[GOAL] Was your NextGen IRs Coping with Research Data Publishing ?

[Olivier Speciel]

FYI:

Assante, M. et al., (2016) Are scientific data repositories coping with 
research data Publishing ? . Data science journal. 15, p.6 

DOI :
Http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2016-006


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

Re: [GOAL] CC-BY with copyright transfer: author nominal copyright (typo correction)

[Heather Morrison]

With apologies for duplication, this version corrects some typos (only my 
words, not E’s). A key point is that this is author nominal copyright, i.e. 
copyright is in the name of the author who has actually signed away all of 
their rights under copyright.

Elsevier's copyright page provides a very clear example of copyright transfer 
combined with CC licenses. Elsevier is not alone in this practice; I see this 
quite frequently while looking for APCS. 

The Elsevier copyright page:
https://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/copyright

States under "for open access articles”:

"Authors sign an exclusive license agreement, where authors have copyright but 
license exclusive rights in the article to the publisher. In this case authors 
have the right to share their articles in the same ways permitted to third 
parties..."

This language makes it very clear that when Elsevier applies CC licenses, 
Elsevier (or one of its partners)  is the Licensor or copyright holder, even 
when there is a copyright statement indicating the author holds copyright.

I argue that this is a deceptive practice that I call author nominal copyright.

This is important,  because CC licenses place obligations downstream for 
licensees, not the Licensor. The copyright holder of a CC license has no 
obligation to continue to provide a copy of the work under the same terms in 
perpetuity (unless there is a separate contract).

To assess the extent of this practice one must examine journal/author 
contracts, not just visible indications, because even if an article is licensed 
CC-BY and indicates the author as copyright holder, it may actually be the 
publisher who owns all the rights under copyright.

best,

Heather Morrison 




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

[GOAL] CC-BY with copyright transfer

[Heather Morrison]

Elsevier's copyright page provides a very clear example of copyright transfer 
combined with CC licenses. Elsevier is not alone in this practice; I see this 
quite frequently while looking for APCS.

The Elsevier copyright page:
https://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/copyright

States under "for open access articles":
"Authors sign an exclusive license agreement, where authors have copyright but 
license exclusive rights in the article to the publisher. In this case authors 
have the right to share their articles in the same ways permitted to third 
parties..."

This language makes it very clear that when Elsevier applies CC licenses, 
Elsevier (or one of its partners)  is the Licensor or copyright holder, even 
when there is a copyright statement indicating the author holds copyright.

I argue that this is a deceptive practice that I call author nomination 
copyright.

This is important,  because CC licenses place obligations downstream for 
licensees, not Licensor. The copyright holder of a CC license has no obligation 
to continue to provide a copy of the work under the same terms in perpetuity 
(unless there is a separate contract).

To assess the extent of this practice one must examine journal/author 
contracts, not just visible indications, because even if an author is licensed 
CC-BY and indicates the author as copyright holder, it may actually be the 
publisher who owns all the rights under copyright.

best,

Heather Morrison



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

Re: [GOAL] BLOG: Press embargoes ? a threat from the shadows, (William Gunn)

[Danny Kingsley]

OK let's talk about news. I used to be a science journalist. The fact 
that a bunch of scientists found something out some indistinct time 
period ago is not news. The 'hook' is that the research was published in 
the Journal of X today. It would not be much of a news story if it was 
'Scientists at the University of Cambridge have found something out, but 
we don't know much about it because the paper is not available and they 
won't talk to us but it will be published sometime in the future in 
Journal of X'.

What we are talking about here is quibbling over whether the basic 
metadata about an article - author name, article title (which often 
changes), journal and abstract - and NOTHING ELSE is available before 
publication.

Believe me, I totally get the news thing. But again - repository 
managers are being forced to jump through ridiculous hoops to try and 
placate funders', publishers' and authors' needs. Quite often these 
percieved needs are based on possibilities or things that 'might' 
happen. Meanwhile my staff groan under the weight of their compliance 
load. It is beyond a joke.

Danny


On 20/05/2016 14:16, goal-requ...@eprints.org wrote:
> Send GOAL mailing list submissions to
>   goal@eprints.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>   http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>   goal-requ...@eprints.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>   goal-ow...@eprints.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of GOAL digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: BLOG: Press embargoes ? a threat from the shadows
>(William Gunn)
> 2. Re: Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation (Stevan Harnad)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 06:11:25 -0700
> From: William Gunn 
> Subject: Re: [GOAL] BLOG: Press embargoes ? a threat from the shadows
> To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" 
> Message-ID:
>   
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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)

Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

[Heather Morrison]

I would like to thank Eric for this useful and unusually candid response, an 
approach that I wish more people in the private sector would emulate. Some 
comments:

I argue for public ownership of scholarly works. The question of who owns the 
works is not the same as who produces the works. For example, governments often 
partner with private industry to build roads and other infrastructure which are 
then owned by the public. Most doctors in Canada's public health care system 
are entrepreneurs in private practice.

The subscriptions system we aim to transform involves public funding of the 
vast majority of the work which is then given freely to private interests for 
their profit, traditionally with no rights reserved for the public.

Universities, governments, and very large corporations tend to be very 
bureaucratic. In the long term, it would be great to develop organisations that 
can combine size, complexity, social responsibility. In the short term, we rely 
heavily on entrepreneurs like Eric Archambault.

I hope that Eric does co-write a book on the dilemmas and challenges for the 
small to medium size entrepreneur, because I believe he is on to something. 
When we did the 2014 DOAJ survey we noticed a skew in publisher size - many 
very small publishers (mostly one-offs), and many journals produced by large 
publishers (50 plus journals at the time), with not much in the middle. John 
Thompson reported similar results in a major study of academic book publoshing 
published in 2005.

Scholarly publishing is not the only area where concentration is happening. 
When governments subsidize or bail out large industries because they are "too 
big to fail", that too reflects a unhealthy market concentration.

Is there a global dysfunctional dynamic at play here, I wonder, and if so what 
is the remedy?

best,

Heather Morrison


 Original message 
From: Éric Archambault 
Date: 05-20-2016 7:20 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

Stevan – my answers are in the text.

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Stevan Harnad
Sent: May 18, 2016 6:30 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

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.

-->So your suggestion for us is what? Close the company now and all the staff 
join a university and we would finally achieve the level of nobility and 
disinterestedness that all good humans should aim for? La noblesse publique! Or 
is it to develop a product that is so stupid that no one will buy it, to close 
the shop, then repeat same until we have been consigned to oblivion? Are you 
suggesting that companies leave everything that is university-related to 
universities? And that we also leave everything governmental to government 
employees? Perhaps we should also leave customers to barter among themselves? 
Yes, I know, the world would be so happy without these greedy entrepreneurs, 
there would be no profit taking, and we would obtain a perfect distribution of 
wealth. Dream on.

Like most of the people who completed a Ph.D. I seriously considered going into 
academia but for a variety of reason life decided differently. So what do we do 
when we have a drive to change the world? We find a job at Google that you seem 
to admire so much that you always promote as a solution for every ill created 
by companies just equally greedy but who are not advertising businesses. We 
need a world more complex than the choice between being noble academics or 
being employed at virtuous Google. I know I’m not noble, but I feel no shame 
getting my hand dirty working in a private corporation. We also play a part in 
making this world work. Evil certainly is present in business, but it is not 
entirely absent from academia even if academia has way more checks and balances 
to keep this low.

The economics of small firms is tough, real tough, I know something about it 
after 15 years running Science-Metrix. We are squeezed by large entities that 
have economies of scale that make us extremely inefficient in comparison. I am 
so constantly aware of it that one day I’d like to call upon Thomas Piketty to 
jointly write a book showing that rate of scale return in countries is 
persistently greater than that associated with creativity and flexibility and 
this leads “naturally” to concentration in industry. Also, as small firms, we 
are also frequently 

Re: [GOAL] The "Ingelfinger Rule, " publisher FUD and author paranoia.

[Stevan Harnad]

The Ingelfinger Rule is dead and buried. No publisher can require a
researcher to keep their findings secret. They can report them at
conferences and post their unrefereed preprints whenever they like.

(Authors can voluntarily comply with a press embargo on an accepted paper
until publication, but that's irrelevant to HEFCE, which requires deposit
within 3 months of acceptance: No *Nature* press embargo is anywhere near
that long.)

Harnad, S. (2000) Ingelfinger Over-Ruled: The Role of the Web in the Future
of Refereed Medical Journal Publishing. Lancet Perspectives 256 (December
Supplement): s16. http://cogprints.org/1703/


Closed access deposit of the author's final, accepted draft is absolutely
none of the business of the publisher, has nothing to do with copyright,
and certainly provides not the faintest of grounds for "pulling" a
publication. Neither does public notice of a scientific conference and its
papers (and abstracts).

HEFCE and HEFCE authors: Steer the course. This kind of FUD has been
floated for decades now and deserves your contempt, not your concern.

Here are a couple of flashbacks from yesteryear:

http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#publisher-forbids
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#10.Copyright

*Stevan Harnad*

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Danny Kingsley  wrote:


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

[GOAL] ESAC initiative releases a "Joint Understanding of Offsetting"

[ESAC Contact]

Dear colleagues,

In March 2016, an international group of librarians, consortium leaders and 
negotiators met on invitation of the ESAC initiative to discuss new types of 
agreements currently labelled as "offsetting" or "open access big deals".

As a result of the two-day workshop, the participants agreed upon objectives, 
mechanisms and required tools with regard to offsetting:
http://esac-initiative.org/joint-understanding-of-offsetting/

This document should serve as a reference and starting point for research 
institutions and libraries in order to jointly work on sustainable parameters 
for the global open access transition. We invite further institutions to 
collaborate with us in this matter as well as we invite publishers to partner 
with the ESAC initiative.

ESAC is part of the project INTACT (http://www.intact-project.org/) funded by 
the German Research Foundation. It persues the the developement of agreed 
service standards around Gold Open Access charges.

Best wishes,
Kai Geschuhn

Kai Karin Geschuhn
Max Planck Digital Library
Open Access & License Management
Amalienstraße 33 | 80799 München
Phone +49 (0) 89 38602 253
Fax +49 (0) 89 38602 290
gesch...@mpdl.mpg.de
http://www.mpdl.mpg.de


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

Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

[Stevan Harnad]

I greatly admire Eric's creative work. I also highly recommend his sincere,
thoughtful and highly impassioned text, below, about the value of creative
commercial ventures like his own. What his reflections don't resolve,
however, is the very special problem of scientific and scholarly research:
the fact that it is being relentlessly held hostage by an obsolete
industry, because of chance historic contingencies. Everything Eric says is
and remains true of just about any other area of academic spin-off
entrepreneurship. But the special case of OA is different, perhaps even
unique. Eric's eloquent defence of his company (which needs no defence, by
the way) does not resolve this particular conundrum.

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Éric Archambault <
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote:

> Stevan – my answers are in the text.
>
>
>
> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad
> *Sent:* May 18, 2016 6:30 PM
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
> *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> àSo your suggestion for us is what? Close the company now and all the
> staff join a university and we would finally achieve the level of nobility
> and disinterestedness that all good humans should aim for? La noblesse
> publique! Or is it to develop a product that is so stupid that no one will
> buy it, to close the shop, then repeat same until we have been consigned to
> oblivion? Are you suggesting that companies leave everything that is
> university-related to universities? And that we also leave everything
> governmental to government employees? Perhaps we should also leave
> customers to barter among themselves? Yes, I know, the world would be so
> happy without these greedy entrepreneurs, there would be no profit taking,
> and we would obtain a perfect distribution of wealth. Dream on.
>
>
>
> Like most of the people who completed a Ph.D. I seriously considered going
> into academia but for a variety of reason life decided differently. So what
> do we do when we have a drive to change the world? We find a job at Google
> that you seem to admire so much that you always promote as a solution for
> every ill created by companies just equally greedy but who are not
> advertising businesses. We need a world more complex than the choice
> between being noble academics or being employed at virtuous Google. I know
> I’m not noble, but I feel no shame getting my hand dirty working in a
> private corporation. We also play a part in making this world work. Evil
> certainly is present in business, but it is not entirely absent from
> academia even if academia has way more checks and balances to keep this low.
>
>
>
> The economics of small firms is tough, real tough, I know something about
> it after 15 years running Science-Metrix. We are squeezed by large entities
> that have economies of scale that make us extremely inefficient in
> comparison. I am so constantly aware of it that one day I’d like to call
> upon Thomas Piketty to jointly write a book showing that rate of scale
> return in countries is persistently greater than that associated with
> creativity and flexibility and this leads “naturally” to concentration in
> industry. Also, as small firms, we are also frequently competing against
> noble academics who triple dip with their salaries, their research grants
> and generating some non-taxable research income to top it all up. Of
> course, we are the greedy ones, we the entrepreneurs, in contrast to these
> disinterested academics for whom money doesn’t count and for whom
> profiteering is such a filth. In case there is a doubt here, yes I am
> sarcastic. Like many entrepreneurs, I work nearly every day of the week,
> from dusk to long after dawn and my son ask my wife when we’ll have a
> normal life. I didn’t start 1science to sell it up to Elsevier, but I would
> think one could understand if one day I ran out of steam I ended up doing
> so. Many entrepreneurs are like farmers, the only money they have is in the
> value of their enterprise, so selling is not a shame, it’s a pension
> scheme.
>
>
>
> 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' 

Re: [GOAL] BLOG: Press embargoes – a threat from the shadows

[William Gunn]

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 :
>
> 
>
> 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.
>
> 
>
> 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.
> 
> *
>
> 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: -0002-3636-5939
>
>
>
> ___
> GOAL mailing 
> listGOAL@eprints.orghttp://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
>
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> 

Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[William Gunn]

On the infrastructure point, I think we need to be clear what we consider
to be infrastructure, and also what we think must be a public good vs.
something which we are ok with business models being developed around. Not
to make too much of the "roads and bridges" analogy, but I do fear we'll
just end up talking past one another and not make the progress that is
needed on this critical topic of infrastructure if we don't actually mean
the same thing when we say the word.

Right now, the way I think about it is that the identifiers and resolvers
and standards that allow you to point from one object to another and to
reuse an object in another place are infrastructure, but the things and
places themselves aren't infrastructure. A road is infrastructure but a
shop on the side of the road isn't, likewise a DOI is infrastructure, but
the repository which holds the document identified by the DOI isn't. The
pipes which deliver the water to your home are infrastructure, but the
water itself isn't. Water is considered a public good, but it's also sold
for a obscene markup by massive corporations, precisely because consumers
feel value has been added through distribution, filtering, and marketing.
Hmm... sound familiar? Open source software is a public good, but IDEs and
hosting and SLAs and support and stuff are may not be.

This is just the way I'm currently thinking about it - not any sort of
official company position - but if someone has a different idea about
infrastructure, let's hear it, please, so we can mean the same thing and
move this important conversation forward.




(ps: it's worth thinking about how user communities fit in with this. For
example, even if you could fork Mendeley, you couldn't fork our community
of users. This shows to me the value of a healthy ecosystem of apps and why
commercial players shouldn't be feared in the services space - if Mendeley
starts doing bad stuff, people will go use Zotero or Papers or whatever
other tool they like. Different economics entirely from selling access to
unique content.)


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

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Peter Murray-Rust  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Éric Archambault <
> eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote:
>
>> Isidro
>>
>> Not so sure. Two weeks ago while visiting university libraries in Europe
>> I saw that many of them are switching/considering to switch to their CRIS
>> instead of continuing to rely on their traditional repositories and the
>> mostly open source software. We'll have to see how far it goes but the rise
>> of national research assessment exercises and national OA mandates, there
>> is growing pressure to consolidate research data and expect Elsevier,
>> Holtzbrinck (->Digital Science->Symplectic), and Thomson Reuters (and
>> whomever acquires the IP & Science unit - which the rumor mill suggests
>> could be acquired by BC Partners, itself Holtzbrinck's partner in Springer
>> Nature - thus possibly more consolidation on the way) to increase their
>> stronghold on research data and research intelligence.
>>
>> Only fools think we are witnessing an opening of research knowledge
>> dissemination. The winners of open data and open access will be large
>> corporates concerns. Research is big business and there are huge economies
>> of scale in that industry, just as in so many others. Consolidation is the
>> name of the game, and amateur bricolage solutions are giving way to
>> corporate professional solutions, whether we like it or not.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>> Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
>> President and CEO | Président-directeur général
>> Science-Metrix & 1science
>>
>> T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
>> C. 1.514.518.0823
>> F. 1.514.495.6523
>>
>>
>>
> Completely agree with Eric. It's the increasing privatizing of academic
> Infrastructure that terrifies me. Geoff Bilder has also cogently argued
> this.
>
> Open (whether Green or Gold) is almost irrelevant if the material is held
> in non-discoverable fragmented repos. A commercial "solution" - TR,
> Elsevier, DigitalScience will effectively lock in discovery and access. The
> primary value of CC-BY open is that you can fork it. You can't fork Green.
> You can't fork academia.edu or Researchgate. You can't fork Mendeley
> (whose contents are "open" in name but not forkable in practice).
>
> My prediction is that DigitalScience and Elsevier will compete to manage
> university repos. What do repos cost? Peter Suber said 1.5 - 5 FTE/year.
> Multiply across UK (*150) and you get ca 400 FTEs. cost this at 100K real
> costs (e.g. RC costing) and you get 40 Million GBP. And that's for 5% of
> output. Suppose Digisevier goes to VCs or HEFCE or JISC and offers to do it
> for half and allow those valuable library staff to be "repurposed".
>
> We must build our own Open infrastructure. It's a matter of crisis. If we
> don't do it in the next 12 months it will be too late.
>
> There is enough Open 

Re: [GOAL] BLOG: Press embargoes – a threat from the shadows

[Florence Piron]

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 :



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.




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.



*

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: -0002-3636-5939


___
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] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Éric Archambault]

Should read Holtzbrincksevier, not Digisevier.

;-)

Eric Archambault
1science.com
Science-Metrix.com
+1-514-495-6505 x111

On May 20, 2016, at 07:51, Peter Murray-Rust 
> wrote:



On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Éric Archambault 
>
 wrote:
Isidro

Not so sure. Two weeks ago while visiting university libraries in Europe I saw 
that many of them are switching/considering to switch to their CRIS instead of 
continuing to rely on their traditional repositories and the mostly open source 
software. We'll have to see how far it goes but the rise of national research 
assessment exercises and national OA mandates, there is growing pressure to 
consolidate research data and expect Elsevier, Holtzbrinck (->Digital 
Science->Symplectic), and Thomson Reuters (and whomever acquires the IP & 
Science unit - which the rumor mill suggests could be acquired by BC Partners, 
itself Holtzbrinck's partner in Springer Nature - thus possibly more 
consolidation on the way) to increase their stronghold on research data and 
research intelligence.

Only fools think we are witnessing an opening of research knowledge 
dissemination. The winners of open data and open access will be large 
corporates concerns. Research is big business and there are huge economies of 
scale in that industry, just as in so many others. Consolidation is the name of 
the game, and amateur bricolage solutions are giving way to corporate 
professional solutions, whether we like it or not.

Eric


Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
President and CEO | Président-directeur général
Science-Metrix & 1science

T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
C. 1.514.518.0823
F. 1.514.495.6523



Completely agree with Eric. It's the increasing privatizing of academic 
Infrastructure that terrifies me. Geoff Bilder has also cogently argued this.

Open (whether Green or Gold) is almost irrelevant if the material is held in 
non-discoverable fragmented repos. A commercial "solution" - TR, Elsevier, 
DigitalScience will effectively lock in discovery and access. The primary value 
of CC-BY open is that you can fork it. You can't fork Green. You can't fork 
academia.edu or Researchgate. You can't fork Mendeley 
(whose contents are "open" in name but not forkable in practice).

My prediction is that DigitalScience and Elsevier will compete to manage 
university repos. What do repos cost? Peter Suber said 1.5 - 5 FTE/year. 
Multiply across UK (*150) and you get ca 400 FTEs. cost this at 100K real costs 
(e.g. RC costing) and you get 40 Million GBP. And that's for 5% of output. 
Suppose Digisevier goes to VCs or HEFCE or JISC and offers to do it for half 
and allow those valuable library staff to be "repurposed".

We must build our own Open infrastructure. It's a matter of crisis. If we don't 
do it in the next 12 months it will be too late.

There is enough Open technology to do it. If Universities, Funders, Libraries 
scholars and citizens get up and shout for Open infrastructure we can pool 
resources and do it. If we out-source our thinking and planning to Digisevier 
we shall be sidelined within 5 years.



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

Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Éric Archambault <
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote:

> Isidro
>
> Not so sure. Two weeks ago while visiting university libraries in Europe I
> saw that many of them are switching/considering to switch to their CRIS
> instead of continuing to rely on their traditional repositories and the
> mostly open source software. We'll have to see how far it goes but the rise
> of national research assessment exercises and national OA mandates, there
> is growing pressure to consolidate research data and expect Elsevier,
> Holtzbrinck (->Digital Science->Symplectic), and Thomson Reuters (and
> whomever acquires the IP & Science unit - which the rumor mill suggests
> could be acquired by BC Partners, itself Holtzbrinck's partner in Springer
> Nature - thus possibly more consolidation on the way) to increase their
> stronghold on research data and research intelligence.
>
> Only fools think we are witnessing an opening of research knowledge
> dissemination. The winners of open data and open access will be large
> corporates concerns. Research is big business and there are huge economies
> of scale in that industry, just as in so many others. Consolidation is the
> name of the game, and amateur bricolage solutions are giving way to
> corporate professional solutions, whether we like it or not.
>
> Eric
>
>
> Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
> President and CEO | Président-directeur général
> Science-Metrix & 1science
>
> T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
> C. 1.514.518.0823
> F. 1.514.495.6523
>
>
>
Completely agree with Eric. It's the increasing privatizing of academic
Infrastructure that terrifies me. Geoff Bilder has also cogently argued
this.

Open (whether Green or Gold) is almost irrelevant if the material is held
in non-discoverable fragmented repos. A commercial "solution" - TR,
Elsevier, DigitalScience will effectively lock in discovery and access. The
primary value of CC-BY open is that you can fork it. You can't fork Green.
You can't fork academia.edu or Researchgate. You can't fork Mendeley (whose
contents are "open" in name but not forkable in practice).

My prediction is that DigitalScience and Elsevier will compete to manage
university repos. What do repos cost? Peter Suber said 1.5 - 5 FTE/year.
Multiply across UK (*150) and you get ca 400 FTEs. cost this at 100K real
costs (e.g. RC costing) and you get 40 Million GBP. And that's for 5% of
output. Suppose Digisevier goes to VCs or HEFCE or JISC and offers to do it
for half and allow those valuable library staff to be "repurposed".

We must build our own Open infrastructure. It's a matter of crisis. If we
don't do it in the next 12 months it will be too late.

There is enough Open technology to do it. If Universities, Funders,
Libraries scholars and citizens get up and shout for Open infrastructure we
can pool resources and do it. If we out-source our thinking and planning to
Digisevier we shall be sidelined within 5 years.



-- 
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] BLOG: Press embargoes – a threat from the shadows

[Danny Kingsley]

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.




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.



*

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: -0002-3636-5939

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

Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

[Éric Archambault]

Stevan – my answers are in the text.

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Stevan Harnad
Sent: May 18, 2016 6:30 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

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.

-->So your suggestion for us is what? Close the company now and all the staff 
join a university and we would finally achieve the level of nobility and 
disinterestedness that all good humans should aim for? La noblesse publique! Or 
is it to develop a product that is so stupid that no one will buy it, to close 
the shop, then repeat same until we have been consigned to oblivion? Are you 
suggesting that companies leave everything that is university-related to 
universities? And that we also leave everything governmental to government 
employees? Perhaps we should also leave customers to barter among themselves? 
Yes, I know, the world would be so happy without these greedy entrepreneurs, 
there would be no profit taking, and we would obtain a perfect distribution of 
wealth. Dream on.

Like most of the people who completed a Ph.D. I seriously considered going into 
academia but for a variety of reason life decided differently. So what do we do 
when we have a drive to change the world? We find a job at Google that you seem 
to admire so much that you always promote as a solution for every ill created 
by companies just equally greedy but who are not advertising businesses. We 
need a world more complex than the choice between being noble academics or 
being employed at virtuous Google. I know I’m not noble, but I feel no shame 
getting my hand dirty working in a private corporation. We also play a part in 
making this world work. Evil certainly is present in business, but it is not 
entirely absent from academia even if academia has way more checks and balances 
to keep this low.

The economics of small firms is tough, real tough, I know something about it 
after 15 years running Science-Metrix. We are squeezed by large entities that 
have economies of scale that make us extremely inefficient in comparison. I am 
so constantly aware of it that one day I’d like to call upon Thomas Piketty to 
jointly write a book showing that rate of scale return in countries is 
persistently greater than that associated with creativity and flexibility and 
this leads “naturally” to concentration in industry. Also, as small firms, we 
are also frequently competing against noble academics who triple dip with their 
salaries, their research grants and generating some non-taxable research income 
to top it all up. Of course, we are the greedy ones, we the entrepreneurs, in 
contrast to these disinterested academics for whom money doesn’t count and for 
whom profiteering is such a filth. In case there is a doubt here, yes I am 
sarcastic. Like many entrepreneurs, I work nearly every day of the week, from 
dusk to long after dawn and my son ask my wife when we’ll have a normal life. I 
didn’t start 1science to sell it up to Elsevier, but I would think one could 
understand if one day I ran out of steam I ended up doing so. Many 
entrepreneurs are like farmers, the only money they have is in the value of 
their enterprise, so selling is not a shame, it’s a pension scheme.

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.

--> Now obviously you don’t have much admiration for our work if your sense 
that the work done by the 20 employees at 1science and the 25 at Science-Metrix 
can be done by a few bright students in computer science. We are a diverse team 
of proud professionals. I have three degrees in science, technology and 
society, studying innovation and science policy as core interest. Surely that 
must have a bit of value whilst driving a team that develops products that seek 
to provide benefits to users and create overall public returns on investments. 
Plus my twenty years on the work market including the last fifteen running a 
successful business which despite being so relatively minuscule is seen as such 
as a threat by companies that have revenues more than 1000 times