what 
>> it is that researchers and research need in the OA era.
>> 
>> An OA IR is not a buy-in collection of journal subscriptions: 
>> It is a give-away provision of access to an institution's 
>> published journal articles.
>> 
>> An OA IR manager is not a serials librarian, nor someone 
>> appointed to direct or second-guess the future course of 
>> serials publishing.
>> 
>> An OA IR manager is someone appointed to make sure the 
>> university's OA IR is filled with its primary target content: 
>> the university's published journal article output.
>> 
>> "UKCoRR has a vision of the work of repository management as 
>> a professionally recognised and supported role within UK 
>> research institutions." -- What is that "professionally 
>> recognised and supported role" if it is not filling their 
>> institution's repository with its intended content?
>> 
>>> GS: "The road to open access is covered in gold and this is 
>> the way forward."
>> 
>> The way forward for whom? And according to whom? And in the 
>> interests of what?
>> 
>> Researchers can be mandated to provide green OA for their 
>> published work. (Without mandates, only about 20% or articles 
>> are self-archived.)
>> 
>> And funds -- if any are available -- can be provided to pay 
>> for gold OA.
>> 
>> But publishers cannot be mandated to provide gold OA.
>> 
>> And the funds to pay for gold OA cannot be mandated while 
>> they are still tied up in paying for subscriptions (and while 
>> the asking price for gold OA is designed to preserve 
>> publishers' current revenue streams and modus operandi, come 
>> what may).
>> 
>> The road to green OA is wide open, and traversing it is 
>> entirely in the hands of researchers (and their institutions 
>> and funders).
>> 
>> The road to gold OA is not wide open; it costs money, and it 
>> is in the hands of publishers, not researchers. And the 
>> potential money to pay for gold OA is currently tied up in 
>> institutions' subscription fees, which are being paid to 
>> publishers, by institutions' libraries.
>> 
>> So how is the road to OA covered with gold, and how is it the 
>> way forward?
>> 
>> And what has this to do with the research repository 
>> manager's "professionally recognised and supported role 
>> within UK research institutions"?
>> 
>>> GS: "A few days earlier, Kurt de Belder from Leiden 
>> University in the Netherlands had laid out his vision of the 
>> future, which assumed that open access would be via the gold 
>> route and if Repositories existed, they would only contain 
>> grey literature."
>> 
>> Kurt de Melder is the director of Leiden University's library 
>> (and an advisor to several publishers). Does his golden 
>> vision (like the green vision) include a practical means 
>> (like the green vision's mandates) of getting us from here to 
>> there? Or is it all just a golden wish, waiting passively 
>> (apart from any spare money being spent on pre-emptive gold 
>> OA payments) for publishers to convert to gold and release 
>> everyone's subscription money (for incoming journals) to pay 
>> their asking price for gold OA (for outgoing articles)?
>> 
>> And while the institution's library keeps waiting for this to 
>> happen directly, of its own accord, is the access, usage and 
>> impact of the institution's research output to continue to be 
>> denied to all but subscribing institutions, as it is today, 
>> while institutions' IRs (which already exist, by the way) are 
>> devoted instead to "grey literature" (whatever that means) 
>> instead of to refereed research (green OA)?
>> 
>> And meanwhile, visions aside, those who have their eyes wide 
>> open cannot help but notice that IRs (which already do exist, 
>> remember) do contain green content (20%) rather than just 
>> grey content, and that green deposit mandates can and do 
>> drive up the percentage green from the baseline 20% to 60%, 
>> and approaching 100% within a few years.
>> 
>> What's missing, and needed (for those with eyes wide open to 
>> see) is more green OA mandates from institutions and funders 
>> -- not armchair or dinner-table visions of the future of 
>> publishing, evoked in the thrall of pre-emptive gold fever 
>> (with no critical reflection on or answerability to practical 
>> means and ends).
>> 
>> That, perhaps (rather than gold fever), would come closer to 
>> a substantive "vision of the work of repository management as 
>> a professionally recognised and supported role within UK 
>> research institutions."
>> 
>>> GS: "Personally, and not as Chair of UKCoRR (UK Council of 
>> Research Repositories), I must admit that I am starting to 
>> agree with the gold only route, although I'm not sure I should."
>> 
>> If the Chair of UK's Council of Research Repositories is 
>> starting to agree (whether personally or ex officio) with the 
>> gold-only route, then perhaps it is time for the Chair to 
>> think of resigning, and allowing UKCoRR's direction to be set 
>> by those who understand the needs of research and 
>> researchers, the power of green OA IRs, and the urgent need 
>> for Green OA mandates.
>> 
>> Surely there is a "UK Council of Publishing Business Models" 
>> that could be joined instead, by those who have become 
>> afflicted with gold fever, forgetting about research and 
>> researchers' urgent immediate need for OA, and IRs' mission 
>> to provide it.
>> 
>>> GS: "I have been espousing the virtues of green open access 
>> for nearly five years. At Huddersfield we have 26% full text 
>> in the Repository despite not yet having a mandate and our 
>> full text downloads are really taking off - 46,000 in the 
>> last 12 months."
>> 
>> If that 26% is 26% of Huddersfield's current yearly research 
>> output, then that deposit rate is somewhat above the global 
>> spontaneous (i.e., unmandated) baseline deposit rate of about 
>> 20%, but it is a far cry from what the deposit rate would be 
>> if Huddersfield were to adopt a mandate.
>> 
>> A repository manager espousing the interests of 
>> Huddersfield's researchers should be espousing the virtues of 
>> green OA mandates to Huddersfield's researchers and 
>> administration, not just the virtues of providing green OA 
>> spontaneously (although that is, of course, welcome too).
>> 
>> Well over five years' consistent experience (and surveys) 
>> worldwide have shown that most researchers will not deposit 
>> spontaneously but they will deposit (willingly) if deposit is 
>> mandated. In the past few years, it is not spontaneous 
>> deposit rates that have been picking up, but the rate of 
>> adoption of deposit mandates, and the resulting green OA.
>> 
>> This is not the time for repository managers to succumb to 
>> gold fever (which leads next to nowhere, and is not even part 
>> of their remit), resigning their IRs to warehousing "grey literature."
>> 
>>> GS: "However, for some time I have had my doubts as to 
>> whether the championing of green open access was actually 
>> taking us down the right road. I could see that gold open 
>> access was a good business model. "
>> 
>> If we all commit to deposit, we don't need green OA 
>> self-archiving mandates.
>> 
>> But we don't all commit to deposit, even though it costs 
>> nothing. Only about 20% commit unmandated (26% at 
>> Huddersfield, perhaps because the IR manager has for five 
>> years espoused the virtues of spontaneous deposit so persuasively).
>> 
>> But even fewer commit to gold OA, because it costs money, 
>> because most of the top journals don't offer it, and because 
>> the money to pay for it is still tied up in paying for subscriptions.
>> 
>> And there are no mandates to require researchers to pay for 
>> gold OA, nor to release the subscription money, nor to 
>> dictate publishers' business model or modus operandi, nor to 
>> set their asking price.
>> 
>> Besides, none of that is within an OA IR manager's remit. It 
>> has nothing to do with "the work of repository management as 
>> a professionally recognised and supported role within UK 
>> research institutions."
>> 
>> An OA IR manager is supposed to get his IR filled with OA's 
>> target content, and that target content is supposed to be, 
>> first and foremost, peer-reviewed journal articles, most of 
>> which are today still being published in subscription journals.
>> 
>> What needs to be championed by IR managers (and a fortiori, 
>> by the Chair of the UK Council of Research Repositories), and 
>> championed for their researchers and their institutions, are 
>> the virtues of green OA mandates that will fill their IRs -- 
>> not the virtues of "good business models," championed for 
>> publishers, by librarians. (You don't need to be a 
>> "professional and supported" IR manager to go down that road.)
>> 
>> And those who are indeed committed to championing green OA 
>> mandates worldwide are beginning to win them.
>> 
>>> GS: "The trouble to me is that the [gold OA] model only 
>> really works if we all commit. Otherwise, you end up paying 
>> twice, once for the open access article and once for the 
>> journal subscription. I just didn't see how we arrived at 
>> this brave new world of gold open access journals, no serials 
>> budgets and stuff in the cloud."
>> 
>> Yes, that's indeed the size of it: "The [gold OA] model only 
>> really works if we all commit. Otherwise, you end up paying 
>> twice, once for the open access article and once for the 
>> journal subscription."
>> 
>> Trying to go directly from the status quo to gold OA is quite 
>> simply self-contradictory, like an Escher drawing of an 
>> impossible shape:
>> 
>> Institutional subscription access tolls are paid per incoming 
>> journal; individual OA publication fees are paid per outgoing 
>> article. The money to pay for gold OA fees is tied up in 
>> subscription tolls. But institutions cannot cancel their 
>> journal subscriptions unless the journals' contents are 
>> accessible to their users otherwise. Institutions are not 
>> necessarily even subscribing annually, for their users, to 
>> the same journals in which their researchers are occasionally 
>> publishing. Catch 22.
>> 
>> (And, as Graham notes, anyone foolish and gullible enough to 
>> believe hybrid gold publishers (the ones who charge both 
>> subscription tolls + optional gold OA fees) when they say 
>> they will reduce subscription tolls proportionately as gold 
>> OA fee revenues increase is forgetting that this requires 
>> institutions to find the money to pay the gold asking price 
>> first, while it is still being spent on the subscriptions! A 
>> good "business model" indeed...)
>> 
>> (By the way, the somewhat uneven distribution of wealth on 
>> the planet can also be fixed "if we all commit." That's not 
>> just gold fever, it's the Golden Rule -- but alas far too few 
>> in our gene pool are committed to practising it...)
>> 
>>> GS: "But maybe I can see how we get to gold open access 
>> now? With researchers taking ownership of the 'game' by 
>> realising that gold open access is the only way to ensure 
>> access for all and increased citations, maybe we are on the 
>> right road after all?"
>> 
>> Researchers "taking ownership of the 'game'"? by "reaising 
>> that gold OA is the only way"?
>> 
>> The self-contradiction on the road to there from here is 
>> resolved by "realisation"? By researchers? (The same 
>> researchers for whom the only thing they need to do to 
>> provide OA is a few keystrokes? And they're not even 
>> "committed" enough to do those keystrokes, unless they are 
>> first mandated by their institutions or funders?)
>> 
>> What does this vision envision that researchers are to do 
>> with this newfound golden realisation of theirs? The same 
>> thing 34,000 of them did (unsuccessfully) back in 2000? Sign 
>> a petition to boycott their journals if they don't go OA?
>> 
>> And if researchers were really that committed to "ensuring 
>> access for all and increased citations," wouldn't it be 
>> simpler than making empty threats against all their 
>> publishers just to petition their one and only institution to 
>> mandate deposit?
>> 
>> Better still, if their realisation about "the only way" were 
>> that profound, wouldn't researchers just go ahead and do the 
>> keystrokes to deposit of their own accord, unmandated, in 
>> order to "ensure access for all, and increased citations"?
>> 
>> And would it not be a remarkable coincidence it it turned out 
>> that the most pressing thing on researchers' minds was not, 
>> in fact, the access and impact of their work (which they can 
>> already maximize with a few green keystrokes), but a "good 
>> business model" for their publishers and their long-suffering 
>> librarians?
>> 
>> A remarkable coincidence that what researchers had been 
>> yearning for all along turned out (upon "realisation") to be 
>> exactly the same thing their librarians had been yearning for 
>> -- which was not the filling of their OA IRs but relief from 
>> the serials crisis?
>> 
>>> GS: "And maybe, instead of the superfast highway to gold 
>> open access that some envisage, are we travelling down the 
>> leafy lane of green open access with gold just around the 
>> next corner? A bit round the houses, but yes we are certainly 
>> getting there."
>> 
>> The super-fast highway to gold OA? Amidst all this 
>> "realisation," I don't recall hearing the game plan for 
>> solving the problem of the toll booths posted along the 
>> ubiquitous subscription highways -- the ones that are 
>> currently gobbling up institutions' serial budgets (i.e., the 
>> funds that would be used instead to pay for gold OA)...
>> 
>> But it is true that green OA, once it becomes universal, may 
>> eventually get us to gold OA too -- if universal availability 
>> of green eventually causes universal cancellations, forcing 
>> journals to cut costs, downsize, and convert to gold OA, 
>> thereby releasing the windfall subscription savings to pay 
>> the reduced cost of gold OA (peer review alone, with the 
>> print and online editions gone, and all access-provision and 
>> archiving offloaded onto the worldwide network of OA IRs).
>> 
>> But that's not around the next corner, at 20% green OA.
>> 
>> And we are certainly getting ahead of ourselves, if we don't 
>> provide the universal green OA first -- for that's what any 
>> eventual subscription cancellation windfall is dependent 
>> upon. The cancellations can't be done pre-emptively. 
>> Certainly not by a single institution, or IR manager -- not 
>> even the Chair of the UK Council of Research Repositories. 
>> That would require universal institutional subscription 
>> cancellations, and all at once (not one institution or 
>> country at a time -- otherwise the researchers of that 
>> institution or country, instead of gaining open access, lose 
>> subscription access altogether).
>> 
>> My recommendation to OA IR managers who envision "the work of 
>> repository management as a professionally recognised and 
>> supported role within UK research institutions" would be to 
>> focus on their own mandate, which is to fill their own 
>> institution's IRs, not to dream about business models that 
>> are as good as gold.
>> 
>> And the way to get their OA IRs filled is already known: It 
>> is by getting their institutions to mandate green OA. (No one 
>> connected in any way with OA IRs has a more "professionally 
>> recognised and supported role within [their] research 
>> institutions" then Southampton's Les Carr and Harvard's 
>> Stuart Shieber, the architects of their respective 
>> institutions' green OA mandates (Southampton's being the 
>> first and Harvard's the most famous). It's not too late for 
>> Huddersfield -- or Nottingham, or the rest of the 17,000 
>> universities that have not yet adopted a mandate.
>> 
>> That's all. And that's enough. Mandate green OA for your 
>> institution and rest will take care of itself, in its own 
>> time. But meanwhile your institution's researchers will 
>> "ensure access for all, and increased citations."
>> 
>> That, after all -- not "a good business model" -- is the 
>> purpose of OA, and hence the mandate of OA IR managers.
>> 
>> See "Waiting for Gold"
>> (from the 2002 BOAI Self-Archiving FAQ).
>> 
>> Stevan Harnad
>> American Scientist Open Access Forum
>> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
November 2005
October 2005


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager