Fighting Complexity in EPUB 3: Modularization and Delegation

The IDPF chartered the EPUB 3 revision with a wide-ranging mandate to expand the scope of the specification. On top of this, timely completion of the work was “critical.” To meet these demands, the EPUB 3 Working Group used two techniques to manage and limit the increasing complexity of the standard: modularization and delegation. While both of these carried downsides and risks, they became critical components in creating an effective, meaningful revision in a reasonable timeframe. Inside the EPUB 3 specifications themselves, an even more striking commitment to harmonization and delegation led the DAISY Consortium to defer completely to EPUB 3 as a distribution format, removing their DTBook format from the specification itself.

A Note from the Guest Editor

Standards are all around us but are often invisible. The keypad on your telephone is arranged the same way no matter who makes your phone, the valve stem on your car’s tires works with any air-pressure gauge or air pump, and credit cards and driver’s licenses are all the same size so they will fit into any wallet. Ironically, we tend to notice only the things that for some reason aren’t standardized: clothing sizes from different manufacturers, power adapters for electronics, and which side of the road you drive on in which country.

PLoS ONE News and Blog Round-Up

Researchers find a possible cure for the common cold and more – in this week’s media digest.

Human Pathogen Shown to Cause Disease in the Threatened Eklhorn Coral Acropora palmata was covered by The NewsHour, The New York Times, NPR, and CNN.

CNET, Hindustan Times, and Okezone covered Automatic Prediction of Facial Trait Judgments: Appearance vs. Structural Models.

The paper, Predator Cat Odors Activate Sexual Arousal Pathways in Brains of Toxoplasma gondii Infected Rats, received coverage from The New York Times, Scientific American, TIME’s Healthland, and The Loom.

Broad-Spectrum Antiviral Therapeutics received media coverage from Voice of America, LA Times, and Forbes.

Large Recovery of Fish Biomass in a No-Take Marine Reserve was covered by National Geographic (nice slideshow too), The Christian Science Monitor, Nature News, and KGTV San Diego. The image above, is taken from Figure 4 of this manuscript.

80 Beats covered the article, Artificial Skin – Culturing of Different Skin Cell Lines for Generating an Artificial Skin Substitute on Cross-Weaved Spider Silk Fibres. So did Treehugger.

The article entitled, Scientists Want More Children received media coverage from The Wall Street Journal, TIME’s Ecocentric, Science Career Blog, and Inside Higher Ed.

Elevated Non-Esterified Fatty Acid Concentrations during Bovine Oocyte Maturation Compromise Early Embryo Physiology was covered by Reuters, The Guardian, and The Press Association.

Direct Linking to RoMEO Entries

It has been possible to link directly to entries in RoMEO for a while, but the method was long winded.

It is now much easier!

Just go to the section Link to this Page and copy and paste the url there into your emails.

This works both for publisher and journals entries.

So now you can get back to those academics and provide them with a link to the information you wish to convey.

To direct link to the BMJ:


The Green Open Access Blues: Fervent Plea to SHERPA Romeo for Colour Reform

Across the eight years since its launch in 2003, SHERPA Romeo‘s importance and value as a resource have been steadily increasing. The most recently announced upgrade covers 18,000 journals and is (1) More up to Date, with (2) More Accurate Journal Level Searching, (3) More Search Options, (4) Electronic ISSNs, and (5) Faster Performance.

In addition to congratulating SHERPA Romeo, let me use this occasion to repeat the plea I made eight years ago to adjust the colour code to provide the information that users need the most (and at the same time bring the colour coding in line with the terminology that has since gained wide currency: “Green OA”):

Although the distinction between journals that endorse the immediate OA self-archiving of both the refereed postprint and the pre-refereeing preprint (P+p) and journals that endorse the immediate OA self-archiving of the refereed postprint but not the pre-refereeing preprint (P) is not completely empty, it is of incomparably less importance and relevance to OA than the distinction between journals that do and do not endorse the immediate OA self-archiving of the refereed postprint (P vs. not-P).

It is OA self-archiving of the refereed postprint that the OA movement is about and for. And it is OA self-archiving of the refereed postprint that is meant by the term “Green OA.”

And yet SHERPA Romeo continues to code P+p as “green” and P as “blue”!

There is no “Blue OA.” And the over 200 funders and institutions that have already mandated Green OA have not mandated “Blue OA”: They could not care less whether the journals endorse the self-archiving of the unrefereed preprint in addition to the refereed postprint: Green OA only concerns the refereed postprint.

It is for this reason that EPrints Romeo has steadfastly generated a colour-corrected version of the SHERPA Romeo summary statistics pie-chart across these eight years — in addition to generating the statistics for journals as well as for publishers. (SHERPA Romeo originally covered only publishers, but the statistics for journals are much more informative — and positive — than the statistics for publishers, since one publisher might publish one journal and another might publish 2000!.)

To see the immediate gain in clarity and consistency from suppressing the P+p/P (“green”/”blue”) distinction in the summary statistics, compare the SHERPA Romeo and EPrints Romeo summary pies for publishers below. (Note that the EPrints Romeo data are static, because they have not been updated for several years. The eye will show that for publishers the proportions are much the same, but have gotten somewhat better in recent years.)

I beg SHERPA Romeo to add the simplified, colour-corrected pie alongside its particoloured one (with the explanation that in the OA world, “Green” means P, not just P+p.). It would make a world of difference for user understanding.

In addition, now that SHERPA is covering the data at the individual journal level, I urge providing the journal-level pie too, for it not only gives a more realistic picture, but an even more positive one.

SHERPA Romeo’s current “Green = Green” & “Blue = Green” publisher pie-chart (based on proportions of publishers):

EPrints Romeo’s colour-corrected publisher pie-chart, in which Green = Green OA (and preprints-only endorsements are coded as “pale green”) (based on proportions of publishers, but out of date by several years):

EPrints Romeo’s colour-corrected journals pie-chart, in which Green = Green OA (and preprints-only endorsements are coded as “pale green”) (based on proportions of journals). Note that the overall proportions are even better (but these data are out of date by several years, hence need updating, though they will not change much, as they already covered most of the big publishers, with the largest number of journals):

Stevan Harnad

SHERPA RoMEO Upgrade Version Released

SHERPA Services’ is excited to announce the launch of an upgraded version of SHERPA RoMEO ( as part of ongoing improvements to the SHERPA RoMEO service.

The new version contains significant additions and improvements to RoMEO, and now provides:

Increased Journal Coverage:

SHERPA-RoMEO now has its own Journals database containing over 18000 journals including many titles not covered by the other lists we use – Zetoc, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and ENTREZ

More up to Date:

The new SHERPA RoMEO Journals database is faster than other lists in responding to new titles and journals that change publishers

More Accurate Journal Level Searching:

The new journals database means that RoMEO identifies rights holders more accurately, especially where a commercial publisher is publishing on behalf of a society

More Search Options:

In addition to searching for journals by title or ISSNs and publisher names, an advanced search option lets users search for publishers’ by RoMEO colour, RoMEO ID and RoMEO update date

Electronic ISSNs:

RoMEO now holds data on electronic ISSN’s in addition to print ISSN’s and users can search for both using the ISSN search field

Faster Performance:

Technical upgrades have made many features work faster than before.


SHERPA-RoMEO uses a simple colour-code classification to simplify complex publisher and journal policy information and provides impartial, easy to follow and accurate guidance on permissions and conditions of rights given to authors by journal publishers.

SHERPA-RoMEO offers users the ability to:

  • View summaries of publishers’ and journal copyright policies in relation to self-archiving
  • View if publisher and journal policies comply with research funder archiving policies, mandates and guidelines
  • To search journal and publisher information by Journal Title, Publisher Name, ISSN and eSSN

Additionally, SHERPA-RoMEO provides lists of

  • Publishers that allow the use of their PDFs in Institutional Repositories
  • Publisher with Paid Options

SHERPA-RoMEO is seen as an essential resource by many in the Open Access community.

This development work is funded by JISC. Journal information is kindly provided by the British Library’s Zetoc service hosted by MIMAS, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) hosted by Lund University Libraries, and the Entrez journal list hosted by the NCBI.

About SHERPA Services’

SHERPA Services’ are based at the Centre for Research Communications, University of Nottingham and maintain on behalf of the open access community a portfolio of services: RoMEO, JULIET and OpenDOAR.

The Centre for Research Communications (CRC) was formed in April 2009, to help to support and inform the changes and new ideas in the way that research is communicated around the world. The CRC houses a portfolio of open access projects and initiatives currently undertaken by the University of Nottingham.



JULIET http://www/


For all enquiries regarding RoMEO please contact:

Jane, Azhar and Peter

Arxiv’s Funding Pains May Be A Wake-Up Call: Distributed Versus Central Archiving

Comments on:

Ginsparg, Paul (2011) Arxiv at 20. Nature 476: 145?147 doi:10.1038/476145a


Fischman, Josh (2011) Anonymous FTP Achives. The First Free Research-Sharing Site, arXiv, Turns 20 With an Uncertain Future. Chronicle of Higher Education August 10, 2011

Anonymous FTP archives. Arxiv (1991) was an invaluable milestone on the road to Open Access. But it was not the first free research-sharing site: That began in the 1970’s with the internet itself, with authors making their papers freely accessible to all users net-wide by self-archiving them in their own local institutional “anonymous FTP archives.”

Distributed local websites. With the creation of the world wide web in 1990, HTTP began replacing FTP sites for the self-archiving of papers on authors’ institutional websites. FTP and HTTP sites were mostly local and distributed, but accessible free for all, webwide. Arxiv was the first important central HTTP site for research self-archiving, with physicists webwide all depositing their papers in one central locus (first hosted at Los Alamos). Arxiv’s remarkable growth and success were due to both its timeliness and the fact that it had emerged from a widespread practice among high energy physicists that had already predated the web, namely, to share hard copies of their papers before publication by mailing them to central preprint distribution sites such as SLAC and CERN.

Central harvesting and search. At the same time, while physicists were taking to central self-archiving, in other disciplines (particularly computer science), distributed self-archiving continued to grow. Later web developments, notably google and webwide harvesting and search engines, continued to make distributed self-archiving more and more powerful and attractive. Meanwhile, under the stimulus of Arxiv itself, the Open Archives Initiative (OAI) was created in 1999 — a metadata-harvesting protocol that made all distributed OAI-compliant websites interoperable, as if their distributed local contents were all in one global, searchable archive.

No need for direct central deposit in google! Together, google and OAI probably marked the end of the need for central archives. The cost and effort can instead be distributed across institutions, with all the essential search and retrieval functionality provided by automated central “overlay” services for harvesting, indexing, search and retrieval (e.g., OAIster, Scirus, Base and Google Scholar). Arxiv continues to flourish, because two decades of invaluable service to the physics community has several generations of users deeply committed to it. But no other dedicated central archive has arisen since. Like computer scientists, whose local, distributed self-archiving is harvested centrally by Citeseerx, economists, for example, self-archive institutionally, with central harvesting by RepEc.

Mandating self-archiving. In biomedicine, PubMed Central looks to be an exception, with direct central depositing rather than local. But PubMed Central was not a direct author initiative, like anonymous FTP, author websites or Arxiv. It was designed by NLM, deposit was mandated by NIH, and deposit is done not only by authors but by publishers.

Institutions are the universal research providers. Open Access is still growing far more slowly than it might, and one of the factors holding it back might be notional conflicts between institutional and central archiving. It is clear that Open Access self-archiving will have to be universally mandated, if all disciplines are to enjoy its benefits (maximized research access, uptake, usage and impact, minimized costs). The universal providers of all research paper output, funded and unfunded, are the world’s universities and research institutions, distributed globally across all scholarly and scientific disciplines, all languages, and all national boundaries.

Deposit institutionally, harvest centrally. Hence funder self-archiving mandates like NIH’s and institutional self-archiving mandates like Harvard’s need to join forces to reinforce one another rather than to complete for the same papers, and the most natural, efficient and economical way to do this is for both institutiions and funders to mandate that all self-archivingshould be done locally, in the author’s institutional OAI-compliant repository. The contents of the institutional repositories can then be harvested automatically by central OAI-compliant repositories such as PubMed Central (as well as by google and other central harvesters) for global indexing and search.

Distribute the archiving, rather than the cost. In this light, Arxiv’s self-funding pains may be a wake-up call: Why should Cornell University (or a “wealthy donor”) subsidize a cost that institutions can best “sponsor” by each doing (and mandating) their own distributed archiving locally (thereby reducing total cost, to boot)? After all, no one deposits directly in Google?

Stevan Harnad

How to Integrate University and Funder Open Access Mandates

SUMMARY: Research funder openaccess mandates (such as NIH‘s) and university openaccess mandates (such as Harvard‘s) are complementary. There is a simple way to integrate them to make them synergistic and mutually reinforcing:
      Universities’ own Institutional Repositories (IRs) are the natural locus for the direct deposit of their own research output: Universities (and research institutions) are the universal research providers of all research (funded and unfunded, in all fields) and have a direct interest in archiving, monitoring, measuring, evaluating, and showcasing their own research assets — as well as in maximizing their uptake, usage and impact.
      Both universities and funders should accordingly mandate deposit of all peer-reviewed final drafts (postprints), in each author’s own university IR, immediately upon acceptance for publication, for institutional and funder record-keeping purposes. Access to that immediate postprint deposit in the author’s university IR may be set immediately as Open Access if copyright conditions allow; otherwise access can be set as Closed Access, pending copyright negotiations or embargoes. All the rest of the conditions described by universities and funders should accordingly apply only to the timing and copyright conditions for setting open access to those deposits, not to the depositing itself, its locus or its timing.
      As a result, (1) there will be a common deposit locus for all research output worldwide; (2) university mandates will reinforce and monitor compliance with funder mandates; (3) funder mandates will reinforce university mandates; (4) legal details concerning openaccess provision, copyright and embargoes will be applied independently of deposit itself, on a case by case basis, according to the conditions of each mandate; (5) opt-outs will apply only to copyright negotiations, not to deposit itself, nor its timing; and (6) any central OA repositories can then harvest the postprints from the authors’ IRs under the agreed conditions at the agreed time, if they wish.

Blog Pick of the Month – July 2011

Lichen sur tronc 1 By Humpapa,

The PLoS ONE Blog Pick of the Month for July is Jennifer Frazer of The Artful Amoeba for her post on prions, the proteins that are notoriously difficult to kill:

If you had to choose the world’s most indestructible biological entity, it would be hard to do better than the prion. It’s the Rasputin of biology: cook them, freeze them, disinfect them, pressurize them, irradiate them, douse them with formalin or subject them to protein-cleaving proteases, and yet they live.

But a recent paper had data that suggested that certain types of fungi (lichens) may battle these deadly proteins, and win.

[A] few [lichens] seem to produce a molecule — likely a serine protease — or molecules that can take out prions. And they may do it, surprisingly, because fungi seem to get prions too.

Jennifer, as well as all of the authors of the article, will receive a complimentary PLoS ONE t-shirt for their work.

Photo via Flickr / Humpapa

Worth a Thousand Words

Photomicrographs of Glomus versiforme (basionym Endogone versiformis) are this week’s featured image. The colorful figure contains pale spores used in the paper, Revealing Natural Relationships among Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi: Culture Line BEG47 Represents Diversispora epigaea, Not Glomus versiforme.

In the abstract, the authors write:


Understanding the mechanisms underlying biological phenomena, such as evolutionarily conservative trait inheritance, is predicated on knowledge of the natural relationships among organisms. However, despite their enormous ecological significance, many of the ubiquitous soil inhabiting and plant symbiotic arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF, phylum Glomeromycota) are incorrectly classified.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Here, we focused on a frequently used model AMF registered as culture BEG47. This fungus is a descendent of the ex-type culture-lineage of Glomus epigaeum, which in 1983 was synonymised with Glomus versiforme. It has since then been used as ‘G. versiforme BEG47’. We show by morphological comparisons, based on type material, collected 1860–61, of G. versiforme and on type material and living ex-type cultures of G. epigaeum, that these two AMF species cannot be conspecific, and by molecular phylogenetics that BEG47 is a member of the genus Diversispora.


This study highlights that experimental works published during the last >25 years on an AMF named ‘G. versiforme’ or ‘BEG47’ refer to D. epigaea, a species that is actually evolutionarily separated by hundreds of millions of years from all members of the genera in the Glomerales and thus from most other commonly used AMF ‘laboratory strains’. Detailed redescriptions substantiate the renaming of G. epigaeum (BEG47) as D. epigaea, positioning it systematically in the order Diversisporales, thus enabling an evolutionary understanding of genetical, physiological, and ecological traits, relative to those of other AMF. Diversispora epigaea is widely cultured as a laboratory strain of AMF, whereas G. versiforme appears not to have been cultured nor found in the field since its original description.

All of PLoS ONE’s sporific papers are open access and free for you to read, rate and reuse.

Citation: Schüßler A, Krüger M, Walker C (2011) Revealing Natural Relationships among Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi: Culture Line BEG47 Represents Diversispora epigaea, Not Glomus versiforme. PLoS ONE 6(8): e23333. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023333

Coming Soon!! – RoMEO Upgrade

We will be releasing an upgrade to the RoMEO service on Monday 15th August.

Please bear with us, if there are any disruptions to the current service during this period.

Further details will be contained in a Press Release, to follow.

Jane, Azhar & Peter

MicrobiologyOpen is Open for Submissions

MicrobiologyOpen is the latest Wiley Open Access journal to begin accepting manuscript submissions.


This peer-reviewed journal delivers rapid decisions and fast publication of microbial science, a field which is undergoing a profound and exciting evolution in this post-genomic era.
MicrobiologyOpen gives priority to reports of quality research, pure or applied, that further our understanding of microbial interactions and microbial processes.

All articles published in MicrobiologyOpen are fully open access.

Reasons to publish with MicrobiologyOpen:

  • High standard, rigorous peer-review
  • Rapid publication
  • Open access: articles are published under Creative Commons license and authors are the copyright holder
  • Fully compliant with open access mandates
  • Wide dissemination
  • Promotion and publicity of quality research
  • Wiley’s tradition in publishing excellence

MicrobiologyOpen charges a publication fee to cover publication costs.
Find out more about publishing with MicrobiologyOpen or submit your manuscript to the journal now.

NATURE marks ArXiv`s 20th anniversary

“Paul Ginsparg, founder of the preprint server, reflects on two decades of sharing results rapidly online — and on the future of scholarly communication”


A few quotes from the above article:

PG: “Even today, fields vary hugely in how they recognize intellectual precedence. It baffles me that scientists in some fields can announce a result in a public forum, such as a meeting, while another group can reproduce the results, publish first in a journal, and be given complete intellectual precedence, as though the information did not exist until vetted by the referee process. Journal editors and referees should make more effort to ensure proper attribution is given to publicly accessible materials in a stable resource.”


PG:”The idea that print journals had outlived their usefulness was already in the air in the early 1990s. David Mermin memorably wrote in Physics Today in 1991: “The time is overdue to abolish journals and reorganize the way we do business.”1″


PG:”Configuring scholarly communication infrastructure for the next generation of researchers requires getting into the heads of current undergraduates and graduate students…Students also say that they search preferentially for openaccess resources when working from home, because accessing subscription-based journals, even when available through an institutional proxy, can be frustratingly painful.”


No Need to Wait for Universal Gold OA: Green OA Can Be Universally Mandated Today

Re:Research intelligence – ‘We all aspire to universal access‘” Times Higher Education 11 August 2011

The publishing community can afford to be leisurely about how long it takes for open access (OA) to reach 100% (it’s 10% now for Gold OA publishing, plus another 20% for Green OA self-archiving). But the research community need not be so leisurely about it. Research articles no longer need to be accessible only to those researchers whose institution can afford to subscribe to the journal in which it was published, rather than to all researchers who want to use, apply and build upon it. Lost research access means lost research progress. Research is funded, conducted and published for the sake of research progress and its public benefits, not in order to provide revenue to the publishing industry, nor to sustain the subscription model of cost-recovery.

The publishing community is understandably “wary” about Green OA self-archiving, mindful of its subscription revenue streams. But the transition to Green OA self-archiving, unlike the transition to Gold OA publishing, is entirely in the hands of the research community, which need not wait passively for the “market” to shift to Gold OA publishing: Springer publishers’ projections suggest that at its current growth rate Gold OA will not reach 100% till the year 2029.

The research community need not wait, because it is itself the universal provider of all the published research, and its institutions and funders can mandate (i.e., require) that their authors self-archive their peer-reviewed final drafts (not the publishers’ version of record) in their institutional Green OA repositories immediately upon acceptance for publication. And a growing number of funders and institutions (including all the UK funding councils, the ERC, EU and NIH in the US, as well as University College London, Harvard and MIT) are doing just that.

Green OA self-archiving mandates generate 60% OA within two years of adoption, and climb toward 100% within a few years thereafter. The earliest mandates (U. Southampton School of Electrons and Computer Science, 2003, and CERN, 2004 are already at or near 100% Green OA.

Stevan Harnad

Harnad, S. (2011) Gold Open Access Publishing Must Not Be Allowed to Retard the Progress of Green Open Access Self-Archiving. Logos 21(3-4): 86-93 /
ABSTRACT: Universal Open Access (OA) is fully within the reach of the global research community: Research institutions and funders need merely mandate (green) OA self-archiving of the final, refereed drafts of all journal articles immediately upon acceptance for publication. The money to pay for gold OA publishing will only become available if universal green OA eventually makes subscriptions unsustainable. Paying for gold OA pre-emptively today, without first having mandated green OA not only squanders scarce money, but it delays the attainment of universal OA.

Harnad, S. (2011) Open Access to Research: Changing Researcher Behavior Through University and Funder Mandates. JEDEM Journal of Democracy and Open Government 3 (1): 33-41.
ABSTRACT: The primary target of the worldwide Open Access initiative is the 2.5 million articles published every year in the planet’s 25,000 peer-reviewed research journals across all scholarly and scientific fields. Without exception, every one of these articles is an author give-away, written, not for royalty income, but solely to be used, applied and built upon by other researchers. The optimal and inevitable solution for this give-away research is that it should be made freely accessible to all its would-be users online and not only to those whose institutions can afford subscription access to the journal in which it happens to be published. Yet this optimal and inevitable solution, already fully within the reach of the global research community for at least two decades now, has been taking a remarkably long time to be grasped. The problem is not particularly an instance of “eDemocracy” one way or the other; it is an instance of inaction because of widespread misconceptions (reminiscent of Zeno’s Paradox). The solution is for the world’s research institutions and funders to (1) extend their existing “publish or perish” mandates so as to (2) require their employees and fundees to maximize the usage and impact of the research they are employed and funded to conduct and publish by (3) depositing their final drafts in their Open Access (OA) Institutional Repositories immediately upon acceptance for publication in order to (4) make their findings freely accessible to all their potential users webwide. OA metrics can then be used to measure and reward research progress and impact; and multiple layers of links, tags, commentary and discussion can be built upon and integrated with the primary research.

Harnad, S. (2010) The Immediate Practical Implication of the Houghton Report: Provide Green Open Access Now. Prometheus 28 (1): 55-59.
ABSTRACT: Among the many important implications of Houghton et al?s (2009) timely and illuminating JISC analysis of the costs and benefits of providing free online access (?Open Access,? OA) to peer-reviewed scholarly and scientific journal articles one stands out as particularly compelling: It would yield a forty-fold benefit/cost ratio if the world?s peer-reviewed research were all self-archived by its authors so as to make it OA. There are many assumptions and estimates underlying Houghton et al?s modelling and analyses, but they are for the most part very reasonable and even conservative. This makes their strongest practical implication particularly striking: The 40-fold benefit/cost ratio of providing Green OA is an order of magnitude greater than all the other potential combinations of alternatives to the status quo analyzed and compared by Houghton et al. This outcome is all the more significant in light of the fact that self-archiving already rests entirely in the hands of the research community (researchers, their institutions and their funders), whereas OA publishing depends on the publishing community. Perhaps most remarkable is the fact that this outcome emerged from studies that approached the problem primarily from the standpoint of the economics of publication rather than the economics of research.

Dutch website for Open Access WeekS online

Check out the Dutch website for the Open Access weekS:

We aim to make international Open Access Week a success in 2011 again. This year  we will be taking things a step further and dealing with both research and education.

The focus during the first week (24 to 28 October) will be on Open Access and research; in the second week (31 October to 4 November), it will be on education and Open Educational Resources.


Read more about it on


Open Access Week 2011 in Latin America

Dear friends


Next to the OPEN ACCESS WEEK 2011, we are trying to develop an integrated program about activities that involved institutions will develop in the countries of Latin America.


You can share the details about your events by our group:

We don’t have sponsors but thought that it’s possible to integrate our activities via videostreaming.

Thank you in advance for your attention.

Julio Santillán Aldana
Open Access Perú
Teléfono: (51-1) 98058-9765
Lima – Perú