Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge

[Thomas Krichel]

  brent...@uliege.be writes

> In other words - and even if we restrict our thinking to COVID-19 -
> what humankind needs urgently NOW, is an open access to all the
> relevant research literature in a much wider domain than just that
> of this virus.  Very simply, to all the scholarly literature.

  In practice, I doubt that access to current research is such a big
  issue "NOW" as libraries and open access advocates make it appear to
  be. The average academic only reads about one hour a week.  In most
  cases, if you know that a paper exist and who the author is, you can
  contact the author to get the paper. Most authors will comply because
  they crave citations. The open access situation will improve anyway
  as the virus crises in the long run will leave institutions too weak
  to afford the journal subscription folly. 

  There are two other important issues. One is the issue of older
  literature. Its authors are not reachable. JSTOR have locked it up
  behind paywall. They don't get the abuse here that Elsevier gets. A
  fairer spread of abuse would be welcome ;-) We need better archiving
  procedures, and for the RePEc world I'm working on that. 
  
  The other is the problem to stay current with the literature. I mean
  the "know that a paper exist and who the author is" part.
  Fortunately for the biomedical world, it has PubMed and it has me.
  Based on PubMed, I have created "bims: Biomed News"
  http://biomed.news, to address this issue. It's an expertise-sharing
  system powered by human selectors who are aided by sophisticated use
  of machine learning.
 

-- 

  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

Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge

[Thomas Krichel]

  Jean-Claude Guédon writes

> The right way to go is OA free for authors and for readers, which means that
> it must be subsidized. But that is all right because scientific research is
> subsidized and scientific communication is an integral part of scientific
> research (and it costs only 1% of the rest of research).

  Research is done to generate visibility for the researcher. As such it
  has advertising value. Therefore OA is the right way to organise it.

  At some stage, universities and other research intensive institutions
  will release that visibility is not only gained from doing but also
  from storing, organising, and reviewing it. Libraries ought to have
  pressed that case a long time ago.

-- 

  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

Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge

[Thomas Krichel]

  Sarven Capadisli writes

> Does the "the right way" to contribute to scientific communication in
> context of OA require the use of (non- or for-profit) third-party
> services as opposed to self-publishing?

  Yes, it does

> If so, why?

  because there needs to be persistency to the published output that a
  person can not provide. However that persistency layer could be
  constructed in such a way that it cost way less than what is paid,
  mainly by libraries, to keep the current system going.  I'm
  currently working on building a persistency layer for RePEc. It's
  work funded with a 3000 Euro grant by the French central bank 
  foundation for economic research.

-- 

  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] COVID-19 and access to knowledge: recommending a positive approach

[Heather Morrison]

COVID-19 is a pandemic that is in the process of infecting and killing many 
people around the world. The immediate priority needs to be slowing the spread, 
understanding the virus, finding treatments and a vaccine.

COVID-19 is also an opportune case study in areas relating to open access and 
sharing of knowledge. I have already shared some approaches; here are a few 
more thoughts.

Treatments and vaccines are already under development. This is a great time to 
point out that we would all benefit more if these are not patented. If everyone 
in another country gets vaccinated, we don't need to worry about their citizens 
infecting ours. If another country gets their local outbreak under control, 
this reduces the risk for us.

One type of dangerous closure in this situation is when people suppress 
information about the illness, probably for such reasons as to save face or to 
avoid economic problems. This appears to have happened with more than one 
government, and anecdotally I have heard that hospitals are suppressing medical 
professionals' information about lack of supplies and equipment. There are 
approaches to improve this situation arising from the open government movement, 
which is meant to include protection for whistleblowers. Can we get better at 
making it easy for people to decide to share information openly?

Is the glass half empty or half full? We can point out that about half the 
PubMed articles on coronavirus are freely available, laud this as positive, and 
encourage people to free up the other half. I think this approach would be more 
likely to win converts to OA and get resources freed up than lamenting about 
the glass being half full, or worse, ignoring the fact that it's half full and 
lamenting the glass being empty.

my two bits,


Dr. Heather Morrison

Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa / 
Cross-appointed to communication

Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa

Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight 
Project

sustainingknowledgecommons.org

heather.morri...@uottawa.ca

https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706

[On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

Lovely response, Peter.

And, yes, let us remember the example set by Latin America, and in 
particular by Amelica. They are now the true leaders of open access. 
Incidentally, everyone should read this: 
https://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/347. It is an 
important  article co-authored by Dominique Babini and Humberto Debat.


Jean-Claude Guédon

On 2020-03-31 11:59 a.m., Peter Murray-Rust wrote:



On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 4:21 PM Jean-Claude Guédon 
> wrote:



One last note: OA will succeed, despite what Stevan says. Let us
shape OA the right way, and certainly not in the way supported by
Elsevier: in their view, OA is a "charitable" gesture that is
applied only in extreme cases. The reality is that the Great
Conversation of science constantly needs it.

We need clear messages. Open by default. Friction costs resources and 
lives.


I don't think people realise how serious friction is in the modern world.
If you have to write to an author the friction is absolute.
If you have to read a licence the friction is absolute.
If you have to work out where to find the full content is from a 
landing page the friction is large.

If you have to parse PDFs or publisher HTML the friction is massive
If you have to copy text the friction is absolute.
If you don't know what you are getting , that's friction.
If you get Dublin-Core or Highwire metadata , it's out of date, 
undocumented, ambiguous and serious friction.

If you crawl UK universities for theses that's Infinite friction.
If you crawl US universities for theses that's even worse than infinite.


As an example we are working on design and use of masks for COVID-19 
and actually supporting their manufacture. The best known one is N95. 
I immediately go to Wikidata. This disambiguates all other "N95" so we 
have a precise ontological object which machines can compute in 
SPARQL. Wikipedia will be as correct and as uptodate as any other 
authority. That's where the modern knowledge world is. By using 
Wikidata I reduce almost all friction.


See our tutorial example at:
https://github.com/petermr/openVirus/blob/master/examples/n95/OVERVIEW.md
where over 300 papers were analysed in great detail in 5 minutes. 
Volunteers welcome.


My sources are now:
EuropePMC, which mirrors PMC and adds to it.
biorxiv/medrxiv which require me to write serious scrapers so huge 
friction but our group will try to do it
Redalyc (Mexico) really excited about this as it's a real example of 
no fees - that Latin America has pioneered so well. LatA

HAL (FR) frictionless

In the UK can I use CORE? "Please register to receive an API key ". I 
don't use services that require APIs so I haven't used CORE. Why is 
this necessary? I bet it's to do with IP somewhere. Also CORE is 
non-commercial. So, slightly regretfully, I shan't use CORE.


The right way to go is OA free for authors and for readers, which
means that it must be subsidized. But that is all right because
scientific research is subsidized and scientific communication is
an integral part of scientific research (and it costs only 1% of
the rest of research).


Yes. I suggest we humbly approach LatAm and other parts of the Global 
South where we may learn what the real purpose of publishing is. It's 
so people can READ things, whereas megapub451 builds systems to stop 
people reading.


Let's glory the reader. Let's assess scholarship by how many citizens 
OUTSIDE academia read our work. Because there are a huge number of 
smart educated people throughout the world who are  - literally - 
killed  by the present system.


"When I am dead, I hope it may be said. His sins were scarlet, but his 
books were read." - Hilaire Belloc.


https://github.com/petermr/openVirus - we now have a wiki where you 
can leave messages (I think)





--
"I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I 
sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same".


Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. 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] COVID-19 and access to knowledge

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

The first point, of course, is that if the "tenured saint" is not 
available, the greedy devil is not the only behavioural alternative.


Neither is sainthood, so to speak, dependent upon tenure. Tenure was 
invented to protect free expression. It might be useful to remind 
everyone that many people looking for tenure, do so precisely for this 
reason, while knowing that, given their level of education and 
(presumably) competence, they could probably trade more money for less 
freedom.


And this is not theory. Creating an Elsevier Hub for research on the 
coronavirus is nothing more than a fig leaf for that company. Research 
is not particularly helped by opening up only what someone thinks is 
good for a particular field of research, while preserving the revenue 
stream in other areas of knowledge. Doing so is assuming that fields of 
knowledge do not overlap to some extent, and that one already knows the 
broad contours of the solutions, however unexpected they may be. Both 
claims are broadly incomplete, at best.


It would be amusing to know whether, in the Elsevier boardrooms, issues 
arose such as : "if we open access too much, we are going to lose 
significant revenue", or "there is threshold beyond which we lose both 
control and revenue", etc.


Jean-Claude Guédon

On 2020-03-31 12:35 p.m., Éric Archambault wrote:

Peter, Stevan, and Jean-Claude,

Sorry if my life's circumstances led me to become a greedy devil 
instead of a tenured saint.


That said, I don't think it's right to assume that we are working out 
of self-interest to build the Coronavirus Research Hub - as early as 
January individuals at Elsevier and people here in my team sought to 
do our bit to make information discoverable. These people are like me, 
we live outside a Manichean world and as we decided to do our part 
with the tools at our disposal even if that didn't solve all the 
issues in the world we live in. There are people in these 
organizations and insulting us at the personal level doesn't help 
creating the sense of community we all need to fight this bug. There 
is time for theory, other for actions.


Cordially

Éric


*From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org  on behalf 
of Jean-Claude Guédon 

*Sent:* March 31, 2020 11:17 AM
*To:* goal@eprints.org 
*Subject:* Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge
I also strongly agree with Peter. As for Éric Archambault, it is 
simply a pity to see greed trump principles.


One last note: OA will succeed, despite what Stevan says. Let us shape 
OA the right way, and certainly not in the way supported by Elsevier: 
in their view, OA is a "charitable" gesture that is applied only in 
extreme cases. The reality is that the Great Conversation of science 
constantly needs it.


The right way to go is OA free for authors and for readers, which 
means that it must be subsidized. But that is all right because 
scientific research is subsidized and scientific communication is an 
integral part of scientific research (and it costs only 1% of the rest 
of research).


Jean-Claude Guédon

Le 31/03/2020 à 08:28, Stevan Harnad a écrit :

I agree with Peter.

Eric has gone over to the devil.

This is a shameful time for token measures.

Covid-19 is a litmus test for disclosing who are going all out for 
the public good and who are in it for themselves.


OA used to be for the sake of scientific and scholarly research -- an 
abstraction, and it did not succeed.


Here it’s about survival.

Stevan Harnad
Editor,Animal Sentience 

Professor of Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréal 

Adjunct Professor of Cognitive Science, McGill University 

Emeritus Professor of Cognitive Science, University of Southampton 



On Mar 30, 2020, at 6:14 PM, Peter Murray-Rust > wrote:


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:48 PM Éric Archambault 
> wrote:



Peter,

Two months ago, that is, on January 27, we started work at
Elsevier to make available as much as possible of the scholarly
literature on coronavirus research easily discoverable and
freely accessible.

At 1science, we created the 

Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge

[Peter Murray-Rust]

Sorry that this has become confrontational, but I think it's important that
we are not drawn into this idea that Elsevier is part of a community. It is
not. It is a ruthless commercial organization which, over the 15 years I
have had to deal with it has tried every trick in the book to make it
difficult or impossible to use scientific knowledge as we would wish.
Lobbying governments to make science closed, obfuscating permissions,
bullying graduate students, publishing fake journals, hiring Dezenhall to
discredit the Open Access movement, lobbying against Text and Data Mining
unless they control it, keeping 50-year old paywalls up, making researchers
take down papers from repositories.
I can provide documentation for all my assertions, but I have more
important things to do.

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 5:38 PM Éric Archambault <
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote:

> Peter, ...
>
>  There are people in these organizations and insulting us at the personal
> level doesn't help creating the sense of community we all need to fight
> this bug. There is time for theory, other for actions.
>

I did not insult you. I was careful to avoid ad hominem remarks. However in
reverse I have been publicly insulted some years back on Twitter by an
Elsevier Director who called me "pompous" and that his role was to take me
down a peg.

Communities exist by mutual trust, mutual respect and where necessary being
humble enough to listen to others and adopt their ideas.  Elsevier
staff/directors have frequently attempted to imply they are our friends,
they are there to help, they are part of a community. They are not. They
are as much a part of my community as my energy provider or car insurance.

It is true that we need to work as a community to tackle COVID-19. We are
doing that. Elsevier are not. As an example I take the article:
>>>

A serological survey on viral haemorrhagic fevers in liberia
*Author: *

J. Knobloch,E.J. Albiez,H. Schmitz
*Publication: *

Annales de l'Institut Pasteur. Virologie
*Publisher:*

Elsevier
*Date:*

1982
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0769-2617(82)80028-2

Copyright © 1982 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS
<<<

This paper, 38 years old gave a clear prediction that Ebola could break out
in West Africa "Liberia should be included in the Ebola endemic zone". It
was paywalled by Elsevier and the Liberian government complained that if
they had known of its contents they cold have taken countermeasures. See NY
Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/opinion/yes-we-were-warned-about-ebola.html

This paper is key in understanding how signals for viral epidemics can
occur in the literature years before the outbreak (34 years in fact). I am
sure there are similar signals about COVID in the scientific literature
hidden behind paywalls.  Yet the Ebola paper STILL costs 35 USD , and
Elsevier still charge exorbitantly for its use in teaching. Put it into
RightsLink which will charge you 300 USD as an academic for permission to
teach 100 students and 500 if you are an NGO in a French country. This is
not "community".

If you wish to be seen as part of a community you have to earn it. After 25
years of active opposition to everything the Open community is trying to
do, that will be very hard.

As a minimum I would expect you to make every article on every subject on
every date openly accessible to the whole world for any purpose. 50 million
or whatever you control. Not "while the epidemic lasts" (as you did for
Ebola and closed articles),

But for ever.

That would take courage and I'd applaud. But nothing less will do.

Peter.


>
-- 
"I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign
with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same".

Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. 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

Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge

[Sarven Capadisli]

Does the "the right way" to contribute to scientific communication in
context of OA require the use of (non- or for-profit) third-party
services as opposed to self-publishing? If so, why?

-Sarven
https://csarven.ca/#i

On 31/03/2020 17.17, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:
> I also strongly agree with Peter. As for Éric Archambault, it is simply
> a pity to see greed trump principles.
> 
> One last note: OA will succeed, despite what Stevan says. Let us shape
> OA the right way, and certainly not in the way supported by Elsevier: in
> their view, OA is a "charitable" gesture that is applied only in extreme
> cases. The reality is that the Great Conversation of science constantly
> needs it.
> 
> The right way to go is OA free for authors and for readers, which means
> that it must be subsidized. But that is all right because scientific
> research is subsidized and scientific communication is an integral part
> of scientific research (and it costs only 1% of the rest of research).
> 
> Jean-Claude Guédon
> 
> Le 31/03/2020 à 08:28, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
>> I agree with Peter. 
>>
>> Eric has gone over to the devil. 
>>
>> This is a shameful time for token measures.
>>
>> Covid-19 is a litmus test for disclosing who are going all out for the
>> public good and who are in it for themselves. 
>>
>> OA used to be for the sake of scientific and scholarly research -- an
>> abstraction, and it did not succeed. 
>>
>> Here it’s about survival.
>>
>> Stevan Harnad
>> Editor,Animal Sentience
>> 
>> Professor of Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréal
>> 
>> Adjunct Professor of Cognitive Science, McGill University
>> 
>> Emeritus Professor of Cognitive Science, University of Southampton
>> 
>>
>>> On Mar 30, 2020, at 6:14 PM, Peter Murray-Rust >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:48 PM Éric Archambault
>>> >> > wrote:
>>>
 Peter,

 Two months ago, that is, on January 27, we started work at
 Elsevier to make available as much as possible of the scholarly
 literature on coronavirus research easily discoverable and
 freely accessible.

 At 1science, we created the Coronavirus Research Hub:

>>> Why does Elsevier not simply open all its content and let the
>>> scientific , medical and citizen community decide what they want?
>>> Elsevier can't guess what we want.
>>>
>>> The Royal Society has done this. Elsevier can afford to do it. 

 If we can help further, please let us know, we have been on it
 for two months and we continue to evaluate options to help the
 research community.

>>> My colleague, a software developer, working for free on openVirus
>>> software,  is spending most of his time working making masks in
>>> Cambridge Makespace to ship to Addenbrooke's hospital. When he goes
>>> to the literature to find literature on masks, their efficacy and use
>>> and construction he finds paywall after paywall after paywall after
>>> paywall  Some are 1-page notes behind a 36 USD Elsevier paywall. 
>>>
>>> Do not tell us what we want. let us choose freely.
>>>
>>> Peter Murray-Rust
>>>
>>> Volunteer fighting for free scientific knowledge in a world crisis.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract
>>> I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the
>>> same".
>>>
>>> Peter Murray-Rust
>>> Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
>>> Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
> 


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

Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge

[brentier]

I am very sorry, but « everyone concerned at Elsevier from the top to the 
bottom and the bottom to the top » doesn’t seem to understand what research on 
a virus is about.

In order to be innovative and creative, researchers working on a specific virus 
need of course access to all the existing literature on this virus but also to 
all the existing literature on all the other viruses as well as on the 
immunological mechanisms induced and on the molecular biology of the cells this 
virus infects. Serendipity is at that price.
Many other areas must also be widely open such as epidemiology, sociology, 
psychology, you name it.

In other words - and even if we restrict our thinking to COVID-19 - what 
humankind needs urgently NOW, is an open access to all the relevant research 
literature in a much wider domain than just that of this virus. 
Very simply, to all the scholarly literature. 

This is the strong message that the Open Access movement (Diamond, free to 
write, free to read) has been propagating for two decades (before being 
perverted by the publishers’ highjacking of the Gold OA principle). Now that 
tens of thousands of people are dying, this message is becoming dreadfully 
justified.

Bernard Rentier
Professor emeritus of Virology
University of Liège, Belgium

> Le 30 mars 2020 à 20:48, Éric Archambault 
>  a écrit :
> 
> 
> Peter,
>  
> Two months ago, that is, on January 27, we started work at Elsevier to make 
> available as much as possible of the scholarly literature on coronavirus 
> research easily discoverable and freely accessible.
>  
> At 1science, we created the Coronavirus Research Hub:
> 
> https://coronavirus.1science.com/search
>  
> This hub contains more than 36,000 bibliographic records from scholarly 
> journals on coronavirus research which we are harvesting from all around the 
> world. Like all papers in 1findr, they cover every fields of knowledge and 
> all language. We’re working continuously to expand the collection yet we are 
> concerned to keep it a tight collection to make the literature as relevant as 
> possible.
>  
> Of these, a full 20,000 articles are freely downloadable. Everyone concerned 
> at Elsevier from the top to the bottom, and the bottom to the top has work to 
> make all Elsevier coronavirus-related literature freely available. Elsevier 
> is not alone and many other publishers have unlocked their articles.
>  
> If we can help further, please let us know, we have been on it for two months 
> and we continue to evaluate options to help the research community.
>  
> Yours sincerely
>  
> Éric
>  
> Eric Archambault
> 
> Vice-Président | ELSEVIER | Vice-President
> Directeur général | 1science | General Manager
> 
> 3863 St-Laurent, suite 206  | Montréal, QC, Canada  | H2W 1Y1
> e.archamba...@elsevier.com
> +1.438.356.4619
> 
>  
> 
>  
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org  On Behalf Of Peter 
> Murray-Rust
> Sent: March 30, 2020 12:45 PM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
> Subject: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge
>  
> We've launched a site https://github.com/petermr/openVirus to search the 
> whole open literature for content  which could help tackle the pandemic. 
> We're looking for volunteers (tech, biblio/library, documenters to help).
>  
> Background
> =
> It's now clear that knowledge is one of the key tools in tackling this 
> COVID-19 epidemic, and also that citizens across the world are desperate for 
> knowledge. To address this some organizations are releasing restrictions on 
> all IP as long as the epidemic lasts + 1 year.
> https://opencovidpledge.org/
> 
> Immediate action is required to halt the COVID-19 Pandemic and treat 
> those it has affected. It is a practical and moral imperative that every 
> tool we have at our disposal be applied to develop and deploy 
> technologies on a massive scale without impediment.
> We therefore pledge to make all intellectual property under our control 
> available to any group or individual for use in ending the COVID-19 pandemic 
> and minimizing the impact of the disease, free of charge and without 
> encumbrances.
> 
> We will implement this pledge expeditiously in accordance with the rules and 
> regulations under which we operate.
> 
>  
> 
> The COVID-19 outbreak has drawn a minimal response from Scholarly publishing, 
> both commercial and academic (e.g. repositories). One publisher, The Royal 
> Society, has made ALL its publications freely accessible without restriction. 
> This is the minimum that makes any difference.
> The only other response I know of is CORD-19 dataset 
> (https://cset.georgetown.edu/covid-19-open-research-dataset-cord-19/) 
> 
> 
> CORD-19 contains 29,000 full-text articles with a wealth of information about 
> the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), the associated illness COVID-19, and 
> related viruses. The collection will be updated as new research is published 
> in peer-reviewed publications and archival 

Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge

[Nicolas Pettiaux]

Dear Mr Archambault,

As far as I consider, today it is rather clear : the solution to find 
ways to cure and protect the world from vaccine (not only the  
coronavirus that infect us today) will *only* come from novel ideas, 
that will be most probably found outside of the limited fiel of "corona 
research hub".

I consider that *every* knowledge related to medicine, biology, 
chemistry, mathematical modelling, physics, sociology, history, 
geography and probably many more fields must be released NOW to be 
usable with any automatic analysis.

Every action that prevent such actions is greedy. And their authors will 
be responsible of murders.
(many managers in proprietary publishers are for me the authors of such 
actions)

Best regards,

Nicolas Pettiaux

Le 2020-03-31 18:35, Éric Archambault a écrit :
> Peter, Stevan, and Jean-Claude,
> 
>  Sorry if my life's circumstances led me to become a greedy devil
> instead of a tenured saint.
> 
>  That said, I don't think it's right to assume that we are working out
> of self-interest to build the Coronavirus Research Hub - as early as
> January individuals at Elsevier and people here in my team sought to
> do our bit to make information discoverable. These people are like me,
> we live outside a Manichean world and as we decided to do our part
> with the tools at our disposal even if that didn't solve all the
> issues in the world we live in. There are people in these
> organizations and insulting us at the personal level doesn't help
> creating the sense of community we all need to fight this bug. There
> is time for theory, other for actions.
> 
>  Cordially
> 
>  Éric
> 


-- 
  Nicolas Pettiaux, pdh - nico...@pettiaux.be - gsm 0496 24 55 01

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

Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge

[Éric Archambault]

Peter, Stevan, and Jean-Claude,

Sorry if my life's circumstances led me to become a greedy devil instead of a 
tenured saint.

That said, I don't think it's right to assume that we are working out of 
self-interest to build the Coronavirus Research Hub - as early as January 
individuals at Elsevier and people here in my team sought to do our bit to make 
information discoverable. These people are like me, we live outside a Manichean 
world and as we decided to do our part with the tools at our disposal even if 
that didn't solve all the issues in the world we live in. There are people in 
these organizations and insulting us at the personal level doesn't help 
creating the sense of community we all need to fight this bug. There is time 
for theory, other for actions.

Cordially

Éric


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org  on behalf of 
Jean-Claude Guédon 
Sent: March 31, 2020 11:17 AM
To: goal@eprints.org 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge

I also strongly agree with Peter. As for Éric Archambault, it is simply a pity 
to see greed trump principles.

One last note: OA will succeed, despite what Stevan says. Let us shape OA the 
right way, and certainly not in the way supported by Elsevier: in their view, 
OA is a "charitable" gesture that is applied only in extreme cases. The reality 
is that the Great Conversation of science constantly needs it.

The right way to go is OA free for authors and for readers, which means that it 
must be subsidized. But that is all right because scientific research is 
subsidized and scientific communication is an integral part of scientific 
research (and it costs only 1% of the rest of research).

Jean-Claude Guédon

Le 31/03/2020 à 08:28, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
I agree with Peter.

Eric has gone over to the devil.

This is a shameful time for token measures.

Covid-19 is a litmus test for disclosing who are going all out for the public 
good and who are in it for themselves.

OA used to be for the sake of scientific and scholarly research -- an 
abstraction, and it did not succeed.

Here it’s about survival.

Stevan Harnad
Editor, Animal 
Sentience
Professor of Psychology, Université du Québec à 
Montréal
Adjunct Professor of Cognitive Science, McGill 
University
Emeritus Professor of Cognitive Science, University of 
Southampton

On Mar 30, 2020, at 6:14 PM, Peter Murray-Rust 
mailto:pm...@cam.ac.uk>> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:48 PM Éric Archambault 
mailto:eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com>>
 wrote:

Peter,

Two months ago, that is, on January 27, we started work at Elsevier to make 
available as much as possible of the scholarly literature on coronavirus 
research easily discoverable and freely accessible.

At 1science, we created the Coronavirus Research Hub:

Why does Elsevier not simply open all its content and let the scientific , 
medical and citizen community decide what they want? Elsevier can't guess what 
we want.

The Royal Society has done this. Elsevier can afford to do it.

If we can help further, please let us know, we have been on it for two months 
and we continue to evaluate options to help the research community.

My colleague, a software developer, working for free on openVirus software,  is 
spending most of his time working making masks in Cambridge Makespace to ship 
to Addenbrooke's hospital. When he goes to the literature to find literature on 
masks, their efficacy and use and construction he finds paywall after paywall 
after paywall after paywall  Some are 1-page notes behind a 36 USD Elsevier 
paywall.

Do not tell us what we want. let us choose freely.

Peter Murray-Rust

Volunteer fighting for free scientific knowledge in a world crisis.

--
"I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign 
with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same".

Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. 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

Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 4:21 PM Jean-Claude Guédon <
jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca> wrote:

>
> One last note: OA will succeed, despite what Stevan says. Let us shape OA
> the right way, and certainly not in the way supported by Elsevier: in their
> view, OA is a "charitable" gesture that is applied only in extreme cases.
> The reality is that the Great Conversation of science constantly needs it.
>

We need clear messages. Open by default. Friction costs resources and
lives.

I don't think people realise how serious friction is in the modern world.
If you have to write to an author the friction is absolute.
If you have to read a licence the friction is absolute.
If you have to work out where to find the full content is from a landing
page the friction is large.
If you have to parse PDFs or publisher HTML the friction is massive
If you have to copy text the friction is absolute.
If you don't know what you are getting , that's friction.
If you get Dublin-Core or Highwire metadata , it's out of date,
undocumented, ambiguous and serious friction.
If you crawl UK universities for theses that's Infinite friction.
If you crawl US universities for theses that's even worse than infinite.


As an example we are working on design and use of masks for COVID-19 and
actually supporting their manufacture. The best known one is N95. I
immediately go to Wikidata. This disambiguates all other "N95" so we have a
precise ontological object which machines can compute in SPARQL. Wikipedia
will be as correct and as uptodate as any other authority. That's where the
modern knowledge world is. By using Wikidata I reduce almost all friction.

See our tutorial example at:
https://github.com/petermr/openVirus/blob/master/examples/n95/OVERVIEW.md
where over 300 papers were analysed in great detail in 5 minutes.
Volunteers welcome.

My sources are now:
EuropePMC, which mirrors PMC and adds to it.
biorxiv/medrxiv which require me to write serious scrapers so huge friction
but our group will try to do it
Redalyc (Mexico) really excited about this as it's a real example of no
fees - that Latin America has pioneered so well. LatA
HAL (FR) frictionless

In the UK can I use CORE? "Please register to receive an API key ". I don't
use services that require APIs so I haven't used CORE. Why is this
necessary? I bet it's to do with IP somewhere. Also CORE is non-commercial.
So, slightly regretfully, I shan't use CORE.

The right way to go is OA free for authors and for readers, which means
> that it must be subsidized. But that is all right because scientific
> research is subsidized and scientific communication is an integral part of
> scientific research (and it costs only 1% of the rest of research).
>

Yes. I suggest we humbly approach LatAm and other parts of the Global South
where we may learn what the real purpose of publishing is. It's so people
can READ things, whereas megapub451 builds systems to stop people reading.

Let's glory the reader. Let's assess scholarship by how many citizens
OUTSIDE academia read our work. Because there are a huge number of smart
educated people throughout the world who are  - literally - killed  by the
present system.

"When I am dead, I hope it may be said. His sins were scarlet, but his
books were read." - Hilaire Belloc.

https://github.com/petermr/openVirus - we now have a wiki where you can
leave messages (I think)




-- 
"I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign
with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same".

Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. 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

Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

I also strongly agree with Peter. As for Éric Archambault, it is simply 
a pity to see greed trump principles.


One last note: OA will succeed, despite what Stevan says. Let us shape 
OA the right way, and certainly not in the way supported by Elsevier: in 
their view, OA is a "charitable" gesture that is applied only in extreme 
cases. The reality is that the Great Conversation of science constantly 
needs it.


The right way to go is OA free for authors and for readers, which means 
that it must be subsidized. But that is all right because scientific 
research is subsidized and scientific communication is an integral part 
of scientific research (and it costs only 1% of the rest of research).


Jean-Claude Guédon

Le 31/03/2020 à 08:28, Stevan Harnad a écrit :

I agree with Peter.

Eric has gone over to the devil.

This is a shameful time for token measures.

Covid-19 is a litmus test for disclosing who are going all out for the 
public good and who are in it for themselves.


OA used to be for the sake of scientific and scholarly research -- an 
abstraction, and it did not succeed.


Here it’s about survival.

Stevan Harnad
Editor,Animal Sentience 

Professor of Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréal 

Adjunct Professor of Cognitive Science, McGill University 

Emeritus Professor of Cognitive Science, University of Southampton 



On Mar 30, 2020, at 6:14 PM, Peter Murray-Rust > wrote:


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:48 PM Éric Archambault 
> wrote:



Peter,

Two months ago, that is, on January 27, we started work at
Elsevier to make available as much as possible of the scholarly
literature on coronavirus research easily discoverable and
freely accessible.

At 1science, we created the Coronavirus Research Hub:

Why does Elsevier not simply open all its content and let the 
scientific , medical and citizen community decide what they want? 
Elsevier can't guess what we want.


The Royal Society has done this. Elsevier can afford to do it.


If we can help further, please let us know, we have been on it
for two months and we continue to evaluate options to help the
research community.

My colleague, a software developer, working for free on openVirus 
software, is spending most of his time working making masks in 
Cambridge Makespace to ship to Addenbrooke's hospital. When he goes 
to the literature to find literature on masks, their efficacy and use 
and construction he finds paywall after paywall after paywall after 
paywall  Some are 1-page notes behind a 36 USD Elsevier paywall.


Do not tell us what we want. let us choose freely.

Peter Murray-Rust

Volunteer fighting for free scientific knowledge in a world crisis.

--
"I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract 
I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the 
same".


Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. 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

[GOAL] Coronavirus: OA progress and ideas for more

[Heather Morrison]

A PubMed search for "coronavirus" limited to the past 10 years then limited 
again to free full-text yields results of 55% free full-text. With no date 
limit, it's 46%.

This search will get at research on COVID and the next most relevant research, 
all the other coronaviruses (mers, sars, common cold), and will be helpful for 
researchers and medical practitioners anywhere.

China's early release of the COVID genetic code and even traditional publishers 
scrambling to make COVID resources free is demonstrating that people get at 
least some of the points of open access and open research.

It would be interesting to compare publisher responses today with earlier 
epidemics. If I recall correctly, there is a significant change from responding 
to pressure to proactively making resources free without OA pressure.

This is progress. It's not 100% OA but a lot more researchers and practitioners 
have free access to a lot more of our knowledge than was the case with the 2003 
Sars epidemic.

Further pressure might be helpful. Identification and analysis of the 45% 
PubMed results that are coronavirus but not free full-text would identify 
suitable targets for gentle pressure. Some such articles may have been written 
by authors covered by an OA policy. Such a results list would likely yield 
journal lists and individual articles, many of which could be deposited in 
repositories thanks to the efforts of green OA advocates.

Librarians and others working from home can send e-mails to authors and it 
should be possible to add items to repositories remotely. Publishers who are 
green not gold should ideally work with PMC and can also send e-mails to 
authors reminding them of the green policy.

Although research on coronavirus is urgent, university researchers who are also 
teachers are likely swamped due to a sudden shift to online teaching this 
semester. For this group, it might make sense to time communication after the 
semester ends.

Just some ideas...


Dr. Heather Morrison

Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa

Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa

Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight 
Project

sustainingknowledgecommons.org

heather.morri...@uottawa.ca

https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706

[On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:48 PM Éric Archambault <
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote:

> Peter,
>
>
>
> Two months ago, that is, on January 27, we started work at Elsevier to
> make available as much as possible of the scholarly literature on
> coronavirus research easily discoverable and freely accessible.
>
>
>
> At 1science, we created the Coronavirus Research Hub:
>
> Why does Elsevier not simply open all its content and let the scientific ,
medical and citizen community decide what they want? Elsevier can't guess
what we want.

The Royal Society has done this. Elsevier can afford to do it.


>
>
If we can help further, please let us know, we have been on it for two
> months and we continue to evaluate options to help the research community.
>
>
My colleague, a software developer, working for free on openVirus
software,  is spending most of his time working making masks in Cambridge
Makespace to ship to Addenbrooke's hospital. When he goes to the literature
to find literature on masks, their efficacy and use and construction he
finds paywall after paywall after paywall after paywall  Some are
1-page notes behind a 36 USD Elsevier paywall.

Do not tell us what we want. let us choose freely.

Peter Murray-Rust

Volunteer fighting for free scientific knowledge in a world crisias.


-- 
"I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign
with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same".

Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. 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