[GOAL] SAGE's broad-spectrum HSS OA journal celebrates strong growth on its five-year anniversary

[Gamboa, Camille]

Dear all - Sending this message along in case of interest to the GOAL community.

Many thanks,
Camille Gamboa
SAGE Publishing
camille.gam...@sagepub.com

SAGE Publishing's premier broad-spectrum HSS OA journal celebrates strong 
growth on its five-year anniversary

Los Angeles, CA (May 19, 2016) SAGE Publishing is delighted to report that its 
pioneering broad-spectrum open access journal SAGE 
Open is marking its fifth anniversary with more than 
1,350 published articles that together have been viewed or downloaded more than 
3.5 million times. Spanning the humanities and social and behavioral sciences, 
SAGE Open is a peer-reviewed "gold" OA journal publishing original research and 
review articles.

"Now our most-read journal, SAGE Open launched at a time when open access 
publishing was just beginning to gain momentum in the social and behavioral 
sciences and humanities, and the success of SAGE Open reflects a consistent 
need for high-quality, open access publishing in these disciplines," commented 
David Ross, Executive Publisher, Open Access, SAGE Publishing. "An advocate of 
wide access to research, we are pleased to provide an authoritative, 
high-quality OA outlet for HSS scholars since 2011 - and for what appears to be 
a promising future."

SAGE Open published 44 papers in its first year and today, has accepted over 
1,400 articles from more than 11,600 international authors in fields such as 
education, psychology, sociology, communication, management, political science, 
economics, criminology, health, and many more. It is now included in Thomson 
Reuters' Emerging Sources Citation Index and indexed in Scopus and the 
Directory of Open Access Journals.

"In the past five years, SAGE Open has engaged an impressive amount of the 
academic community, supporting collaboration across disciplines, and connecting 
research with the public," continued Ross. "With our increasing emphasis on 
progressive publishing technologies, issues surrounding data, new research 
methods and article types, SAGE Open is well-positioned as the place for 
quality HSS innovation in form, content, and substance. Furthermore, with our 
upcoming partnership with Atypon, we're pleased to further support this network 
with cutting-edge technology that leads to enhanced user experiences and 
delivery of relevant content."

SAGE Open  has connected a network of nearly 4,500 article editors and 7,000 
reviewers, all supported by an editorial board of 500 subject experts from 63 
countries. Its articles have appeared in international news outlets such as The 
Guardian, NBC News, The Chronicle of Higher Education, BBC News, and The 
Atlantic. For more information, click here.

# # #

Sara Miller McCune founded SAGE Publishing in 1965 to support the dissemination 
of usable knowledge and educate a global community. SAGE is a leading 
international provider of innovative, high-quality content publishing more than 
950 journals and over 800 new books each year, spanning a wide range of subject 
areas. Our growing selection of library products includes archives, data, case 
studies and video. SAGE remains majority owned by our founder and after her 
lifetime will become owned by a charitable trust that secures the company's 
continued independence. Principal offices are located in Los Angeles, London, 
New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC and Melbourne. www.sagepublishing.com 


SAGE Open is a peer-reviewed, "Gold" open access journal from SAGE that 
publishes original research and review articles in an interactive, open access 
format. Articles may span the full spectrum of the social and behavioral 
sciences and the humanities. www.sgo.sagepub.com



___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Any literature on OA publishing in Developing Regions

[obinnaojemeni]

Dear ALL,

It's great to finally find a platform for OPEN discussion on OA generally. But 
my interest is in identifying relevant literature on OA journal publishing in 
the Global South, in order to enrich the few literature on OA which I have been 
able to identify so far. This will further aid my PhD research on 'The Current 
State and Performance of OA Journals emerging from Nigeria: A Bibliometric & 
Exploratory Study' (working topic though) :)  

Any assistance will be appreciated. Thanks.

Obinna Ojemeni {M.Ed; M.Info.Sc}
PhD Student,
Department of Library & Information Science,
Nnamdi Azikiwe University, 
Awka - Niigeria.

Lecturer,
Department of Library & Information Science,
Enugu State University of Science & Technology,
Agbani.
E-mail: ob.ojem...@esut.edu.ng
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Ownership and future of "Open access" services

[Jacinto Dávila]

Totally agreed with your conclusion. One way around would be to design,
develop and support free software for the whole set of activities, released
with something like affero gpl.
El 19/5/2016 1:35, "Heather Morrison" 
escribió:

> Who owns and controls the services that Open access depends on, both now
> and in the future, is an important question for the sustainability of open
> access.
>
> To the best of my knowledge:
>
> Figshare is owned by Nature Publishing Group which was recently acquired
> by Springer. On the surface, Springer is quite friendly to open access,
> however I consider it important to remember that in terms of subscriptions
> / sales revenue and profits Springer is second only to Elsevier. Springer
> in turn is owned by private equity companies and had been sold 4 times in
> little more than a decade.
>
> Academia.edu is privately owned. According to Wikipedia, one of the
> founding investors, Hoberman, made a great deal of money developing
> something called last-minute.com then selling the company.
>
> I understand that this is a common strategy or trend in Information
> technology, developing a startup then selling the company.
>
> I do not think it wise for OA to rely on such services. We need services
> such as institutional and disciplinary archives and Journal hosting
> services and high quality indexing services that are owned and controlled
> by the public (perhaps with help from stable committed not-for-profits).
>
> best,
>
> Heather Morrison
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

[Olivier Speciel]

...so, the main idea is to offer free open access to free open content behind a 
Paywall build on free open source tools ?

Look at the business model of (Eternal) Environnemental Trust Funds for a  
différente philosophie & praxis.

Olivier

Le 2016-05-19 à 07:45, "WALK Paul"  a écrit :

> "The best way to keep Elsevier from dominating the space would be for there 
> to be plenty of lean and hungry startups seeing opportunities here."
> 
> That seems demonstrably untrue, when such lean and hungry startups often have 
> acquisition as their main exit strategy...
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
>> On 19 May 2016, at 11:17, William Gunn  wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks for your comments, Eric F! If we want to improve scholarly 
>> communications, we have to drop the idea that top-down grant funded projects 
>> are the ideal. The best way to keep Elsevier from dominating the space would 
>> be for there to be plenty of lean and hungry startups seeing opportunities 
>> here. 
>> 
>> 
>> William Gunn
>> +1 (650) 614-1749
>> http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/
>> 
>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde 
>>  wrote:
>> Eric Archambault:
>> This is quite impressive and potentially very helpful.
>> 
>> Stevan:
>> We started with IRs that would grow organically. When that did not work, we 
>> pursued institutional mandates. Now, it is national funder mandates. This 
>> attitude of top-down enforced innovation is at odds with today's tech 
>> culture of bottom-up innovation. The top-down approach is just too slow.
>> 
>> Libraries have now been managing IRs for over 15 years without any 
>> significant changes to IRs. They still have no social component, like 
>> Figshare or academia.edu. As we have seen elsewhere, the social component is 
>> crucial to achieve organic growth.
>> 
>> Worse than not adding features is the attitude that IRs are the goal. The 
>> real goal should be better scholarly communication. This may require a new 
>> IR: Individual Repositories. Social platforms are far more suited for the 
>> individual researcher.
>> 
>> I am not an absolute free marketer, but the free market is rather good at 
>> forcing innovation. Perhaps, it is time to make libraries compete for the 
>> IR/OA management business and force some innovation that way.
>> --Eric.
>> 
>> 
>> http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
>> Twitter: @evdvelde
>> E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com
>> 
>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Éric Archambault 
>>  wrote:
>> Eric
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> At 1science, we have developed a robust solution to address some of the 
>> problems you are mentioning. In contrast to the optimistic view of the 
>> repositories that Stevan has, in our efforts to locate all the contents 
>> which is available in green and gold (including hybrid), we are finding that 
>> most of the IRs have only about 5-8% of the papers published by authors at 
>> the universities hosting these repositories. Another contrast, the latest 
>> data we have compiled at 1science shows that we are fast approaching 60% of 
>> the papers indexed the Thomson Reuters Web of Science which can be found in 
>> gratis OA form somewhere on the internet. Given the law of large numbers, on 
>> average, there is a gap of more than 50% between what is available somewhere 
>> on the net, and what is available in local IR. It’s clear tat a solution 
>> that fills that gap quickly can remove a huge pain point in the filling of 
>> IR with full-text (or links to full-text) and proper metadata.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> We have developed a product called oaFoldr which basically repatriates these 
>> papers to the IRs. Our privileged model is to feed the IRs with good quality 
>> metadata (and when institutions are subscribing to the Web of Science, we 
>> can install the WoS API and populate the repository with very high quality 
>> metadata and this removes a lot of the pain of entering data manually) and 
>> then place URLs that points to locations (other IR, publishers’ websites, 
>> arXiv, Scielo, PMC,…) where a gratis OA version is located. This turns empty 
>> IRs into institutional knowledge hubs. Of course, many librarians are also 
>> actively examining these links and copying a physical version of the paper 
>> in the IR (where possible considering licencing and rights issues). If the 
>> uptake is good for this product (which we think it will as we developed this 
>> solution because we kept hearing from tens of university librarians that 
>> something of the kind was really needed), IRs are going to be way more 
>> populated, way faster, and librarians and researchers will be able to spend 
>> more time archiving and self-archiving pre-prints and post-prints that do 
>> not exist anywhere else. For libraries to spend time looking at what is 
>> uniquely missing makes sense, this is an exercise in search engine 
>> optimization as the Bing and Google bots will 

Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

[William Gunn]

My point is that there need to be more potential acquirers than Elsevier,
Springer, or Wiley, but it's certainly true that as acquisitions go up, the
capital pouring into the space goes up.

William Gunn
+1 (650) 614-1749
http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/
On May 19, 2016 1:47 PM, "WALK Paul"  wrote:

> "The best way to keep Elsevier from dominating the space would be for
> there to be plenty of lean and hungry startups seeing opportunities here."
>
> That seems demonstrably untrue, when such lean and hungry startups often
> have acquisition as their main exit strategy...
>
> Paul
>
>
> > On 19 May 2016, at 11:17, William Gunn  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for your comments, Eric F! If we want to improve scholarly
> communications, we have to drop the idea that top-down grant funded
> projects are the ideal. The best way to keep Elsevier from dominating the
> space would be for there to be plenty of lean and hungry startups seeing
> opportunities here.
> >
> >
> > William Gunn
> > +1 (650) 614-1749
> > http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/
> >
> > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde <
> eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Eric Archambault:
> > This is quite impressive and potentially very helpful.
> >
> > Stevan:
> > We started with IRs that would grow organically. When that did not work,
> we pursued institutional mandates. Now, it is national funder mandates.
> This attitude of top-down enforced innovation is at odds with today's tech
> culture of bottom-up innovation. The top-down approach is just too slow.
> >
> > Libraries have now been managing IRs for over 15 years without any
> significant changes to IRs. They still have no social component, like
> Figshare or academia.edu. As we have seen elsewhere, the social component
> is crucial to achieve organic growth.
> >
> > Worse than not adding features is the attitude that IRs are the goal.
> The real goal should be better scholarly communication. This may require a
> new IR: Individual Repositories. Social platforms are far more suited for
> the individual researcher.
> >
> > I am not an absolute free marketer, but the free market is rather good
> at forcing innovation. Perhaps, it is time to make libraries compete for
> the IR/OA management business and force some innovation that way.
> > --Eric.
> >
> >
> > http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
> > Twitter: @evdvelde
> > E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com
> >
> > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Éric Archambault <
> eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote:
> > Eric
> >
> >
> >
> > At 1science, we have developed a robust solution to address some of the
> problems you are mentioning. In contrast to the optimistic view of the
> repositories that Stevan has, in our efforts to locate all the contents
> which is available in green and gold (including hybrid), we are finding
> that most of the IRs have only about 5-8% of the papers published by
> authors at the universities hosting these repositories. Another contrast,
> the latest data we have compiled at 1science shows that we are fast
> approaching 60% of the papers indexed the Thomson Reuters Web of Science
> which can be found in gratis OA form somewhere on the internet. Given the
> law of large numbers, on average, there is a gap of more than 50% between
> what is available somewhere on the net, and what is available in local IR.
> It’s clear tat a solution that fills that gap quickly can remove a huge
> pain point in the filling of IR with full-text (or links to full-text) and
> proper metadata.
> >
> >
> >
> > We have developed a product called oaFoldr which basically repatriates
> these papers to the IRs. Our privileged model is to feed the IRs with good
> quality metadata (and when institutions are subscribing to the Web of
> Science, we can install the WoS API and populate the repository with very
> high quality metadata and this removes a lot of the pain of entering data
> manually) and then place URLs that points to locations (other IR,
> publishers’ websites, arXiv, Scielo, PMC,…) where a gratis OA version is
> located. This turns empty IRs into institutional knowledge hubs. Of course,
> many librarians are also actively examining these links and copying a
> physical version of the paper in the IR (where possible considering
> licencing and rights issues). If the uptake is good for this product (which
> we think it will as we developed this solution because we kept hearing from
> tens of university librarians that something of the kind was really
> needed), IRs are going to be way more populated, way faster, and librarians
> and researchers will be able to spend more time archiving and
> self-archiving pre-prints and post-prints that do not exist anywhere else.
> For libraries to spend time looking at what is uniquely missing makes
> sense, this is an exercise in search engine optimization as the Bing and
> Google bots will see unique content. This solution will help move
> 

[GOAL] Call for action! (was Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation)

[Kathleen Shearer]

Call for action!

A new ecology for scholarly communications is emerging which involves openness 
and sharing of publications, data, research administrative information, and 
other research outputs.

Libraries and universities are already contributing to this ecology by hosting 
systems and platforms that provide access to content. But the time has come to 
increase our participation and bring back control of the system to the 
scholarly community. This will ensure that the system reflects the value of 
research as a public good that should be shared widely for the benefit of 
society, rather than driven and manipulated to support profit making by 
companies through locking up content and controlling scholarly workflows.

In order to ensure widespread access and participation in the system, scholarly 
services and platforms should be as open as possible. There are already 
thousands of repositories being managed by research institutions across the 
world, essentially representing a global knowledge commons. They have coalesced 
into networks and communities of practice at regional and national levels, and 
are working at the global level through COAR to ensure interoperability and 
improve repository platforms so they can expose content in more flexible ways 
and develop  services that support scholarly communication, such as peer 
review, metrics and researchers’ profiles. To prevent the further takeover of 
the knowledge commons by corporate interests, we must intensify and build on 
these early efforts to greatly improve the functionality of our systems, raise 
awareness of their value, and better support the needs of the research 
community.

Given our shared values and mission, we call on the scholarly community to work 
together to support and contribute to a system that is truly open, functional, 
and driven by the needs of the research community.

One of COAR’s major objectives for 2016-17 is to identify the core 
functionalities for the next generation of repositories 
,
 as well as the architectures and technologies required to implement them; and 
to work with the repository community to help adopt these functionalities. We 
also aim to create a global standard for repositories that establishes 
repositories as a central place for the daily research and dissemination 
activities of researchers.

Please let me know if you are interested in this activity. We are looking for 
ways to bring in broader participation.


Kathleen Shearer
Executive Director, Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR)
m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com  - +1 514 992 
9068
Skype: kathleen.shearer2 - twitter: @KathleeShearer




> On May 19, 2016, at 7:16 AM, WALK Paul  wrote:
> 
> "The best way to keep Elsevier from dominating the space would be for there 
> to be plenty of lean and hungry startups seeing opportunities here."
> 
> That seems demonstrably untrue, when such lean and hungry startups often have 
> acquisition as their main exit strategy...
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
>> On 19 May 2016, at 11:17, William Gunn  wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks for your comments, Eric F! If we want to improve scholarly 
>> communications, we have to drop the idea that top-down grant funded projects 
>> are the ideal. The best way to keep Elsevier from dominating the space would 
>> be for there to be plenty of lean and hungry startups seeing opportunities 
>> here. 
>> 
>> 
>> William Gunn
>> +1 (650) 614-1749
>> http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/
>> 
>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde 
>>  wrote:
>> Eric Archambault:
>> This is quite impressive and potentially very helpful.
>> 
>> Stevan:
>> We started with IRs that would grow organically. When that did not work, we 
>> pursued institutional mandates. Now, it is national funder mandates. This 
>> attitude of top-down enforced innovation is at odds with today's tech 
>> culture of bottom-up innovation. The top-down approach is just too slow.
>> 
>> Libraries have now been managing IRs for over 15 years without any 
>> significant changes to IRs. They still have no social component, like 
>> Figshare or academia.edu. As we have seen elsewhere, the social component is 
>> crucial to achieve organic growth.
>> 
>> Worse than not adding features is the attitude that IRs are the goal. The 
>> real goal should be better scholarly communication. This may require a new 
>> IR: Individual Repositories. Social platforms are far more suited for the 
>> individual researcher.
>> 
>> I am not an absolute free marketer, but the free market is rather good at 
>> forcing innovation. Perhaps, it is time to make libraries compete for the 
>> IR/OA management business and force some innovation that way.
>> --Eric.
>> 
>> 
>> http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
>> Twitter: @evdvelde

Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

[WALK Paul]

"The best way to keep Elsevier from dominating the space would be for there to 
be plenty of lean and hungry startups seeing opportunities here."

That seems demonstrably untrue, when such lean and hungry startups often have 
acquisition as their main exit strategy...

Paul


> On 19 May 2016, at 11:17, William Gunn  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for your comments, Eric F! If we want to improve scholarly 
> communications, we have to drop the idea that top-down grant funded projects 
> are the ideal. The best way to keep Elsevier from dominating the space would 
> be for there to be plenty of lean and hungry startups seeing opportunities 
> here. 
> 
> 
> William Gunn
> +1 (650) 614-1749
> http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/
> 
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde 
>  wrote:
> Eric Archambault:
> This is quite impressive and potentially very helpful.
> 
> Stevan:
> We started with IRs that would grow organically. When that did not work, we 
> pursued institutional mandates. Now, it is national funder mandates. This 
> attitude of top-down enforced innovation is at odds with today's tech culture 
> of bottom-up innovation. The top-down approach is just too slow.
> 
> Libraries have now been managing IRs for over 15 years without any 
> significant changes to IRs. They still have no social component, like 
> Figshare or academia.edu. As we have seen elsewhere, the social component is 
> crucial to achieve organic growth.
> 
> Worse than not adding features is the attitude that IRs are the goal. The 
> real goal should be better scholarly communication. This may require a new 
> IR: Individual Repositories. Social platforms are far more suited for the 
> individual researcher.
> 
> I am not an absolute free marketer, but the free market is rather good at 
> forcing innovation. Perhaps, it is time to make libraries compete for the 
> IR/OA management business and force some innovation that way.
> --Eric.
> 
> 
> http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @evdvelde
> E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com
> 
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Éric Archambault 
>  wrote:
> Eric
> 
>  
> 
> At 1science, we have developed a robust solution to address some of the 
> problems you are mentioning. In contrast to the optimistic view of the 
> repositories that Stevan has, in our efforts to locate all the contents which 
> is available in green and gold (including hybrid), we are finding that most 
> of the IRs have only about 5-8% of the papers published by authors at the 
> universities hosting these repositories. Another contrast, the latest data we 
> have compiled at 1science shows that we are fast approaching 60% of the 
> papers indexed the Thomson Reuters Web of Science which can be found in 
> gratis OA form somewhere on the internet. Given the law of large numbers, on 
> average, there is a gap of more than 50% between what is available somewhere 
> on the net, and what is available in local IR. It’s clear tat a solution that 
> fills that gap quickly can remove a huge pain point in the filling of IR with 
> full-text (or links to full-text) and proper metadata.
> 
>  
> 
> We have developed a product called oaFoldr which basically repatriates these 
> papers to the IRs. Our privileged model is to feed the IRs with good quality 
> metadata (and when institutions are subscribing to the Web of Science, we can 
> install the WoS API and populate the repository with very high quality 
> metadata and this removes a lot of the pain of entering data manually) and 
> then place URLs that points to locations (other IR, publishers’ websites, 
> arXiv, Scielo, PMC,…) where a gratis OA version is located. This turns empty 
> IRs into institutional knowledge hubs. Of course, many librarians are also 
> actively examining these links and copying a physical version of the paper in 
> the IR (where possible considering licencing and rights issues). If the 
> uptake is good for this product (which we think it will as we developed this 
> solution because we kept hearing from tens of university librarians that 
> something of the kind was really needed), IRs are going to be way more 
> populated, way faster, and librarians and researchers will be able to spend 
> more time archiving and self-archiving pre-prints and post-prints that do not 
> exist anywhere else. For libraries to spend time looking at what is uniquely 
> missing makes sense, this is an exercise in search engine optimization as the 
> Bing and Google bots will see unique content. This solution will help move 
> universities towards 100% OA availability at the institutional level. Take 
> Caltech – they already have a stunningly good IR but using 1science’s data 
> it’ll be every better – we can find close to 80% of Caltech’s paper in Gratis 
> OA somewhere on the internet. Of course, this solution is not a silver bullet 
> and some problems will remain but it 

Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

[William Gunn]

Thanks for your comments, Eric F! If we want to improve scholarly
communications, we have to drop the idea that top-down grant funded
projects are the ideal. The best way to keep Elsevier from dominating the
space would be for there to be plenty of lean and hungry startups seeing
opportunities here.


William Gunn
+1 (650) 614-1749
http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde <
eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Eric Archambault:
> This is quite impressive and potentially very helpful.
>
> Stevan:
> We started with IRs that would grow organically. When that did not work,
> we pursued institutional mandates. Now, it is national funder mandates.
> This attitude of top-down enforced innovation is at odds with today's tech
> culture of bottom-up innovation. The top-down approach is just too slow.
>
> Libraries have now been managing IRs for over 15 years without any
> significant changes to IRs. They still have no social component, like
> Figshare or academia.edu. As we have seen elsewhere, the social component
> is crucial to achieve organic growth.
>
> Worse than not adding features is the attitude that IRs are the goal. The
> real goal should be better scholarly communication. This may require a new
> IR: Individual Repositories. Social platforms are far more suited for the
> individual researcher.
>
> I am not an absolute free marketer, but the free market is rather good at
> forcing innovation. Perhaps, it is time to make libraries compete for the
> IR/OA management business and force some innovation that way.
> --Eric.
>
>
> http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @evdvelde
> E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Éric Archambault <
> eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote:
>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>>
>> At 1science, we have developed a robust solution to address some of the
>> problems you are mentioning. In contrast to the optimistic view of the
>> repositories that Stevan has, in our efforts to locate all the contents
>> which is available in green and gold (including hybrid), we are finding
>> that most of the IRs have only about 5-8% of the papers published by
>> authors at the universities hosting these repositories. Another contrast,
>> the latest data we have compiled at 1science shows that we are fast
>> approaching 60% of the papers indexed the Thomson Reuters Web of Science
>> which can be found in gratis OA form somewhere on the internet. Given the
>> law of large numbers, on average, there is a gap of more than 50% between
>> what is available somewhere on the net, and what is available in local IR.
>> It’s clear tat a solution that fills that gap quickly can remove a huge
>> pain point in the filling of IR with full-text (or links to full-text) and
>> proper metadata.
>>
>>
>>
>> We have developed a product called oaFoldr which basically repatriates
>> these papers to the IRs. Our privileged model is to feed the IRs with good
>> quality metadata (and when institutions are subscribing to the Web of
>> Science, we can install the WoS API and populate the repository with very
>> high quality metadata and this removes a lot of the pain of entering data
>> manually) and then place URLs that points to locations (other IR,
>> publishers’ websites, arXiv, Scielo, PMC,…) where a gratis OA version is
>> located. This turns empty IRs into institutional knowledge hubs. Of course,
>> many librarians are also actively examining these links and copying a
>> physical version of the paper in the IR (where possible considering
>> licencing and rights issues). If the uptake is good for this product (which
>> we think it will as we developed this solution because we kept hearing from
>> tens of university librarians that something of the kind was really
>> needed), IRs are going to be way more populated, way faster, and librarians
>> and researchers will be able to spend more time archiving and
>> self-archiving pre-prints and post-prints that do not exist anywhere else.
>> For libraries to spend time looking at what is uniquely missing makes
>> sense, this is an exercise in search engine optimization as the Bing and
>> Google bots will see unique content. This solution will help move
>> universities towards 100% OA availability at the institutional level. Take
>> Caltech – they already have a stunningly good IR but using 1science’s data
>> it’ll be every better – we can find close to 80% of Caltech’s paper in
>> Gratis OA somewhere on the internet. Of course, this solution is not a
>> silver bullet and some problems will remain but it will help creating a
>> more robust, distributed architecture.
>>
>>
>>
>> Éric
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Eric Archambault, Ph.D.*
>> President and CEO | Président-directeur général
>> Science-Metrix & 1science
>> [image: http://1science.com/images/LinkedIn_sign.png]
>> 
>> *T.* 1.514.495.6505 x.111
>> *C.* 1.514.518.0823
>> *F.* 1.514.495.6523
>>
>> 

Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Thomas Krichel]

  Ted Bergstrom writes

> Hooray for RePEc!

  Thank you.

> Thomas, Is there a short answer to the question:
> "How do we know RePEc can't be bought?"

  I have two answers.

  For younger people, tell them that RePEc is just data distributed on
  over 1800 different servers. It belongs to the organisations running
  the servers. It would be very hard to buy these organisations.

  For older people, tell them that RePEc is basically the electronic
  version of the old printed working papers publishing practice.  Of
  course it's more than that but understanding the printed world
  analogy is sufficient for starters. It would have been very hard to
  buy the printed working papers system.

> Do you have any advice  to offer economists who are wary of
> the SSRN sellout?

  Well if your institution does not have a RePEc archive, make sure
  you put your papers up at the MPRA

https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/

  And get in touch with re...@repec.org if you want to sponsor us.


-- 

  Cheers,

  Thomas Krichel  http://openlib.org/home/krichel
  skype:thomaskrichel
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] The 11th Munin Conference - Call for Presentations and Posters is out!

[Frantsvåg Jan Erik]

Please forward in your networks - apologies for cross-posting!

This year's Munin Conference will be held in Tromsø on November 21st and 22nd.
Follow us on Twitter @MuninConf and/or Facebook 
https://www.facebook.com/TheMuninConference/ to keep posted as we inform about 
registration etc.

Our CFP is available at  http://site.uit.no/muninconf/?page_id=383

The deadline for submission is August 7th.

We look forward to receiving your abstract - and to seeing you in Tromsø in 
November.

Best,
Jan Erik
On behalf of the organizing committee


Jan Erik Frantsvåg
Open Access Adviser
The University Library
UiT The Arctic University of Norway
phone +47 77 64 49 50
e-mail jan.e.frants...@uit.no
http://en.uit.no/ansatte/organisasjon/ansatte/person?p_document_id=43618_dimension_id=88187
Publications: http://tinyurl.com/6rycjns
http://orcid.org/-0003-3413-8799


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

[Eric F. Van de Velde]

Eric Archambault:
This is quite impressive and potentially very helpful.

Stevan:
We started with IRs that would grow organically. When that did not work, we
pursued institutional mandates. Now, it is national funder mandates. This
attitude of top-down enforced innovation is at odds with today's tech
culture of bottom-up innovation. The top-down approach is just too slow.

Libraries have now been managing IRs for over 15 years without any
significant changes to IRs. They still have no social component, like
Figshare or academia.edu. As we have seen elsewhere, the social component
is crucial to achieve organic growth.

Worse than not adding features is the attitude that IRs are the goal. The
real goal should be better scholarly communication. This may require a new
IR: Individual Repositories. Social platforms are far more suited for the
individual researcher.

I am not an absolute free marketer, but the free market is rather good at
forcing innovation. Perhaps, it is time to make libraries compete for the
IR/OA management business and force some innovation that way.
--Eric.


http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
Twitter: @evdvelde
E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Éric Archambault <
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote:

> Eric
>
>
>
> At 1science, we have developed a robust solution to address some of the
> problems you are mentioning. In contrast to the optimistic view of the
> repositories that Stevan has, in our efforts to locate all the contents
> which is available in green and gold (including hybrid), we are finding
> that most of the IRs have only about 5-8% of the papers published by
> authors at the universities hosting these repositories. Another contrast,
> the latest data we have compiled at 1science shows that we are fast
> approaching 60% of the papers indexed the Thomson Reuters Web of Science
> which can be found in gratis OA form somewhere on the internet. Given the
> law of large numbers, on average, there is a gap of more than 50% between
> what is available somewhere on the net, and what is available in local IR.
> It’s clear tat a solution that fills that gap quickly can remove a huge
> pain point in the filling of IR with full-text (or links to full-text) and
> proper metadata.
>
>
>
> We have developed a product called oaFoldr which basically repatriates
> these papers to the IRs. Our privileged model is to feed the IRs with good
> quality metadata (and when institutions are subscribing to the Web of
> Science, we can install the WoS API and populate the repository with very
> high quality metadata and this removes a lot of the pain of entering data
> manually) and then place URLs that points to locations (other IR,
> publishers’ websites, arXiv, Scielo, PMC,…) where a gratis OA version is
> located. This turns empty IRs into institutional knowledge hubs. Of course,
> many librarians are also actively examining these links and copying a
> physical version of the paper in the IR (where possible considering
> licencing and rights issues). If the uptake is good for this product (which
> we think it will as we developed this solution because we kept hearing from
> tens of university librarians that something of the kind was really
> needed), IRs are going to be way more populated, way faster, and librarians
> and researchers will be able to spend more time archiving and
> self-archiving pre-prints and post-prints that do not exist anywhere else.
> For libraries to spend time looking at what is uniquely missing makes
> sense, this is an exercise in search engine optimization as the Bing and
> Google bots will see unique content. This solution will help move
> universities towards 100% OA availability at the institutional level. Take
> Caltech – they already have a stunningly good IR but using 1science’s data
> it’ll be every better – we can find close to 80% of Caltech’s paper in
> Gratis OA somewhere on the internet. Of course, this solution is not a
> silver bullet and some problems will remain but it will help creating a
> more robust, distributed architecture.
>
>
>
> Éric
>
>
>
>
>
> *Eric Archambault, Ph.D.*
> President and CEO | Président-directeur général
> Science-Metrix & 1science
> [image: http://1science.com/images/LinkedIn_sign.png]
> 
> *T.* 1.514.495.6505 x.111
> *C.* 1.514.518.0823
> *F.* 1.514.495.6523
>
> [image: http://1science.com/images/Logo_SM_horizontal_small.png]
>    [image:
> http://1science.com/images/1science.png] 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Eric F. Van de Velde
> *Sent:* May 18, 2016 4:39 PM
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
> *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation
>
>
>
> Stevan:
>
> Yes,
>
> distributed management of Institutional Repositories spread the costs and
> immunize them 

[GOAL] Ownership and future of "Open access" services

[Heather Morrison]

Who owns and controls the services that Open access depends on, both now and in 
the future, is an important question for the sustainability of open access.

To the best of my knowledge:

Figshare is owned by Nature Publishing Group which was recently acquired by 
Springer. On the surface, Springer is quite friendly to open access, however I 
consider it important to remember that in terms of subscriptions / sales 
revenue and profits Springer is second only to Elsevier. Springer in turn is 
owned by private equity companies and had been sold 4 times in little more than 
a decade.

Academia.edu is privately owned. According to Wikipedia, one of the founding 
investors, Hoberman, made a great deal of money developing something called 
last-minute.com then selling the company.

I understand that this is a common strategy or trend in Information technology, 
developing a startup then selling the company.

I do not think it wise for OA to rely on such services. We need services such 
as institutional and disciplinary archives and Journal hosting services and 
high quality indexing services that are owned and controlled by the public 
(perhaps with help from stable committed not-for-profits).

best,

Heather Morrison
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

[Stevan Harnad]

And then, if Science-Metrix & 1science succeeds in helping librarians
harvest back the output that university researchers have deposited
elsewhere in the web than their own university's repository, Elsevier can
buy Science-Metrix & 1science as it bought Mendeley, SSRN and PURE and
tighten yet again the stranglehold on our research output that they should
never have had in the first place.

With all my admiration for what Science-Metrix & 1science do, it's nothing
that a few bright graduate students in computer science could not do as a
JISC project, and afterwards the software is available to all universities.
As foolish as a Fool's-Gold membership consortium of universities is, a
consortium to support and sustain the skills and tools needed to repatriate
universities' research as well as its processing would be wise thing to
form. The research funders would stand to benefit from supporting it too.

Research access-provision, archiving and processing simply do not have to
be outsourced by universities. It's just a perverse Gutenberg legacy -- the
predatory publisher stranglehold -- that makes it seem even seem faintly
worthy of considering for a microsecond.

(This has nothing to do with the question of whether digital warehousing is
cheaper to do in-hourse or in some commercial cloud. I have no idea
whatsoever about the economics of that. Nor about whether it's more
economical to outsource email services. I'm talking about custodianship
over -- and access to -- universities' own research output.)

Stevan Harnad

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Éric Archambault <
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote:

> Eric
>
>
>
> At 1science, we have developed a robust solution to address some of the
> problems you are mentioning. In contrast to the optimistic view of the
> repositories that Stevan has, in our efforts to locate all the contents
> which is available in green and gold (including hybrid), we are finding
> that most of the IRs have only about 5-8% of the papers published by
> authors at the universities hosting these repositories. Another contrast,
> the latest data we have compiled at 1science shows that we are fast
> approaching 60% of the papers indexed the Thomson Reuters Web of Science
> which can be found in gratis OA form somewhere on the internet. Given the
> law of large numbers, on average, there is a gap of more than 50% between
> what is available somewhere on the net, and what is available in local IR.
> It’s clear tat a solution that fills that gap quickly can remove a huge
> pain point in the filling of IR with full-text (or links to full-text) and
> proper metadata.
>
>
>
> We have developed a product called oaFoldr which basically repatriates
> these papers to the IRs. Our privileged model is to feed the IRs with good
> quality metadata (and when institutions are subscribing to the Web of
> Science, we can install the WoS API and populate the repository with very
> high quality metadata and this removes a lot of the pain of entering data
> manually) and then place URLs that points to locations (other IR,
> publishers’ websites, arXiv, Scielo, PMC,…) where a gratis OA version is
> located. This turns empty IRs into institutional knowledge hubs. Of course,
> many librarians are also actively examining these links and copying a
> physical version of the paper in the IR (where possible considering
> licencing and rights issues). If the uptake is good for this product (which
> we think it will as we developed this solution because we kept hearing from
> tens of university librarians that something of the kind was really
> needed), IRs are going to be way more populated, way faster, and librarians
> and researchers will be able to spend more time archiving and
> self-archiving pre-prints and post-prints that do not exist anywhere else.
> For libraries to spend time looking at what is uniquely missing makes
> sense, this is an exercise in search engine optimization as the Bing and
> Google bots will see unique content. This solution will help move
> universities towards 100% OA availability at the institutional level. Take
> Caltech – they already have a stunningly good IR but using 1science’s data
> it’ll be every better – we can find close to 80% of Caltech’s paper in
> Gratis OA somewhere on the internet. Of course, this solution is not a
> silver bullet and some problems will remain but it will help creating a
> more robust, distributed architecture.
>
>
>
> Éric
>
>
>
>
>
> *Eric Archambault, Ph.D.*
> President and CEO | Président-directeur général
> Science-Metrix & 1science
> [image: http://1science.com/images/LinkedIn_sign.png]
> 
> *T.* 1.514.495.6505 x.111
> *C.* 1.514.518.0823
> *F.* 1.514.495.6523
>
> [image: http://1science.com/images/Logo_SM_horizontal_small.png]
>    [image:
> http://1science.com/images/1science.png] 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org 

Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

[Éric Archambault]

Forgot to specify – we are approaching 60% of WoS contents that can be found in 
gratis OA – that’s for the last few years (about 5 years – except the latest 
year which is still plagued by embargoes and the lack of reflex by researchers 
to self-archive immediately the pre-prints and post-prints).

Sorry for the typos in my previous post – I never read these enough without new 
modifications before pressing “send”.


Éric



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Eric F. Van de Velde
Sent: May 18, 2016 4:39 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

Stevan:
Yes,
distributed management of Institutional Repositories spread the costs and 
immunize them against a take-over. That is why advocated for them as early as 
the 1999 UPS meeting in Santa Fe.

But,
it is now also increasingly clear that this distributed management comes with 
significant downsides. Any successes of the OA movement have been in recruiting 
content for IRs and in enacting OA mandates. Unfortunately, the network of IRs 
federated through OAI-PMH is simply not good enough for professional-level 
research. If IRs fail at this task, they'll simply disappear into obscurity. 
Distributed management does not immunize IRs against becoming irrelevant.

Each IR is managed to accommodate idiosyncratic local concerns and not the 
broader interests of the world. There is no consistent access to the full text 
(many records contain only metadata). Many records just contain bad scans. Many 
IRs prohibit/discourage data mining. With globally inconsistent metadata, it is 
impossible to search and find anything with consistent reliability. Moreover, 
in its institutionalized form, the supposedly-cheap IR has become rather 
expensive.

The distributed nature has led to a paralysis in development. To put it 
bluntly: Today's institutional repositories are run with software of the early 
2000s and managed with the cataloging mindset of the 1980s.

Frankly, I have no solution to offer. The crowdsourced alternatives like 
figshare, academia.edu, etc. look increasingly better in 
comparison.

--Eric.



http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
Twitter: @evdvelde
E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Stevan Harnad 
> wrote:
The worldwide distributed network of Green Institutional 
Repositories is by far the best prophylactic against 
Elsevier predation. I hope universities and research funders will be awake 
enough to realize this rather than falling for quick "solutions" that continue 
to hold their research output hostage to the increasingly predatory publishing 
industry.

"We have nothing to lose but our chains..."

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Paul Walk 
> wrote:
"The software may change, but you can't sell off a distributed network of 
independent repositories.”

I agree, and I think that this is the crucial point. The software doesn’t 
matter (well, it does matter, but it doesn’t affect this principle). It’s about 
the distribution of *control*.

We are truly fortunate to have a global, distributed infrastructure of 
institutional repositories which are (mostly) under institutional control. This 
is quite an unusual arrangement these days - and I think we should regard it as 
precious and inherently powerful in its denial of the possibility of 
“ownership” by one party.

We should do what we can to both hang on to this infrastructure, and to exploit 
it more fully, in pursuit of a better scholarly communications system.

Paul

> On 17 May 2016, at 22:06, Leslie Carr 
> > wrote:
>
> The software may change, but you can't sell off a distributed network of 
> independent repositories.
>
> Prof Leslie Carr
> Web Science institute
> #⃣ webscience #⃣ openaccess
>
> On 17 May 2016, at 21:35, Joachim SCHOPFEL 
> >>
>  wrote:
>
> Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide 
> is not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional repositories can be 
> replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better solutions, more 
> functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better connected to 
> databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.
>
> - Mail d'origine -
> De: Stevan Harnad 
> >>
> À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
> >>
> Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
> Objet: Re: