https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/sc10141.doc.htm

Article 27: Management of the Archives

1. Without prejudice to any prior conditions stipulated by, or arrangements with, the providers of information and documents, the archives of the ICTY, the ICTR and the Mechanism shall remain the property of the United Nations. These archives shall be inviolable wherever located pursuant to Section 4 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations of 13 February 1946.

2. The Mechanism shall be responsible for the management, including preservation and access, of these archives. The archives of the ICTY and the ICTR shall be co-located with the respective branches of the Mechanism.

3. In managing access to these archives, the Mechanism shall ensure the continued protection of confidential information, including information concerning protected witnesses, and information provided on a confidential basis. For this purpose, the Mechanism shall implement an information security and access regime, including for the classification and declassification as appropriate of the archives.

https://www.asnad.org/en/

The Project aims at facilitating access to the growing number of available Persian historical deeds and documents, both published and unpublished. It shall allow work on archival material with the help of incorporated facsimiles without recourse to the original - often remote - place of publication or storage.

The Database includes "public" and "private" documents: royal decrees and orders, official correspondence, and shari'a court documents, such as contracts of sale and lease, vaqf deeds, marriage contracts, and court orders. It also serves as a bibliographic reference tool, being a continually updated repertoire of published historical documents.

A Research Project of the Iranian Studies Division at the Centre of Near and Middle Eastern Studies, Philipps-Universität Marburg.

https://womensbios.lib.virginia.edu/

The bibliography is the work of Alison Booth, Professor, Department of English of the University of Virginia and Associate Fellow, Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities.

Disappointing: Publications are in the English language only!

Via https://web.resourceshelf.com/go/resourceblog/63454

Whether "information wants to be free" or not is arguable. But medical students seem overwhelmingly to want it to be free. The largest organization of medical students in the world, the "International Federation of Medical Students' Associations" has joined the open access advocacy group Right to Research in its fight to make research and publication more free.

https://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/worlds_med_students_declare_for_open_publishing_re.php

https://www.righttoresearch.org/blog/IFMSAannouncement.shtml

https://www.themorgan.org/exhibitions/online/TheDiary/default.asp

https://goo.gl/2ulK7 (ec.europa.eu, PDF)

See also
https://archiv.twoday.net/search?q=steal

https://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/pdfs/S0140673611600664.pdf

Exverpt from this Editorial of The Lancet:

When news came last week that several large publishers—including Elsevier (our publisher), Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, and Springer—had withdrawn journals from HINARI’s Bangladesh programme (and other countries too, such as Kenya and Nigeria, although the full extent of withdrawal remains unclear), there was a collective cry of betrayal. When challenged, one publisher, that of Science, immediately reversed its decision. Unknown to editors at The Lancet, our journals were also part of this withdrawal. Elsevier too, has now reinstated its journals into HINARI for Bangladesh. [...]
Our view is that any country designated as “low human development” by the UN justifies a clear and unambiguous commitment by all publishers to full and free access to research through HINARI. Low human development means exactly that—high burdens of avoidable morbidity and mortality among the most vulnerable populations. Bangladesh’s maternal mortality ratio is 338 per 100 000 livebirths, Kenya’s 413, and Nigeria’s 608. In the UK it is 8. Free access to critical knowledge is vital if those countries are to address their huge burdens of preventable disease.
If publishers are genuine about their mission to improve health through partnerships with medical and research communities, they need to send a stronger signal of commitment to countries that most need the knowledge they control. For our part, we have asked Elsevier to assure us that the editors will be consulted on all future HINARI access negotiations involving The Lancet. That assurance has been given.

See also in The Lancet: "Big publishers cut access to journals in poor countries"
https://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/pdfs/S0140673611600676.pdf

See also
https://archiv.twoday.net/stories/11573652/

https://www.dlib.org/dlib/january11/01contents.html

"The first piece is a brief introduction to DataCite written by the Guest Editors. This is followed by nine articles on various data related topics, eight of which are derived from that DataCite meeting last summer and one of which (Waaijers) happened to come in unsolicited at the time we were putting the issue together and was too good to leave out. The articles cover a wide variety of topics, including the acquisition and management of scientific data, the quality and trustworthiness of that data, the connections between data and traditional scholarly publishing, metadata for datasets, and last but not least a peer reviewed journal devoted to the publication of datasets."

https://newprairiepress.org/journals/gdr/ (Open Access)

The GDR Bulletin was originally published by the Department of Germanic Languages & Literatures at Washington University in 26 volumes from 1975 to 1999. In its early years, it appeared in the form of a newsletter, with notes on conferences, grants, news, and occasional book reviews. In later years it evolved into a more traditional journal, with scholarly articles, interviews with key GDR literary figures (e.g.- Jurek Becker, Heiner Müller), and book reviews.

https://francesscientist.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/impact-factor-who-are-you-bullshitting/

Impact factor is a crutch that is most often used by impotent, unimaginative and incompetent committees in the academic institutions for recruitment, promotions, and fiscal matters. Notice that I showered the adjectives on committees, not the members of the committees, who are generally intelligent people (including me). Overworked, unappreciated, and sometimes lazy and indifferent members of a committee do not want to be held responsible for making a decision. Therefore, they rely on impact factor to show their ‘objectivity’. If they hire a new faculty member who later turns out to be a complete jerk in the department, they can easily blame it on the impact factor of his publication which led to his recruitment. Had they selected him on the basis of their ‘judgement’, they would be scoffed at by their peers and colleagues.

So, once you begin to equate impact factor as being objective index of productivity, smartness, intelligence, and innovation, you have unleashed a monster that is going to take over the part of the system that traditionally relied on competing interests. Grant reviewers and paper reviewers can now exercise more arbitrary control over the decision-making without appearing to be unfair. They can veto the impact factor invoking their experience and judgement. Essentially, the reviewers are manipulating the system in their favor.

One may argue that eventually, the system will be ‘normalized’ so that no one will be clearly at an undue advantage. The truth is that it is the same old bullshit with the added objectivity armor of the impact factor.

In case you wondered how some journals achieve high impact factor, it is quite revealing to notice that the Annual Reviews series have some of the highest impact factor. Wow!! You would have thought that the real research papers should be the winners. Apparently not! And there lies the trick. Most high impact journals are highly cited not because of their published research papers but because of the review articles. It is not their altruism that glitzy journals are happy to let you download the artistic slides for your PowerPoint presentations.

Although it is a great business plan to target the lazy scientists who don’t want to do their own legwork of literature review, there is another reason for using review articles to boost impact factor. Many shrewd scientists like to cite the reviews published in the high impact factor journals in their grant proposals and research papers upfront. This way the lazy reviewer can be convinced that because the topic was reviewed in a high impact journal, it must be of great importance.

When I was a new postdoc, I learnt a valuable lesson in assessing the scientific caliber of a scientist. My research advisor was a soft-spoken, astute scientist with an incisive vision. He showed me how he judged the quality and productivity of a faculty candidate from his Curriculum vitae.

1. Throw out all the reviews, he (or she) has listed.
2. Take away all the papers where authorship is beyond the second author (or senior author).
3. Trash all the conferences and posters presented.
4. Look at how regularly the papers have been published and how good they are. Yes, use your judgement. A good paper does not need any assistance, you will know when you see it (at least in the area of research close to you).

I think I agree with his style of assessment rather than the bullshit of impact factor. Won’t you agree?