The issue, as I understand it, is that publishers want to be the ones who announce the publications of articles in their journals. That part makes sense, right? I mean, if someone else is publishing the news before you, it's not news. Is there something else beyond this that's of concern?
William Gunn +1 (650) 614-1749 http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/ On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Florence Piron < florence.pi...@scienceetbiencommun.org> wrote: > You could tell these researchers : > > - That ambition and competition are not the only values in life > > - That being terrified of displeasing abusive commercial journals is very > dangerous for their (mental) health - they could look at what happens > elsewhere in the world they share with other human beings - it would surely > appease their terror > > - to have a good read of Discourse on Voluntary Servitude (1549), in > which the 18 year-old author explains that a tyran lives only because > subalterns recognize him as tyrant : > > Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for > he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own > enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to > give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do > anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is > therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, > their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to > their servitude. > > http://www.constitution.org/la_boetie/serv_vol.htm > > - To re-read what Merton wrote in 1942 about communism in science : « The > substantive findings of science are a product of social collaboration and > are assigned to the community. They are a common heritage in which the > equity of the individual producer is severely limited... rather than > exclusive ownership of the discoverer and their heirs. » and ponder over > the priority between CVs and knowledge sharing > > - To re-read article 27 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights : « > (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of > the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and > its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and > material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic > production of which he is the author. » > and try to imagine what it means: > > - that our world has decided there is a collective right to science in > which scientists have a big role to play in it (by freely sharing their > work) > > - that researchers have a right to be protected against publishers > that terrify them. > > > Florence Piron (Université Laval), totally fed-up > > > > Le 2016-05-20 à 06:54, Danny Kingsley a écrit : > > <Apologies for cross posting> > > Hello all, > > Our latest blog on Unlocking Research is looking at the issue of press > embargoes. > > Below is a teaser from "Press embargoes – a threat from the shadows" - > https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=653 > > ******************************** > Something has been rumbling under the surface in the repository world > recently, at least in the UK. Over the past six months or so, the Office of > Scholarly Communication has had some fraught conversations with researchers > who are terrified that their papers will be 'pulled' from publication by > the journal. The reason is because some information about the upcoming > paper is publicly available. > > <snip> > > Our researchers are concerned that having the metadata about an article > available means that publishers will consider this a breach of embargo and > will pull the publication. Note that the Author’s Accepted Manuscript of > the article itself (or the data files, in case of datasets) is locked down > and the information about the volume, issue and pages are missing as the > work is not yet published. > > The researchers are worried because there is a need for publication in > high profile journals such as *Nature* for their careers and if a work > was to be pulled from publication this would have huge implications for > them. This has caused a challenge for us – clearly we do not wish to > threaten our researchers’ publication prospects, but we are also bound by > the requirements of the HEFCE policy. > <snip> > ************************* > > Comments welcomed. > > Danny > > -- > Dr Danny Kingsley > Head, Office of Scholarly Communication > Cambridge University Library > West Road, Cambridge CB39DR > P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437 > M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564 > E: da...@cam.ac.uk > T: @dannykay68 > B: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/ > S: http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley > ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939 > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing > listGOAL@eprints.orghttp://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
