[GOAL] Re: Fwd: [open-science] PeerLibrary is searching for volunteers
Hi! Mitar here. One of contributors to the PeerLibrary project. I would like to address comments made about the project. My own perspective is that the user name general crap (I'm not making this up, it's copied from the PeerLibrary collection) says it all. :-) Names of collections can be made by any user. This is the idea behind community operated site. Maybe names reflect the site, maybe the content in the collection. Who knows. ;-) The site is still in development so I would agree that some parts of it are like that. But, this is a normal thing when one is trying to build a free software alternative to current closed platforms. Not everything can be done well immediately. But if you have more concrete feedback to give us, please. We love feedback (both positive or negative) so that we can guide our development. It is free software (AGPL licensed) and you can also open tickets (we prefer tickets so that they are archived as part of the development process and that the community can be involved in them, but I would not want to move discussion away from this list and this community): https://github.com/peerlibrary/peerlibrary It might be worth noting that one of the partners behind PeerLibrary, Mendeley, is owned by Elsevier. Just to be clear. PeerLibrary is completely independent project from Mendeley. We are planing to use their API so that users can access their data they have made in Mendeley with an open platform. And their API license is CC-BY, so to satisfy their attribution requirement we put the logo on the about page, just to be clear of any issues, not wanting to argue if their data can be CC-BY licensed at all to being with. Because this feature is not yet implemented at all and because it is signaling the wrong message (as I am seeing), I have removed logo for now: https://github.com/peerlibrary/peerlibrary/commit/c031be9fecdb1a349a20d622e831a6f1df5c209d Thank you for pointing it out. If you are interested in learning more about the team and motivations behind the project, I am inviting you to see this video we made: https://vimeo.com/93085636 Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Fwd: New Webinar@AIMS: ORCID -The Open Researcher Contributor ID
ANNOUNCEMENT at http://aims.fao.org/community/agris/blogs/new-webinaraims-orcid-open-researcher-contributor-id http://aims.fao.org/community/agris/blogs/new-webinaraims-orcid-open-researcher-contributor-id The AIMS team is pleased to announce the webinar “ORCID http://orcid.org/ -The Open Researcher Contributor ID” The webinar will present ORCID http://orcid.org/ and will overview its various aspects. The webinar addresses researchers, information management specialists, software developers, (agricultural) journal editors, related data providers and other interested people. About the webinar The objective of this webinar is to provide a short overview about various aspects of the ORCID http://orcid.org/. - How can you get or assign ORCID identifiers? - Where and how is the ORCID used? - Who's behind the ORCID? - What is the business model of ORCID? Date 19 September 2014 - 11:00 Rome Time (Use Time Converter http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?iso=20140919T11p1=215p2=213p3=136p4=267p5=188p6=111p7=179p8=176 to calculate the time difference between your location and Rome, Italy) Presenter Christian Gutknecht http://orcid.org/-0002-7265-1692 is a specialist for information systems at the Swiss National Science Foundation. Formerly repository manager and involved in Open Access at the University of Bern and University of Zurich. See ORCID:http://orcid.org/-0002-7265-1692 How to join The session is open to anyone but places are limited. If you are interested to attend the webinar, send an e-mail to a...@fao.org a...@fao.org?subject=Webinars%40AIMS%20ORCID, containing the following information: - your name - your affiliation - your role - your country System requirements Once you have requested to attend the webinar, you will receive an e-mail confirming your place with an URL access. Make sure that: - you have good internet connection - Microsoft Internet Explorer 7, 8, 9, 10; Mozilla Firefox; Google Chrome - Adobe® Flash® Player 10.3. If in doubt, go to Checking system requirements https://na1cps.adobeconnect.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm of the web conferencing programme Adobe Connect http://www.adobe.com/de/products/connect/. Sponsors This webinar is co-sponsored by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) http://www.fao.org/home/en/ , IICA http://www.iica.int/Eng/Pages/default.aspx and SWISS National Science Foundation http://www.snf.ch/en/Pages/default.aspx. ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Fwd: [open-science] PeerLibrary is searching for volunteers
Thank you for your comments, Mitar. My question has more to do with whether some in the open access community see this kind of initiative as the purpose of OA, and the justification for efforts to force all scholars and open access journals to use the CC-BY. If this is the point of CC-BY, then I think we need to have a discussion about the implications and desirability of this kind of project. If people wish to voluntarily participate in PeerLibrary or similar projects, that is their right. If OA advocates are pushing for policies requiring CC-BY to facilitate the development of initiatives like PeerLibrary, that is a different matter. This is one of the reasons I oppose policies requiring CC-BY. best, Heather Morrison On Sep 3, 2014, at 2:28 AM, Mitar mmi...@gmail.com wrote: Hi! Mitar here. One of contributors to the PeerLibrary project. I would like to address comments made about the project. My own perspective is that the user name general crap (I'm not making this up, it's copied from the PeerLibrary collection) says it all. :-) Names of collections can be made by any user. This is the idea behind community operated site. Maybe names reflect the site, maybe the content in the collection. Who knows. ;-) The site is still in development so I would agree that some parts of it are like that. But, this is a normal thing when one is trying to build a free software alternative to current closed platforms. Not everything can be done well immediately. But if you have more concrete feedback to give us, please. We love feedback (both positive or negative) so that we can guide our development. It is free software (AGPL licensed) and you can also open tickets (we prefer tickets so that they are archived as part of the development process and that the community can be involved in them, but I would not want to move discussion away from this list and this community): https://github.com/peerlibrary/peerlibrary It might be worth noting that one of the partners behind PeerLibrary, Mendeley, is owned by Elsevier. Just to be clear. PeerLibrary is completely independent project from Mendeley. We are planing to use their API so that users can access their data they have made in Mendeley with an open platform. And their API license is CC-BY, so to satisfy their attribution requirement we put the logo on the about page, just to be clear of any issues, not wanting to argue if their data can be CC-BY licensed at all to being with. Because this feature is not yet implemented at all and because it is signaling the wrong message (as I am seeing), I have removed logo for now: https://github.com/peerlibrary/peerlibrary/commit/c031be9fecdb1a349a20d622e831a6f1df5c209d Thank you for pointing it out. If you are interested in learning more about the team and motivations behind the project, I am inviting you to see this video we made: https://vimeo.com/93085636 Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m ___ 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
[GOAL] FOSTER - Facilitate Open Science Training for European Research - renewed web presence
Apologies for cross posting FOSTER proudly announces that, as of today, the Open Access and Open Science communities will benefit two-fold from our freshly designed new web presencehttp://www.fosteropenscience.eu/. First off: the renewed FOSTER project website now features various enhancements, most notably a comprehensive news section with an account of the many contributions the project partners made throughout the last months to several events and conferences. One of the main events was a series of workshops delivered by FOSTER speakers to EU project officers in Brussels on Open Access Requirements to publications and research data in Horizon. See the video recording and slideshttp://www.fosteropenscience.eu/project/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=35:presentationscatid=9:downloadItemid=107 of all the presentations. The second addition to our web presence is a preview of the FOSTER training portalhttp://wwwt.fosteropenscience.eu which has started to collect all information around FOSTER funded and (co-) organized training events. See our full training programme throughout the second half of 2014 with links to the training organizations and information on how to register for your favorite course. Looking for a specific training topic? Eight main areas cover courses on Open Access, Open Data and Open Science as well as on Research Data Management, Funder compliance and related fields including specific subjects like metrics and copyright issues. The portal will be enriched over the next weeks with content that each of these courses delivers. Look forward to discovering a wealth of material provided for the European research community! About FOSTER - www.fosteropenscience.euhttp://www.fosteropenscience.eu FOSTER (Facilitate Open Science Training for European Research) is a 2-year, EU-Funded (FP7) project, carried out by 13 partners across 8 countries. The primary aim is to produce a European-wide training programme that will help researchers, postgraduate students, librarians and other stakeholders to incorporate Open Access approaches into their existing research methodologies. [cid:image002.jpg@01CF6ADF.C156DBA0] Serviços de Documentação Eloy Rodrigues Direcção Campus de Gualtar, 4710 - 057 Braga - Portugal Telefone +351 253 604 150; Fax +351 253 604 159 Campus de Azurém, 4800 058 Guimarães Telefone +351 253 510 168; Fax +351 253 510 117 http://www.sdum.uminho.pthttp://www.sdum.uminho.pt/ | Siga-nos [cid:image003.gif@01CF6ADF.C156DBA0] http://www.facebook.com/pages/Braga-Portugal/Bibliotecas-da-Universidade-do-Minho/78518268502 [cid:image004.gif@01CF6ADF.C156DBA0] http://twitter.com/bibliotecasUM [cid:image005.jpg@01CF6ADF.C156DBA0] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Pilot: OAPEN and Jisc Collections will set up an OA monograph service
** Jisc Collections - OAPEN project for OA monograph services OAPEN is pleased to announce a new pilot project in partnership with Jisc Collections, to co-design and set up a centralised service with UK universities to support and encourage the publication of Open Access (OA) peer-reviewed monographs. In recent years OA scholarly monographs have gained considerable momentum, and the number of OA monographs being published worldwide has shown a marked increase. The EU has included research monographs in their OA policy for Horizon 2020, including a pilot to enable funding of OA publications after the grant period. In the UK the Wellcome Trust is the first UK-based funder to extend its OA mandate to monographs and chapters; universities are engaged in OA monograph publishing or encouraging OA for monographs; OAPEN-UK is an ongoing project to gather evidence on the potential for OA monograph publishing; and finally, the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the British Library are launching a research project about The Academic Book of the Future. OAPEN (http://www.oapen.org/home) offers OA infrastructure for book publishing in a number of ways, including quality assurance; aggregation and deposit of OA publications; discovery and dissemination; digital preservation of OA books; reporting and statistics. Jisc Collections (https://www.jisc-collections.ac.uk/) is a division of Jisc Collections and Janet Ltd. It supports the procurement of digital content for education and research in the UK, and manages a large number of research projects addressing innovative resource creation and provision. The pilot will be conducted with universities that have an interest in OA monographs - as university-based publishers, consumers, or supporters. The project is being prepared in consultation with SCONUL and RLUK and other stakeholders, in particular research funders and independent publishers, will also be involved. The pilot will be carried out on co-design principles - to ensure it can meet the needs of universities and provide evidence of demand. It aims to set up and test central services, prioritising the following main functions: * support quality assurance of OA books; * aggregation and deposit of OA books and chapters; * improve dissemination and discovery of OA books; * report about OA policies and usage The project has three separate stages with the following deliverables: * Stage 1: Research phase - Workshop; report on evidence for the value of a potential service; project plan; * Stage 2: Explore central services - Specification of potential operational services for UK universities; development of pilot(s); * Stage 3: Evaluation and implementation plan - Evaluation of project results; report on recommendations; business plan for the creation and sustaining of a centralised service. The pilot project, funded by Jisc Collections, starts this month and will continue for one year. The goal is to establish a set of centralised services for UK universities to support OA monographs. ** For more information, please contact Eelco Ferwerda, director of the OAPEN Foundation e.ferwe...@oapen.org (mailto:e.ferwe...@oapen.org) Regards, -ronald- Ronald Snijder [View my profile on LinkedIn]http://nl.linkedin.com/in/ronaldsnijder OAPEN Foundation Prins Willem-Alexanderhof 5 PO Box 90407 2509 LK The Hague The Netherlands email: r.snij...@oapen.orgmailto:r.snij...@oapen.org www.oapen.orghttp://www.oapen.org/ ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster, Coordinator of Scholarly Communications, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
It seems to me that, in definitional discussions, we should clearly distinguish between ultimate objectives and intermediate steps. The definitions crafted back in 2001-3 were certainly imperfect, if only because much had yet to be understood and discovered at that time. Yet, they did include essential items that we should not abandon. And shifting ground in mid-course does not appear altogether wise to me. Yet, they defined a clear objective, a vision, a dream perhaps. And, as such, they are just fine. But an objective, a vision, or a dream, is not a reality. At the same time, I understand Stevan's points very well and, like him, get concerned when I see people all tangled up in definitions rather than pushing for open access, step by step. As a result, I would suggest keeping the original definitions, but treat them as if they were somewhat analogous to the North that a compass points to: we want to move in some direction related to the North, but we know that the North given by the compass is not entirely accurate, and we know that it is an ultimate end point that cannot be reached without many detours, if only because we meet obstacles. In short, we need to have some general, fixed reference, and then we progress as best we can in the direction we want. In short, we should treat the original definitions as a strategic vision, but not let the definitions block our tactical steps. From a strategic perspective, a tactical move will appear imperfect and incomplete. However, this is not a very useful way to judge the tactical step. Instead, the strategist should aim the following kind of judgement: is a particular tactical step susceptible of impeding further steps in the (more or less) right direction? If it is, then, it is time to stop, reconsider, and modify. If not, let us accept it, even if it appears far from perfection. And I would push the argument just a little further by reminding Stevan (and perhaps some others) that the idea of a perfect tactical schedule is as elusive as the perfect objective. Having the vision for perfect tactics may usefully inform decision-making in concrete situations, but it should not be mistaken for absolute necessity and it cannot justify rigid recommendations. The terrain offered by various disciplines, countries and institutions is much too varied to permit a single approach to every situation. In short, confusing strategic visions with tactical steps is a complicated way of saying that perfection can be the enemy of the good. -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal Le mardi 02 septembre 2014 à 11:07 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit : For the record: I renounce (and have long renounced) the original BOAI (and BBB) definition of Open Access (OA) (even though I was one of the original co-drafters and co-signers of BOAI) in favour of the revision as Gratis OA (free online access) and Libre OA (free online access plus certain re-use rights, e.g., CC-BY). The original BOAI definition was improvised. Over a decade of further evidence, experience and reflection have now made it clear that the first approximation was needlessly over-reaching and (insofar as Green OA self-archiving was concerned) incoherent (except if we were prepared to declare almost all Green OA — which was and still is by far the largest body of OA — as not being OA!). The original BOAI/BBB definition has since also become an obstacle to the growth of (Green, Gratis) OA as well as a point of schism and formalism in the OA movement that have not been to the benefit of OA (but of benefit to the opponents of OA, or the publishers that want to ensure that the only path to OA was one that preserved their current revenue streams). I would like to agree with Ruchard Poynder that OA needs some sort of authoritative organization, but of whom would that organization consist? My inclination is that it should be the providers of the OA research itself, namely peer-reviewed journal article authors, their institutions and their funders. Their “definition” of OA would certainly be authoritative. Let me close by emphasizing that I too see Libre OA as desirable and inevitable. But my belief (and it has plenty of supporting evidence) is that the only way to get to Libre OA is first for all institutions and funders to mandate Gratis Green OA — not to quibble or squabble about the BOAI/BBB “definition” of OA. My only difference with Paul Royster is that the primary target for OA is peer-reviewed journal articles, and for that it is not just repositories that are needed, but Green OA mandates from authors’ institutions and funders. Stevan Harnad On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: On Sep 1, 2014, at 11:19 AM, Stephen Downes step...@downes.ca wrote: Some really important discussion here. In particular, I
[GOAL] Re: Fwd: [open-science] PeerLibrary is searching for volunteers
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: I'd be interested in hearing what people think of PeerLibrary. My own perspective is that the user name general crap (I'm not making this up, it's copied from the PeerLibrary collection) says it all. I'm writing in support of PeerLibrary. It is quite inexcusable to describe it is crap - it's a high quality project with worthy motives. I and colleagues are working closely with PeerLibrary in projects such as contentmine.org. It might be worth noting that one of the partners behind PeerLibrary, Mendeley, is owned by Elsevier. Mendeley is not behind PeerLibrary. Aspersions of this sort should be checked. and ... Thank you for your comments, Mitar. My question has more to do with whether some in the open access community see this kind of initiative as the purpose of OA, and the justification for efforts to force all scholars and open access journals to use the CC-BY. If this is the point of CC-BY, then I think we need to have a discussion about the implications and desirability of this kind of project. For us PeerLibrary is about making an Open resource, especially of the bibliography. There is no de facto Open Bibliography of scholarship - and Peer Library aims, inter alia, to do this. In ContentMine we need an Open Bibliography to consume the global literature Any preference for CC BY content (and I did not see this as an emphasis of the project) is likely to result from restrictions. At present only CC-BY, CC-BY-SA and CC0 content can be legally copied into global public view without fear of violating rights. This is one of the major downsides of CC-NC - domains such as Germany could regard public posting of NC documents as not for personal use. So, far from being crap, PeerLibrary should be welcomed. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster, Coordinator of Scholarly Communications, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Jean-Claude, What you say (beautifully), I almost completely agree with. However, I would like to point out that the original BOAI begins with a vision, and that the vision is different from the definition. Here is what the BOAI vision: An old tradition and a new technology have converged to make possible an unprecedented public good. The old tradition is the willingness of scientists and scholars to publish the fruits of their research in scholarly journals without payment, for the sake of inquiry and knowledge. The new technology is the internet. The public good they make possible is the world-wide electronic distribution of the peer-reviewed journal literature and completely free and unrestricted access to it by all scientists, scholars, teachers, students, and other curious minds. Removing access barriers to this literature will accelerate research, enrich education, share the learning of the rich with the poor and the poor with the rich, make this literature as useful as it can be, and lay the foundation for uniting humanity in a common intellectual conversation and quest for knowledge. from: http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read From my perspective it is unfortunate that we keep repeating the technical definition of BOAI and rarely go back to this vision. It is this vision that has inspired me (and perhaps others). It is a mistake to think that the definition crafted at that meeting is necessarily the best way to achieve the vision, or that the CC-BY license is equivalent to the definitional statement. If anyone is interested, my critique of Creative Commons and open access series can be found here: http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/10/critique-of-cc-by-series.html As for me, I no longer refer to the BBB definition of open access, but rather prefer Suber's brief definition: Open-access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. from: http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm I invite everyone to join me in abandoning the narrow technical BBB definition of open access in favour of achieving the great vision of BOAI to make possible an unprecedented good. best, -- Dr. Heather Morrison Assistant Professor École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies University of Ottawa Desmarais 111-02 613-562-5800 ext. 7634 http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca On 2014-09-03, at 10:48 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.camailto:jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: It seems to me that, in definitional discussions, we should clearly distinguish between ultimate objectives and intermediate steps. The definitions crafted back in 2001-3 were certainly imperfect, if only because much had yet to be understood and discovered at that time. Yet, they did include essential items that we should not abandon. And shifting ground in mid-course does not appear altogether wise to me. Yet, they defined a clear objective, a vision, a dream perhaps. And, as such, they are just fine. But an objective, a vision, or a dream, is not a reality. At the same time, I understand Stevan's points very well and, like him, get concerned when I see people all tangled up in definitions rather than pushing for open access, step by step. As a result, I would suggest keeping the original definitions, but treat them as if they were somewhat analogous to the North that a compass points to: we want to move in some direction related to the North, but we know that the North given by the compass is not entirely accurate, and we know that it is an ultimate end point that cannot be reached without many detours, if only because we meet obstacles. In short, we need to have some general, fixed reference, and then we progress as best we can in the direction we want. In short, we should treat the original definitions as a strategic vision, but not let the definitions block our tactical steps. From a strategic perspective, a tactical move will appear imperfect and incomplete. However, this is not a very useful way to judge the tactical step. Instead, the strategist should aim the following kind of judgement: is a particular tactical step susceptible of impeding further steps in the (more or less) right direction? If it is, then, it is time to stop, reconsider, and modify. If not, let us accept it, even if it appears far from perfection. And I would push the argument just a little further by reminding Stevan (and perhaps some others) that the idea of a perfect tactical schedule is as elusive as the perfect objective. Having the vision for perfect tactics may usefully inform decision-making in concrete situations, but it should not be mistaken for absolute necessity and it cannot justify rigid recommendations. The terrain offered by various disciplines, countries and institutions is much too varied to
[GOAL] Re: Fwd: [open-science] PeerLibrary is searching for volunteers
On 2014-09-03, at 12:38 PM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.ukmailto:pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: Mendeley is not behind PeerLibrary. Aspersions of this sort should be checked. My response: when I looked, the Mendeley logo was on the about page. Mitar on this list, who appears to be speaking on behalf of PeerLibrary, confirms this: to satisfy their attribution requirement we put the logo on the about page. I submit that if a company's logo is included on the about page of a service, it is a reasonable assumption that the company is involved. This may be an illustration of a problem with the attribution element of CC licenses. What constitutes attribution varies substantially in different communities. For example, one argument that I have heard for CC-BY for scholarly works is so that these works can be included in Wikipedia. This is correct from a licensing perspective. However, the attribution practices of scholarly works (attribution of elements such as author, journal, publisher) and Wikipedia (attribution of Wikipedia with authors being anonymous) are essentially incompatible. In other words, the BY of two CC-BY licensed works is not necessarily compatible. best, -- Dr. Heather Morrison Assistant Professor École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies University of Ottawa Desmarais 111-02 613-562-5800 ext. 7634 http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Fwd: [open-science] PeerLibrary is searching for volunteers
Hi! Sorry, because I am not familiar with the discussion about CC-BY requirement for OA. Can you summarize it or link to a relevant discussion for me to get up to the speed? Is this a discussion about OA also having to allow also reuse of papers and no just gratis access? Does CC-BY discussion differs from CC-SA-BY discussion? Or CC-0 zero discussion? If OA advocates are pushing for policies requiring CC-BY to facilitate the development of initiatives like PeerLibrary, that is a different matter. This is one of the reasons I oppose policies requiring CC-BY. You are saying that you are opposing initiatives which would make papers more accessible to the general public and try to organize them through a community effort? Thank you for explaining your questions about PeerLibrary, they were not clear to me from your previous e-mail. Mitar On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 5:48 AM, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: Thank you for your comments, Mitar. My question has more to do with whether some in the open access community see this kind of initiative as the purpose of OA, and the justification for efforts to force all scholars and open access journals to use the CC-BY. If this is the point of CC-BY, then I think we need to have a discussion about the implications and desirability of this kind of project. If people wish to voluntarily participate in PeerLibrary or similar projects, that is their right. If OA advocates are pushing for policies requiring CC-BY to facilitate the development of initiatives like PeerLibrary, that is a different matter. This is one of the reasons I oppose policies requiring CC-BY. best, Heather Morrison On Sep 3, 2014, at 2:28 AM, Mitar mmi...@gmail.com wrote: Hi! Mitar here. One of contributors to the PeerLibrary project. I would like to address comments made about the project. My own perspective is that the user name general crap (I'm not making this up, it's copied from the PeerLibrary collection) says it all. :-) Names of collections can be made by any user. This is the idea behind community operated site. Maybe names reflect the site, maybe the content in the collection. Who knows. ;-) The site is still in development so I would agree that some parts of it are like that. But, this is a normal thing when one is trying to build a free software alternative to current closed platforms. Not everything can be done well immediately. But if you have more concrete feedback to give us, please. We love feedback (both positive or negative) so that we can guide our development. It is free software (AGPL licensed) and you can also open tickets (we prefer tickets so that they are archived as part of the development process and that the community can be involved in them, but I would not want to move discussion away from this list and this community): https://github.com/peerlibrary/peerlibrary It might be worth noting that one of the partners behind PeerLibrary, Mendeley, is owned by Elsevier. Just to be clear. PeerLibrary is completely independent project from Mendeley. We are planing to use their API so that users can access their data they have made in Mendeley with an open platform. And their API license is CC-BY, so to satisfy their attribution requirement we put the logo on the about page, just to be clear of any issues, not wanting to argue if their data can be CC-BY licensed at all to being with. Because this feature is not yet implemented at all and because it is signaling the wrong message (as I am seeing), I have removed logo for now: https://github.com/peerlibrary/peerlibrary/commit/c031be9fecdb1a349a20d622e831a6f1df5c209d Thank you for pointing it out. If you are interested in learning more about the team and motivations behind the project, I am inviting you to see this video we made: https://vimeo.com/93085636 Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m ___ 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 -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Fwd: [open-science] PeerLibrary is searching for volunteers
Hi! On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: My response: when I looked, the Mendeley logo was on the about page. Mitar on this list, who appears to be speaking on behalf of PeerLibrary, confirms this: to satisfy their attribution requirement we put the logo on the about page. I submit that if a company's logo is included on the about page of a service, it is a reasonable assumption that the company is involved. I think from CC attribution clause in CC licenses is it clear that when you satisfy an attribution to somebody, this does not mean that that somebody endorses you in any way. If you create a CC-BY licensed work and I attribute you, this does not mean that you are endorsing or having any influence on what I am doing. I do see that PeerLibrary was pulled into some existing discussion about CC-BY requirement and is now used as a pawn in this. Not sure how that happened, I would just like to put out that: - when you for the first time wrote to this list with your critique of PeerLibrary, you didn't yet know that the logo is there for CC-BY attribution reasons - now that you learned about that, you are changing the story and saying that this was the purpose of your e-mail from the very beginning, and not the perceived connection with Mendeley So please decide what you are stating. For me it feels like you are trying to bash PeerLibrary no matter what. First it was perceived connection with Mendeley, once that was cleared, now is CC-BY attribution. Please take PeerLibrary out of such discussions. But if you want to discuss it, then please inform first yourself. You could read our terms of use: https://peerlibrary.org/terms If something, you would see that we are pushing for CC0 (for annotations). We also point out the arguments for that (in academia, we already have attribution clause, if you don't do it, it is called plagiarism, there is no reason to also add legal requirements on top of that, if our communities are already able to handle that by ourselves). I would love discussion about that. What do you think about it. Is this too strict, not a good idea, or do you think that maybe we should try to get copyright out of the future content produces by the community (what CC0 is trying to achieve), to prevent such lock-ups as we are experiencing with closed access publishers this days. Additionally, it should be clear that CC-BY requirement is about Mendeley API and data available there: metadata and annotations and other data created by their users. Not about publications themselves. Metadata probably cannot be copyrighted anyway and CC-BY does not apply there. And for other content is probably their right to decide how they want to license (whether we agree with that decision or not). So putting a logo to attribute CC-BY use of an API we are planing to use maybe has something with CC-BY license as a concept, but it has nothing to do with CC-BY licensing or not of publications themselves. This is completely unrelated and has no connection to what PeerLibrary is and does. Not sure why was then brought in into this discussion about CC-BY requirement. I am interested in licensing questions and we can discuss them. But let's be clear that this does not have much in connection with what PeerLibrary is, does, and stands for. I would still welcome feedback about PeerLibrary from this community. Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
