Centre for Internet and Society

The Impact of Regulation: FOSS and Enterprise

praskrishna — 2011-09-22T10:53:49Z

The workshop seeks to elaborate the impact of regulation, between Free and Open Source Software and Enterprise. It will look at the following key areas:

Education,
Software development,
Digital Content,
Empowering persons with disability,
FOSS for disaster preparedness etc.

If time allows, we will explore, if cloud computing is an open Source adjacent?

This lively discussion, is meant to bring into perspective the real picture in the market and broaden the minds of participants to realize the options available and come up with recommendations on what needs to be considered to have a fair playing ground, more especially for the developing countries.

Which of the five broad IGF Themes or the Cross-Cutting Priorities does your workshop fall under?

Access and Diversity

Have you organized an IGF workshop before? Yes

If so, please provide the link to the report:

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?%20chronoformname=Workshopsreports2009View&curr=1&wr=43

Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are planning to invite:

Mr.Samer Azmy- ICT Manager / Solution Integration Consultant, Huawei(Moderator)
Mr. Satish Babu -ICFOSS,India
Mr. Yves Miezan Ezo- Smile Training, Manager, (France)
Mr. Sunil Abraham,Executive Director, Center for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India
Mr. Evans Ikua- FOSS Certification Manager in the ict@innovation program
Dorothy Gordon- Director General, AITI-KACE
Ms. Judy Okite (Remote Moderator)

Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their affiliation to various stakeholder groups:

Mr. Samer Azmy- FOSSFA(Pan-African)
Mr. Satish Babu -ICFOSS,(India)
Mr. Yves Miezan Ezo - Smile Training Centre(France)

Organization: FOSSFA, ICFOSS

Contact Person: Mr. Samer Azmy, Mr. Satish Babu

Workshop Number: 211

See the event details on the IGF website

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/foss-instrument-for-accessible-development

FOSSCON India 2019

Admin — 2019-09-25T22:59:38Z

Bhuvana Meenakshi gave a talk on "The revolution of WebXR" at FOSSCON India 2019 organized by KLS Gogte Institute of Technology in Belgaum from August 29 - 31, 2019, where she discussed about the tools used for development and demos.

The Chief patrons included:

Dr. A S Deshpande, Registrar, VTU, Belagavi
Dr. Satish Annigeri, Registrar(Evaluation), VTU, Belagavi
Shri M R Kulkarni, Chairman, Karnatak Law Society
Shri U N Kalkundrikar, Chairman , Governing Council, KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belagavi.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/fosscon-india-2019-1

DevFest'19

Admin — 2019-10-14T14:50:33Z

Bhuvana Meenakshi was a speaker at the event organised by Google Developers Groups at Coimbatore on September 14, 2019.

She spoke on WebXR: The journey to the centre of Reality. The audience were all beginners and they were amused to see her works on Mixed Reality. They also learnt to kickstart with the easiest ways of developing the most cool applications using Firefox's framework.

Website: https://devfest19.gdgcbe.com/

Blog: https://kbmtechie.wordpress.com/2019/09/22/speaker-experience-at-devfest19/

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/devfest19

React India 2019

Admin — 2019-10-14T14:56:52Z

Bhuvana Meenakshi was a speaker at an International conference, 'React India 2019" which was the first beach conference and which was hosted at Goa on 26-28, September 2019.

It was her very first talk on how to make WebVR experiences using A-frame React which is a framework developed by Mozilla. The topic she chose was unique and also many attendees gave a positive feedback about how this was essential for them to know. For more information about the event, click here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/react-india-2019

Gurshabad Grover nominated to join advisory group on open source software for ISO/IEC JTC 1

Admin — 2019-11-02T05:17:24Z

Gurshabad Grover has been nominated through the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) to be a member of the Advisory Group AG) on Open Source Software for ISO/IEC JTC 1.

JTC 1 deals with international standards on information technology. This AG is currently documenting requirements and potential opportunities for industry use of open source software for all work areas under the various committees of JTC 1.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/gurshabad-grover-nominated-to-join-advisory-group-on-open-source-software-for-iso-iec-jtc-1

It's September, and That Means It's Time for Software Freedom Day

subha — 2016-09-17T15:42:46Z

Software Freedom Day (SFD), which celebrates the use of free and open software, is just around the corner on September 17. When the day first started in 2004, only 12 teams from different places joined, but it has since grown to include hundreds registered events around the world, depending on the year.

The article was published by Global Voices on September 17, 2016.

Supported by several global organizations like Google, Canonical, Free Software Foundation, Joomla, Creative Commons and Linux Journal, Software Freedom Day draws its inspiration from the philosophy promoted by people like Richard Stallman who argue that free software is all about the freedom and not necessarily free of cost but provides the liberty to users from proprietary software developers’ power and influence. SFD encourages everyone to gather in their own cities (here's a map of places where SFD is organized this year), educate people around them about free software, and promote the cause on social media (with the hashtag #SFD2016 this year). There's also hackathons (hacking free software to modify the code and create what one wants to have in it), running free software installation camps, and even going creative with flying a drone running free software.	What are FOSS, free software, open source, and FLOSS? Free and open source software (FOSS or F/OSS), and free/libre and open-source software (FLOSS) are umbrella terms that are used to include both free software and open source software. Adopted by noted software freedom advocate Richard Stallman in 1983, free software has many names — libre software, freedom-respecting software and software libre are some of them. As defined by the Free Software Foundation, one of the early advocates of software freedom, free software allows users not just to use the software with complete freedom, but to study, modify, and distribute the software and any adapted versions, in both commercial and noncommercial form. The distribution of the software for commercial and noncommercial form, however, depends on the particular license the software is released under. “Open source” was coined as an alternative to free software in 1998 by educational-advocacy organization Open Source Initiative. Open source software is generally created collaboratively, made available with its source code, and it provides the user rights to study, change, and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose.

From South Asia, there are 13 celebratory events in India, eight in Nepal, one in Bangladesh and four in Sri Lanka.

South Asian countries have seen adoption of both free software and open source software by individuals, organizations and the government. The Free Software Movement of India was founded in Bengaluru, India, in 2010 to act as a national coalition of several regional chapters working to promote and grow the free software movement in India.

The Indian government has launched an open data portal at data.gov.in portal for sharing large datasets like the census data under free licenses. The government's new policy emphasizes on adopting open source software. Moreover government's Ministry of Communication and Information Technology asked vendors to include open source software applications while making requests for proposals.

Similarly, there are several free and open source communities and organizations operating from the subcontinent, like Mozilla India, Wikimedia India, the Centre for Internet and Society, Open Knowledge India, Mozilla Bangladesh, Wikimedia Bangladesh, Bangladesh Open Source Network, Open Knowledge Bangladesh, Mozilla Nepal, Wikimedians of Nepal, Open Knowledge Nepal, Wikimedia Community User Group Pakistan, and the Lanka Software Foundation in Sri Lanka.

Mohammad Jahangir Alam, a lecturer from Southern University Bangladesh, argues in a research paper that the use of open source software can help the government save a enormous amount of money that are spent in purchasing proprietary software:

A Large amount of money of government can be saved if the government uses open source software in different IT sectors of government offices and others sectors, Because government is providing computer to all educational institute from school to university level and they are using proprietary software. For this reason government is to expend a large amount of many for buying proprietary software to run the computers. Another one is government paying significant amount of money to the different vendors for buying different types of software to implement e-Governance project. So, the Government can use open source software for implanting projects to minimize cost of the projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/global-voices-september-17-2016-subhashish-panigrahi-it-is-september-and-that-means-it-is-time-for-software-freedom-day

ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ସ୍ୱାଧୀନତା ଦିବସ: ଆମ ହାତେ ଆମ କୋଡ଼ ଲେଖିବା

subha — 2016-09-18T03:33:00Z

Software Freedom Day (SFD), which celebrates the use of free and open software, was celebrated in many cities today. The piece sheds light on the philosophy of software freedom, and how free and open source software is making a significant social change. I have also shared how anyone can contribute to the FOSS movement in different ways and celebrate SFD.

The blog post was mirrored in Your Story, Odisha Story and Aajira Odisha on September 17, 2016. The originally published piece can be accessed here.

ଫ୍ରି ଓ ଓପନ ସୋର୍ସ ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ପଛରେ ଥିବା ସାମାଜିକ ଆବଶ୍ୟକତା ଓ ପ୍ରତିଟି ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କୁ ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ବ୍ୟବହାର, ବଦଳ ଓ ବାଣ୍ଟିବାର ସୁଯୋଗ ଦେବା ଉଦ୍ଦେଶ୍ୟରେ ପାଳିତ ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ସ୍ୱାଧୀନତା ଦିବସ ।

ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ଶବ୍ଦଟି ବୋଧେ ଆଉ କାହାରି ପାଇଁ ଅଜଣା ଅଶୁଣା ନୁହେଁ । ଆପଣଙ୍କ ମୋବାଇଲ ଫୋନରୁ କମ୍ପୁଟରଯାଏ ଓ ଏବେ ଏକ ସ୍ଥାନରେ ନ ଥାଇ ସେଠାରେ ଥିବା ଭଳି ଅନୁଭବିବା ପାଇଁ ବ୍ୟବହୃତ ଭର୍ଚୁଆଲ ରିଆଲିଟି ଓ ଅଗମେଣ୍ଟେଡ଼ ରିଆଲିଟି ହେଡ଼ସେଟରେ ହାର୍ଡ଼ଓଏର ବା ଯାନ୍ତ୍ରିକ ଉପକରଣକୁ ସଠିକ ଭାବେ ପରିଚଳାନା କରିବା ହେଉଛି ସଫ୍ଟଓଏରର କାମ । ଆଉ ସଫ୍ଟଓଏରରେ ଟିକେ ଗୋଳମାଳ ହେଲେ କେବେ କମ୍ପୁଟରର ସ୍କ୍ରିନ ନେଳି ପଡ଼ିଯାଏ ତ ପୁଣି କେବେ କେବେ ମୋବାଇଲରେ ଠିକଣା ଜାଗାରେ ଯେତେ ଦବେଇଲେ ବି କାମକରେନା । ତେବେ ଉଣାଅଧିକ ସାଧାରଣ ଲୋକେ ସଫ୍ଟଓଏରରେ ସ୍ୱାଧୀନତା ଆଉ ତାଙ୍କ ଜୀବନ ପାଇଁ ତା’ର ଭୂମିକା ବାବଦରେ କେବେ ଶୁଣିନଥିବେ । ଆଉ ଏଇଟି ସତରେ ଏକ ଅନାଲୋଚିତ ବିଷୟ । ତେବେ ଏ ବିଷୟକୁ ବୁଝିବା ଆଗରୁ ଆମ ଚଳନ୍ତି ସମାଜର କିଛି ଉଦାହରଣ ଆଡ଼େ ଆସନ୍ତୁ ଆଖିପକେଇବା । ଦିନ ଥିଲା ଆପଣ ରେଡ଼ିଓରୁ ଆକାଶବାଣୀ ଲଗେଇ ଗୀତ, ଖବର, ନାଟକ ଆଦି ଶୁଣୁଥିଲେ । ହେଲେ କେବେ ଆକାଶବାଣୀ ଆପଣଙ୍କ ପାହୁଲାଟିଏ ମାଗିଥିଲା କି ନାଁ ଆପଣ ଭଲ ଭଲ ପ୍ରୋଗ୍ରାମ ଆସୁଛି ବୋଲି ଖୁସିରେ କେବେ କିଛି ଦେଇଥିଲେ? କିନ୍ତୁ ଆପଣଙ୍କ ଅଜାଣତରେ ଆପଣ ସତରେ କିଛି ଦେଇଛନ୍ତି । ତା’ ହେଉଛି ଟିକସ । ଆପଣ ଛୋଟରୁ ବଡ଼ ଯାଏ ଯାହା କିଣୁଛନ୍ତି ପ୍ରାୟ ସବୁ ଜିନିଷରେ ଟିକସ ଦିଅନ୍ତି ଆଉ ଚାକିରି କି ଅନ୍ୟ ଉପାୟରେ ପଇସା ଅରଜୁଥିଲେ ବର୍ଷ ଶେଷକୁ ଇନକମ ଟିକସ ବି ଦିଅନ୍ତି । ଏସବୁ ସରକାରଙ୍କ କାମରେ ଲାଗେ । ତେଣୁ ଆକାଶବାଣୀର ରେଡ଼ିଓ ପ୍ରୋଗ୍ରାମ ହେଉ କି ମୋଦିଙ୍କ ବିଦେଶ ବୁଲା ହେଉ ସବୁ ଆପଣଙ୍କ ପଇସାରେ ହିଁ ହେଉଛି । ସରକାରୀ ଓ ବେସରକାରୀ ଉଭୟ ସ୍ଥାନରେ ଏଇ ଏକା ଜିନିଷ । ତେବେ ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର କ୍ଷେତ୍ରରେ ବି ଏଇ ଏକା ଅବସ୍ଥା । ସାଧାରଣରେ ଜଣାଶୁଣା ମାଇକ୍ରୋସଫ୍ଟର ଉଇଣ୍ଡୋଜ ଅପରେଟିଂ ସିଷ୍ଟମ ପାଇଁ କେତେ ପଇସା ନିଜ ଅଜାଣତରେ ଦେଉଛନ୍ତି ତାହା ନୂଆ ଲାପଟପ କିଣିଲାବେଳକୁ କେବେ ଗଣିନଥିବେ । କିନ୍ତୁ ସେଇଟି ଜମାରୁ ମାଗଣା ଆସିନଥାଏ । ସଫ୍ଟଓଏରଟିଏ ଏକ ବା ଅନେକ ଉଚ୍ଚସ୍ତରର ନିର୍ଦ୍ଦିଷ୍ଟ କାମ କରୁଥିବା ବେଳେ ଏକ କମ୍ପୁଟର କି ମୋବାଇଲର ସାମଗ୍ରୀକ ହାର୍ଡ଼ଓଏର ବା ଯନ୍ତ୍ରପାତି ଓ ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ସବୁକୁ ପରିଚାଳନା ପାଇଁ ଅପରେଟିଂ ସିଷ୍ଟମ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରାଯାଏ । ବିଭିନ୍ନ ଅପରେଟିଂ ସିଷ୍ଟମ ଓ ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ଭିନ୍ନଭିନ୍ନ ଉପାୟରେ ତିଆରି ହୁଏ । କେବେ ଏସବୁ ମାଇକ୍ରୋସଫ୍ଟ କି ଆପଲ ଭଳି ବଡ଼ ବଡ଼ କମ୍ପାନି ତିଆରି କରି ବିକନ୍ତି ତ କେବେ କେବେ ବ୍ୟକ୍ତିବିଶେଷ ବା ଛୋଟ ବଡ଼ ସଂଗଠନ ମଧ୍ୟ ବିକନ୍ତି । କିନ୍ତୁ ଏସବୁ ବାଦେ ଆଉ ଏକ ଧରଣର ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ଗଢ଼ାଳି ବ୍ୟକ୍ତିବିଶେଷ-ସଂଗଠନ-କମ୍ପାନି ମଧ୍ୟ ଅଛନ୍ତି । ସେମାନେ ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ତିଆରି କରି ଖାଲି ବଜାରରେ ଛାଡ଼ନ୍ତି ନାହିଁ ବରଂ ସେ ସଫ୍ଟଓଏରର ସୋର୍ସ କୋଡ଼ ମଧ୍ୟ ଛାଡ଼ନ୍ତି । ଅର୍ଥାତ ଗଣିତ କଷି ଫଳାଫଳ ସଙ୍ଗେ କିପରି କଷିଲେ ସୋପାନ ତଳକୁ ସୋପାନ ଲେଖି ବୁଝାଇଦିଅନ୍ତି । ଫଳରେ ଆଉ କେହି ସେହି ସଫ୍ଟଓଏରରେ କିଛି ବଦଳ କରିବାକୁ ଚାହିଁଲେ କିମ୍ବା ପୁରୁଣା ସଫ୍ଟଓଏରରେ କିଛି ନୂଆ ଯୋଡ଼ି ଉନ୍ନତ କରିବାକୁ ଚାହିଁଲେ ତାଙ୍କୁ ସେଥିରେ କେହି ବାଧା ଦେବେନାହିଁ । କିନ୍ତୁ ନୂଆ ଫଳାଫଳ ବା ସଫ୍ଟଓଏରଟି ବଜାରରେ ଛାଡ଼ିଲା ବେଳେ ତାଙ୍କୁ ମୂଳ ଗଢ଼ାଳିଙ୍କୁ ଉପଯୁକ୍ତ ଶ୍ରେୟ ଦେବାକୁ ପଡ଼ିବ । ଧରନ୍ତୁ ଆପଣ ଚନ୍ଦକାରୁ କଲରାପତରିଆ ବାଘର ଖୋଳ ଆଣି ତାକୁ ଧଳା ରଙ୍ଗ ମାରି ଧଳା ବାଘ କଲେ । ଆପଣଙ୍କୁ ସେ ଧଳା ବାଘକୁ ଶିମିଳିପାଳରେ ଛାଡ଼ିଲା ବେଳେ ଚନ୍ଦକାରୁ ମୂଳ କଲରାପତରିଆ ବାଘ ଆଣିଥିଲେ ବୋଲି ଉଲ୍ଲେଖ କରିବାକୁ ପଡ଼ିବ । ମଜା କଥା ହେଉଛି ଏଭଳି ନିଆରା ଧାରା ଆମ ସମାଜରେ ଜମାରୁ ନୂଆ ନୁହେଁ । ଅକ୍ଷୟ ମହାନ୍ତି ସାଲବେଗଙ୍କ ଲିଖିତ ପୁରୁଣା ଗୀତକୁ ଆଉଥରେ ବୋଲିବା ପରେ ସେ ହଜିଲା ଗୀତସବୁ ଲୋକତୁଣ୍ଡରେ ଆହୁରି ଜଣାଶୁଣା ହେଲା । ହେଲେ ଅକ୍ଷୟ ମହାନ୍ତି ଗୀତର ଗାୟକ ଓ ସଙ୍ଗୀତ ନିର୍ଦ୍ଦେଶକ ଭାବେ ନାଁ ନେଲା ବେଳେ ସାଲବେଗଙ୍କ ରଚନାରୁ ବୋଲି ଲେଖିବାରେ ଉଣା କରିନାହାନ୍ତି ।

ଏହି ଧାରା ଆମ ସମାଜରେ ସବୁକାଳେ ସବୁସ୍ଥଳେ ରହିଛି । ହେଲେ ଆଧୁନିକ ସମାଜରେ ଅନେକ ଲାଭଖୋର କମ୍ପାନି ନିଜ ଲାଭ ଲାଗି ଏ ସାମାଜିକ ଚଳଣିଟିକୁ ପାଶୋରି ପକାଇଛନ୍ତି । ମାଇକ୍ରୋସଫ୍ଟରୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରି ଆକୃତି, ଅପ୍ରାନ୍ତ ଯାଏ ପ୍ରାୟ ଅଧିକାଂଶ ସାଧାରଣରେ ବ୍ୟବହାର ହେଉଥିବା ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ହେଉଛି ପ୍ରୋପ୍ରାଇଟରି ବା ପୂରା ନିବୁଜ । ମାନେ ଆପଣ କେବଳ କିଣି ବ୍ୟବହାର କରିପାରିବେ କିନ୍ତୁ ବାଣ୍ଟିପାରିବେ ନାହିଁ କି କୌଣସି ବଦଳ କରିପାରିବେ ନାହିଁ । କଲେ ଆପଣଙ୍କ ବିରୋଧରେ କୋର୍ଟରେ ଉକ୍ତ କମ୍ପାନିମାନେ କେସ କରି ତଳିତଳାନ୍ତ ମଧ୍ୟ କରିପାରିବେ । ଏ କପିରାଇଟର ଫାନ୍ଦ ଏଡ଼େ କୁଟିଳ ଯେ ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ତିଆରି କରିଥିବା କମ୍ପାନିମାନେ ସବୁକାଳେ ତାଙ୍କର ମନୋମୁଖୀ ପତିଆରା ରଖିପାରିବେ । ଏଣୁ ଥୋକେ ଭାବିଲେ ବଡ଼ ବଡ଼ ଧନୀ କମ୍ପାନିମାନଙ୍କର ଏ ଗୁମାନ ସେମିତି ଥାଉ । ଆମେ ଚାଲ ବିକଳ୍ପ ଓ ଉଚ୍ଚମାନର କିଛି ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ତିଆରିବା । ଲୋକ ସ୍ୱାଧୀନ । ଯାହାକୁ ଯାହା ରସିବ ତାକୁ ସେ କିଆଫୁଲ ପରି ବାସୁ । ଆଉ ଏ ଥିଲା ଏକ ସାମାଜିକ ଆବଶ୍ୟକତା । ବିକଳ୍ପ ବାଟଟି ହେଲା ସଫ୍ଟଓଏରର ସ୍ୱାଧୀନତା । ଏଥିରେ କୌଣସି ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ଗଢ଼ିଥିବା ମୂଳ ଗଢ଼ାଳି ଓ ତା’ ପରେ ସେଥିରେ ଯୋଗଦାନ କରିଥିବା ସଭିଙ୍କୁ ସମାନ ଭାବେ ସମ୍ମାନ ଦେଇ ଯୋଗଦାନକାରୀ ଭାବେ ସେମାନଙ୍କ ନାମ ଉଲ୍ଲେଖ କରାଯାଇଥାଏ । ଖାଲି ନାଁ ନୁହେଁ ଅନେକ ସମୟରେ ଖୋଲା ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ସଙ୍ଗେ ଜଡ଼ିତ ବ୍ୟକ୍ତିବିଶେଷ ଓ ସଂଗଠନସବୁ ଏମିତି ଆଖିଖୋସିଲା ଭଳି କାମ କରନ୍ତି ଯେ କିଣା ଆଉ ବୁଜା ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର କିଣିବାରୁ କି ବ୍ୟବହାର କରିବାରୁ ମନ ମରିଯିବ । ତିନି ବର୍ଷ ତଳେ Firefox ବ୍ରାଉଜର ତିଆରିରେ ଭାଗନେଇଥିବା Mozillaର ସ୍ୱେଚ୍ଛାସେବୀ ଯୋଗଦାନକାରୀମାନଙ୍କୁ ସମ୍ମାନ ଜଣାଇ ଆମେରିକାର ସାନ ଫ୍ରାନସିସ୍କୋ ସହରରେ ଏକ ବିଶାଳ ସ୍ମାରକୀ ଗଢ଼ି ସେଥିରେ ସମସ୍ତଙ୍କ ନାମ ଲେଖାଯାଇଥିଲା । ଭାବନ୍ତୁ ଏ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପରେ ସାମାନ୍ୟତମ ଯୋଗଦାନ କରିଥିବା ଲୋକଟିର ନାଁ ବି ଇତିହାସରେ ଲେଖାହୋଇ ରହିଗଲା । ୨୦୦୧ ମସିହାରେ ଇଂରାଜୀ ଓ ତା’ ପରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ସମେତ ବାକି ବିଶ୍ୱଭାଷାରେ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ତିଆରି ଖୋଲା ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆର ଇତିହାସ ବି ଏମିତି । ଏହି ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ୱେବସାଇଟଗୁଡ଼ିକ ମିଡ଼ିଆଉଇକି ନାମକ ଖୋଲା ସଫ୍ଟଓଏରରେ ତିଆରି । ଆଉ ସେଇ ଏକା ସଫ୍ଟଓଏରକୁ ନିଜ ଆବଶ୍ୟକତା ଅନୁସାରେ ବଦଳାଇ ଉଇକିଲିକ୍ସ ଓ ଉଇକିଟ୍ରାଭେଲ ଭଳି ଅଲଗା ଅଲଗା ୱେବସାଇଟ ଆଜି ଚାଳିତ ।

ତେବେ ଅନେକେ ଭାବୁଥିବେ ଯେ ଏ ଫ୍ରି ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର କଣ ସବୁବେଳେ ମାଗଣା? ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ସ୍ୱାଧୀନତା କ୍ଷେତ୍ରରେ ଗତ କେଇ ଦଶନ୍ଧି ଧରି କାମ କରି ଏ ଆନ୍ଦୋଳନକୁ ବହୁ ଆଗକୁ ନେଇଥିବା ରିଚାର୍ଡ଼ ଷ୍ଟଲମ୍ୟାନ ଖୁବ ସହଜ ଓ ସରଳ ଢଙ୍ଗରେ ଏ ବିଷୟଟି ବୁଝାଇଦିଅନ୍ତି ।

ଫ୍ରି ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ମାଗଣାରେ ବଣ୍ଟାଯାଇପାରେ ବା କିଛି ଦରରେ ବିକାଯାଇପାରେ । କିନ୍ତୁ ଏଥିରେ ଥିବା “ଫ୍ରି” ମାଗଣା ନୁହେଁ ବରଂ ଖୋଲା ଜ୍ଞାନ ଭଳି “ଫ୍ରିଡ଼ମ” ବା ସ୍ୱାଧୀନତାକୁ ସୂଚାଏ ।

ତେଣୁ କୌଣସି ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ବ୍ୟବହାର କରିବା ଆଗରୁ ତା’ର କପିରାଇଟ ବାବଦରେ ସେଥିରେ ଥିବା ନିୟମାବଳୀ ପଢ଼ିଲେ ବୁଝାପଡ଼ିବ ଯେ ତାହା ଏକ ପ୍ରୋପ୍ରାଇଟରି କି ଫ୍ରି ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର । ସ୍ୱାଧୀନତା ମଣିଷର ଜନ୍ମଗତ ଅଧିକାର । ଆଉ ଜ୍ଞାନ ବାଣ୍ଟିବା ଲାଗି । ବାନ୍ଧି ରଖିବା ଲାଗି ନୁହେଁ । କାରଣ କେହି ଜ୍ଞାନ ତିଆରି ନାହିଁ ବରଂ ସଭିଏଁ ଜ୍ଞାନର ନାନାଦି ଭଣ୍ଡାରକୁ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରିବା ପାଇଁ ବାଟ ତିଆରି କରିଥାନ୍ତି । ତେଣୁ ସେ ବାଟରେ ବାଡ଼ କିଆଁ? ନିକଟରେ ସମାଜର ଏହି ପୁରାତନ ଧାରାକୁ ବାହୁଡ଼ି ଯିବା ପାଇଁ ଅନେକ ବ୍ୟକ୍ତିବିଶେଷ, ସଂଗଠନ ଓ ବଡ଼ ବଡ଼ କମ୍ପାନି ଧୀରେ ଧୀରେ ସେମାନେ ତିଆରୁଥିବା ସଫ୍ଟଓଏରର ସୋର୍ସ କୋଡ଼ ଖୋଲାରେ ଦେଲେଣି । ଫଳରେ ସାଧାରଣ ବ୍ୟବହାରକାରୀ ଓ ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ଗଢ଼ାଳିଙ୍କ ହାତରେ ସ୍ୱାଧୀନ ଭାବେ ସେମାନେ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରୁଥିବା ସଫ୍ଟଓଏରକୁ ନିଜ ଆବଶ୍ୟକ ଅନୁସାରେ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରିପାରିବେ । ଆଉ ସମାଜର ମୌଳିକ ଆବଶ୍ୟକତା ବିଭିନ୍ନତାର ବହୁରଙ୍ଗ ଏଥିରେ ସମୁଜ୍ଜଳେ ଫୁଟିଉଠିବ ।

ଆମ ସମାଜର ଏହି ବାଣ୍ଟିବାର ଧାରାକୁ ନୂଆ ଟେକନୋଲୋଜି ଯୁଗରେ ଉଜ୍ଜୀବିତ କରିବା ଲକ୍ଷରେ ଜଗତ ସାରା ୨୦୦୪ ମସିହାରୁ ସେପ୍ଟେମ୍ବର ମାସର ତୃତୀୟ ସପ୍ତାହରେ “ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ଫ୍ରିଡ଼ମ ଡେ” ବା “ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ସ୍ୱାଧୀନତା ଦିବସ” ପାଳିତ ହୋଇଆସୁଛି । ଏଥିରେ କୌଣସି ନିର୍ଦ୍ଦିଷ୍ଟ ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ନୁହେଁ ବରଂ ଖୋଲା ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ପଛରେ ଥିବା ଦାର୍ଶନିକ ଓ ସାମାଜିକ ଦୃଷ୍ଟିକୋଣଟି ସଭିଙ୍କୁ ବୁଝାଇବା ହେଉଛି ମୂଳ ଲକ୍ଷ । ଆଉ ଯେଯାଏ ବଡ଼ କମ୍ପାନି ସାଧାରଣ ଲୋକଙ୍କୁ ସମ୍ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ତଥ୍ୟ ନ ଜଣାଇ କପିରାଇଟ ବଳରେ ବାନ୍ଧି ରଖିଥିବେ ସେଯାଏ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀ ବାପୁଡ଼ା ବା ଜାଣିବ କେମିତି ଏ ଭିତର ଗୁମର? ନିଜ ହାତରେ ନିଜ ଶାସନର ଡୋର ଧରିବା ଯେମିତି ସ୍ୱାଧୀନତା ନିଜ ବ୍ୟବହାରରେ ଲାଗୁଥିବା ସଫ୍ଟଓଏରର ସ୍ୱାଧୀନତା ବି ଏକାଭଳି ପ୍ରତିଟି ବ୍ୟବହାରକାରୀର ଅଧିକାର । ତେଣୁ ଏ ସ୍ୱାଧୀନତା ଦିବସକୁ ସଭିଏଁ ନିଆରା ଢଙ୍ଗରେ ପାଳନ୍ତି । ଆଫ୍ରିକାରେ କିଛି ବର୍ଷ ଆଗରୁ ଫ୍ରି ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ଚାଳିତ ଏକ ଡ୍ରୋନ ବା ଚାଳକବିହୀନ ପବନଯାନଟିଏ ଛାଡ଼ିଥିଲେ । ଅନେକ ସ୍ଥାନରେ ଲୋକେ ଏକାଠି ହୋଇ ଏ ବାବଦରେ ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ସ୍ୱାଧୀନତା ବାବଦରେ ଆଲୋଚନା କରନ୍ତି । ଆଉ ପୁଣି କେଉଁଠି ସାଧାରଣ ଲୋକଙ୍କୁ ତାଙ୍କ କମ୍ପୁଟରରେ ଫ୍ରି ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ଇନଷ୍ଟଲ କରିବା ପାଇଁ କ୍ୟାମ୍ପ କରନ୍ତି । ଫଳରେ ଲୋକେ ନିଜ କମ୍ପୁଟରରେ ମାଇକ୍ରୋସଫ୍ଟର ବିକଳ୍ପ ଓ ଉବଣ୍ଟୁ ଭଳି ଖୋଲା ଲିନକ୍ସ ଅପରେଟିଂ ସିଷ୍ଟମ କିମ୍ବା Mozilla Firefox ଭଳି ବ୍ରାଉଜର ଇନଷ୍ଟଲ କରିପାରିବେ । ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ସ୍ୱାଧୀନତା ଦିବସର ଚିହ୍ନ ସ୍ୱରୂପର ଲେଖକର ଏ ଲେଖାଟି ମଧ୍ୟ ଏକ ଖୋଲା ଲାଇସେନ୍ସରେ ଆଉ ଶ୍ରେୟ ଦେଇ କେହି ଚାହିଁଲେ ତାହାକୁ ପ୍ରକାଶ କରିପାରିବେ ।

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/software-freedom-day

Why Open Access Has To Look Up For Academic Publishing To Look Up

sinha — 2016-10-12T16:22:10Z

In an important development, the US Federal Trade Commission has filed a complaint against the India-based OMICS group for harassing authors to publish in its journals.

The article was published in the Wire on October 12, 2016.

“…if you are a member of the knowledge elite, then there is free access, but for the rest of the world, not so much … Publisher restrictions do not achieve the objective of enlightenment, but rather the reality of ‘elite-nment.” Lawrence Lessig

In 2011, speaking impassionately to an audience at CERN – one of the world’s largest institutions for nuclear physics research, headquartered in Geneva – Lessig, a professor of law at Harvard Law School and a political activist, highlighted the crisis of access to scientific scholarship. Indeed, over the last six decades, public access to scholarly works has diminished. Works that can be freely searched and read represent only a sliver of the entire wealth of human knowledge.

With the emergence of academic journals in the seventeenth century, the practice of exchanging manuscripts for review and comments became popular, leading to the establishment of the peer-review system. In fact, until the eighteenth century, there existed a strong belief in the intellectual commons and traditions of sharing knowledge between scholars. These traditions dated back to scholarship flourishing in ancient Greece. Open access was the default, and not the exception to the norm.

However, by the nineteenth century, there occurred a game-changing shift in the approach to knowledge production. It was theorised that the commons approach was inefficient and that knowledge needed to be exclusively owned to spur further production. This was in line with the incentive theory of copyright law, which was an added justification to the commoditisation of knowledge. In such circumstances, all scholarly works increasingly came to be fortified within the expensive walls of academic journals. Journals left no stone unturned to capitalise on scholars vying to get published in prestigious titles (Nature, Lancet, Cell, etc.).

The business model rarely rewarded authors or peer reviewers. On the contrary, some journals required authors to pay a considerable fee to publish their work. Subscription charges to such research, a large part of which was funded by the government (i.e. taxpayers), hit the roof and could be afforded only by elite institutions. And with the advent of the digital age, the fortresses moved online.

However, before the internet arrived, there had been efforts to counter the entrenchment of scholarly works. They were mostly in the nature of social movements, located broadly within the philosophical umbrella of openness. The nineties marked a significant increase in the modes of access, through devices connected to the internet. Previously a fringe movement, openness was now entering the realms of publishing, software, standards development, education and data. It manifested in Linux, Wikipedia, open web standards, open educational resources, open government data, Creative Commons and, particularly, open access publishing. Just last month, a UN report called for open access to research to improve public health.

Open access publishing was a breakaway from the traditional scholarly publishing model. It offered a different model of online research publication informed by the principles of transparency, free access and unrestricted access. Three key definitions exist, and the Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002) provides a good overview of it:

There are many degrees and kinds of wider and easier access to this literature. By ‘open access’ to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.

Further, open access is compatible with copyright, peer review, revenue (even profit), print, preservation, prestige, quality, career-advancement, indexing, and other features and supportive services associated with conventional scholarly literature (as Peter Suber wrote in 2004). The model broadly offers two routes: gold and green. Gold open access involves publication in an open access journal. The journal provides for peer-review, retention of copyright by the author and in most cases requires author-side fees. Green open access involves publishing a work in an online repository, with/without peer-review. The models have several variations, and adoption often depends on their suitability for a particular discipline. Many institutions now have an Open Access Mandate policy.

Latest challenges to open access publishing

For a 15-year-old movement (formally), open access publishing is making a serious dent in the market for scholarly publications. It has emerged as a formidable competitor to the traditional model. How else do you explain the unfortunate acquisition of SSRN – one of the largest online open access repositories – by the largest publisher of academic journals, Elsevier, earlier this year? Where, within a few days of Elsevier gaining control, users began to notice problematic takedowns of articles on SSRN.

The acquisition was a severe blow to open access publishing. To be fair, there remain certain issues intrinsic to open access publishing models that need urgent resolution. For instance, while some open access journals provide high quality services at levels comparable to that of paywalled journals, a large majority has been unable to reach reasonable standards of publication.

Further, as it has emerged lately, many are yet to crack the business model while a few are driven by malicious attempts to con authors. Most commercial open access publishers have resorted to a system of levying from the authors an article-processing charge (APC). These publishers include large players such as the Public Library of Science journals and BioMed Central. APCs are justified as necessary costs for publication. Thus, sometimes they are reasonably applied only to peer-reviewed submissions. However, sometimes they are blatantly misused by publishers who quote exorbitant APCs. As a result, APCs have become a serious concern for the academic community, with the reentry of an undesirable price barrier which has shifted the burden from the reader to the author.

In one noteworthy development, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed a complaint against the OMICS group for deceiving authors and misrepresenting its editorial quality. The OMICS group has its roots in Hyderabad and runs a multitude of open access journals. It carried a notorious reputation for soliciting articles profusely, and then holding the articles hostage unless the authors paid hefty fees for their publication. It apparently charged the fees for conducting peer-review, which as this harrowing account of an author reveals, was an utter sham. It also seems that the group targeted unsuspecting scholars from developing countries, where there was a higher concentration of early-career researchers eager to get their works published.

Holding articles hostage and releasing unchecked versions must have already caused irreparable damage to several researchers’ reputations. In this day of web-caching and -indexing facilities, one wonders if the researchers will ever be able to obliterate linkages to their unchecked manuscripts. Further, in the long run, this phenomenon will ruin or suppress promising careers – especially from developing countries. As a result, the present lack of diversity in top-rung academia may not be eliminated for a long time.

Such harmful, predatory practices have not escaped the FTC’s notice, and it has stated that it will pursue cases of similar nature to protect authors and consumers. This is the first time in the world when a governmental authority has taken cognisance of predatory practices in OA publishing. This will hopefully lead to an appropriate cleansing effect of the players in this field, and enhance the credibility of open access journals.

Thus, self-regulation and standard-setting remains an area for improvisation in the open access publishing community. At the cusp of the movement, proposed structures were mired in legal and economic arguments. It is yet to overcome the challenge of economic sustainability and mature into a stable as well as replicable business model. The movement will be celebrating the Open Access Week for the ninth year later this month. It has gifted scholars immeasurably and lent itself to the progress of science and arts. Here’s hoping the community will iron out the remaining challenges to further strengthen the movement soon.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/the-wire-anubha-sinha-october-12-2016-why-open-access-has-to-look-up-for-academic-publishing-to-look-up

OpenData Week in Madrid - OD4D Summit, Open Data Charter Meetings, and IODC16

praskrishna — 2016-10-16T03:11:54Z

Sumandro Chattopadhyay took part in three open data events in Madrid in the first week of October 2016.

OD4D Summit

Sumandro Chattopadhyay has been a member of the Open Data Research Network (funded by IDRC), which is now part of the Open Data for Development (OD4D) Network. The Network completed 2 years and held its first summit on October 3, 2016. The event was organized by IDRC. Participants discussed the way forward for the Network. Among other things the need for regional cooperation in open data policies and practices in the South, South East, and East Asia was noted.

Open Data Charter Meeting

Sumandro represented CIS in the Open Data Charter Lead Stewards' meeting held on October 5, 2016. The meeting was focused on finalising the business plan of the Charter for 2017-2020, including setting up a secretariat for coordinating and leading the work. The document was thoroughly discussed and will be revised further by the Lead Stewards during the next month, before sharing the draft version with the General Stewards in mid-November.

A meeting was held with the General Stewards and other participants on the evening of the same day. For more info, click here.

IODC 16

The 4th International Open Data Conference (IODC 16) organized by red.es, IDRC, the World Bank and Open Data in Madrid on October 6 and 7, 2016 brought out a lot of real concerns, sometimes even slightly bitter and worried, about the actual state of open data across the world and the relevance/implications of open data for various stakeholders. More info on IODC here.

Sumandro spoke at the Regional Talk session focusing on Asia. He spoke on Opening Data for innovation: from supply-driven to demand-driven Open Data strategies and moderated the session on demand-driven open data strategies.

Collected tweets from IODC can be accessed here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/opendata-week-in-madrid-od4d-summit-open-data-charter-meetings-and-iodc16

(Lack of) Representation of Non-Western World in Process of Creation of Web Standards

gupta — 2016-10-20T01:44:41Z

World Wide Consortium (W3C) as a standard setting organization for the World Wide Web plays a very important role in shaping the web. We focus on the ongoing controversy related to Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) and found that there was a serious lack of participation from people from non-western countries. We also found serious lack of gender diversity in the EME debate.

W3C is the organization which sets the standard for HTML 5. Recently it got surrounded by controversy due to the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) draft specification (David Dorwin et al. 2016). EME aims to prevent piracy of digital video by making it hard to download the unencrypted video stream. But it also raises lots of issues regarding implementation in Free and Open Source Software, Interoperability, Privacy, Security, Accessibility and fair use. (Cory Doctorow 2016)

In this study we looked at aspects of the debate which both of the sides ignored, the third world! We found that out of 48 people who participated in the debate around EME on W3C's public-html mailing list, none of them were from the continents of Asia, Africa or South America. These regions make up almost 80 % of the world's population and more than 60 percent of world's internet users (Stats 2016). When a group of people doesn't get represented a in the standard making process it is expected that their concerns don't get represented either. The representation of people is specially important in the EME debate because laws around Digital Rights Management around the world are different. For example Indian laws does not disallow manufacture and distribution of circumvention tools whereas the law in USA does (Prakash 2016b). The cultural norms around the world are quite different and also the conditions under which people use the internet are different. India has the lowest average internet speed across the world (Akamai 2016). A large of fraction of Indian population (37% in 2010) accesses internet through Cyber Cafés (TRAI 2016). These factors makes the ability to download digital content much more important for an Indian internet user than a North American or European internet user.

Methodology

We used BigBang[1] python package to download the achieves of the public-html mailing list at W3C.[2] Our dump contains all the messages between 31st August 2010 to 15th May 2016. Then we filtered out all the emails with EME, encrypted media or DRM in the subject line. There were 472 such emails. We then de-duplicated the list of senders as some senders used multiple emails in the course of discussion. There were 48 unique senders afters de duplication. Then we looked up their social media profiles (LinkedIn, Twitter, Github), personal website or page at employers site to determine the region they belong to and their gender. All the source code used for the analysis is available on our github repository.[3]

Result

Regional Diversity

Region	Participant (%)	Email (%)
Africa	0 (0)	0 (0)
Asia	0 (0)	0 (0)
Australia and New Zealand	5 (10.4)	16 (3.4)
Europe	13 (27.1)	146 (30.9)
North America	30 (62.5)	310 (65.7)
South America	0 (0)	0 (0)
Total	48 (100)	472 (100)

As mentioned in the Introduction above there was absolutely no participation from the whole continents of Africa, Asia, or South America with most of the emails being sent by North Americans.

Gender Diversity

Gender	Participant(%)	Email(%)
Male	47 (97.9)	466 (98.7)
Female	1 (2.1)	6 (1.3)
Total	48 (100)	472 (100)

There was only one women participating in the discussing contributing 1.3 % of the emails sent. The numbers reflects widely discussed lack of gender diversity in Tech and Open communities.

The debate inside W3C around EME also seriously lacked in gender diversity, which is typical of open communities.

Stakeholder Community

Stakeholder Community	Participants per work category	Emails sent per stakeholder category
FOSS browser developer	5	56
Digital Content Provider	9	186
DRM Platform Provider	15	100
Accessibility	4	47
Security Researcher	0	0
Privacy	2	2
Other W3C Employee	3	10
None of the Above	10	71
Total	48	472

We observe that there was no participation from the Security Researcher community and negligible participation from privacy community. Voice of Digital Content Provider was overrepresented with almost 40% of emails sent by them.

Methodological remarks:

Participants are categorized on the basis stakes of their employer and not specifically on the work they do. For example someone who works on privacy in Google will be placed in "DRM platform provider" instead of "Privacy".
W3C and Universities are considered to neutral and their employees are categorized by the work they do.
Google's position is very interesting, it is a DRM provider as a browser manufacturer but also a content provider in Youtube and fair number of Google Employers are against EME due to other concerns. Therefore Christian Kaiser has been paced as Content provider because he works on Youtube, and everyone else has been placed as DRM provider.

Discussion and Future Work

The lack of diversity in W3C is not unique. (Graham, Straumann, and Hogan 2015) showed a significant western bias in Wikipedia, gender bias in Wikipedia has also a well known and is being actively worked upon. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers has also been criticized for under representing interests of non North American and West European world (Prakash 2016a).

We hope that W3C and other organizations will increase the diversity in their standard making process so that global voices actually shape the global internet.

Acknowledgement

This work was done during my internship at The Center for Internet & Society, India. I thank Sunil Abraham for useful and timely feedback and Pranesh Prakash, Amber Sinha and Udbhav Tiwari for informed discussions.

References

Akamai. 2016. “Akamai State of the Internet Q1 2016.” Accessed August 20. https://www.akamai.com/uk/en/multimedia/documents/state-of-the-internet/akamai-state-of-the-internet-report-q1-2016.pdf.
Cory Doctorow. 2016. “Interoperability and the W3C: Defending the Future from the Present.” Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/interoperability-and-w3c-defending-future-present.
David Dorwin, Jerry Smith, Mark Watson, and Adrian Bateman. 2016. “Encrypted Media Extensions, W3C Editor’s Draft.” Accessed May 13. https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/
Feminism, Geek. 2016. “Geek Feminism Wiki FLOSS.” Geek Feminism Wiki. Accessed October 5. http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/FLOSS.
Graham, Mark, Ralph K. Straumann, and Bernie Hogan. 2015. “Digital Divisions of Labor and Informational Magnetism: Mapping Participation in Wikipedia.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 105 (6): 1158–78. doi:10.1080/00045608.2015.1072791.
Prakash, Pranesh. 2016a. “CIS Statement at ICANN 49’s Public Forum.” The Centre for Internet and Society. Accessed August 20. http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann49-public-forum-statement.
Prakash, Pranesh. 2016b. “Technological Protection Measures in the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010.” The Centre for Internet and Society. Accessed August 20. http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment.
Stats, Internet Live. 2016. “Number of Internet Users (2016) - Internet Live Stats.” Accessed August 20. http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/.
TRAI.. “Recommendations on National Broadband Plan.” Accessed August 20. http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Recommendation/Documents/Rcommendation81210.pdf.

^{^[1]} https://github.com/datactive/bigbang

^{^[2]} https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/

^{^[3]} https://github.com/hargup/eme_diversity_analysis

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/lack-of-representation-of-non-western-world-in-creation-of-web-standards

Should Indian Researchers Pay to Get their Work Published

Muthu Madhan, Siva Shankar Kimidi, Subbiah Gunasekaran and Subbiah Arunachalam — 2016-10-29T14:47:52Z

We raise the financial and ethical issue of paying for getting papers published in professional journals. Indian researchers have published more than 37,000 papers in over 880 open access journals from 61 countries in the five years 2010-14 as seen from Science Citation Index Expanded. This accounts for about 14.4% of India’s overall publication output, considerably higher than the 11.6% from the world. Indian authors have used 488 OA journals levying article processing charge (APC), ranging from INR 500 to US$5,000, in the five years to publish about 15,400 papers.

The research paper jointly authored by Muthu Madhan, Siva Shankar Kimidi, Subbiah Gunasekharan, and Subbiah Arunachalam was published in the Indian Institute of Science Repository on October 29, 2016.

More than half of these papers were published in just 13 journals. PLoS One and Current Science are the OA journals Indian researchers use most often. Most leading Indian journals are open access and they do not charge APC. Use of OA journals levying APC has increased over the four years from 242 journals and 2557 papers in 2010 to 328 journals and 3,634 papers in 2014. There has been an increase in the use of non-APC journals as well, but at a lower pace. About 27% of all Indian papers in OA journals are in ‘Clinical Medicine,’ and 11.7% in ‘Chemistry.’ Indian researchers have used nine mega journals to publish 3,100 papers. We estimate that India is potentially spending about US$2.4 million annually on APCs and suggest that it would be prudent for Indian authors to make their work freely available through interoperable repositories, a trend that is growing significantly in Latin America and China, especially when research is facing a funding crunch.

We further suggest bringing all Indian OA journals on to a single platform similar to SciELO, and all repositories be harvested by CSIR-URDIP which is already managing the OA repositories of the laboratories of CSIR, DBT and DST. Such resource sharing will not only result in enhanced efficiency and reduced overall costs but also facilitate use of standard metadata among repositories.

More than two decades ago Harnad posted his subversive proposal to a mailing list in which he called on researchers “to make copies of all the papers they published in scholarly journals freely available on the internet.”^1,2 Many researchers now make their papers freely available either by publishing them in open access (OA) journals or by placing them in repositories or websites. Indeed, a 2013 report asserted that by 2011 “free availability of a majority of papers has been reached in general science and technology, in biomedical research, biology, and mathematics, and statistics,” and that the number of open access papers has been growing by about 2% a year.³

Journals make papers open access in two ways: OA journals make all papers open access immediately on publication, and hybrid OA journals make selected papers open access. Most OA journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) do not charge to make a paper open access. Current Science is such a journal. Many OA journals – about 26% according to Solomon and Björk⁴ – and all hybrid OA journals levy an article processing charge (APC) to provide OA to a paper. However, according to Crotty,⁵the majority of OA papers are published by paying an APC. The APC levied by journals used by Indian researchers is in the range INR 500 (~US$8) - US$5,000.

OA journal publishing, particularly by commercial publishers and in the field of biomedicine, is growing rapidly. According to DOAJ there are 9,192 OA journals as of 2 September 2016 published from 130 countries and one can access more than 2.27 million articles. Currently, DOAJ is growing at the net rate of 6 titles per day.⁶ The Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources (ROAD) lists 14,031 OA journals published from some 140 countries.⁷

Repositories, where full texts of research publications are deposited and made available online, are of two kinds: central repositories, such as arXiv, and distributed (or institutional) repositories, such as the University of Southampton institutional research repository, <eprints.soton.ac.uk>, the first of its kind.

Here we are concerned only with the open access journals which make all content open access immediately on publication. Further, our interest is in papers from India that are published in journals levying APC. The question we are particularly interested in is, ‘is paid open access affordable for India?’ And, even if it is affordable, should we go for it?

We assessed the current status of the use of OA journals by Indian researchers using bibliometric analysis of data gathered from Web of Science – Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE). We used this analysis to find out the number of papers Indian researchers have published in OA journals charging APC, leading to an estimate of the amount the country as a whole would potentially have spent on APC costs, and to see if publishing in paid OA journals led to higher levels of citations.

Methodology

We searched for articles, letters, proceedings papers and reviews from India in OA journals

indexed in SCIE in the five years 2010-2014. The search made on 11 January 2016 resulted in

37,122 papers. Of these, 44 papers resulting from five international collaborations (CMS,

ATLAS, ALICE, STAR and FAITH), and appearing in journals such as Physics Letters B, New Journal of Physics, Nuclear Physics B and BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, had a very large number of authors (running to several hundreds). We removed them from the data set as they hindered processing the data. Thus we considered 37,078 papers. We downloaded full bibliographic data for all these and analysed the data using Visual FoxPro and found that Indian researchers have used 881 OA journals in which to publish these papers. We visited the web site of each of these journals during January- February 2016 to find out information on APCs levied by them. Also we classified the journals into 22 major field categories following the Essential Science Indicators (ESI) classification. This classification does not allocate journals to multiple fields. We identified papers in which at least one author was from a country other than India.

Using the same strategy as used for Indian publications, we recorded the number of papers published by 12 other countries and the proportion of OA papers (data gathered on 29 January 2016).

Results

We present here the key findings. Details of our bibliometric analysis are available from the

authors and will soon be presented in a report.

Use of OA journals by researchers – In the five years considered, SCIE had indexed 6,460,105 papers, of which 748,127 (or 11.58%) were in OA journals. In Fig. 1, we present the share of proportion of journal publications which have appeared in OA journals in 13 countries in the 5year period 2010-2014. Brazil has the highest proportion (close to one in three papers), with

India coming a distant second (one in seven papers). That Brazil leads is not surprising. Long before the OA movement began, the funding community led by the São Paulo Science

Foundation (FAPSEP) and the information community led by the Latin American and Caribbean

Center on Health Sciences Information recognized the need for strengthening the visibility of the Brazilian journals, and initiated the SciELO movement in the state of São Paulo, Brazil, in 1997, which later spread to Chile and the rest of Ibero-America and South Africa.⁸ As Vessuri et al.⁹ have pointed out, a strong sense of public mission among Latin American universities, coupled with the realization that OA improves the presence and impact of Latin American research publications led Latin America to develop its own knowledge exchange mechanisms on its own terms.

Estimates of the proportion of open access papers vary widely depending on the source used and when the estimate was made. For example, by analysing journals indexed in Scopus we found that 4,231 of the 22,460 active titles (as of 6 February 2016) were OA (as seen from DOAJ on September 2015) and were listed in either or both of DOAJ and ROAD.¹⁰ Of the more than

12,000 journals covered by Web of Science, 1,313 journals are OA as of October 2015 as listed

by DOAJ.¹¹ Analyzing data from Google Scholar, Jamali and Nabavi showed that more than 61% of papers were accessible in full text.¹²

Use of journals charging APC - In 2010, Indian researchers had published their work in 479 OA journals, of which 237 did not charge APC. The number of OA journals used by Indian researchers to publish their work is increasing (Table 1). It has risen from 445 in 2009¹³ to 611 in 2014. More than half of the 611 journals levy APC.

Not all journals charging APC have a fixed APC. There are many models. Of the 881 SCIEindexed OA journals which Indian researchers have used, 488 charge a fee: 437 charge a fixed APC, 49 levy page charges, and two charge a non-refundable submission fee. Contrary to

Crotty’s observation that the majority of OA papers are published by paying an APC,⁵ Indian authors publish a larger number of papers in non-APC journals. However, papers published in journals levying APC are cited a larger number of times on average.

The APC OA journal used most often by Indian researchers in the five-year period is PLoS One with a total publication count of 2,404 and average cites per paper (CPP) of 7.32. Starting with 78 papers in 2009,¹³ the number increased to 724 papers from India in 2014. Indeed, Current Science, which comes next in the list with 2,334 papers with a CPP of 1.74, was the leader until 2011.

Overseas collaboration - All authors are from India in 30,152 of the 37,078 papers published by Indian researchers in the 881 OA journals; this includes papers in which all authors are from the same institution as well as papers with authors from more than one Indian institution. These papers have been cited 78,722 times for a CPP of 2.61. There are 6,926 papers with at least one author from an address outside India, and these have been cited 39,031 times for a CPP of 5.63.

Indian researchers have collaborated with authors from some 115 countries. Collaborators are mainly from USA (2,191 papers), UK (815 papers) and Germany (708 papers).

Country of journal publication - Indian authors have published in OA journals from 61 countries. More than half (18,781) were published in 48 Indian journals, six of which charge APC. As one would expect, US and UK journals followed Indian journals in the number of papers published: 7,647 papers were published in 149 US journals of which 107 charge APC, and 2,834 papers were published in 172 UK journals of which 162 charge APC. Indian researchers have published

675 papers in 54 Brazilian OA journals of which nine levy APC, 229 papers in 9 Chilean OA journals of which two levy APC, 231 papers in 14 journals published from China of which five charge APC in the five yeras. In these five years Indian authors have published 652 papers in seven Nigerian APC journals. Of these, all but one were delisted from Web of Science after a few years of coverage. Such delisting is all too common. Of the 881 journals studied here, only 263 have been used by Indian researchers in all five years.

Citations to papers published in journals levying APC – Number of papers by Indian researchers in 57 journals charging APC and publishing at least 10 papers from India and has a CPP of not less than 10 are listed in Table 2. Table 3 lists the 10 journals that do not levy APC and have been cited at least 10 times on average in the five years. Three journals, viz. Nucleic Acids Research, PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, and BMC Genomics, all of which charge an APC of well over US$2,000, have published more than 100 papers from India. In all three journals, CPP of Indian papers are less than CPP of the journal as a whole, and there is a big difference between the CPP of papers written solely by Indian authors and that of those written in collaboration with foreign authors. For example, Nucleic Acids Research has published 138 papers from India (CPP 14.09) out of a total of 6,614. The journal’s average CPP for the 5-year period is 25.29 as against India’s CPP of 14.09. The 80 papers entirely written by Indian researchers has a CPP of less than 10, and the CPP of the 58 papers with foreign collaborators is more than 22.

As many as 92 papers have appeared in 10 OA journals which do not charge APC, none of which are from India, and these have been cited more than 15 times on average. Of the 92 papers, 41 were published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization at a CPP of about 12.5. In contrast, the CPP of the 478 papers published in the journal during the five years is above 15.

Use of mega journals- Indian authors have published 3,100 papers in nine mega journals where the papers are accepted without applying the usual standards of strict peer review if they are perceived to be technically sound (Table 4).

Papers classified by field - It is in Clinical Medicine that Indian researchers have published in the largest number of OA journals (208) as well as contributing the largest number of papers (10,036). They have published in 88 journals in the field of Plant and Animal Science, but have published a much larger number of papers in both Chemistry and Biology & Biochemistry in a smaller number of journals.

Discussion

Over 14.4% of the 37,122 papers from India as seen from SCIE have been published in OA journals. The actual number of OA papers from India will be much larger since, for example,

Scopus is likely to have indexed a larger number of such papers. Additionally, there are papers published in hybrid OA journals and papers published in non-OA journals that are made open access by placing them in institutional or central repositories or freely available through author websites, which indicates that there is a welcome growing awareness of the need for making one’s work OA. Our earlier study¹³ has revealed that some 16% of Indian papers were pulished in OA journals indexed in SCIE 2009, but in that study we had considered all categories of papers from OA journals collected comprehensively from various sources.

Potential spend on APC seen in perspective

We estimated the total APC for all 14,293 papers published by Indian authors in OA journals charging a fixed APC (leaving out 7% of all OA papers charging variable APC). We found there is an average cost of ~ US$1,173 per paper. We compared this figure with the costs on APCs incurred by institutions elsewhere.

From a survey of a large sample of journals listed in DOAJ carried out in 2014, Morrison et al.

reported an average APC of US$964.¹⁴

The Wellcome Trust, which supports payment of charges incurred by their grantees, reported a total spend of about £4.7 million paid for 2,556 papers, published in OA or hybrid journals, in 2013-14 at an average APC of £1,837. Close to 60% of these papers were published in the journals of the five leading publishers, and of these 68% were in hybrid journals. In 2014-15, the

Charity Open Access Fund, comprising the Trust and five other funders, had paid more than £5.6 million towards APCs for 2,942 papers at an average cost of £1,914.¹⁵

In its report dated March 2015, RCUK indicated an average APC of £1,600, based on APC paid for 6,504 papers from 55 universities during the two years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The average APC paid varies from university to university, from £778 for the School of Oriental & African

Studies to £2,248 for Durham University.¹⁶ Over the 15-month period April 2013 – July 2014,

Leeds University alone had paid publishers a little over £270,000, of which about £10,000 was for colour and page charges. For the 166 RCUK funded papers for which APCs were paid during the review period, the average cost of APC was £1,626.74.¹⁷University of Cambridge spent

£936,000 towards APC in 2014. For the 495 RCUK funded papers the average cost was £1,891.¹⁸ Besides this, the university has also supported payment of page and colour charges and has paid for researchers to join memberships that offer a discount for APCs out of the RCUK fund. There is a growing concern in the university if they should be spending so much money on

APCs.¹⁸

Björk and Solomon, in their report submitted to a consortium of European funding agencies in March 2014, had estimated the average APC from a study of journals indexed in Scopus for at least two years to be US$ 1,418.¹⁹

Gerritsma reported that in 2013, the Netherlands had spent €4 million towards 3,314 papers published in OA journals charging APC and in hybrid journals, and indexed in SCIE, at an average APC of €1,220.²⁰

In 2015, the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) spent over €418,000 on APCs for 288 papers in Gold OA journals (average €2,376) and €2.38 million on APCs for 913 papers (average €1,453). In addition FWF incurred an expenditure of €273,600 on other costs.²¹

The variation is to be expected, as the sampled journals vary and in the case of India a substantial number of low-APC journals would have been used. Wang et al. have found that the level of APCs varies with the region. European and North American APC OA journals have average

APC of more than US$2000, while Asian, African and South American APC OA journals have average APC of less than US$1000.²²

If we assume that APC was paid in full for all the 14,297 papers (4,775 with foreign collaborators and 9,522 by exclusively Indian authors) published by Indian authors in OA journals charging APC, the total expenditure would be around US$16.75 million. This figure does not include the APC for the other 7% of papers published in journals charging APC on the basis of number of pages, submission fee, and so on. Nor does it include the expenditure on OA papers published in hybrid journals. These journals usually charge much more than journals with fixed APC. According to Björk and Solomon (2014), the average APC for publication charged by hybrid journals published by subscription publishers (such as Elsevier and Wiley) is US$

2,727, almost double that chaged by fully OA journals published by non-subscription publishers (such as PLoS), US$ 1,418.¹⁹ It is possible that APCs for many papers jointly authored with foreign collaborators might have been paid by the other party. Also, in some cases authors might have been granted either a fee waiver or a discount. Allowing for these possibilities, we may assume that the sum spent would still be very high, more than ~US$12 million, or an average of US$2.4 million a year. This amount is in addition to the national expenditure on its academic and research library budget. Data releaesed early this year as part of the Natioanl Institutional Ranking Framework (https://www.nirfindia.org/Ranking) exercise reveal that the academic and library budget is by no means small.

Author pays model has failed

In the initial years of the ‘author pays’ OA journals, the hope was that OA publishing would be cheaper than subscription publishing. Eisen claimed that APC would go down “and will continue to do so, asymptotically approaching zero.”²³ What we see in reality, however, is that the APC charged by PLoS One has gone up from US$1,250 when it was founded in December 2006 to US$1,450 now. The APC charged by PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine has increased from

US$1,500 at launch in 2003 to US$2,900 in 2012, a rise of 93% in nine years.²³ The situation at

BioMed Central is no different. Comparing the APC levied by the 165 BMC titles between 2010 and 2016, Wheatly has shown that for many titles there has been a substantial rise.²⁴ Neylon, a former employee of PLoS had recently conceded that “no functional market is emerging and it

(APC model) might be the wrong economic model.”²⁵

When the high energy physics community and librarians from more than 20 countries negotiated with publishers to make key journals OA, it resulted in a contract with 11 publishers that would ensure they could make 10 journals OA immediately on publication and, in return, continue to make the profits they were making earlier with the subscription model. From its inception in

January 2014, SCOAP³ is making papers available on an OA basis and it charges an average

APC of US$1,165.²⁶ According to Morrison,⁶ “SCOAP ³ nearly doubled in size this past year

(87% annual growth) for a total of 4,690 documents,” and “the Electronic Journals Library added 3,612 journals that can be read free-of-charge in the past year, for a total of 52,000 journals, a

7% growth rate.”

As early as 1999, Rosenzweig²⁷ pointed out that the world of knowledge was being “kidnapped and held for ransom” by commercial publishers who have “turned renegade, exiling themselves from the academic enterprise, and focusing entirely on making the most money for their stockholders” and in the process “restricting the flow of knowledge.” Laakso and Björk have pointed out that today commercial publishers are the most common publisher of OA papers and the number of papers published by them jumped from 13,400 in 2005 to 119,900 in 2011.²⁸ Björk and Solomon¹⁹ have shown that “among the established OA publishers with journals listed in Scopus, the average APC grew by about 5% a year over the two years 2012 – 2013.” Taking such increases into account, India’s APC bill is bound to grow far beyond the US$2.4 million in the future. These cost increases are unpredictable, making it difficult for organizations willing to pay APC to make appropriate provisions in their budgets.

_{Affordable OA publishing}

Concerned about the high subscription costs and audience-limiting access rules of many traditional journals and the high levels of APCs charged by OA journals, many editorial boards broke away from publishers of such journals ‘in order to launch a comparable journal with a friendlier publisher or less-restrictive access policy.’²⁹ The most recent example is the en masse resignation of Rooryck and the other members of the editorial board of Lingua to start Glossa.³⁰ An early example was the resignation of the editor of Evolutionary Ecology along with many members of the editorial board to start Evolutionary Ecology Research in 1998.²⁹Suber maintains a list of such ‘Journal declarations of independence.’²⁹ Gowers, a strong opponent of publishers making tall claims about the value they add to publications and the huge subscription prices they charge, has launched an arXiv overlay journal called Discreet Analysis, owned by a group of researchers, in which the overall cost per article will be well below $30.³¹ His idea is to demonstrate that “in the internet age, and in particular in an age when it is becoming routine for mathematicians to deposit their articles on the arXiv before they submit them to journals, the only important function left for journals is organizing peer review.”³¹ How will these journals survive? Initially, the Association of Dutch Universities and The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research will fund Glossa so it can be completely free for both authors and readers, and the Open Libraries of the Humanities will take over the funding after five years.³²Seed money from the University of Cambridge will see through Discreet Analysis in the first five years.³¹

"It’s important [that these alternative models] acquire a reputation and prestige that people can feel it’s okay to submit to them — rather than the more established traditional journals — without damaging their careers," Gowers says.³² "We need an alternative, cheap system sitting there — at which point the commercial publishers will become redundant."³³

Should Indian researchers spend a large sum on APCs?

Why do authors choose to publish in certain journals? Scientists want their work not only to be seen and read but also to be appreciated and cited. For them publications are the culmination of their research and a means of achieving prestige and visibility. Moreover, the journals in which authors publish play an important role in the way the global community of scientists and funding agencies evaluate a scientist. Authors choose journals that would bring them maximum visibility, prestige and citations. Although there have been many discssions in recent times about the place of citations in scholarly communication and the undue importance paid to journal impact factors,³⁴ scientists of all age groups look forward to their papers being cited repeatedly and quickly, and journals proudly advertise their impact factors on their cover pages. Scientists do not really care if a journal is OA or if it charges APC (as long as their institution or funder is ready to cover the costs), nor surprisingly are they chary of surrendering all rights to their paper to the publisher. Many journals charging APC satisfy authors’expectations to a lesser or greater extent and authors are able to find the ones that would accept their papers. In addition, many of the journals run by major commercial publishers are run professionally and their unified graphical appearance gives them an identity. As scholarly communication moves from print to online, these publishers take advantage of emerging technological tools and standards to offer the research community ever better ways of presenting their content and they also energetically market their journals. PLoS, which was started with a view to fighting the commercial publishers, has spent US$3 million on software development in 2013-14 and more than US$413,000 on marketing and advertising in addition to expenses on promotion.³⁵

The question, from the point ofview of authors, is, “is it all right to spend huge sums for getting papers published in OA journals?” No, says Balaram, former director of Indian Institute of Science. He believes that Indian researchers should not use government funds – money given for research - to subsidize non-Indian journals, and that the money spent on APCs could be better spent on research per se or on libraries.³⁶ Williams-Jones and colleagues belive that “for many sectors of academe, ‘paying to publish’ is ethically suspicious.³⁷Such an ethical concern has also been raised by Wilson and Golonka.³⁸ There are other voices from the global South opposed to OA through APC. Babini of the Latin American Social Science Council asserts that paying huge sums as APC could increase the overall costs of research and financially undermine a nation’s research and scientific publishing ecosystem.³⁹ Nilsen says paying to publish represents a new apartheid system, and that “we need to move away from a system where someone decides who should have access to what.”⁴⁰For the sake of the global public good, Nilsen recommends that we should abandon the discriminative APC-based publishing practice and adopt open access through repositories.

The APC model of OA is not serving the true purpose of OA, which aims to create a level playing field for access to research. The APC levied by PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine is roughly equal to half of a month’s salary for an assistant professor in the United States, but more than two months of salary for an assistant professor in India.

Moreover, at a time when science is facing a funding crunch, it would be prudent for Indian researchers and research institutions to refrain from paying APCs to journals. A few months ago, both Rao and Swaminathan lamented the shortage of funds for research,^41,42 and more recently the Ministry of Human Resource Development announced some budgetary cuts for Indian Institutes of Technology⁴³ and the Ministry of Science & Technlogy has told the CSIR laboratories to fund reseach by themselves and to convert ongoing projects into for-profit ventures.⁴⁴

What is the alternative model for making research OA?

What is the alternative to publishing in paid OA journals? Balaram suggests that the authors could publish their papers without paying APC and still make them open through interoperable institutional repositories.^36,45 Joshi has explained the advantages of depositing one’s papers in such repositories.⁴⁶ Authors may wonder if making a paper available through such a repository is equivalent to publishing in an OA or hybrid OA journal. The answer is yes, very nearly. Journals may insist on an embargo and they may let the author deposit only the author postprint (the refereed version). Experts such as Harnad would recommend the adoption of OA through repositories worldwide so that institutions could cancel subscriptions and use the savings to pay for the much lower-priced, affordable, sustainable OA journals.⁴⁷ Use of repositories is picking up around the world. According to Morrison,⁶ “Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE) repositories collectively added more than 4.7 million documents this quarter for a total of just under 89 million documents,” and “the number of journals actively participating in PubMed Central, making all content immediately freely accessible, and making all content open access, continues to grow.” arXiv grew by over 107,000 documents to over 1.1 million documents during the last year.⁶

What is happening in India?

There are many OA journals in India, and 337 have been listed in DOAJ (as on 3 September 2016). These include journals published by leading Academies, societies and government organizations such as CSIR-NISCAIR, DESIDOC, ICMR, and ICAR, and these are free to authors and readers. MedKnow, although part of a private publishing group, publishes a large number of OA titles, most of which again are free to both authors and readers. But not all Indian OA journals are on a single platform like SciELO. Apart from a few exceptions like MedKnow journals, others do not offer all the web features and metrics that leading publishers offer, which is surprising considering the wealth of technological skills available in the country.

Another platform specifically designed to provide open access to journals published in developing countries is Bioline International, a not-for-profit partnership committed to providing open access to quality research journals and reducing the South to North knowledge gap. Bioline currently supports 36 journals from 16 countries. The download statistics of Bioline journals (http://www.bioline.org.br/stats) are very impressive. Kirsop, a founding member of

Bioline International, told us “Within a single month in 2016, some 1.5 million full text articles were downloaded – equivalent to approximately 18 million per annum – showing the value attached to publications resulting from research carried out in regions of the global south, often referred to as ‘the missing science’, but nevertheless essential to achieve a global understanding in such areas as health and the environment.” (Personal communication, 13 April 2016).

Organizations such as CSIR, DBT and DST have already adopted a policy of making research produced in their own laboratories, as well as research they support in other institutions, open access through placing the accepted papers in institutional open access repositories.^48,49CSIR-

URDIP, Pune, has set up a central platform for OA repositories and harvesting from all three organizations and these could be accessed at http://www.csircentral.net/ and http://sciencecentral.in/. Unfortunately, many laboratories under these apex bodies have not taken the OA policy seriously, nor there seems to be any will on the part of the apex bodies to implement the policy forcefully.These repositories are interoperable and have adopted the best international practices. ICAR also has an open access policy, but it does not seem to have much traction.⁵⁰ There are also many institutional repositories (listed in http://roar.eprints.org/), some of them well populated, but others are languishing, largely due to the indifference of scientists.

By contrast, China seems to have made considerable progress. It was only in 2014 that the

Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China

(NSFC) issued open access policies.⁵¹ By mid-March 2016 , the Open Repository of the

NSFC included 135,000 research papers published between 1998 and 2015 by authors from 1,305 institutions. These research papers have already been downloaded more than 669,000 times. CAS now has two OA portals, namely the Institutional Repository Grid of Chinese Academy of Sciences, with content from 102 repositories, and the China Open Access Journal Portal, with content from hundreds of journals.⁵²

Latin America has witnessed the emergence of strong cooperative scholarly publishing ventures, such as SciELO (www.scielo.org) which hosts about 1,250 journals, and Redalyc

(www.redalyc.org) which hosts, 1,095 journals. Of these more than 2,300 journals, 1,300 do not charge APC and others charge only a modest fee.⁵³ A SPARC report says, “SciELO and Redalyc do raise the visibility and accessibility of the journals they host, particularly with their local communities. These types of networked meta-publishers allow for central governance of policies, procedures and controls, but are intentionally decentralized to support the development of local capacity and infrastructure ensuring greater sustainability and alignment with local policies and priorities.”⁵⁴With these efforts, Latin America has become a model for affordable OA journal publishing.

Even so, researchers in Latin America continue to publish a very large proportion of their papers in non-OA journals. For example, as shown in Table 1, in the five years 2010-14, more than 65% of papers from Brazil were published in non-OA journals. The simplest way to make the large volume of non-OA papers freely available is to set up many institutional repositories and populate them quickly. Efforts are already under way in several countries and indeed a network of repositories from nine countries is coordinated by La Referencia

(http://lareferencia.redclara.net/rfr/), and there are legislations in place in Argentina, Mexico and

Peru to make publicly funded research freely available through repositories.⁵⁵

What needs to be done?

Compared with developments in Latin America and China, India is clearly lagging behind in making her research freely accessible. How can this be changed? We believe that making all research freely accessible through interoperable OA repositories is the ideal solution. According to Houghton and Swan,⁵⁶ till the time we reach an all Gold OA (OA through journals) world, Green OA (OA through repositories) may well be the most immediate and cost-effective way to support knowledge transfer and enable innovation across the economy. We suggest the following actions.

Populate OA repositories that are already there, as empty and sparsely populated repositories will not reflect well on the research community.
Set up repositories in institutions where one does not exist. Academic and research librarians can play an important role in setting up and populating repositories.
Academic and research organizations (at the state and central levels, as well as apex bodies), which do not have an OA policy, should adopt a policy similar to those of DBT, DST and CSIR and implement the same.
As part of the implementation, funding agencies and heads of organizations should have a compliance monitoring mechanism that would reward those who deposit their papers, and persuade those who do not.
If the policies of all agencies are aligned, it would bring about many advantages such as ease of compliance, optimization of workflow, and sharing of data and best practices.⁵⁷
All organizations may join the CSIR-URDIP effort so that a nation wide platform could emerge for OA repositories. Such resource sharing will not only result in enhanced efficiency and reduced overall costs but also, as demonstrated by HAL, France, facilitate “coherent meta-data description, connection to national authority files, quicker take up of new technologies (e.g. visualisation and data mining) and better connection with international initiatives.”⁵⁸
Funding agencies and research organizations that are so far unconcerned about their funds being used to meet APCs should stop supporting this practice.
A cadre of scholarly communication workforce should be developed for building institutional repositories and persuading researchers to upload materials.

Conclusion

If India and China follow the Latin American model of hosting all or most of their journals on a single decentralized platform and make as many journals as possible OA, and if India, China and Latin America vigorously promote a culture of OA repositories and encourage researchers to self-archive their publications, that would have a great impact on making science and scholarship open, not only in these regions but around the world. All of this can happen only with the willing participation of the scientific community. As Harnad would say, ‘Self-archive unto others as you would have them self-archive unto you’.⁵⁹

If, instead, researchers continue to pay publishers exorbitant APCs, as Poynder points out, there will soon be a crisis over the cost of APCs, which would hit research the world over, but research in the developing world will be hit harder.⁶⁰ As long as we continue to use APC based journals, we cannot expect to make access to research affordable to all.

Acknowledgement

We are grateful to Peter Suber and Ms Barbara Kirsop for their valuable comments.

References

Harnad, S., A subversive proposal. In: Scholarly journals at the crossroads; A subversive proposal for electronic publishing (eds. Okerson, A. and O'Donnell, J.) Washington, DC., Association of Research Libraries, 1995; http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015034923758
Poynder, R., The subversive proposal at 20, an interview with Stevan Harnad, Open and Shut, 2014; http://poynder.blogspot.in/2014/06/the-subversive-proposal-at-20.html (accessed on 22 March 2016).
Archambault, E., Amyot, D., Deschamps, P., Nicol, A., Rebout, L. and Roberge, G., Proportion of open access peer-reviewed papers at the European and world levels—2004-2011, Science-Metrix, 2013; http://www.sciencemetrix.com/pdf/SM_EC_OA_Availability_2004-2011.pdf
Solomon, D. J. and Björk, B. C., A study of open access journals using paper processing charges. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2012, 63, 1485–1495; DOI:10.1002/asi.22673
Crotty, D., Is it true that most open access journals do not charge an APC? Sort of. It depends. The Scholarly Kitchen, 2015; http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/08/26/domost-oa-journals-not-charge-an-apc-sort-of-it-depends/ (accessed on 22 March 2016).
Morrison, H., Dramatic growth of open access, 31 March 2016, The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics, http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.in/2016/04/dramatic-growth-of-openaccess-march-31.html (accessed on 13 April 2016).
http://road.issn.org/en/statistics (accessed on 13 April 2014).
Adams, C., Open access in Latin America: Embraced as key to visibility of research, http://www.sparc.arl.org/news/open-access-latin-america-embraced-key-visibilityresearch-outputs (accessed on 23 March 2016).
Vessuri, H., Guédon, J. and Cetto, A. M., Excellence or quality? Impact of the current competition regime on science and scientific publishing in Latin America and its implications for development, Sociol., 2014, 62, 647-665; DOI: 10.1177/0011392113512839

10. Elsevier, Scopus content, 2016; http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/excel_doc/0003/148548/title_list.xlsx (accessed on 22 March 2016).

11. Turner, J., Opening up to open access research and publishing, 2015; http://stateofinnovation.thomsonreuters.com/opening-up-to-open-access-research-andpublishing (accessed on 22 March 2016).

12. Jamali, H.R. and Nabavi, M., Open access and sources of full-text papers in Google Scholar in different subject fields, Scientometrics, 2015, 105, 1635-1651; DOI:10.1007/ s11192-015-1642-2

13. Gunasekaran, S. and Arunachalam, S., Use of open access journals by Indian researchers, Sci., 2011, 101, 1287-1295.

14. Morrison, H., Salhab,, Calvé -Genest, A. and Horava, T., Open access paper processing charges: DOAJ Survey May 2014, Publications 2015, 3, 1-16; DOI:10.3390/publications3010001

15. Wellcome Trust, Wellcome Trust and COAF Open Access Spend, 2014-15, 2016; http://blog.wellcome.ac.uk/2016/03/23/wellcome-trust-and-coaf-open-access-spend-2014-15/ (accessed on 24 March 2016).

16. Research Councils UK (RCUK), Review of the implementation of the RCUK Policy on open access, 2015; http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/RCUKprod/assets/documents/documents/Openaccessreport.pdf (accessed on 22 March 2016).

17. Independent review of the implementation of RCUK policy on open access: Evidence from the University of Leeds; http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/RCUKprod/assets/documents/oadocs/UniversityofLeeds.pdf (accessed on 22 March 2016).

18. University of Cambridge, Cambridge expenditure on APCs in 2014, Unlocking Research,2015; https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=79 (accessed on 22 March 2016)

19. Björk, B. and Solomon, D., Developing an effective market for open access paper processing charges, 2014; http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@policy_communications/docu ments/web_document/wtp055910.pdf (accessed on 22 March 2016).

20. Gerritsma, W., The costs for going gold in the Netherlands, WoW! Wouter on the Web, 2014; http://wowter.net/2014/03/05/costs-going-gold-netherlands/ (accessed on 22 March 2016).

21. Rieck, K., Haslinger, D., Meischke-Ilic, S., Kirindi-Hentschel, Ü., and Reckling, F., Analysis of the Publication Costs of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) in 2015, figshare, 2016; DOI:10.6084/m9.figshare.3180166

22. Wang, L. L., Liu, X. Z. and Fang, H., Investigation of the degree to which papers supported by research grants are published in open access health and life sciences journals, Scientometrics, 2015, 104, 511-528; DOI:10.1007/s11192-015-1624-4

23. Poynder, R., The OA Interviews: Michael Eisen, co-founder of the Public Library of Science, Open and Shut, 2012; http://poynder.blogspot.in/2012/02/oa-interviewsmichael-eisen-co-founder.html (accessed on 22, March 2016).

24. Wheatly, S., Comparison of BioMed Central APCs from 2010-2016, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, 2016, https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2016/04/13/comparison-of-biomed-centralapcs-from-2010-2016/ (accessed on 15 April 2016).

25. Starczewsk, M., Open Access will remain a half revolution, CEON Otwarta nauka, 2016; http://otwartanauka.pl/in-english/experts-on-open-access/open-access-will-remain-a-halfrevolution-interview-with-richard-poynder (accessed on 22 March 2016).

26. SCOAP3 – Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics; https://scoap3.org/scoap3journals/ (accessed on 22 March 2016).

27. Rosenzweig, M.L., Protecting Access to Scholarship: We are the Solution,2000; http://www.evolutionary-ecology.com/citizen/spring00speech.pdf (accessed on 27 March 2016).

28. Laakso, M. and Björk, B., Anatomy of open access publishing: a study of longitudinal development and internal structure, BMC Med., 2012, 10,124; DOI: 10.1186/1741-701510-124

29. Journal declarations of independence, Open Access Directory; http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Journal_declarations_of_independence (accessed on 27 March 2016).

30. Greenberg, J., Editors of the journal Lingua protest-quit in battle for open access, Wired, 2015; http://www.wired.com/2015/11/editors-of-the-journal-lingua-protest-quit-in-battlefor-open-access/ (accessed on 22 March 2016).

31. Gowers, T., Discrete Analysis- an arXiv overlay journal, Gower's Weblog, 2015; https://gowers.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/discrete-analysis-an-arxiv-overlay-journal/ (accessed on 22 March 2016).

32. Rooryck, J., Editorial, Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 2016, 1, 1-3, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.91

33. Belluz, J., This renowned mathematician is bent on proving academic journals can cost nothing, Vox, 2016; http://www.vox.com/2016/3/4/11160540/timothy-gowers-discreteanalysis (accessed on 27 March 2016).

34. Alberts, B., Impact Factor Distortions, Science, 2013, 340,787; DOI:10.1126/science.1240319

35. Public Library of Science Financial Statements, December 31, 2014.https://www.plos.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/PLoS-Dec14AR-Final.pdf

36. Jayaraman, K.S., Q&A: Open archives - the alternative to open access, net, 2008; http://www.scidev.net/global/communication/feature/q-a-open-archives-the-alternativeto-open-access.html (accessed on 22 March 2016).

37. William-Jones, Pipon, J-CB. , Smith, E. and Boulanger, R., Ethical challenges of open access publishing – For many sectors of academe, ‘paying to publish’ is ethically suspicious, 2014; http://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/in-my-opinion/ethicalchallenges-of-open-access-publishing/ (accessed on 22 March 2016).

38. Wilson, D. A. and Golonka S., The high price of open access, Notes from Two Scientific Psychologists, 2016; http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.in/2016/03/the-high-price-ofopen-access.html (accessed on 22, March 2016).

39. Babini, D. and Machin-Mastromatteo, J.D., Latin American science is meant to be open access - initiatives and current challenges, Information Development, 2015, 31, 477-481;DOI:10.1177/0266666915601420

40. Nilsen, R., Europe’s open access champions; http://openscholarchampions.eu/champions/fightacademicapartheid/ (accessed on 27, March 2016).

41. CNR Rao warns govt: Funds drought may push scientists out of science, The Indian Express, 8 November 2015; http://indianexpress.com/paper/india/india-news-india/cnrrao-warns-govt-funds-drought-may-push-scientists-out-of-science/#sthash.l7kqwllJ.dpuf (accessed on 22 March 2016).

42. Krishnan, V., Fund crunch has hit research in 32 institutions: ICMR chief, The Hindu, 15 January 2016; http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/fund-crunch-has-hit-research-in-32-institutions-icmr-chief/paper8108880.ece (accessed on 22, March 2016).

43. Malhotra, A., IIT-K faces fund crisis, demands for more grant from Ministry of HRD, 13 March 2016, Times of India; http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kanpur/IIT-K-facesfund-crisis-demands-for-more-grant-from-Ministry-of-HRD/papershow/51380722.cms (accessed on 22 March 2016).

44. Krishnan, V. and Peri, D., Govt. tells labs: fund research by yourself, The Hindu, 28 October 2015; http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-tells-labs-fund-research-byyourself/paper7811265.ece (accessed on 22, March 2016).

45. Dane, T., Professor Balaram talks Open Access, 15 November 2011; http://cisindia.org/openness/professor-balaram-talks-open-access (accessed on 27, March 2016)

46. Joshi, N. V., Institutional E-print Archives: Liberalizing Access to Scientific Research, Sci., 2005, 89, 421-422; http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Downloads/download_pdf.php?titleid=id_089_03_0421_0422_0 (accessed on 27 March 2016).

47. Poynder, R., Where are we, what still needs to be done? Stevan Harnad on the state of Open Access, Open and Shut, 2013; http://poynder.blogspot.in/2013/07/where-are-wewhat-still-needs-to-be.html (accessed on 27 March 2016).

48. CSIR open access mandate; http://www.csircentral.net/mandate.pdf (accessed on 27 March 2016).

49. DBT-DST open access policy, 2015; http://dst.gov.in/news/dbt-dst-open-access-policy (accessed on 27 March 2016).

50. ICAR adopts open access policy; http://icar.org.in/en/node/6609 (accessed on 27 March 2016).

51. Van Noorden, R., Chinese agencies announce open-access policies, Nature, 2014, DOI:10.1038/nature.2014.15255

52. Liping, K., Open access and open research data in china, eifl blog, 2016; http://www.eifl.net/blogs/open-access-and-open-research-data-china (accessed on 27, March 2016).

53. Babini, D., Repositories as key players in non-commercial open access - a developing region perspective, COAR-SPARC conference, 15-16 April 2015, Portugal; http://www.slideshare.net/CLACSOredbiblio/repositories-as-key-players-innoncommercial-open-access-a-developing-region-perspective (accessed on 24 March 2016).

54. SPARC, Open Access in Latin America: a paragon for the rest of the world, 2015, SciELO in perspective; http://blog.scielo.org/en/2015/08/18/open-access-in-latinamerica-a-paragon-for-the-rest-of-the-world-originally-published-in-the-sparc-blog/(accessed on 27 March 2016).

55. Starczewski, M., and Referencia, L.A., – South American Open Science network, ceon Otwarta Nauka, 2015; https://otwartanauka.pl/analysis/nauka-otwartosc-swiat/lareferencia-poludniowoamerykanska-siec-otwartej-nauki/la-referencia-south-americanopen-science-network?showall=1&limitstart= (accessed on 27, March 2016).

56. Houghton, J. and Swan, A., Planting the Green Seeds for a Golden Harvest: Comments and Clarifications on "Going for Gold", D-Lib Magazine, 2013, 19,1/2.DOI:10.1045/january2013-houghton

57. Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition,Open Access and Research Funders: A Report on Challenges, Opportunities, and Collaboration, 2016, http://sparcopen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/RWJF-SPARC-public-report.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2016).

58. Baeten, J., Estraillier, P., Kirchner, C., Moatti, A. and Romary, L., Open Access in Japan– a multi-institutional perspective, 19 March 2016. [Research Report] Ambassade de France au Japon. 2016. <hal-01290936>

59. Harnad, S. and Swan, A., India, Open Access, the Law of Karma and the Golden Rule, DESIDOC J. Lib. Inf. Technol.,2008, 28, 35-40; DOI:14429/djlit.28.1.150

60. Poynder, R., Open access: What price affordability?, eCancer, 2014, 41; DOI:10.3332/ecancer.2014.ed41

Figure 1. Share of papers published by different countries in open access journals indexed in SCIE, 2010-2014.* Data gathered on 29 February 2016. Great Britain includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

*Only articles, letters, proceedings papers, and reviews are considered.

Table 1. Distribution of research papers published by Indian scientists in open access journals by publishing year

[Data gathered on 11 January 2016]

Year	OA journals (APC)			OA journals (non-APC)			All OA journals
Year	No. of journals	No. of papers	Sum of citations	No. of journals	No. of papers	Sum of citations	No. of journals	No. of papers	Sum of citations
2010	242	2557	17550	237	4131	16301	479	6688	33851
2011	263	3067	17367	244	4280	12645	507	7347	30012
2012	308	2800	15715	251	4157	9276	559	6957	24991
2013	326	3335	12635	268	4457	6257	594	7792	18892
2014	328	3634	6950	283	4660	3057	611	8294	10007
Total		15393	70217		21685	47536		37078	117753

Table 2. OA journals charging APC in which Indian authors have published at least 10 papers that have been cited not less than 10 times on average in the five years

Journal	Publishing country^*	No. of papers	Sum of citations	CPP	APC
Nucleic Acids Research	GB	138	1945	14.09	$2,770
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases	US	126	1409	11.18	$2,250
BMC Genomics	GB	123	1330	10.81	$2,145
International Journal of Nanomedicine	NZ	94	1555	16.54	€1,843
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics	DE	65	1116	17.17	€25^#
BMC Plant Biology	GB	44	579	13.16	$2,145
PLoS Pathogens	US	42	781	18.60	$2,250
Molecular Cancer	GB	34	540	15.88	$2,145
International Journal of Molecular Sciences	CH	28	298	10.64	CHF1,600
Molecules	CH	28	300	10.71	CHF1,800
PLoS Computational Biology	US	25	342	13.68	$2,250
PLoS Medicine	US	25	721	28.84	$2,900
DNA Research	GB	24	542	22.58	$750
PLoS Genetics	US	24	354	14.75	$2,250
Biogeosciences	DE	23	294	12.78	€25^#
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health	CH	22	278	12.64	CHF1,600
Journal of Translational Medicine	GB	15	238	15.87	$2,145
Marine Drugs	CH	14	256	18.29	CHF1,800
Journal of Neuroinflammation	GB	12	179	14.92	$450
Science and Technology of Advanced Materials	GB	12	181	15.08	$1,600
BMC Medicine	GB	11	374	34.00	$2,785
Remote Sensing	CH	11	125	11.36	CHF1,600
Cryosphere	DE	10	112	11.20	€25^#
Progress in Electromagnetics Research-PIER	US	10	128	12.80	$200
Articles in 33 other journals with CPP > 10		117	1930	16.50
Total		1077	15907

ISO 3166 country code

^#Page charges

Table 3. Non-APC journals in which Indian authors have published their papers that have been cited not less than 10 times on average in the five years

Journal	Publishing country^*	No. of papers	Sum of citations	CPP
Bulletin of The World Health Organization	CH	41	515	12.56
Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences	CA	14	173	12.36
Environmental Health Perspectives	US	10	188	18.80
Journal of Machine Learning Research	US	10	118	11.80
Materials Today	GB	4	81	20.25
Earth System Science Data	DE	3	88	29.33
Revista Mexicana de Astronomia Y Astrofisica	MX	3	181	60.33
Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Geologicas	MX	3	41	13.67
Folia Neuropathologica	PL	2	23	11.50
Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences	GB	2	20	10.00

ISO 3166 country code

Table 4. Mega journals used by Indian researchers

Journal	Publishing country^*	No. of papers	Sum of citations	CPP	APC
PLoS One	US	2404	17587	7.32	$1,495
Scientific Reports	GB	222	1523	6.86	£990
AIP Advances	US	196	645	3.29	$1,350
Springer Plus	CH	170	235	1.38	$1,290
BMJ Open	GB	56	148	2.64	£1,350
FEBS Open Bio	GB	21	86	4.10	$1350
PeerJ	GB	13	33	2.54	$695
Biology Open	GB	9	9	1.00	$1,495
G3 - Genes Genomes Genetics	US	9	83	9.22	$1,950
		3100	20349	6.56

ISO 3166 country code

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/eprints-iisc-ernet-october-29-2016-muthu-madhan-siva-shankar-kimidi-subbiah-gunasekaran-subbiah-arunachalam-should-indian-researchers-pay-to-get-their-work-published

October 2014 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2014-11-23T16:40:23Z

Welcome to the tenth issue of the newsletter (October 2014).

We at the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) welcome you to the tenth issue of the newsletter (October 2014). Archives of our newsletters can be accessed at: http://cis-india.org/about/newsletters

Highlights

CIS sent its comments and recommendations on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill, 2014. It was submitted to the Parliamentary Standing Committee in October 2014.
CIS has published the Central Guidelines and Schemes.
CIS was one of the signatories of a letter sent to the Prime Minister of India Shri Narendra Modi sharing its concerns on India's position on intellectual property, particularly in the context of bilateral relations between the United States of America and India. The letter was sent on October 22, 2014.

In 2013, the Indian Patent Office released Draft Guidelines for the Examination of Computer Related Inventions, in an effort to clarify some of the ambiguity. Shashank Singh analyses the various responses by the stakeholders to these Guidelines and highlights the various issues put forth in the responses.

Subhashish Panigrahi wrote an op-ed in the Samaja (Odia daily) on the hurdles that the Odia language has been facing and the potential aspects of the language including it being used massively on the Internet, Wikipedia and other media platforms.

International Telecommunications Union is hosting its Plenipotentiary Conference this year in South Korea. India introduced a new draft resolution on ITU's Role in Realising Secure Information Society. The Draft Resolution has grave implications for human rights and Internet governance. Geetha Hariharan analyses this.

Vipul Kharbanda analyses the possible implications of the public interest litigation that has been placed before the Supreme Court petitioning for the establishment of a DNA database in respect to unidentified bodies in his latest blog entry.
In a blog post published in Lila Interactions P.P.Sneha explores the possibilities of redefining the idea of access through the channels of education and learning.

►Job

Programme Officer (Access to Knowledge - Institutional Partnerships): CIS is seeking applications for the post of Programme Officer for its Access to Knowledge (A2K) Programme. The position will be based in its Bangalore office. Programme Officer will collaboratively work with the A2K Team and would report to the Programme Director, Access to Knowledge at CIS.

Accessibility and Inclusion

Under a grant from the Hans Foundation we are doing two projects. The first project is on creating a national resource kit of state-wise laws, policies and programmes on issues relating to persons with disabilities in India. CIS in partnership with CLPR (Centre for Law and Policy Research) compiled the National Compendium of Policies, Programmes and Schemes for Persons with Disabilities (29 states and 6 union territories). The updated draft is being reviewed by the Office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. The draft chapters and the quarterly reports can be accessed on the project page. The second project is on developing text-to-speech software for 15 Indian languages. The progress made so far in the project can be accessed here.

►NVDA and eSpeak

Monthly Update

October 2014 Report (Suman Dogra; October 31, 2014).

►Other

Submission

Comments to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill , 2014 (Nirmita Narasimhan and Anandhi Viswanathan; October 30, 2014).

Blog Entries

Central Guidelines and Schemes (Anandhi Viswanathan, October 14, 2014).
The Legal Framework for Enforcement of Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CLPR; October 14, 2014).

Media Coverage

Communication technology opens 'doors' for everyone, not only people with disabilities (John D. Kemp and Brandon M. Macsata, The Hill, October 13, 2014).

Access to Knowledge

As part of the Access to Knowledge programme we are doing two projects. The first one (Pervasive Technologies) under a grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) is for research on the complex interplay between pervasive technologies and intellectual property to support intellectual property norms that encourage the proliferation and development of such technologies as a social good. The second one (Wikipedia) under a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation is for the growth of Indic language communities and projects by designing community collaborations and partnerships that recruit and cultivate new editors and explore innovative approaches to building projects.

Blog Entries

Letter to the Prime Minister on Indo-US Bilateral Relations on Intellectual Property (Nehaa Chaudhari; October 22, 2014).
Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions: Mapping the Stakeholders' Response (Shashank Singh; October 29, 2014).

►Wikipedia

As part of the project grant from the Wikimedia Foundation we have reached out to more than 3500 people across India by organizing more than 100 outreach events and catalysed the release of encyclopaedic and other content under the Creative Commons (CC-BY-3.0) license in four Indian languages (21 books in Telugu, 13 in Odia, 4 volumes of encyclopaedia in Konkani and 6 volumes in Kannada, and 1 book on Odia language history in English).

Blog Entries

ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷା ବିକାଶରେ ପ୍ରତିବନ୍ଧକ ଓ ସମ୍ଭାବନା (Subhashish Panigrahi, Samaja; October 13, 2014).
Bharat Majhi Writings Now Available Under a Creative Commons License (Subhashish Panigrahi; October 14, 2014).
More Than 40 Million People Await the Launch of Odia Wikisource (Subhashish Panigrahi, Global Voices and Wikimedia Blog; October 21, 2014).
Odia Littérateur Ramakrushna Nanda's 4 Books Now Available Under a Creative Commons License (Subhashish Panigrahi; October 22, 2014).
Open Access Platform to Save the Odia Indian Language (Subhashish Panigrahi, Opensource.com; October 22, 2014).
Odia Wikisource Goes Live! (Subhashish Panigrahi; October 26, 2014).
Samskrita Vaibhavam (Sanskrit Wiki Outreach Program) (Shubha and Sayant Mahato; October 30, 2014).
Tulu Wikipedia Workshop cum Editathon at Udupi (Dr. U.B.Pavanaja, October 31, 2014). The event was covered by V4News.com and Mangalore Today.
Converting from nonUnicode (Nudi, Baraha, ...) font encoding to Unicode Kannada (Dr. U.B.Pavanaja; October 31, 2014).

Events Co-organized

Sangeet Baithak: A Hindustani Music Resource Donation Event in Mumbai (Organized by CIS-A2K and Khayal Trust; Shivaji Park, Dadar, Mumbai; October 7, 2014).
Indian Women in Science Wiki edit-a-thon (Organized by IndoBioScience and CIS-A2K; Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore; October 11, 2014).
Ada Lovelace Edit-a-thon 2014 (Organized by IndoBioScience and CIS-A2K; Urban Solace; October 14, 2014).

News and Media Coverage

CIS-A2K team gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Enliven the Tulu Viki Fidia first and then add Tulu to the 8th Schedule : Dr.UG Pavanaja, Bangalore Rep. in Udupi (V4News.com; October 15, 2014).
Wikipedia can establish Tulu in a wider way (Mangalore Today; October 17, 2014).
Pushing women scientists (Renuka Phadnis; Hindu; October 19, 2014).
Wiki Media Foundation keen on developing Urdu Wikipedia (Nisar Ahmed Syed; October 22, 2014).
Wiki Media Foundation keen on developing Urdu Wikipedia (Siasat Daily; October 24, 2014).

Participation in Event

Barcamp Bangalore (Organized by SAP Labs; Bangalore; October 12, 2014). Dr. U.B.Pavanaja and Rahmanuddin Shaik took part in the event.

Internet Governance

►Privacy

As part of our Surveillance and Freedom: Global Understandings and Rights Development (SAFEGUARD) project with Privacy International we are engaged in enhancing respect for the right to privacy in developing countries. We have produced the following outputs during the month although these may not be part of the SAFEGUARD project:

Blog Entries

The Gujarat High Court Judgment on the Snoopgate Issue (Vipul Kharbanda; October 27, 2014).
DNA Database for Missing Persons and Unidentified Dead Bodies (Vipul Kharbanda; October 31, 2014).

Upcoming Event

CPDP 2015 : The eighth international conference on computers, privacy and data protection will be held in Brussels from January 21 to 23, 2015. CIS is a moral supporter of CPDP.

Participation in Events

Training for Internet Governance Activists (Organized by Global Partners Digital, UK; Cambridge; September 23 - 24, 2014). Geetha Hariharan attended the event. The event was held in September and the details published in October.
The India Conference on Cyber Security and Cyber Governance (Organized by FICCI and CYFY; October 15 - 17, 2014; New Delhi). CIS was a knowledge partner. Sunil Abraham was a panelist in the session "Privacy is Dead".
Expert Consultation on Cyber Security, Justice and Governance (Organized by Hague Institute for Global Justice, Observer Research Foundation and STIMSON; October 18, 2014). Sunil Abraham was a speaker in the session "Internet Access, Freedom Online, and Development in the Global South".

►Free Speech

Good Intentions, Recalcitrant Text - I: Why India's Proposal at the ITU is Troubling for Internet Freedoms (Geeta Hariharan; October 28, 2014).
Good Intentions, Recalcitrant Text - II: What India's ITU Proposal May Mean for Internet Governance (Geeta Hariharan; November 1, 2014).

News & Media Coverage

CIS gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Is India the next frontier for Facebook? (Rama Lakshmi; Washington Post; October 9, 2014).
If MNCs make early inroads, they will keep market share: Sunil Abraham, CIS (J.Anand; Financial Express; October 23, 2014).

Digital Humanities

CIS is building research clusters in the field of Digital Humanities. The Digital will be used as a way of unpacking the debates in humanities and social sciences and look at the new frameworks, concepts and ideas that emerge in our engagement with the digital. The clusters aim to produce and document new conversations and debates that shape the contours of Digital Humanities in Asia:

Blog Entry

Rethinking Conditions of Access (P.P.Sneha, Lilainteractions; October 15, 2014).

About CIS

The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness (including open government, FOSS, open standards, etc.), and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities.

► Follow us elsewhere

Twitter: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
Visit us at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/India_Access_To_Knowledge
E-mail: a2k@cis-india.org

► Support Us

Please help us defend consumer / citizen rights on the Internet! Write a cheque in favour of 'The Centre for Internet and Society' and mail it to us at No. 194, 2nd 'C' Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru - 5600 71.

► Request for Collaboration:

We invite researchers, practitioners, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to collaboratively engage with Internet and society and improve our understanding of this new field. To discuss the research collaborations, write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, atsunil@cis-india.org or Nishant Shah, Director - Research, at nishant@cis-india.org. To discuss collaborations on Indic language Wikipedia, write to T. Vishnu Vardhan, Programme Director, A2K, at vishnu@cis-india.org.

CIS is grateful to its primary donor the Kusuma Trust founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin for its core funding and support for most of its projects. CIS is also grateful to its other donors, Wikimedia Foundation, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, and IDRC for funding its various projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/october-2014-bulletin

Getting Strategic about Openness and Privacy

praskrishna — 2014-11-09T09:19:23Z

This blog post by Tim Davies, Open Data Research Lead at Web Foundation was published in Open Up? on November 3, 2014.

Click to read the original post here. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

Information is powerful. And in a world where the amount of information generated, captured and stored has grown exponentially in recent decades, getting hold of the information you need, when you need it, relies upon having access to the data that describes it. That makes the control of data especially powerful.

Modern transparency initiatives, promoting the idea of open data, have been seeking to break the data-monopoly of privileged actors within the state — unlocking key datasets and making them available for public scrutiny and reducing the information inequalities that undermine open public discourse. Opening up government data is *one* way in which citizens can reclaim some power and reestablish the principle that “they work for us”. Open government data gives us power to know how the government is spending money, what companies are getting public sector contracts and licenses, who owns these companies, what profits they make and what royalties and taxes they pay. Yet, progress has been slow, and we have faced substantial challenges in securing reliable and standardised flows of public data that can be joined-up to give a true picture of how public resources are being used, and key decisions made. Although millions of public datasets have been placed online, the most politically salient are often lacking. The 2013 Open Data Barometer found fewer than 1 in 10 accountability datasets were truly open.

At the same time, advocates of building a more open government need to grapple with three other trends that are shaping discussions of data, power and the state:

Firstly, and most important, the revelations brought to our attention by whistleblower Edward Snowden have confirmed the extent of the secret state and the profound imbalance of power between citizens and their state created through mass surveillance. Whilst projects to disclose even basic data on the state like public spending are underfunded and ad hoc, billions of dollars are poured into tools and technologies that violate basic human rights and that threaten trust and security on the Web. Fundamentally the problem with secret mass surveillance is that it destroys the checks and balances that are meant to limit the power of the state over citizens.
Secondly, and in part due to the discussion spared by Snowden, public awareness of the data, and consequently power, held by corporations has grown. The Web has become increasingly centralised, and large companies now harvest large amounts of data on any individual technology user. In parallel, in some countries such as the UK, governments have sought to use open data agendas as cover for increased proprietary sharing of public data with private firms, seeking to go around established principles of consent to share publicly held health, tax or student records with profit-making firms. Such data-sharing is not inherently wrong if there are public benefits, but building citizen trust in the state’s stewardship of personal data, and ensuring safeguards are in place to warrant that trust, is a major challenge.
Thirdly, concerns have been raised that some of the data released through open data initiatives may also affect the privacy of citizens. Some aggregated and anonymised datasets can be combined with other data to reverse engineer identifiable information. Although early calls for “raw data now” were clear that they were not calling for open personal information, in practice the divide between personal and public can be a narrow one.

So, do these trends mean we should be more cautious about opening up? Should the balance swing back towards a focus on protecting privacy? Ultimately, a simple opposition of privacy and openness is a false dichotomy. The question is not should we focus on openness, or should we protect privacy: but is Who should be open? And how? And whose privacy should be protected, and how?

Sunil Abraham, of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, has offered a key solution in the idea that:

“Transparency should be proportional to power, privacy inversely so.”

It is on this basis that organisations working for a fairer future, with more vibrant public discourse, greater freedom, and better governments, can campaign for both privacy and openness together. Those who occupy public office, own companies, or tender for public contracts must accept that there is a legitimate public interest in information about their activities in these roles, whilst independent citizens must be afforded space to form views and live lives without constant state surveillance. Companies should not be considered to have a right to privacy: their interests are already protected by other laws and provisions.

To deliver effective openness through open data, the Web Foundation is working to understand how data gets used on the ground in different settings across the world, and, with Omidyar support, is working on the creation of inclusive open data standards for public contracting data. Standards like the Open Contracting Data Standard are part of building a new infrastructure of open governance, making it possible to join-up data from different places, helping tilt the balance of power towards citizens when it comes to scrutinising governments and corporations. Through the Open Data Barometer we keep track of the availability of key datasets that can be used for accountability, and we’re co-chairing the Open Government Partnership Open Data Working Group, seeking to set high standards for relevant and usable data disclosures by governments.

By focussing on the civic use of data, we can better identify those datasets that must be in the public domain. And by thinking about relative power when considering privacy we can address genuine privacy concerns, whilst not allowing corporations claiming privacy rights, or public figures trying to hide their financial interests, from diminishing the power of data to enable accountability.

At the same time, the Web Foundation leads the Web We Want campaign, challenging mass surveillance and seeking to secure a Web where individuals have the right to privacy, and the tools to secure it. And increasingly transparency of what the state and companies do with personal data can help increase the capacity of citizens to respond to threats to their autonomy, and can increase oversight and safeguards on state or corporate capacity.

Ultimately, our ongoing efforts to open up, and to protect individual freedoms, have to be strategic. And keeping an analysis of power, and Sunil’s maxim, in mind, provides a good starting point to guide the strategy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/open-up-tim-davies-november-3-2014-getting-strategic-about-openness-and-privacy

An Article on Kannada Wikipedia

pavanaja — 2014-12-05T01:22:53Z

I wrote an article on Kannada Wikipedia which was published in the Yojana magazine on November 2014 issue.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/yojana-november-2014-pavanaja-article-on-kannada-wikipedia

Now, Tulu set to be promoted through Wikipedia articles

praskrishna — 2014-12-06T01:23:43Z

With the dream of including Tulu in the list of official languages of the country (eighth schedule of the Constitution) remaining far from being realised, enthusiasts seem to be keen to promote the language through Wikipedia.

The article by Govind D. Belgaumkar was published in the Hindu on November 24, 2014.

Beginning on Wednesday, a three-day convention at Sahyadri College will ideate to find means to achieve this goal with the Karnataka Tulu Academy leading the initiative.

The convention will focus on writing Wikipedia articles in Tulu.

Nearly 30 students, mostly from Canara College and some from Aloysius College, and some teachers from Bantwal have registered for the event.

The plan is to ensure that about 25-30 people keep writing in Tulu on Wikipedia.

Some students from the Government Girls PU College in Udupi had already been contributing articles in Tulu, according to the academy’s registrar Chandrahas Rai.

He hoped that the activity would help to pressure authorities to include Tulu in the eighth schedule of the Constitution.

The convention comes ahead of the mega Tulu event – Tuluvere Parba planned in December – and it is hoped that it would awaken the Tulu spirit among the people of the region.

The resource person will be Wikipedia representative and Bengaluru-based Programme Manger, Indian Languages, The Centre for Internet and Society Sri Pavanaja U.B..

Mr. Rai said the articles need to be written regularly to keep the language alive on the platform otherwise it would be notified as inactive.

The convention will be inaugurated by Shivaram Shetty, professor in Mangalore University’s SVP Kannada Study Centre.

President of the academy Janaki Brahmabar, president of Bantwal Tulukuta A.C. Bhandary and Tuluvere Parba’s chief convenor Kadri Navaneet Shetty will be present.

Others who are expected to take part include Mangaluru Tulukuta President Damodar Nisarga, General Secretary of Tuluvere Parba Nitte Shashidhar Shetty.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/the-hindu-november-24-2014-govind-d-belgaumkar-now-tulu-set-to-be-promoted-through-wikipedia-articles