Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[David Prosser]

I also wish that Kathleen had answered this part of my question: “How many 
members of COAR are also members of cOAlition S?"

There is a public list of COAR members and a public list of signatories to Plan 
S.  I would have thought that if somebody want to know the level of overlap 
they could work it for themselves...

David




From: goal-boun...@eprints.org  on behalf of Richard 
Poynder 
Sent: 20 April 2020 17:40
To: 'Glenn Hampson' ; 'Kathleen Shearer' 
; richard.poyn...@btinternet.com 
; scholc...@lists.ala.org 
; 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' 

Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
Communications: A Call for Action


Thanks for this Glenn, the fact that these two initiatives have emerged within 
days of each other without any apparent co-ordination (presumably because 
neither knew about the other one?) makes me wonder whether a new spirit of 
collaboration and cohesiveness is indeed emerging.



I also wonder about the compatibility of the two groups. The Call for Action 
document appears to be a scholar-led initiative expressing concern about the 
role that what are referred to as the oligopolists are playing in the scholarly 
publishing space. For instance, it states, “For decades, commercial companies 
in the academic publishing sector have been carrying out portfolio building 
strategies based on mergers and acquisitions of large companies as well as 
buying up small publishers or journals. The result of this has been a 
concentration of players in the sector, which today is dominated by a small 
number of companies who own thousands of journals and dozens of presses.”



OSI appears to have been receiving funding from precisely these kind of 
companies, including legacy publishers and other for-profit organisations 
(http://osiglobal.org/sponsors/). In fact, in 2019 it seems to have received 
funding only from for-profit organisations. Or am I misreading? I realise the 
sums concerned are small, but it does make me wonder whether OSI can really do 
meaningful business with the authors of the Call to Action.



I realise you were anticipating “a few boo birds” on mailing lists on the 
announcement of Plan A 
(https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/osi2016-25/J9dJdeLyIng/0ryVgZ78AgAJ) , 
and perhaps you will view me as one of those boo birds. However I do wish both 
initiatives all the very best and I hope something good can come of them. My 
main concern is that no one has yet solved the collective action problem.



I also wish that Kathleen had answered this part of my question: “How many 
members of COAR are also members of cOAlition S?"



Richard Poynder





From: Glenn Hampson 
Sent: 20 April 2020 16:05
To: 'Kathleen Shearer' ; 
richard.poyn...@btinternet.com; scholc...@lists.ala.org; 'Global Open Access 
List (Successor of AmSci)' 
Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: 
A Call for Action



Hi Kathleen, Richard,

Can I suggest another way to look at these questions? First some background. As 
you know, the Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) is launching Plan A today 
(http://plan-a.world). Plan A is OSI’s 2020-25 action plan, representing five 
years of deep thinking that OSI participants have invested in the many 
questions related to the future of scholarly communication reform.

Plan A looks at the “bibliodiversity” challenge a little differently. For OSI, 
diversity has also meant inclusion---listening to everyone’s ideas (including 
publishers), valuing everyone’s input, trying to develop a complete 
understanding of the scholarly communication landscape, and trying to reach a 
point where we can work together on common ground toward goals that serve all 
of us.

We have found over the course of our work that most everyone in the scholarly 
communication community recognizes the same challenges on the road ahead, we 
all have the same needs, and we all suffer from the same inability to see the 
full picture ourselves and to make change by ourselves. Fulfilling the vision 
of bibliodiversity will mean valuing everyone’s perspective of and contribution 
to the scholarly communication system, and truly working together across our 
real and perceived divides to achieve, together, what is in the best interest 
of research and society.

OSI’s common ground paper provides a deeper look at this common ground and some 
of the approaches suggested by OSI participants. The summary version will be 
published soon by Emerald Open; for now, the full-length version is available 
under the resources tab of the Plan A website.

My short answer to your questions, Richard, about practical matters like how 
all this change is going to transpire and through what mechanisms, is that for 
us, this needs to be decided by Plan A signatories (and will be). This effort 
is designed to tie into UNESCO’s ongoing open science roadmap work (which OSI 
is helping with). UNESCO’s plan will 

Re: [GOAL] DOAJ: handmaiden to despots? or, OA, let's talk

[David Prosser]

I was on the Advisory Board at the time and so my comments may be discounted.

But my feeling is that the history of the DOAJ over the past few years has been 
that it has responded positively to very robust criticism, worked closely with 
the wider community in an interactive and engaged way to address such 
criticism, and emerged stronger as a result.

Any suggestion that the DOAJ has regarded 'all feedback / critique as anti-open 
access' is, in my view, hugely wide of the mark.

David



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org  on behalf of Guédon 
Jean-Claude 
Sent: 21 August 2019 22:18
To: goal@eprints.org 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] DOAJ: handmaiden to despots? or, OA, let's talk

"A habit of viewing all feedback / critique as anti-open access? Can such a 
statement be convincingly demonstrated?  I strongly doubt it...

"...reacting defensively, as if every critic were an enemy ..."

Really? Every critic? Now, now...

IMHO, robust exchanges should not be confused with various forms of paranoia, 
and pointing out weaknesses in arguments is not equivalent to treating someone 
as an "enemy".

Jean-Claude Guédon

On 2019-08-21 4:18 p.m., Heather Morrison wrote:
Some further perspective on my comment "the open access movement has developed 
a habit of viewing all feedback / critique as anti-open access [emphasis added] 
and reacting defensively, as if every [emphasis added] critic were an enemy" 
reflects the history of the OA movement.

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

Re: [GOAL] SpringerOpen, Egypt and academic freedom

[David Prosser]

Heather

You specifically raised CC-BY in this context.  Do you believe that a 
researcher making a piece of research public under CC-BY is potentially at more 
risk of harm than if they made it public under a different CC licence or even 
under full All Rights Reserved?

David




On 8 Aug 2019, at 14:07, Heather Morrison 
mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>> wrote:

Reader caution: discussion of matters like attacks on academic freedom as found 
in this thread may upset some people. This is a response to David Prosser's 
comments.

Comment: I am sorry that David is not feeling well. If others feel sick about 
what is happening to academics in Egypt, I understand. That's how I feel about 
this, too.
There are many things that happen in the world that I find disturbing. My 
approach, with respect to events that intersect my areas of expertise, is to 
think about such events, ask questions and propose potential solutions to make 
the world a better place.  In this spirit, I repeat the specific question that 
David alludes to.

Question: is attribution necessarily desirable for scholars? This is part of 
the larger question of the relationship between academic freedom and open 
access. My argument is that academic freedom is essential to open access.

We live in a world where academics can be targeted for what they study or what 
they say about what they study. This doesn't only happen in countries like 
Egypt. Governments in North America have recently begun taking exception to 
climate change research. In Canada, under the former Conservative government, 
government scientists were muzzled. In the U.S., I have heard about a 
professor's watchlist targeting liberal professors. No academics have killed in 
North America that I know of, but otherwise there is some similarity with what 
is happening in Egypt today. This is important in the context of scholarly 
publishing because some of the latest technological developments appear to 
assume that matters such as attribution are neutral or beneficial.

best,

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<http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/>
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca<mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>
https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>> on behalf of David 
Prosser mailto:david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk>>
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 5:20:24 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Cc: radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk<mailto:radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk> 
mailto:radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk>>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] SpringerOpen, Egypt and academic freedom

Attention : courriel externe | external email
Dr Morrison’s arguments against the CC-BY licence are well known to readers of 
this list and I acknowledge her sincerely held, and consistent, views on this.

But I’m afraid that I find using the murder of students to further, however 
tangentially, that argument quite sickening.

David


On 7 Aug 2019, at 23:01, Heather Morrison 
mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>> wrote:


SpringerOpen is currently publishing 13 journals sponsored by the Government of 
Egypt. This is an opportunity to discuss some issues of relevance to the goals 
and sustainability of open access, starting with academic freedom. As described 
by Holmes and Aziz (2019) there are very serious problems with academic freedom 
in Egypt, ranging from tight government control over what is studied and 
published to extrajudicial killings of 21 students in the last few years. The 
University of Liverpool considered, then rejected, a lucrative offer to set up 
a campus in Egypt due to concerns about reputational damage. This raises some 
interesting questions. Academic freedom is critical to any kind of meaningful 
open access. Nothing could possibly be more in opposite to open access than a 
dead student whose research was destroyed because of what was studied. Why is 
SpringerOpen partnering with the Government of Egypt? Should academics boycott 
SpringerOpen because of this partnership? What, if anything, can academics do 
to support academic freedom in a country like Egypt? Some believe that the 
Creative Commons license CC-BY (attribution only) is the best for open access 
(I don’t agree, but this is a separate topic). If your research could get you 
killed, attribution might not be a good idea. Today, some of us might assume 
that these kinds of problems would never happen in our own countries; but times 
change, and it has happened that places that enjoyed freedom at one point in 
time came under the control

Re: [GOAL] SpringerOpen, Egypt and academic freedom

[David Prosser]

Dr Morrison’s arguments against the CC-BY licence are well known to readers of 
this list and I acknowledge her sincerely held, and consistent, views on this.

But I’m afraid that I find using the murder of students to further, however 
tangentially, that argument quite sickening.

David


On 7 Aug 2019, at 23:01, Heather Morrison 
mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>> wrote:


SpringerOpen is currently publishing 13 journals sponsored by the Government of 
Egypt. This is an opportunity to discuss some issues of relevance to the goals 
and sustainability of open access, starting with academic freedom. As described 
by Holmes and Aziz (2019) there are very serious problems with academic freedom 
in Egypt, ranging from tight government control over what is studied and 
published to extrajudicial killings of 21 students in the last few years. The 
University of Liverpool considered, then rejected, a lucrative offer to set up 
a campus in Egypt due to concerns about reputational damage. This raises some 
interesting questions. Academic freedom is critical to any kind of meaningful 
open access. Nothing could possibly be more in opposite to open access than a 
dead student whose research was destroyed because of what was studied. Why is 
SpringerOpen partnering with the Government of Egypt? Should academics boycott 
SpringerOpen because of this partnership? What, if anything, can academics do 
to support academic freedom in a country like Egypt? Some believe that the 
Creative Commons license CC-BY (attribution only) is the best for open access 
(I don’t agree, but this is a separate topic). If your research could get you 
killed, attribution might not be a good idea. Today, some of us might assume 
that these kinds of problems would never happen in our own countries; but times 
change, and it has happened that places that enjoyed freedom at one point in 
time came under the control of a dictator.

Following is the list of titles which state on the SpringerOpen site that they 
are supported by the “Specialized Presidential Council for Education and 
Scientific Research (Government of Egypt), so author-payable article-processing 
charges do not apply”.

Journals supported by the Government of Egypt published by SpringerOpen as of 
July 2019
Ain Shams Journal of Anesthesiology
Bulletin of the National Research Centre
Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control
Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences
Egyptian Journal of Medical Human Genetics
Egyptian Journal of Neurosurgery
Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine
Egyptian Pediatric Association Gazette
Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association
Middle East Current Psychiatry
The Cardiothoracic Surgeon
The Egyptian Heart Journal
The Egyptian Journal of Neurology, Psychiatry and Neurosurgery

Holmes, A. & Aziz, A. (2019). Egypt’s lost academic freedom. Carnegie Endowment 
for International Peace. Retrieved August 9, 2019 
fromhttps://carnegieendowment.org/sada/78210


This is the full text of the post - here is the link in case anyone would like 
to comment on the blog:

https://wordpress.com/post/sustainingknowledgecommons.org/3522

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
___
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] Results of OA article data collection from OASPA members

[David Prosser]

Houghton et al. conducted an economic analysis of the potential transition for 
the UK using 3 models (gold, green, transformative system building peer review 
on archives) and found the transformative approach the most cost-effective by 
far. This work used to be open access, but today this funded study now appears 
to be limited to access in specific reading rooms:
J. Houghton, B. Rasmussen, P. Sheehan, C. Oppenheim, A. Morris, C. Creaser, H. 
Greenwood, M. Summers, and A. Gourlay, 2009a. “Economics implications of 
alternative scholarly publishing models: Exploring the costs and benefit” (27 
January), at 
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2009/economicpublishingmodelsfinalreport.aspx,
 accessed 7 February 2010.

A Google search for the title of this report returns a freely accessible 
version as the first result:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/45dd/cb9ebb9c8505a4ac86718734dda3311f91d8.pdf


David



On 8 Jul 2019, at 21:13, Heather Morrison 
mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>> wrote:

Thank you Christian.

Following are some points of agreement and relevant research, and follow-up 
questions.

I think we agree that re-directing funding from subscriptions / purchase to 
fund production (shift economics from demand to supply side) is key to OA 
transition - I made this point with a broad brush global analysis illustrating 
the potential to do so with considerable cost savings for libraries / 
institutions in First Monday in 2013: 
https://firstmonday.org/article/view/4370/3685

Houghton et al. conducted an economic analysis of the potential transition for 
the UK using 3 models (gold, green, transformative system building peer review 
on archives) and found the transformative approach the most cost-effective by 
far. This work used to be open access, but today this funded study now appears 
to be limited to access in specific reading rooms:
J. Houghton, B. Rasmussen, P. Sheehan, C. Oppenheim, A. Morris, C. Creaser, H. 
Greenwood, M. Summers, and A. Gourlay, 2009a. “Economics implications of 
alternative scholarly publishing models: Exploring the costs and benefit” (27 
January), at 
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2009/economicpublishingmodelsfinalreport.aspx,
 accessed 7 February 2010.

To get back to your points on Elsevier, some questions:


  1.   You are assuming global and permanent cancellation by academic and 
research libraries to all Elsevier journal subscriptions. Correct?
  2.  What about Science Direct? It integrates journal subscriptions, but it is 
a search service. Do you assume global and permanent cancellation of Science 
Direct as search service too?
  3.  What about Scopus? This service is used in rankings as well as for 
searching - customers include universities for institutional ranking purposes 
and third party ranking services. If the idea of global and permanent 
cancellations to subscriptions is a success, but Elsevier proprietary content 
is a key market advantage for this type of product, this might eliminate the 
transformative potential hoped for from global and permanent subscription 
cancellations.
  4.  What about Elsevier published content to date? If Elsevier no longer 
distributes such content, what will happen with this content and access to it?

As a reminder, almost all Elsevier journals allow author self-archiving:
http://sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php


best,

Heather Morrison

From:goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>>
 on behalf of Christian Gutknecht 
mailto:christian.gutkne...@bluewin.ch>>
Sent:Monday, July 8, 2019 3:25:05 PM
To:Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject:Re: [GOAL] Results of OA article data collection from OASPA members

Attention : courriel externe | external email
Well, I propose the following:

1. Academic Institutions should eventually stop paying for subscriptions (like 
Germany, UC etc)
2. Then the free money should be use to fund pure OA (through APCs, 
memberships, or any other well working OA business models out there)
3. Funders and Institutions should then refine and tackle the issues of Gold 
OA, like the cost transparency of publishing services, requirements for 
metadata, formats, workflows, archiving, tdm, licences (like CC-BY requirement 
as defined in Berlin and Budapest).

The subscription model, and hence the exclusiveness of Elsevier’s content only 
exists because academic institutions and especially libraries let Elsevier have 
this power by keep subscribing and ignoring alternatives.

Best regards
Christian

Am 08.07.2019 um 17:38 schrieb Heather Morrison 
mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>>:

hi Christian,

Thank you for your contribution...

Regarding your argument: "forcing Elsevier also to use CC-BY for their „own“ 
content would enable competition for analysis tools like Scopus", I have some 
questions. Let's start with:

Are you and/or others proposing to force Elsevier to use CC-BY for their 

Re: [GOAL] North, South, and Open Access: The view from Egypt with Mahmoud Khalifa

[David Prosser]

As somebody who lives and works in the global north I can’t claim to have any 
particular insight into this issue, but I do wonder whether the way we treat 
access to content and access to publishing routes as symmetrical problems is 
helpful.

Say I am a reader and I want to have read a paper that is in a subscription 
journal.  If I don’t have a subscription then I do not have access and I am 
denied the possibility of reading that paper.  There is one main, official 
route to the paper and without a subscription that route is blocked.

(Although there may be alternative, routes - inter-library loan, contacting the 
author, using sites like Research Gate or Sci-Hub, or green versions in 
repositories.)

If I am an author and I want to disseminate my work what are my options?  It 
may be that a specific journal is closed to me through a high APC (assuming 
that there are no waivers or discounts), but I can still disseminate the 
research - possibly through non-APC gold journals, possibly through 
institutional repositories.

This is why I wonder if the problems are symmetrical.  There is one (official) 
route to read non-OA papers - subscriptions.  But there are many routes to 
disseminate a paper, not just APC-gold.  I realise that this is a problem if 
one’s funder is rewarding publication in specific high-APC charging journals, 
but that is a reward problem, not an open access problems (although a problem 
nevertheless).  For those communities that have decided not to play the 
high-impact factor game there are great opportunities to gain the benefits of 
open access without the problems of APCs - SciELO being a great example.

David


On 25 Apr 2018, at 11:17, Chris Zielinski 
> wrote:


Richard,

In this context, you may be interested in a post I recently submitted to the 
Healthcare Information for All (HIFA) list in the context of a HIFA discussion 
of this topic:

-- Original Message --
To: HIFA - Healthcare Information For All 
>
Date: 18 April 2018 at 19:33
Subject: Re: [hifa] Open Access Author Processing Charges (3)


In the bad old days before Open Access (OA), a developing country author wrote 
a paper and submitted it to a journal and, if the paper was good enough, the 
generous people at the journal organized peer review, redid/redesigned the 
tables and most of the graphics, and maybe even did some language editing - at 
no cost to the author. Then they published the journal, charging for access to 
the paper version and pay-walling any online version. From the author's 
perspective, thus, there was no barrier to publication, although there were 
cost barriers to reading the paper subsequently, which was particularly onerous 
in poorer countries. So the situation in developing countries was good for 
authors - who simply had to write well - and bad for librarians and readers, 
who had to find the money to buy the content.

Now that Open Access is making serious inroads, we are finding the situation 
reversed - librarians and readers bask in an avalanche of cost-free online 
papers, while authors are scrambling to find the resources to pay for 
publication.From the commentary on this list it is clear that authors in 
developing countries are being restrained from publishing by the "Article 
Processing Charge" (APC).

Zoe Mullan, Editor of The Lancet Global Health makes the point that "we assume 
that this cost will be borne by the funding body". This seems to be rather more 
likely in industrialized countries than in developing ones.

Basic research is much more frequently carried out in industrialized countries 
and supported by the sort of international funding that pays for papers. But 
the kind of health research that is essential in developing countries - health 
services and health systems research - is generally undertaken by local 
institutions and universities. This is a reason for serious concern, as the 
economic model of OA appears to be blocking the most important local research. 
I would add that this research needs to be published internationally, not just 
locally, in order to attract opinions, input and (in some cases) validation and 
consensus from the global health community.

Many OA journals have special rates, flexibilities and waivers for writers from 
developing countries. It is also true that  about a quarter of the OA journals 
do not charge an APC at all - I presume they pay for their work by sales of 
their print editions in industrialized countries, thus enabling those in other 
countries free access to the online version.

Incidentally, this is not just an issue for developing country writers - I am a 
non-institutional writer in an industrialized country, writing papers which are 
not based on funded research, and it is a real hardship to find APC money to 
pay for my papers.

Best,

Chris


Chris Zielinski

Re: [GOAL] FW: [SCHOLCOMM] On sponsorship, transparency, scholarly publishing, and open access

[David Prosser]

Please find below a response from Glenn where he kindly confirms that 
Elsevier/RELX is the single largest contributor of delegates to OSI.  Glenn 
thinks 7 out of almost 400, the list I’ve seen suggests 12.  But rather than 
quibble about figures we can agree that, for whatever reason, Elsevier clearly 
considers OSI a valuable forum to spend it’s lobbying effort - both in time and 
money.

Glenn also mentions the commitment of George Mason University and that reminded 
me of another interesting sponsorship ‘event' that Richard didn’t mention.  I’m 
sure that people will recall the recent thought piece on ‘Open-Access Mandates 
and the Seductively False Promise of “Free”' 
(https://cpip.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2014/04/Viswanathan-Mossoff-Open-Access-Mandates-and-the-Seductively-False-Promise-of-Free.pdf)
 from the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property at George Mason.  
The argument was that government-mandated open access policies were wrong in 
principle and an infringement of publishers’ rights.  Through what I assume was 
an oversight the paper failed to mention that the Center is funded in part by 
the RELX Group. Of course, the Center is at pains to confirm that such 
sponsorship in no way influences what they publish as thought pieces or the 
stance they take.

David




On 20 Jul 2017, at 01:35, Glenn Hampson 
<ghamp...@nationalscience.org<mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org>> wrote:

Hi David,

Can you kindly post my reply to the GOAL list? Yes---contributions to OSI from 
legacy publishers increased year on year but so did our contributions from 
foundations. And in 2018, we hope that the contribution from UNESCO will be 
significantly larger than now. Indeed, our “fully-funded” budget for OSI means 
receiving significant funding from a very wide variety of sources (in which 
case publisher contributions will drop significantly as a percentage of the 
overall total). As a matter of principle, while we are very grateful for the 
interest and support from commercial publishers, we wouldn’t want their share 
of support to get much higher than now and we don’t think it will. The 
commercial publisher executives I’ve spoken with know this and agree with this 
as well---they also don’t want OSI to be seen as a tool of the publishers. Just 
as we don’t want the membership of OSI to become too homogenous, so too we 
don’t want the funding to become too lopsided from any one group. Again, 
though, the story here isn’t the increase---we’re a young and tiny group and 
we’re not talking about a pattern here or a lot of dollars---just a year on 
year change. I hope that if our funding from publishers drops next year as a 
percentage of the total you will also treat this as being newsworthy.

As for the 390-ish individual members of OSI, I’d need to do a hard count of 
bylines since we organize these folks by stakeholder and not institutional 
affiliations, but offhand I think you’re right---I think Elsevier probably has 
more individuals who are part of OSI (seven?) than any other institution (so we 
view these delegates as 7 of the 35 total commercial publisher reps). George 
Mason University has six (I think), George Washington University has five, the 
Smithsonian Institution has four OSI reps, Columbia University has three, 
etc.---point being that several of the 250 organizations represented in OSI 
have multiple delegates. But again, offhand, yes---I think Elsevier may be the 
winner. It’s important to note with this information, though, that having 
multiple delegates doesn’t translate into more voting power or more of a voice 
in conversations. As I mentioned previously, our commercial publisher 
colleagues have not been vocal participants in OSI listserv conversations 
to-date, nor have George Mason University staff and faculty said more than 
their fair share. Indeed, our top contributors to this list are widespread and 
include library leaders, open advocates, scholcomm experts (including Richard 
Poynder, who is a top contributor), and a wide variety of others, male and 
female, old (like me) and young, university-based and non-university, US and 
elsewhere.

I hope this helps. David---we would be honored to include you in this 
conversation. Just say the word.

Sincerely,

Glenn

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607<tel:(206)%20417-3607> | 
ghamp...@nationalscience.org<mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> | 
nationalscience.org<http://nationalscience.org/>



From: David Prosser [mailto:david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 3:27 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Cc: Glenn Hampson 
<ghamp...@nationalscience.org<mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org>>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] FW: [SCHOLCOM

Re: [GOAL] FW: [SCHOLCOMM] On sponsorship, transparency, scholarly publishing, and open access

[David Prosser]

OSI is very transparent about it’s funding and that transparency shows clearly 
what Richard has stated - that the contribution from commercial, legacy 
publishers has increased and now makes up a larger proportion of the total than 
it did previously.

Can I also confirm the the organisation with the most representatives within 
OSI is Elsevier (including its parent company RELX)?

Thanks

David



On 19 Jul 2017, at 20:11, Richard Poynder 
> wrote:

From: Glenn Hampson [mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org]
Sent: 19 July 2017 18:31
To: 'Richard Poynder' 
>; 
scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org; 'The 
Open Scholarship Initiative' 
>
Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] On sponsorship, transparency, scholarly publishing, 
and open access

Hi Everyone,
I’d like to take this opportunity to invite everyone in the scholcomm community 
to nominate individuals (self-nominations are welcome) to participate in this 
year’s efforts of the Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI). Here’s what we’re 
about (from a draft version of our preamble, which is being finalized this 
summer):
The principles and practices of scholarly communication are critical to the 
advancement of research and research knowledge.  OSI’s mission is to build a 
robust framework for communication, coordination and cooperation among all 
nations and stakeholders in order to improve scholarly communication, beginning 
with scholarly publishing—to find common understanding and just, achievable, 
sustainable, inclusive solutions, and to work toward these solutions together 
in order to increase the amount of research information available to the world, 
as well as the number of people everywhere who can access this information. The 
guiding principles of OSI are to involve the entire stakeholder community in a 
collaborative effort; to value all stakeholder voices and perspectives; to 
thoughtfully consider the consequences of all approaches; to coordinate and 
collaborate on developing joint solutions and efforts; and to pursue and 
continue refining solutions over time to ensure their implementation, 
effectiveness, and success.
OSI includes high-level decision makers from all stakeholder groups and many 
different countries. We would particularly appreciate being able to add more 
active researchers and authors to OSI this year, more university provosts, and 
more industry leaders, policy makers, funder reps and journalists. Increasing 
the number of voices from outside the US and EU is also a goal. There are 
currently about 375 leaders on the OSI listserv, representing 18 different 
stakeholder groups, 23 countries and 250 institutions. Of these individuals, 
about 50 represent research universities (in an official capacity), 40 are 
library or library group leaders, 35 represent commercial publishers, 30 
represent government policy organizations, 30 represent open knowledge groups 
and “born open” publishers, and 20 represent scholarly societies. Nominations 
will be considered by the advisory group. OSI tries to maintain a balance in 
terms of the number of representatives from each stakeholder group.
I would also like to take this opportunity to correct the statement made by 
Richard Poynder in his piece yesterday about the influence of funding from 
scholarly publishers, at least with regard to OSI. Much as I don’t want to take 
up my time and yours by arguing these points, and much as I value Richard’s 
scholarship and analysis, I do have a responsibility to OSI and its supporters 
and members to not allow misstatements like these to linger (even if no one 
ends up reading this email, I have a responsibility to correct the record). As 
a general point, it has certainly been well-documented that research funding 
can influence research outcomes. “Soft” sponsorships are a much murkier case, 
however. We’re talking here about everything from television commercials to 
billboards to the ads that pop up alongside New York Times articles. Sponsors 
make it possible for programs and events to happen---not just in scholcomm but 
in medicine, sports, tech, news, on university campuses and in public parks. 
Right or wrong, sponsorships are part of modern society and an important part 
at that. As far as OSI is concerned, we are grateful for the interest and 
support we’ve received from our sponsors to-date and we welcome support from 
all interested sources. Indeed, we would ideally like to see universities take 
over most of the funding responsibilities for this effort if only because 
scholcomm reform is such a university-centric set of issues (spread between 100 
campuses, this wouldn’t amount to much at all), but until/unless this happens, 
UNESCO, foundations, publishers, and OSI members themselves will carry the load.
Here are the 

Re: [GOAL] Embargoes, evidence and all that jazz

[David Prosser]

So it is the responsibility of libraries to prove the harm to publishers?  Odd




On 21 Jun 2017, at 18:58, Hersh, Gemma (ELS-CAM) 
> wrote:

Hi Danny

I agree it would be helpful if we all had (additional) evidence all parties 
felt confident in. I had thought this was something you were leading on through 
OSI. Is that correct? If so, perhaps you could provide an update.

Kind regards
Gemma



On 21 Jun 2017, at 14:53, Dr D.A. Kingsley 
> wrote:

*** External email: use caution ***



Hi all,

Gemma has identified several studies that talk about half life of articles
in different disciplines. There is no dispute that these are interesting
and probably accurate. However given there is **no causal arrow proven
between half life and cancellation of subscriptions**. The half life
furphy is irrelevant in the embargo discussion.

I went through all of this in my blog in October 2015: "Half-life is half
the story" 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] GOAL Digest, Vol 67, Issue 13
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" 
Message-ID:


Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi Danny



This issue has been written about extensively and there have also been
studies on this issue.  I believe I may have previously consolidated and
emailed to you all of the available evidence I am aware of, but I would
be happy to do so (again) if helpful.



Here is a selection for others that may be interested:



Studies

*   In 2016, The Royal Historical Society in Response to the Stern
Review of the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) estimates that 

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[David Prosser]

I rather like the ‘How open is it?’ tool that approaches this as a spectrum:

http://sparcopen.org/our-work/howopenisit/


I may be quite ‘hard line’, but I acknowledge that by moving along the spectrum 
a paper, monograph, piece of data (or whatever) becomes more open - and more 
open is better than less open.

If the funders have gone to the far end of the spectrum it is perhaps because 
they feel that the greatest benefits are there, not because they have been 
convinced that they have to follow the strict, ‘hard line’ definition of open 
access.

David



On 23 Jan 2017, at 18:30, Richard Poynder 
> wrote:

Hi Marc,

You say:

"I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such:

I don’t equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I’m a little bit 
tired of discussions about what 'being OA' means."

I hear you, but I think the key point here is that OA advocates (perhaps not 
you, but OA advocates) are successfully convincing a growing number of research 
funders (e.g. Wellcome Trust, RCUK, Ford Foundation, Hewlett Foundation, Gates 
Foundation etc.) that CC BY is the only acceptable form of open access.

So however tired you and Stevan might be of discussing it, I believe there are 
important implications and consequences flowing from that.

Richard Poynder



On 23 January 2017 at 16:31, Couture Marc 
> wrote:
Hi all,

Just to be clear, my position on the basic issue here.

I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such :

- I don’t equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I’m a little bit 
tired of discussions about what “being OA” means.

- I work to help increase the proportion of gratis OA, still much too low.

- I try to convince my colleagues that CC BY is the best way to disseminate 
scientific/scholarly works and make them useful.

I favour CC BY over the restricted versions (mainly -NC) because I find the 
arguments about potentially unwanted or devious uses far less compelling than 
those about the advantages of unrestricted uses and the drawbacks of 
restrictions that can be much more stringent than they seem at first glance.

Like Stevan said, OA advocates are indeed a plurality. The opposite would 
bother me.

Marc Couture



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




--
Richard Poynder
www.richardpoynder.co.uk
___
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] Open access strategy and political change: a question

[David Prosser]

Around the time of the Finch Report in the UK one of the arguments one heard 
against the UK attempting to be a first mover towards total open access was 
that it we would ‘give away’ our research to competitors (especially the 
Chinese - the whiff of xenophobia in the argument was always a detectable 
undertone) while they would keep theirs for themselves.  This would put us at a 
disadvantage.

It took a lot of effort to remind people that we were talking about research 
that had been made public (though subscription journals).  We weren’t revealing 
anything that hadn’t been revealed before, just making it more accessible.  (We 
also pointed out that countries such as the US and China were publishing more 
in open access journals than the UK was.)

So I guess my fear is that if some of us are moving in a more isolationist 
direction, one in which we are much more concerned about our positions in trade 
negotiations (and trade wars) and ‘protecting’ our assets, then perhaps that 
agreement might be seen again.  Ironically, the people who will perhaps argue 
most strongly against it (and who have the ear of government through powerful 
lobbying machines) are those who are seeing massive increases in their revenues 
from hybrid open access fees!

David




On 19 Jan 2017, at 14:25, Heather Morrison 
> wrote:

I am not an expert on politics, so apologies if my assumptions here are naive:

It appears to me that some governments, notably the US and the UK, have 
undergone a political shift from a trend towards globalization towards 
protectionism / emphasis on the local. Whether this is a good idea or not is an 
important political question. Many people will  have strong feelings about this 
matter, and this will include people in the OA movement as well as those we 
work with.

Assuming that it is the case that some of our governments are inclined to focus 
on the local, what are some strategies to advance open access that would fit 
with the local-minded government?

My first thoughts are that institutional repository OA policy and supporting 
local publishing (for us, ideally OA publishing), would seem to fit. Perhaps 
some politicians would see the benefits of sharing our own work openly as a 
display of the strength of the country?

My two bits. What do others think?

Heather
___
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] Beall's list is removed

[David Prosser]

Let us not forget that Beall was as well versed in supplying FUD as anybody 
else.  Remember that he wrote that open access (in all it’s forms) was a plot 
by European socialists and an existential threat to the scholarly process.

Let’s also not forget that for every false-positive Beall casually and unfairly 
stigmatised the authors who published in the journals he listed and the 
publishers who published them.  And when I say ‘causally’ I really mean it - 
Walt Crawford has shown that for almost 90% of journals included in the list 
Beall gave absolutely no reasons for why they were included 
(http://walt.lishost.org/2016/01/trust-me-the-other-problem-with-87-of-bealls-lists/)

Beall made himself judge, jury and executioner - with no requirement to justify 
his decisions and no obvious route for appeal.  And he puffed the issue of 
‘predatory’ journals to a level far beyond its actual impact and importance.  
Of course, that is his right to do so.  What I find sad is that for so long we 
gave him such attention.

David

(Writing in a purely personal capacity.)


On 18 Jan 2017, at 19:07, Couture Marc 
> wrote:

Hi all,

Although I don’t applaud to the sudden disappearance of Beall’s list, I 
certainly think his legacy is highly controversial. In short, relying on a 
one-person black list to make overall quality judgments (on publishers or 
journals) as well as specific decisions (on where to publish) was not 
appropriate. There are other ways, and other tools (DOAJ, to name one) better 
suited to these tasks. An eventual new “reliable service” (a “black” complement 
to Cabells’ white list?) could be part of them; we’ll see.

To Stevan: I wish to reassure you that I don’t see myself as “predatorily 
inclined” (not being sure though what that means) and that I’m not aware, much 
less part of any “FUD campaign to take [Beall] down” ;-)

Marc Couture

De : goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de Stevan Harnad
Envoyé : 18 janvier 2017 13:04
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : Re: [GOAL] Beall's list is removed

No, this is not the whole -- nor the end — of the story.

My prediction is that the take-down of Beall’s list was indeed a result of FUD 
threats and actions (to Beall and his institution) by the deep pockets 
profiting from predation on authors’ publish-or-perish pressures.

My hope is that a reliable service like it will indeed re-appear, with the 
collaboration of Jeffrey Beall (who has been something of a loose cannon, but 
on balance provided a valuable service).

My suspicion is that those trying to make hay out of this take-down are 
themselves predatorily inclined and perhaps even part of the FUD campaign to 
take him and his institution down.

Where there’s big bucks to be made, as in predatory “journal” publishing,” 
principles and scruples wither (with peer review the first to go)...

Stevan Harnad

On Jan 18, 2017, at 10:24 AM, Jihane Salhab 
> wrote:

Hi all,

FYI Beall’s list is removed. Check the following post: Mystery as controversial 
list of predatory publishers 
disappears
 .

A better option for authors to verify good publishers is 
thinkchecksubmit.org. In my opinion, it does a  
better job than Beall's controversial list, because it relies on authors’ own 
judgements.

 “Think. Check. Submit. is a cross-industry initiative led by representatives 
from ALPSP, DOAJ, INASP,  ISSN, LIBER, OASPA, STM, UKSG, and individual 
publishers.”

Have a good day!

Jihane Salhab
___
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] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[David Prosser]

Isn’t there a distinction between the use of PURE as a CRIS system and PURE as 
a repository.  I get the feeling the former is much more common than the latter 
and only the latter will appear in OpenDOAR.

David




On 18 May 2016, at 15:20, Ross Mounce 
> wrote:

Hi Jessica (et al.),

I guess it depends which list you read.

Elsevier's own list boasts over 200 PURE implementations at different 
institutions including 28 in the UK: 
https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/pure/who-uses-pure/clients

Even Elsevier's list isn't complete. I know for a fact that for instance that 
the University of Bath uses PURE http://www.bath.ac.uk/ris/pure/ and yet this 
doesnt appear on Elsevier's list, nor OpenDOAR.

OpenDOAR is a registry run by people with close links to EPrints & DSpace. It's 
no surprise then that EPrints and DSpace are well registered within OpenDOAR.

Time to remove the blinkers. PURE is much more prevalent than you'd think from 
a glance at OpenDOAR.




On 18 May 2016 at 13:08, Jessica Lindholm 
> wrote:
Hi Ross (et al.),
Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure instances as you mentioned 
that many institutional repositories run on Pure.

Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories (http://www.opendoar.org/) I find 
16 PURE-repositories listed, whereas e.g. Eprints has +400 instances and DSpace 
has +1300 instances. However I am not at all sure to what degree openDOAR is 
containing exhaustive data (or rather I am quite sure it doesn’t) -it is either 
lacking data about PURE instances – or if not, I do not agree that they are 
many..

Regards
Jessica  Lindholm


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Ross Mounce
Sent: den 17 maj 2016 22:54
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Elsevier have actually done a really good job of infiltrating institutional 
repositories too:
http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/

They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the software that 
many of world's institutional repositories run on.
I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can further 
monetise academic IP.

Best,

Ross




On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL 
> wrote:
Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide is 
not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional repositories can be 
replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better solutions, more 
functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better connected to 
databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.

- Mail d'origine -
De: Stevan Harnad >
À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
>
Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Shame on SSRN.

Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):

It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed 
scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer needed, 
and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as a foothold 
if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a legacy from an 
obsolete Gutenberg era.

I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated expenses 
are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is that the 
distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide  is not for 
sale, and that is their strength...

Stevan Harnad



On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk 
> wrote:

This is an interesting news item which should interest the
readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.

Bo-Christer Björk



 Forwarded Message 
Subject:

Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman

Date:

Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)

From:

Michael C. Jensen 

Reply-To:

supp...@ssrn.com

To:

bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi




[http://papers.ssrn.com/Organizations/images/ihp_ssrnlogo.png]

[http://static.ssrn.com/Images/Header/socialnew.gif]



Dear SSRN Authors,


SSRN announced today that it has changed ownership. SSRN is
joining Mendeley and 
Elsevier
to coordinate our development and delivery of new products and
services, and we look forward to 

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[David Prosser]

Richard

I linked to the text of the FOI question, but repeat it here:


I would like information regarding any/all meetings between BIS officials 
and/or the Minister for Universities and Science (Jo Johnson, MP) with 
representatives from Elsevier (part of RELX Group, formerly Reed Elsevier) 
and/or Thomson Reuters, from 5 June 2015 to date, to include:

- dates of meetings
- agendas / topics for discussion
- names of ministers/senior officials present (as per 40(2)(a)(iii) and section 
40(3)(a)(i) of FOI act)
- minutes / notes / records of the meetings

All that we know is in a two week period the UK Minister for Universities and 
senior Departmental staff met with Elsevier three times.  We do not know what 
was discussed - on two occasions no notes were taken (and so, conveniently, the 
topics of discussion need not be reported) and on the other the UK Government 
is refusing to say what was discussed.

But let’s assume for a moment that the main topic was not open access.  I think 
that few of us (especially those who have watched Yes Minister) are naive 
enough to believe that if you have senior Departmental staff and a Minister on 
hand professionals such at Elsevier wouldn’t slip in a ‘by the way, Minister’ 
and lobby for their position on open access .  But we will never know.

Compare with Berlin12 for which there is a public agenda (with list of 
speakers), a public link to the white paper which formed the starting point for 
discussions, public tweets (although not many) from the event, and a public 
write-up about the event.  Which of these is more secretive?

But even if it were true that Berlin12 was organised by the illuminati with all 
participants taking a vow of omertà, how can we possible extrapolate from that 
to the whole of the open access movement?  It really is a step too far.

But I do agree with you on one issue.  There will be continued pressure from 
some publishers to ensure that details of flipped deals and big deals remain 
confidential.  We need to resist that pressure (as we have in the UK for most 
big deals).

David

On 30 Dec 2015, at 12:25, Richard Poynder 
<richard.poyn...@gmail.com<mailto:richard.poyn...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I am not sure that this FOI request was about open access was it David? 
http://bit.ly/1midAyu.

However, the way I see it is that as research funders (like Max Planck and 
RCUK), governments and publishers increasingly come to accept the inevitability 
of open access so the way in which it is achieved, and the way in which the 
details (and costs) are negotiated, are likely to become increasingly 
non-transparent (much as Big Deals have always been). And to me the invite-only 
nature of Berlin 12 foreshadows this development.

I also anticipate that the OA big deals being put in place, and the various 
journal “flipping” arrangements being proposed, will be more to the benefit of 
publishers than to the research community.

As Keith Jeffery puts it, “We all know why the BOAI principles have been 
progressively de-railed. One explanation given to me at an appropriate 
political level was that the tax-take from commercial publishers was greater 
than the cost of research libraries.” http://bit.ly/1OslVFW.

The question is: how could the open access have avoided this? What can it do 
right now to mitigate the effects of these developments?

Richard Poynder


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of David Prosser
Sent: 30 December 2015 10:24
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Subject: [GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

While we huff and puff about Berlin 12 and ridiculous suggestions that the 
entire open access movement is slipping ‘into closed mode’, Elsevier is having 
confidential meetings with UK Government Ministers of State.  Meetings that are 
apparently not covered by the Freedom of Information Act:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/302242/response/745563/attach/3/FOI%20Request%20ref%20FOI2015%2025797%20Meetings%20between%20BIS%20officials%20ministers%20and%20Elsevier%20Thompson%20Reuters.pdf

I know which of these cases of ‘secrecy’ I find more concerning.

David

On 21 Dec 2015, at 10:06, Richard Poynder 
<richard.poyn...@cantab.net<mailto:richard.poyn...@cantab.net>> wrote:


The 12th Berlin Conference was held in Germany on December 8th and 9th. ​The 
focus of the conference was on “the transformation of subscription journals to 
Open Access, as outlined in a recent white paper by the Max Planck Digital 
Library”.

In other words, the conference discussed ways of achieving a mass “flipping” of 
subscription-based journals to open access models.

Strangely, Berlin 12 was "by invitation only". This seems odd because holding 
OA meetings behind closed doors might seem to go against the principles of 
openness and transparen

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[David Prosser]

While we huff and puff about Berlin 12 and ridiculous suggestions that the 
entire open access movement is slipping ‘into closed mode’, Elsevier is having 
confidential meetings with UK Government Ministers of State.  Meetings that are 
apparently not covered by the Freedom of Information Act:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/302242/response/745563/attach/3/FOI%20Request%20ref%20FOI2015%2025797%20Meetings%20between%20BIS%20officials%20ministers%20and%20Elsevier%20Thompson%20Reuters.pdf

I know which of these cases of ‘secrecy’ I find more concerning.

David


On 21 Dec 2015, at 10:06, Richard Poynder  wrote:

The 12th Berlin Conference was held in Germany on December 8th and 9th. ​The 
focus of the conference was on “the transformation of subscription journals to 
Open Access, as outlined in a recent white paper by the Max Planck Digital 
Library”.

In other words, the conference discussed ways of achieving a mass “flipping” of 
subscription-based journals to open access models.

Strangely, Berlin 12 was "by invitation only". This seems odd because holding 
OA meetings behind closed doors might seem to go against the principles of 
openness and transparency that were outlined in the 2003 Berlin Declaration on 
Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities.

Or is it wrong and/or naïve to think that open access implies openness and 
transparency in the decision making and processes involved in making open 
access a reality, as well as of research outputs?

Either way, if the strategy of flipping journals becomes the primary means of 
achieving open access can we not expect to see non-transparent and secret 
processes become the norm, with the costs and details of the transition taking 
place outside the purview of the wider OA movement? If that is right, would it 
matter?

Some thoughts here: 
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/open-access-slips-into-closed-mode.html

Richard Poynder

___
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] Re: ?spam? Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'

[David Prosser]

Alicia
> 
> P.S.  I am struck by how little discussion there has been (at least so far!) 
> on this list about the review of the UK national OA policy implementation 
> which was commissioned by Universities UK on behalf of the Open Access 
> Coordination Group.  It covers both gold and green OA:  
> http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/aboutus/whatwedo/PolicyAnalysis/ResearchInnovation/Pages/UUKOpenAccessCoordinationGroup.aspx
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
> Dana Roth
> Sent: 18 October 2015 20:50
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'
> 
> There could be a problem trying to extrapolate from unverified data ...
> 
> I suspect that many of the 'freely available after 6 months' journals are 
> either very low cost <$1K/year, non-profit society journals, journals in a 
> larger package, or a combination of these.
> 
> Perhaps David would take a look the 30 titles and provide some additional 
> data?
> 
> Dana L. Roth
> Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
> 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
> 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
> dzr...@library.caltech.edu
> http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm
> 
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of David 
> Prosser [david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk]
> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 5:38 AM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: ?spam? Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half 
> the story'
> 
> It is well known that what people do and what they say they will do can be 
> different.  If you find that real-life behaviour and reported behaviour are 
> different then you have to look at where the problems lie with the surveys.
> 
> There are a number of journals that make papers freely available in less than 
> 12 months.  For example, almost 30 journals hosted by HighWire make papers 
> freely available after 6 months:
> 
> http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl
> 
> If it was true that almost half of subscribers will cancel if the embargo is 
> less than 12 months then how are these 6-month journals surviving?  Their 
> subscription base should be massively reduced.  If they really are 
> haemorrhaging subscribers surely we would now about it.
> 
> So we have surveys telling us one thing, reality telling us something else.  
> Alicia would have us focus on the surveys and ignore reality.  I would rather 
> we worked with real behaviour.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> On 16 Oct 2015, at 16:30, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) 
> <a.w...@elsevier.com<mailto:a.w...@elsevier.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hi Danny -
> 
> Publishers support sustainable approaches to Green OA as well as Gold OA - 
> indeed that was the focus of the panel discussion at the STM conference.
> 
> For articles that are published under the subscription business model, when 
> and how they are made available for free (on a wide array of platforms - 
> institutional repositories are one important example of these platforms) does 
> make a difference.  In my experience publishers are both evidence-based and 
> thoughtful about how they set embargo periods and so forth.
> 
> The evidence that is factored into decision-making currently includes:
> 
> 
> 1. Usage Evidence
> 
> 
> 
> In 2014 Phil Davis published a study commissioned by the Association of 
> American Publishers which demonstrates that journal article usage varies 
> widely within and across disciplines, and that only 3% of of journals have 
> half-lives of 12 months or less. Health sciences articles have the shortest 
> median half-life of the journals analyzed, but still more than 50% of health 
> science journals have usage half-lives longer than 24 months. In fields with 
> the longest usage half-lives, including mathematics and the humanities, more 
> than 50% of the journals have usage half-lives longer than 48 months. See 
> http://publishers.org/sites/default/files/uploads/PSP/journalusagehalflife.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Evidence for the link between embargos, usage and cancellations
> 
> 
> 
> A 2012 study by ALPSP was a simple one-question survey: "If the (majority of) 
> content of research journals was freely available within 6 months of 
> publication, would you continue to subscribe?" The results "indicate that 
> only 56% of those subscribing to journals in the STM field would definitely 
> continue to subscribe. In AHSS, this drops to just 35%. See 
> http://www.alpsp.org/ebusiness/AboutALPSP/ALPSPStatements/Statementdetails.aspx?ID=407
>   This 

[GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'

[David Prosser]

Marc’s post reminds me that there was the EC-funded, STM-run PEER project that 
attempted to do exactly this comparison:

http://www.stm-assoc.org/public-affairs/resources/peer/

One of the aims of PEER was to discover the effect of Green OA on journal 
viability - for the journals that took part there were no negative effects on 
their viability.

David

On 22 Oct 2015, at 13:50, Couture Marc 
> wrote:

Hi all,

What we would like to see here as evidence is something like what is being done 
about open access to scholarly monographs: rigorous studies, involving control 
groups and close monitoring, testing the effect of making a toll-free copy 
available.

I’m aware of two such studies, both made as part of the OAPEN initiative: one 
in the Netherlands and one in the UK (still ongoing, but preliminary results 
have been released).

Interestingly, both found no measurable effect of toll-free availability on the 
sales. The only “effect” of toll-free access is a tremendous increase of use, 
as measured by summing the sales and the (much more numerous) downloads.

Here also, fears that scholarly publishing is incompatible, or endangered by OA 
were, and still are, regularly aired.

It’s possible that things are not the same for journal publishing. But, pending 
reliable results, we simply don’t know, and predictions as to a loss of 
subscriptions are nothing but speculation (or hypotheses).

For details: 
http://www.oapen.nl/images/attachments/article/58/OAPEN-NL-final-report.pdf  
and 
http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/wp-uploads/2014/07/JACKSON-Oxford-OA-Monographs-June-2014.pdf

Marc Couture


___
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] Re: ?spam? Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'

[David Prosser]

OK, just so I know the rules - how many >$1k/year, non-non-profit society 
journals not in larger packages do I need to find?

Of course none of these criteria were in the survey - we appear to be inventing 
post-hoc justifications.

David



On 18 Oct 2015, at 20:49, Dana Roth <dzr...@library.caltech.edu> wrote:

> There could be a problem trying to extrapolate from unverified data ... 
> 
> I suspect that many of the 'freely available after 6 months' journals are 
> either very low cost <$1K/year, non-profit society journals, journals in a 
> larger package, or a combination of these.
> 
> Perhaps David would take a look the 30 titles and provide some additional 
> data?
> 
> Dana L. Roth
> Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
> 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
> 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
> dzr...@library.caltech.edu
> http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm
> 
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of David 
> Prosser [david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk]
> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 5:38 AM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: ?spam? Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half 
> the story'
> 
> It is well known that what people do and what they say they will do can be 
> different.  If you find that real-life behaviour and reported behaviour are 
> different then you have to look at where the problems lie with the surveys.
> 
> There are a number of journals that make papers freely available in less than 
> 12 months.  For example, almost 30 journals hosted by HighWire make papers 
> freely available after 6 months:
> 
> http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl
> 
> If it was true that almost half of subscribers will cancel if the embargo is 
> less than 12 months then how are these 6-month journals surviving?  Their 
> subscription base should be massively reduced.  If they really are 
> haemorrhaging subscribers surely we would now about it.
> 
> So we have surveys telling us one thing, reality telling us something else.  
> Alicia would have us focus on the surveys and ignore reality.  I would rather 
> we worked with real behaviour.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> On 16 Oct 2015, at 16:30, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) 
> <a.w...@elsevier.com<mailto:a.w...@elsevier.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hi Danny –
> 
> Publishers support sustainable approaches to Green OA as well as Gold OA – 
> indeed that was the focus of the panel discussion at the STM conference.
> 
> For articles that are published under the subscription business model, when 
> and how they are made available for free (on a wide array of platforms – 
> institutional repositories are one important example of these platforms) does 
> make a difference.  In my experience publishers are both evidence-based and 
> thoughtful about how they set embargo periods and so forth.
> 
> The evidence that is factored into decision-making currently includes:
> 
> 
> 1. Usage Evidence
> 
> 
> 
> In 2014 Phil Davis published a study commissioned by the Association of 
> American Publishers which demonstrates that journal article usage varies 
> widely within and across disciplines, and that only 3% of of journals have 
> half-lives of 12 months or less. Health sciences articles have the shortest 
> median half-life of the journals analyzed, but still more than 50% of health 
> science journals have usage half-lives longer than 24 months. In fields with 
> the longest usage half-lives, including mathematics and the humanities, more 
> than 50% of the journals have usage half-lives longer than 48 months. See 
> http://publishers.org/sites/default/files/uploads/PSP/journalusagehalflife.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Evidence for the link between embargos, usage and cancellations
> 
> 
> 
> A 2012 study by ALPSP was a simple one-question survey: "If the (majority of) 
> content of research journals was freely available within 6 months of 
> publication, would you continue to subscribe?" The results “indicate that 
> only 56% of those subscribing to journals in the STM field would definitely 
> continue to subscribe. In AHSS, this drops to just 35%. See 
> http://www.alpsp.org/ebusiness/AboutALPSP/ALPSPStatements/Statementdetails.aspx?ID=407
>   This 2012 study builds on earlier, more nuanced, studies undertaken for 
> ALPSP in 2009 and 2006. The 2009 ALPSP study (see the next to last bullet) 
> found that "overall usage" is the prime factor that librarians use in making 
> cancellation decisions. The 2006 ALPSP study (see points 7 and 8) found that 
> "the length of any embargo" would be the most important factor in making 
> canc

[GOAL] Re: ?spam? Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'

[David Prosser]

It is well known that what people do and what they say they will do can be 
different.  If you find that real-life behaviour and reported behaviour are 
different then you have to look at where the problems lie with the surveys.

There are a number of journals that make papers freely available in less than 
12 months.  For example, almost 30 journals hosted by HighWire make papers 
freely available after 6 months:

http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl

If it was true that almost half of subscribers will cancel if the embargo is 
less than 12 months then how are these 6-month journals surviving?  Their 
subscription base should be massively reduced.  If they really are 
haemorrhaging subscribers surely we would now about it.

So we have surveys telling us one thing, reality telling us something else.  
Alicia would have us focus on the surveys and ignore reality.  I would rather 
we worked with real behaviour.

David


On 16 Oct 2015, at 16:30, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) 
> wrote:

Hi Danny –

Publishers support sustainable approaches to Green OA as well as Gold OA – 
indeed that was the focus of the panel discussion at the STM conference.

For articles that are published under the subscription business model, when and 
how they are made available for free (on a wide array of platforms – 
institutional repositories are one important example of these platforms) does 
make a difference.  In my experience publishers are both evidence-based and 
thoughtful about how they set embargo periods and so forth.

The evidence that is factored into decision-making currently includes:


1. Usage Evidence



In 2014 Phil Davis published a study commissioned by the Association of 
American Publishers which demonstrates that journal article usage varies widely 
within and across disciplines, and that only 3% of of journals have half-lives 
of 12 months or less. Health sciences articles have the shortest median 
half-life of the journals analyzed, but still more than 50% of health science 
journals have usage half-lives longer than 24 months. In fields with the 
longest usage half-lives, including mathematics and the humanities, more than 
50% of the journals have usage half-lives longer than 48 months. See 
http://publishers.org/sites/default/files/uploads/PSP/journalusagehalflife.pdf



2. Evidence for the link between embargos, usage and cancellations



A 2012 study by ALPSP was a simple one-question survey: "If the (majority of) 
content of research journals was freely available within 6 months of 
publication, would you continue to subscribe?" The results “indicate that only 
56% of those subscribing to journals in the STM field would definitely continue 
to subscribe. In AHSS, this drops to just 35%. See 
http://www.alpsp.org/ebusiness/AboutALPSP/ALPSPStatements/Statementdetails.aspx?ID=407
  This 2012 study builds on earlier, more nuanced, studies undertaken for ALPSP 
in 2009 and 2006. The 2009 ALPSP study (see the next to last bullet) found that 
"overall usage" is the prime factor that librarians use in making cancellation 
decisions. The 2006 ALPSP study (see points 7 and 8) found that "the length of 
any embargo" would be the most important factor in making cancellation 
decisions.



A 2006 PRC study (see pages 1-3) shows that a significant number of librarians 
are likely to substitute green OA materials for subscribed resources, given 
certain levels of reliability, peer review and currency of the information 
available. With a 24 month embargo, 50% of librarians would use the green OA 
material over paying for subscriptions, and 70% would use the green OA material 
if it is available after 6 months. See 
http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/115-prc-projects/research-reports/self-archiving-and-journal-subscriptions-research-report/145-self-archiving-and-journal-subscriptions-co-existence-or-competition-an-international-survey-of-librarians-preferences



3. Experiences of other journals



For example, the Journal of Clinical Investigation which went open access with 
a 0 month embargo in 1996 and lost c. 40% of institutional subscriptions over 
time. The journal was forced to return to the subscription model in 2009, see 
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/02/26/end-of-free-access/  Other 
examples that spring to mind are the Annals of Mathematics, the Journal of 
Dental Research, the American Journal of Pathology, and Genetics.

With kind wishes,
Alicia

Dr Alicia Wise
Director of Access and Policy
Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB
M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com
Twitter: @wisealic


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Danny Kingsley
Sent: 16 October 2015 12:29
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'

[GOAL] Re: Predatory Publishing: A Modest Proposal

[David Prosser]

To get an idea of the size of the problem of ‘predatory' publishers, does 
anybody know:

a) the proportion of papers published each year in ‘predatory’ publishers 
compared to the total number of papers published worldwide; or even

b) the proportion of papers published each year in ‘predatory’ publishers 
compared to the total number of papers published as Gold OA worldwide.


If I had to guess, I would say that both proportions are tiny.

David



On 9 Sep 2015, at 09:42, Richard Poynder 
> wrote:

What many now refer to as predatory publishing first came to my attention 7 
years ago, when I interviewed a publisher who — I had been told — was 
bombarding researchers with invitations to submit papers to, and sit on the 
editorial boards of, the hundreds of new OA journals it was launching.

Since then I have undertaken a number of other such interviews, and with each 
interview the allegations have tended to become more worrying — e.g. that the 
publisher is levying article-processing charges but not actually sending papers 
out for review, that it is publishing junk science, that it is claiming to be a 
member of a publishing organisation when in reality it is not a member, that it 
is deliberately choosing journal titles that are the same, or very similar, to 
those of prestigious journals (or even directly cloning titles) in order to 
fool researchers into submitting papers to it etc. etc.

The number of predatory publishers continues to grow year by year, and yet far 
too little is still being done to address the issue.

Discussion of the problem invariably focuses on the publishers. But in order to 
practise their trade predatory publishers depend on the co-operation of 
researchers, not least because they have to persuade a sufficient number to sit 
on their editorial boards in order to have any credibility. Without an 
editorial board a journal will struggle to attract many submissions.

Is it time to approach the problem from a different direction?

More here: 
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/predatory-publishing-modest-proposal.html

___
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] Re: Predatory Publishing: A Modest Proposal

[David Prosser]

Of course being trapped by a predatory publisher is a terrible thing for an 
individual.  Just as sending your bank details to a Nigerian oil scammer and 
ending up being ripped off is a terrible thing.  And some of these ‘publishers’ 
are behaving reprehensibly.

But I think we have the right to know the size of the problem.  Is this 
happening to tens, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of authors?  You are 
asking us as a community to invest time and effort into providing solutions - 
let’s know how much of a problem it is first.

David


On 9 Sep 2015, at 13:29, Richard Poynder 
<ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk<mailto:ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk>> wrote:

Hi David,

Even if anyone knows the answers to your questions they will not capture the 
nature and size of the problem of predatory publishing, not least because the 
way in which these companies extract money from researchers is mutating all the 
time.

For instance, some have started to impose “withdrawal fees”. This means that 
when a researcher suddenly realises that they have submitted their paper to a 
publisher they would have been advised not to do business with, or when their 
institution says that it is not prepared to pay the APC because the publisher 
is on Beall’s list, then the researcher will want to withdraw it. But when they 
try to do so they may suddenly discover that their paper is now a hostage. They 
will be told they must either pay the APC, or pay a withdrawal fee. Since the 
latter will be lower than the former, this is likely the option they will go 
for.

Clearly, the latter transaction will be invisible, yet the researcher will be 
out of pocket and the publisher will have increased its revenue, and will as a 
result be able to grow and expand as a result, and devise new ways of 
extracting money as it grows.

If we are only concerned about how many papers are being published in journals 
listed by Beall relative to all papers being published then your questions may 
be good and relevant ones. But if we are concerned about the impact that this 
activity is having on individuals then I think your questions do not go far 
enough.

For more on this see: http://goo.gl/gybP9G

If the above link does not take you directly to the comments I am referring to, 
they are the last 5 comments below the interview.

Richard Poynder


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of David Prosser
Sent: 09 September 2015 11:25
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Predatory Publishing: A Modest Proposal

To get an idea of the size of the problem of ‘predatory' publishers, does 
anybody know:

a) the proportion of papers published each year in ‘predatory’ publishers 
compared to the total number of papers published worldwide; or even

b) the proportion of papers published each year in ‘predatory’ publishers 
compared to the total number of papers published as Gold OA worldwide.


If I had to guess, I would say that both proportions are tiny.

David



On 9 Sep 2015, at 09:42, Richard Poynder 
<richard.poyn...@cantab.net<mailto:richard.poyn...@cantab.net>> wrote:


What many now refer to as predatory publishing first came to my attention 7 
years ago, when I interviewed a publisher who — I had been told — was 
bombarding researchers with invitations to submit papers to, and sit on the 
editorial boards of, the hundreds of new OA journals it was launching.

Since then I have undertaken a number of other such interviews, and with each 
interview the allegations have tended to become more worrying — e.g. that the 
publisher is levying article-processing charges but not actually sending papers 
out for review, that it is publishing junk science, that it is claiming to be a 
member of a publishing organisation when in reality it is not a member, that it 
is deliberately choosing journal titles that are the same, or very similar, to 
those of prestigious journals (or even directly cloning titles) in order to 
fool researchers into submitting papers to it etc. etc.

The number of predatory publishers continues to grow year by year, and yet far 
too little is still being done to address the issue.

Discussion of the problem invariably focuses on the publishers. But in order to 
practise their trade predatory publishers depend on the co-operation of 
researchers, not least because they have to persuade a sufficient number to sit 
on their editorial boards in order to have any credibility. Without an 
editorial board a journal will struggle to attract many submissions.

Is it time to approach the problem from a different direction?

More here: 
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/predatory-publishing-modest-proposal.html

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org>
http

[GOAL] Re: Predatory Publishing: A Modest Proposal

[David Prosser]

Nobody said he was inventing the problem.  I just want to know the size of it.

So what’s your definition of ‘tiny’ Stevan?  I would say if articles in 
‘predatory’ journals make up less than 5% of total number of paper published, 
or of papers published in Gold OA, or even of papers published in paid Gold 
then it is tiny!  (And I don’t see why your preferred ratio is any more 
‘correct’ than mine.)

David


On 9 Sep 2015, at 13:23, Stevan Harnad 
<amscifo...@gmail.com<mailto:amscifo...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:24 AM, David Prosser 
<david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk<mailto:david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk>> wrote:
To get an idea of the size of the problem of ‘predatory' publishers, does 
anybody know:

a) the proportion of papers published each year in ‘predatory’ publishers 
compared to the total number of papers published worldwide; or even

b) the proportion of papers published each year in ‘predatory’ publishers 
compared to the total number of papers published as Gold OA worldwide.

If I had to guess, I would say that both proportions are tiny.

Richard may be over-estimating the size of the problem, but he is not inventing 
it, and I doubt it's tiny.

And the right comparison is as a percentage of paid Gold, not Gold.

SH


On 9 Sep 2015, at 09:42, Richard Poynder 
<richard.poyn...@cantab.net<mailto:richard.poyn...@cantab.net>> wrote:

What many now refer to as predatory publishing first came to my attention 7 
years ago, when I interviewed a publisher who — I had been told — was 
bombarding researchers with invitations to submit papers to, and sit on the 
editorial boards of, the hundreds of new OA journals it was launching.

Since then I have undertaken a number of other such interviews, and with each 
interview the allegations have tended to become more worrying — e.g. that the 
publisher is levying article-processing charges but not actually sending papers 
out for review, that it is publishing junk science, that it is claiming to be a 
member of a publishing organisation when in reality it is not a member, that it 
is deliberately choosing journal titles that are the same, or very similar, to 
those of prestigious journals (or even directly cloning titles) in order to 
fool researchers into submitting papers to it etc. etc.

The number of predatory publishers continues to grow year by year, and yet far 
too little is still being done to address the issue.

Discussion of the problem invariably focuses on the publishers. But in order to 
practise their trade predatory publishers depend on the co-operation of 
researchers, not least because they have to persuade a sufficient number to sit 
on their editorial boards in order to have any credibility. Without an 
editorial board a journal will struggle to attract many submissions.

Is it time to approach the problem from a different direction?

More here: 
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/predatory-publishing-modest-proposal.html

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


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


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org<mailto: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] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

[David Prosser]

Ever since ‘Open Access’ was first defined there have been people who have 
wanted to redefine it.  Heather is the latest of these.  The trouble is, by 
broadening the definition of ‘Open Access’ it is in danger of becoming 
meaningless.

So, Heather wants to include journals who make their content freely available 
after one or two years.  I certainly agree that free access after two years is 
better than no free access after two years, but where do we draw the line - is 
a five year embargo ‘Open Access'? Ten? Fifty?  And Heather has warned us of 
the hypothetical dangers of CC-BY papers being re-enclosed, but wants us to 
consider entire archives where free access can be turned off at the flick of a 
switch at the whim of the publisher as being open access!

I’m all for celebrating free archives, and if somebody wants to compile a list 
then that would be great - but let’s not call it ‘Open Access’.  The trouble 
with all the attempts to redefine ‘Open Access’ is that nobody has come up with 
a definition that improves on that of the Budapest Open Access Initiative of 
2002.

Heather’s final paragraph is frankly baffling.  I know of nobody who feels that 
'the OA movement consists of the small group of people who have been to 
meetings in Budapest’.  What I do know is that many of those who attended the 
first meeting in 2002 where the definition of Open Access was thrashed out have 
spend a huge amount of their time over the past 13 years travelling the world 
promoting open access.  Often, especially in the early years, to audiences that 
were in single-figures and/or overtly hostile.  The fact that there is an OA 
movement today is, in great part, thanks to the inspiring efforts of those 
early pioneers (together with others).  They have advocated for repositories, 
for mandates, for open source software to allow cheaper journal publishing, for 
more liberal licensing, etc., etc.   Denigrating them by implication is quite 
ridiculous revisionism.  (And for full disclosure, I attended the 10th 
anniversary meeting in Budapest, where we were able to celebrate a vibrant, 
international OA movement.)

David



On 30 May 2015, at 20:03, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote:

 What if, instead of condemning the many people who are doing their best to 
 provide the most open access they feel they can, the OA movement were to be 
 more inclusive? For example, DOAJ excludes journals that make their work 
 freely available after one or two years' embargo. I realize and agree that we 
 want immediate OA, but the vast majority of such journals are published by 
 people who are completely in favour of open access but just haven't figured 
 out how to make the economics work for them. 
 
 The opposite of open access is closed access. The Big Chill report on the 
 silencing of federal scientists in Canada is a good illustration. Excerpt: 
 the survey [of Canadian federal scientists] ...found that nearly one-quarter 
 (24%) of respondents had been directly asked to exclude or alter information 
 for non-scientific reasons and that over one-third (37%) had been prevented 
 in the past five years from responding to questions from the public and 
 media from: 
 http://www.pipsc.ca/portal/page/portal/website/issues/science/bigchill
 
 I understand that the U.S. has had similar problems with political 
 interference with science, e.g. states such as Florida having legislature 
 forbidding reference to climate change (example here: 
 http://fcir.org/2015/03/08/in-florida-officials-ban-term-climate-change/)
 
 Even without any political interference, works under toll access can be 
 locked down for the full term of copyright. In the U.S. that's life of the 
 author plus 70 years. If a work is written 30 years before an author dies, 
 that's a century. The great many works freely available within a year or a 
 few of publication should be understood as a huge success, not a failure. 
 
 If the OA movement consists of the small group of people who have been to 
 meetings in Budapest [sometimes people on this list talk as if this were the 
 case],  that's a small movement indeed and not likely to grow very much. On 
 the other hand, if the OA movement is seen as the millions of authors who 
 have provided free access to their own work (however they did this), the 
 thousands of journals providing free access (whether we think they are 
 perfect in this or not), the thousands of repositories - that's a huge global 
 movement, one that we can build upon to continue and grow the momentum to 
 date. 
 
 best,
 
 -- 
 Dr. Heather Morrison
 Assistant Professor
 École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
 University of Ottawa
 http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
 Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
 heather.morri...@uottawa.ca
 
 
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 

[GOAL] Re: COAR-recting the record

[David Prosser]

Heather has mentioned in her posts a couple of times the fact that in the 
Review of RCUK Open Access Policy, ‘Scholars and scholarly societies noted that 
the RCUK preference for CC-BY was problematic with respect to third party 
works’.  In the interests of balance it is worth remembering, and Heather 
doesn’t mention this, that the Review concluded:

'There are ways to protect third party material even within a CC-BY-licensed 
article, but this is not well-understood by all rights-owners, and the issue 
will take some time to be resolved.’


David

On 27 May 2015, at 19:05, Heather Morrison 
heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote:

On 2015-05-27, at 12:37 PM, Kathleen Shearer wrote:

Elsevier’s new policy also requires that accepted manuscripts posted in open 
access repositories bear a CC-BY-NC-ND license. This type of license severely 
limits the re-use potential of publicly funded research. ND restricts the use 
of derivatives, yet derivative use is fundamental to the way in which scholarly 
research builds on previous findings, for example by re-using a part of an 
article (with attribution) in educational material.

Comments:

Creative Commons has existed for about 10 years. Scholars have been building on 
previous findings for millenia. In the past few centuries, scholarship has 
flourished in building on the results of previous findings in a largely All 
Rights Reserved environment.

Education is an important public good, and related to scholarly research. 
Scholars need education before they can research. However, they are not the 
same thing. The open movements - open education, open government, open source, 
open data and open access - each involve different groups with different 
interests. It is, in my opinion, an error to conflate these movements. For 
example, commercial use when applied to open education could mean a 
democratization of knowledge - or a transfer of public goods to private 
educational institutions that could threaten the public institutions that 
produce the work in the first place.

There are valid scholarly reasons for not allowing derivative and commercial 
use, including:

Third party works. Scholars often use third party works, with permission, in 
their articles and books. In doing so, they do not acquire copyright; this 
remains with the original copyright holder. Scholars and scholarly societies 
noted that the RCUK preference for CC-BY was problematic with respect to third 
party works:
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/openaccess/2014review/

Even if these portions of works have appropriate copyright limitations, if 
people assume that a CC-BY article or journal means that all the work is CC-BY, 
this is a problem for the authors.

Some of the work included in scholarly journals is by or of research subjects 
who have their own rights, for example privacy and sometimes copyright. I argue 
that it is generally not ethical to release such works under terms of blanket 
downstream commercial and re-use rights. Lessig's blog post on the Chang v. 
Virgin Mobile case should be required reading for anyone promoting CC licenses 
for scholarly works:
http://www.lessig.org/2007/09/on-the-texas-suit-against-virg/

The CC license site says this about CC-BY: This license lets others distribute, 
remix, tweak, and build upon your work, 
(from:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/)

Build upon is the tradition in scholarship (even with All Rights Reserved), and 
distribute seems fairly obvious for scholars wishing to share their work. 
However, it is not clear that scholars themselves wish to grant rights to remix 
and tweak their work. Scholarly careers are built on reputation. A poor 
downstream remix or tweak can reflect badly on the original scholar. Some 
scholars are happy to participate in this experiment, but many are not.

I am not supporting Elsevier (still participating in the boycott), however I 
think Elsevier may be closer to the author perspective on this than either COAR 
or SPARC.

best,

Heather Morrison



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

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

[GOAL] Re: correction re: How an apparent small price decrease may actually be a large price increase, or why it is important to understand currencies

[David Prosser]

I no financial wizard, but I naively think that if the price I pay for a 
service is less than the price I paid for that service last year then that 
counts as a price reduction.

David



On 23 May 2015, at 00:14, Dana Roth 
dzr...@library.caltech.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu wrote:

One way to help keep this straight is to work out the cost per currency.

An Article Processing Charge (APC) of 3,000 EUROs (3,900 USD/GBP2500) works out 
to $1.30/Euro
While an APC of 2,950 EUROS (3,900 USD/GBP 2,500) works out to exchange rate 
of: 1.32$/Euro


Actually, the decrease of 50 Euros (3,000 – 2,950) is a 1.6% decrease (50/3000) 
in Euro pricing … while the posted USD price remains the same.
I suspect that USD authors must still pay in USD … just as libraries have to 
pay their subscription agents the posted US$ price, irrespective of the change 
in value of the EURO or GBP price.

All this might be better stated, given today’s exchange rate of $1.11/Euro, and 
assuming that the EURO is the primary currency (since it is listed first), the 
USD APC should be $3274.50.

This suggests that EMBO (European Molecular Biology Organization) Press is 
unfairly taking advantage of exchange rates by charging each USD author 16% 
more (3900-3274.5/3900) than they would if the APC charges were honestly based 
on the current exchange rate.

Dana L. Roth
Caltech 1-32
1200 E. California Blvd.
Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
dzr...@library.caltech.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 7:20 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] correction re: How an apparent small price decrease may 
actually be a large price increase, or why it is important to understand 
currencies

My apologies, I got the currency differential backwards - a 21% decrease in the 
EUR should mean a 21% increase in the EUR price, not a decrease.

The basic concept that to understand whether pricing are actually increasing, 
decreasing, or remaining flat, you need to track the pricing in all of the 
currencies, not just one, remains the same. If anyone has pricing for this 
journal from May 2014 in USD or GBP, or if someone from the journal could 
explain their pricing, that would be helpful.

My original incorrect message follows:

This example may help to understand why it is important to consider currency 
fluctuations in assessing trends in pricing. If a journal charges in more than 
one currency, to know whether pricing is flat, decreasing or increasing it is 
necessary to track the pricing in all of the currencies.

Molecular Systems Biology http://msb.embopress.org/authorguide levies an 
Article Processing Charge (APC) of 2,950 EUROS (3,900 USD/GBP 2,500) for each 
Research Articles or Reports accepted for publication. There are no additional 
costs (such as page charges or submission charges). The 2,950 EUROS is a 2% 
price decrease from the 3,000 EUROS we noted last year. But is it really a 
price decrease? As we recently calculated, the EURO has lost 21% in comparison 
with the USD over the past year. If the USD is the primary currency (likely the 
reason for the current EUR price decrease), then the equivalent in EUR today 
would be 2,370 EUR. What looks like a 50 EUR or 2% price decrease may actually 
be a 580 EUR or 24% increase.  Last year we did not capture pricing in all the 
currencies so cannot confirm.

best,

--
Dr. Heather Morrison
Assistant Professor
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
University of Ottawa
Desmarais 111-02
613-562-5800 ext. 7634
Sustaining the Knowledge Commons: Open Access Scholarship
http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.orgmailto: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] Re: Elsevier: Trying to squeeze the virtual genie back into the physical bottle

[David Prosser]

I remember severn or eight years ago a prominent publisher saying that allowing 
green self-archiving was a massive tactical mistake on the part of publishers.  
They only allowed it because they believed it would never gain any traction.  
This is why Elsevier is back-paddling furiously and we are treated to the 
rather sad sight of Alicia Wise trying to promote the back-peddling as a 
massive move towards fairness and being responsive of the desires of 
researchers and research institutions.

David



On 26 May 2015, at 17:03, Stevan Harnad 
amscifo...@gmail.commailto:amscifo...@gmail.com wrote:

Mike,

I will respond more fully on your blog: http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1710

To reply briefly here:

1. The publisher back-pedalling and OA embargoes were anticipated. That’s why 
the copy-request Button https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy 
was already created to provide access during any embargo, nearly 10 years ago, 
long before Elsevier and Springer began back-pedalling.

2. Immediate-deposit mandates plus the Button, once adopted universally, will 
lead unstoppably to 100% OA, and almost as quickly as if there were no 
publisher OA embargoes.

3. For a “way forward,” it is not enough to “look past the present to the 
future”: one must provide a demonstrably viable transition scenario to get us 
there from here.

4. Green OA, mandated by institutions and funders, is a demonstrably viable 
transition scenario.

5. Offering paid-Gold OA journals as an alternative and waiting for all authors 
to switch is not a viable transition sceario, for the reasons I described again 
yesterday in response to Éric 
Archambaulthttp://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2015-May/003366.html:
 multiple journals, multiple subscribing institutions, ongoing access needs, no 
coherent “flip” strategy, hence double-payment (i.e., subscription fees for 
incoming institutional access to external institutional output plus Gold 
publication fees for providing OA to outgoing institutional published output) 
when funds are already stretched to the limit by subscriptions that are 
uncancellable — until and unless made accessible by another means.

6. That other means is 4, above. The resulting transition scenario has been 
described many times, starting in 
2001http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1, 
with updates in 2007http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/, 
2010http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html,  
2013http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/353991/,  
2014http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/,
 and 2015http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/361704/, keeping pace with ongoing 
mandate and embargo developments.

7. An article that is freely accessible to all online under CC-BY-NC-ND is most 
definitely OA — Gratis 
OAhttp://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/08/greengold-oa-and-gratislibre-oa.html,
 to be exact.

8. For the reasons I have likewise described many times before, the transition 
scenario is to mandate Gratis Green OA (together with the Button, for emabrgoed 
deposits) universally. That universal Green Gratis OA will in turn make 
subscriptions cancellable, hence unsustainable, which will in turn force to 
downsize to affordable, sustainable Fair-Gold Libre OA (CC-BY)

9. It is a bit disappointing to hear an OA advocate characterize Green OA as 
parasitic on publishers, when OA’s fundamental rationale has been that 
publishers are parasitic on researchers and referees’ work as well as its 
public funding. But perhaps when the OA advocate is a publisher, the motivation 
changes…

Stevan


On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Michael Eisen 
mbei...@gmail.commailto:mbei...@gmail.com wrote:
Stevan-

I hate to say I told you so, but  at the Budapest meeting years ago it was 
pointed out repeatedly that once green OA actually became a threat to 
publishers, they would no longer look so kindly on it. It took a while, but the 
inevitable has now happened. Green OA that relied on publishers to peer review 
papers + subscriptions to pay for them, but somehow also allowed them to be 
made freely available, was never sustainable. If you want OA you have to either 
fund publishers by some other means (subsidies, APCs) or wean yourself from 
that which they provide (journal branding). Parasitism only works so long as it 
is not too painful to the host. It's a testament to a lot of hard work from 
green OA advocates that it has become a threat to Elsevier. But the way forward 
is not to get them to reverse course, but to look past them to a future that is 
free of subscription journals.

Also, I don't view CC-BY-NC-ND as a victory as the NC part is there to make 
sure that no commercial entity - including, somewhat ironically, PLOS - can use 
the articles to actually do anything. So this license makes these articles 
definitively non open access.

-Mike

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Stevan Harnad 

[GOAL] Re: Has the OA movement over-reacted to challenges on peer review?

[David Prosser]

In defending Jeffrey Beall, Michael Schwartz writes:

Gratuitous insulting comments about [] character are inappropriate, to say the 
least.”

I assume that Michael hasn’t read much of Mr Beall’s writings.  Or is he being 
ironic?

David


On 14 May 2015, at 15:14, Michael Schwartz 
michael.schwa...@mas1.cnc.netmailto:michael.schwa...@mas1.cnc.net wrote:

Jean-Claude Guédon's comment on Jeffrey Beall's Blog is totally mean 
spiritedsmall.

The many ongoing changes, consolidations, and innovations associated with open 
access require vigorous, open, and respectful debate. Presently in today's OA, 
we see the good...the bad...and the ugly. There is no slam dunk here. And, 
sadly, there is precious little debate. I wonder why...

Critics such as Jeffrey Beall should be welcomed, not shamed. Gratuitous 
insulting comments about their character are inappropriate, to say the least. 
And the more powerful and influential the bully the more inappropriate.

As long as powerful partisan's hammer away from their bully pulpit - without 
reproach, a really vigorous and open debate - which MUST occur for all sorts of 
reasons - cannot and will not happen. How sad

Michael Schwartz

Michael Schwartz, MD
Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
Texas AM Health Science Center College of Medicine
Founding Editor, Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities in Medicine

Sent from my iPhone

On May 14, 2015, at 8:12 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon 
jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.camailto:jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote:

In his blog, Jeffrey Beall writes:

I am not too surprised to find a journal that advertises fake impact factors 
and does a four-day peer review included in DOAJ:..

This is totally mean spirited. This is small.

DOAJ relies on all of us, and in fact regularly asks for people to review the 
quality of journals. If Mr. Beall devoted a small fraction of his admirable 
energy to helping DOAJ weed out bad journals, rather than bask in total 
negativism, we would all be better off.

Jean-Claude Guédon

--

Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal




Le mardi 12 mai 2015 à 21:17 +, Beall, Jeffrey a écrit :

In the interest of presenting different viewpoints on this topic, I too would 
like to share the blog post I published today. My blog post is about a gold 
open-access journal that claims it has no article processing charges but, when 
you read the fine print, you will discover that it demands a maintenance fee 
from authors whose work is accepted for publication.

The blog post is here: 
http://scholarlyoa.com/2015/05/12/low-quality-no-author-fee-oa-journal-has-hidden-charges/

Also, the journal promises to carry out peer review in 3-4 days. It's included 
in DOAJ, which incorrectly reports that the journal does not charge any author 
fees.

The journal also boldly displays fake impact factors from six different 
companies.

I believe that this journal will also be of interest to historians, 
anthropologists, and other social scientists.


Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor
Auraria Library
University of Colorado Denver
1100 Lawrence St.
Denver, Colo.  80204 USA

-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 2:39 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Has the OA movement over-reacted to challenges on peer review?

In the early days as many on this list will no doubt remember, open access 
advocates spent a lot of time defending OA from the ludicrous argument that 
peer review somehow was dependent on subscription-based publishing. Have we 
over-reacted, and are we now placing far too much emphasis on the 
technicalities of peer review?

This post draws on an example of a journal that is now fully open access and 
peer reviewed, which emerged from a conference a few decades ago after a 5-year 
stint as a newsletter, and asks whether we have gone too far in separating the 
peer-reviewed article from the broader scholarly communication / community of 
which the article logically forms just one part:
http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/12/from-conference-to-newsletter-to-journal-a-challenge-to-the-emphasis-on-peer-review/

I've added two sections to the Research Questions page in the Open Access 
Directory:
http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Research_questions

Open access in the context of scholarly communication and community flows from 
the challenge to narrow emphasis on peer review described above. There are 
questions here that might interest historians, anthropologists, or other social 
scientists.

The open versus private section may engage scholars from a variety of 
humanities and social sciences; there are interesting theoretical and empirical 
questions in relation to all of the open movements.

best,

--
Dr. Heather Morrison
Assistant Professor
École des sciences de l'information / School of 

[GOAL] Re: A case for strong fair use / fair dealing with restrictive licenses

[David Prosser]

It is unlikely that many authors have contracts with publishers requiring a 
particular license even at the time of publication.

When an author submits a paper to a journal they often get a selection of 
licenses to choose from. Surely that’s part of the contract to publish?

David



On 29 Apr 2015, at 12:52, Heather Morrison 
heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote:

Graham makes some good points.

Anyone who is sharing a work under any Creative Commons license, or any other 
type of license, has no obligation to keep the work available at all, or under 
the same license, in perpetuity. I can post a picture to flickr under whatever 
terms I choose, immediately change my mind and change the terms. If someone 
used the work in the seconds it was available under the initial terms, I cannot 
revoke the license.

The potential for downstream enclosure posed by CC-BY is not a problem of 
licenses of individual works, but rather the attraction of large masses of 
works for profit-taking if CC-BY succeeds as default.

Consider for example if there is success transitioning Elsevier's 
billion-a-year-in-profit, 40% profit margin, STM business to OA as CC-BY. If 
anyone can take the works published by Elsevier and sell them, these kinds of 
profits are likely to attract people and/or companies interested in making 
money.

A downstream commercial user could compete with Elsevier. Since they don't need 
to bother paying a cent to contribute to the original production costs, 
downstream commercial users are at a relatively advantage compared to the 
original publisher when it comes to added value services.

If this threatens Elsevier revenue streams (eg competition for Science Direct 
search services as opposed to content, Scopus), it would make business sense 
for Elsevier to change the license for CC-BY works to more limited terms, or to 
revert to toll access and use differential pricing to discourage commercial 
use. This is what shareholders expect (and have a legal right to expect) 
companies like Elsevier to do - prioritize the bottom line of profit.

It is unlikely that many authors have contracts with publishers requiring a 
particular license even at the time of publication. Funder policies apply to 
grantees, not publishers. Even if there was an author/publisher license 
allowing only CC-BY in perpetuity, CC-BY does not prohibit toll access.

This is not THE scenario, only one possible scenario. I use Elsevier as an 
example because many people on the list are familiar with how profitable the 
company is. A look
at Beall's list may be useful to illustrate the wide range of players that can 
emerge when a business that earns profits for a few companies in the millions 
starts to open up for competition. Think about the people on Wall Street who 
sell things like hedge funds and derivatives. An open invitation to downstream 
commercial use is an open invitation to this sector, too.

Elsevier is likely in a stronger position to out-manoeuvre downstream 
commercial competition than smaller publishers and journals.

To appreciate the danger of re-enclosure it is important to think about the 
scholarly publishing system as a whole rather than individual works.

best,

Heather Morrison
Creative Commons and Open Access Critique series:
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/10/critique-of-cc-by-series.html?m=1


On Apr 29, 2015, at 1:59 AM, Graham Triggs 
grahamtri...@gmail.commailto:grahamtri...@gmail.com wrote:

On 28 April 2015 at 22:45, Heather Morrison 
heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote:
There is nothing in any of the CC licenses that requires that works be made 
available free of charge, either by the downstream user or by the original 
licensor. It is true that a CC license cannot be revoked, however the catch is 
you have to have a copy of the work and proof of the license under which you 
obtained the work. There is nothing to stop the original licensor from changing 
their mind, taking down the CC-BY copy and replacing it with a work under 
whatever terms they like (or not making the work available at all).

In any licence that a work is distributed under, there is nothing compelling 
the distributor to continue to distribute the work in perpetuity under the same 
licence conditions.


This argument is basically that while CC-BY may appear to be highly desirable 
and reflect the BOAI definition of OA (which I now reject as the source of the 
problem), it is a weak license full of loopholes that could be the downfall of 
open access.

See my statement above. Licences attached to the distribution of a work just 
deal with how people that receive the work can make use of it.

What the publisher / distributor can do has to be governed by the rights 
assigned to them by the author / copyright holder, and/or the contract that is 
in place between the author / copyright holder and the publisher / distributor. 
Even when a journal publishes an 

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY and open access question: who is the Licensor?

[David Prosser]

On the publicly-accessible PLoS website we find 
(http://www.plosone.org/static/editorial#copyright):

 3. Copyright and Licensing
 
 Open Access Agreement
 
 Upon submitting an article, authors are asked to indicate their agreement to 
 abide by an open access Creative Commons license (CC-BY). Under the terms of 
 this license, authors retain ownership of the copyright of their articles. 
 However, the license permits any user to download, print out, extract, reuse, 
 archive, and distribute the article, so long as appropriate credit is given 
 to the authors and the source of the work. The license ensures that the 
 article will be available as widely as possible and that the article can be 
 included in any scientific archive.

Again, I’m no lawyer nor a representative of PLoS, but there does not appear to 
be any attempt by PLoS to claim any rights in an article - except the right, 
given by the author under CC-BY, to reproduce it publicly. 

David





On 13 Apr 2015, at 14:00, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote:

 Thank you to Graham Triggs for clarifying that his agreement that in the case 
 of PLOS CC-BY licenses, PLOS is presumably the licensor is a  personal 
 opinion as a member of the public. 
 
 PLOS authors retain copyright. CC licenses are a waiver of one's rights under 
 copyright. This suggests that one of the following must be true:
 
 - PLOS authors, not PLOS, are the licensors of their works as copyright 
 owners
 - PLOS is the licensor, and is legally entitled to do this because of a 
 separate agreement between PLOS authors and PLOS (e.g. copyright transfer or 
 author sub-licensing to PLOS)
 - PLOS is granting CC licenses where they do not have the required legal 
 rights 
 
 PLOS has been a vocal advocate of CC-BY, encouraging other publishers to use 
 this license and decision-makers to require the license through policy, as 
 well as an advocate of openness in science. I think it is reasonable to 
 request that a PLOS spokesperson respond to this question on this public 
 listserv. If someone can forward this question or provide me with the 
 appropriate contact person at PLOS, that would be most appreciated. 
 
 best,
 
 -- 
 Dr. Heather Morrison
 Assistant Professor
 École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
 University of Ottawa
 http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
 Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
 heather.morri...@uottawa.ca
 
 
 
 ___
 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] Re: What is the GOAL?

[David Prosser]

 
this.

Thanks again for your contribution and another example that we in the OA 
movement are not fully in agreement on all of the details. I hope this 
discussion is useful for those interested in developing best practices for OA 
implementation.

best,

Heather Morrison

On Apr 8, 2015, at 9:14 AM, David Prosser 
david.pros...@rluk.ac.ukmailto:david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk wrote:

Jeroen - CC-BY license

Heather - NO!!! the CC-BY license is a major strategic error of the open access 
movement. Allowing downstream commercial use to anyone opens up the possibility 
of re-enclosure. The temptation towards perpetual copyright for profit-taking 
should not be underestimated. Scholarly publishing is a multi-billion dollar 
industry (as well as a community effort relying largely on a gift economy), 
with some players earning profits in the millions (a billion for Elsevier), in 
the 40% profit range. There are other reasons to hesitate to use this license, 
but this is the one that OA advocates need to wake up and pay attention to.


I continue to be unable to grasp Heather’s argument.  If, for whatever reason, 
I purchase from you a CC-BY article I can, as it is CC-BY, make the article 
freely available.  I don’t see how CC-BY allows for re-enclosure when it 
contains within itself the ultimate enclosure-busting feature of allowing 
unlimited distribution provided there is attribution.

David

David C Prosser PhD
Executive Director, RLUK

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7862 8436
Mob: +44 (0) 7825 454586
www.rluk.ac.ukhttp://www.rluk.ac.uk

RLUK Twitter feed: RL_UK
Director's Twitter feed: RLUK_David

Registered Office: Senate House Library, Senate House, Malet Street, London 
WC1E 7HU
Registered Company no: 2733294
Registered Charity no: 1026543

On 8 Apr 2015, at 02:08, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote:

Surely everyone on this list is aiming for the goal of global open access! But 
what do we think this means? Thanks to Jeroen for posting recently his wish 
list. In this post, I will point out how very different my perspective on open 
access is from Jeroen's, even though I think Jeroen and I are both fully in 
favour of global open access and transformative rather than traditional 
approaches. The purpose of this post is to suggest that the open access 
movement has now reached a point where it is useful to have such discussions 
about the specifics of where we think we should be heading. In addition to 
differences in individuals' perspectives, it seems quite likely that there will 
be disciplinary differences as well.

Jeroen's post can be found here:
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2015-April/003154.html

Following is Jeroen's wish list items followed by my perspectives.

Jeroen - fully Open Access
Heather: yes, of course!

Jeroen - online only
Heather - OA works can be online only, but should not be restricted in this 
manner

Jeroen - CC-BY license
Heather - NO!!! the CC-BY license is a major strategic error of the open access 
movement. Allowing downstream commercial use to anyone opens up the possibility 
of re-enclosure. The temptation towards perpetual copyright for profit-taking 
should not be underestimated. Scholarly publishing is a multi-billion dollar 
industry (as well as a community effort relying largely on a gift economy), 
with some players earning profits in the millions (a billion for Elsevier), in 
the 40% profit range. There are other reasons to hesitate to use this license, 
but this is the one that OA advocates need to wake up and pay attention to.

I have written about this in my Creative Commons and Open Access Critique 
series: http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/10/critique-of-cc-by-series.html
and I will be speaking on this topic next week in Washington at the Allen 
Press' Emerging Trends in Scholarly Publishing Seminar:
http://allenpress.com/events/2015seminar

Jeroen - authors retain copyright
Heather - this doesn't really mean very much. With the subscription publishers' 
trend towards license-to-publish, author copyright retention is the norm, but 
the licenses themselves can be virtually identical to full copyright transfer.

Jeroen - maximum APC of 500 USD (or perhaps a lifetime membership model like 
that at PeerJ)
- APC waivers for those who apply (e.g. from LMI countries)
Heather - robust system of OA publishing that does not rely on APCs. Firmly 
opposed to using research funds for APCs. Cancel the high-priced bundles of the 
big commercial scholarly publishers first, then use the savings to pay for OA.

Jeroen - really international profile of editors/board (far beyond 
US/UK/CA/AU/NL/DE/CH/NZ/FR)
Heather - this makes more sense in some areas than others. There is universal 
knowledge (think physics principles) and local knowledge (consider Québec 
politics). There are advantages to regionally based publishing. These include 
the financial advantages of paying local rates in one's own currency and 
generating local jobs, and the community advantages

[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?

[David Prosser]

 Jeroen - CC-BY license
 
 Heather - NO!!! the CC-BY license is a major strategic error of the open 
 access movement. Allowing downstream commercial use to anyone opens up the 
 possibility of re-enclosure. The temptation towards perpetual copyright for 
 profit-taking should not be underestimated. Scholarly publishing is a 
 multi-billion dollar industry (as well as a community effort relying largely 
 on a gift economy), with some players earning profits in the millions (a 
 billion for Elsevier), in the 40% profit range. There are other reasons to 
 hesitate to use this license, but this is the one that OA advocates need to 
 wake up and pay attention to.


I continue to be unable to grasp Heather’s argument.  If, for whatever reason, 
I purchase from you a CC-BY article I can, as it is CC-BY, make the article 
freely available.  I don’t see how CC-BY allows for re-enclosure when it 
contains within itself the ultimate enclosure-busting feature of allowing 
unlimited distribution provided there is attribution.

David

David C Prosser PhD
Executive Director, RLUK

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7862 8436
Mob: +44 (0) 7825 454586
www.rluk.ac.uk

RLUK Twitter feed: RL_UK
Director's Twitter feed: RLUK_David 

Registered Office: Senate House Library, Senate House, Malet Street, London 
WC1E 7HU
Registered Company no: 2733294
Registered Charity no: 1026543

On 8 Apr 2015, at 02:08, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote:

 Surely everyone on this list is aiming for the goal of global open access! 
 But what do we think this means? Thanks to Jeroen for posting recently his 
 wish list. In this post, I will point out how very different my perspective 
 on open access is from Jeroen's, even though I think Jeroen and I are both 
 fully in favour of global open access and transformative rather than 
 traditional approaches. The purpose of this post is to suggest that the open 
 access movement has now reached a point where it is useful to have such 
 discussions about the specifics of where we think we should be heading. In 
 addition to differences in individuals' perspectives, it seems quite likely 
 that there will be disciplinary differences as well.
 
 Jeroen's post can be found here:
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2015-April/003154.html
 
 Following is Jeroen's wish list items followed by my perspectives. 
 
 Jeroen - fully Open Access
 Heather: yes, of course!
 
 Jeroen - online only
 Heather - OA works can be online only, but should not be restricted in this 
 manner
 
 Jeroen - CC-BY license
 Heather - NO!!! the CC-BY license is a major strategic error of the open 
 access movement. Allowing downstream commercial use to anyone opens up the 
 possibility of re-enclosure. The temptation towards perpetual copyright for 
 profit-taking should not be underestimated. Scholarly publishing is a 
 multi-billion dollar industry (as well as a community effort relying largely 
 on a gift economy), with some players earning profits in the millions (a 
 billion for Elsevier), in the 40% profit range. There are other reasons to 
 hesitate to use this license, but this is the one that OA advocates need to 
 wake up and pay attention to.
 
 I have written about this in my Creative Commons and Open Access Critique 
 series: 
 http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/10/critique-of-cc-by-series.html
 and I will be speaking on this topic next week in Washington at the Allen 
 Press' Emerging Trends in Scholarly Publishing Seminar:
 http://allenpress.com/events/2015seminar
 
 Jeroen - authors retain copyright
 Heather - this doesn't really mean very much. With the subscription 
 publishers' trend towards license-to-publish, author copyright retention is 
 the norm, but the licenses themselves can be virtually identical to full 
 copyright transfer.
 
 Jeroen - maximum APC of 500 USD (or perhaps a lifetime membership model like 
 that at PeerJ)
 - APC waivers for those who apply (e.g. from LMI countries)
 Heather - robust system of OA publishing that does not rely on APCs. Firmly 
 opposed to using research funds for APCs. Cancel the high-priced bundles of 
 the big commercial scholarly publishers first, then use the savings to pay 
 for OA. 
 
 Jeroen - really international profile of editors/board (far beyond 
 US/UK/CA/AU/NL/DE/CH/NZ/FR)
 Heather - this makes more sense in some areas than others. There is universal 
 knowledge (think physics principles) and local knowledge (consider Québec 
 politics). There are advantages to regionally based publishing. These include 
 the financial advantages of paying local rates in one's own currency and 
 generating local jobs, and the community advantages of working with people 
 you have a reasonable expectation of getting to know, who are based at 
 institutions you know something about. I think that journal white lists are 
 best handled locally. There is Qualis in Brazil (I gather), although this 
 might need some cleaning up. In Canada we have a scholarly journal 

[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?

[David Prosser]

I’m fast moving into areas that I really have no expertise in and so apologies 
to those on the list much more knowledgeable than I.  But I was struck by this 
point that Heather made:

The License is granted by the Licensor. Once the licensee has a copy of a CC-BY 
licensed work, the license is irrevocable. However, the Licensor has every 
right to change their mind, take down the CC-BY licensed work and replace it 
with a work with a more restrictive license. To understand whether a publisher 
has the rights of the Licensor, it is necessary to consider the contract 
(written or implied) between author and publisher.


So far, so good.  But surely the ‘work’ that is replacing the CC-BY work has to 
be a new version.  Surely you can’t take down a CC-BY version of a paper, 
relabel it as 'All Rights Reserved' and repost it.  In our PMC example, the 
person shutting PMC down would have to get the license holders of all the CC-BY 
content to provide new version of the papers before they could reissue them 
with new restrictive licenses.  Is that likely?

From the CC FAQs 
(https://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_change_the_license_terms_or_conditions.3F):

What if I change my mind about using a CC license?
CC licenses are not revocable. Once something has been published under a CC 
license, licensees may continue using it according to the license terms for the 
duration of applicable copyright and similar rights. As a licensor, you may 
stop distributing under the CC license at any time, but anyone who has access 
to a copy of the material may continue to redistribute it under the CC license 
terms. While you cannot revoke the license, CC licenses do provide a 
mechanismhttps://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_can_I_do_if_I_offer_my_work_under_a_Creative_Commons_license_and_I_do_not_like_the_way_someone_uses_my_work.3F
 for licensors to ask that others using their material remove the attribution 
information. You should think carefully before choosing a Creative Commons 
licensehttps://wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensors_and_licensees.

David


On 8 Apr 2015, at 19:26, Heather Morrison 
heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote:

hi David,

On 2015-04-08, at 12:47 PM, David Prosser wrote:

Hi Heather

OK, so let’s take your specific example.  Every open access paper in PMC is 
mirrored in Europe PubMed Central.  So our publisher not only has to get PMC 
switched off, but Europe PMC as well.  Oh, and PMC Canada.  I suspect that the 
moment that it is suspected that any publisher is trying to get all three sites 
shut down, through a massive lobbying operation on multiple national 
governments and private trusts (the funders of the three sites), somebody (and 
I would put money on Peter Murray Rust being first in line) will download the 
entire corpus and make it available.  And there is nothing anybody can do to 
stop that somebody.

PMC-International is a very good thing for the future of open access, and I 
advise all countries to set up mirror sites and actively participate in 
PMC-International.

There is nothing to stop anyone from lobbying in more than one country or 
region at a time. The push for austerity / structural adjustment / 
privatization of public services over recent decades has been global in scope. 
Right wing governments in North America are very receptive to arguments for 
cuts to public services and privatization of public services. I cannot speak 
for Europe except to note that at least a few countries (Greece, Spain, UK) 
either are going through, or have recently gone through, austerity measures.

In this scenario (lobbying to remove funding for PMC) someone downloading the 
corpus for re-release as open access would be a good thing. I have not 
investigated the cost of providing an equivalent service. Can anyone advise as 
to the costs and/or resources necessary for an individual downloading all of 
PMC to provide OA services to the world, or how this might work? My perspective 
is that if most works are licensing under the NIH fair-use public access 
approach rather than CC-BY this would avoid the temptation to re-enclose, and 
that is much simpler than trying to re-create the system.

The danger is greater when the CC-BY license is in the hands of a company that 
holds some or all of the rights under copyright. For example, if a fee is paid 
to Elsevier, Wiley, etc. to publish a work as CC-BY, there is nothing in the 
CC-BY license per se that would prevent the companies from reverting to All 
Rights Reserved or other more restrictive licenses. This could happen even if 
the author retains copyright, because author copyright retention can co-exist 
with transfer of virtually all rights to a publisher (some license-to-publish 
approaches are very much like this). Authors could in theory negotiate 
publishing contracts to prevent this; but don't expect the industry to develop 
this.

Is this true?  Legal experts

[GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on Predatory Journals

[David Prosser]

Of course, sharp practices such as passing yourself off for another company, 
including the names of Nobel Price winners in your editorial board, repackaging 
papers into fictitious journals at the behest of pharma companies, etc., etc. 
are all to be be deplored.  They are immoral at best and illegal at worst.  But 
they form a tiny part of the overall scholarly communications landscape.  They 
have no more 'damaged the very foundations of scholarly and academic 
publishing’ than ‘Nigerian' scams have damaged the banking industry or paypal 
scams have damaged the very foundations of e-commerce.

Why does Jeffery Beall find it necessary to compile his list of predatory 
publisher?  Well, I’m not privy to Mr Beall’s motivations, but his writing on 
OA certain makes one pause for thought and perhaps provide some clues:

http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514

But maybe I am underestimating the effect these journals have.  Does anybody 
know either:

a) What percentage of the world’s scholarly literature is published in journals 
listed by Mr Beall
b) What percentage of papers from authors in less developed countries goes to 
journals listed by Mr Beall
c) What percentage of the total revenue to publishers (estimated at about 
$10billion annually) goes to publishers listed by Mr Beall

If these journals are really 'damaged the very foundations of scholarly and 
academic publishing’ then I would expect the percentages to be higher than tiny.

The interesting point that Raghavan et al make is that these journals are 
publishing bad papers and that this is bad for research in the long run.  They 
make the suggestion that papers published in such journals should not be 
counted in research assessment.  Here’s a radical idea - rather than judge the 
quality of a paper based on Mr Beall’s rather arbitrary criteria, why not judge 
it on the quality of the research in the paper itself?

David


On 23 Sep 2014, at 23:51, Dana Roth 
dzr...@library.caltech.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu wrote:

If it is such a minor annoyance, why would Elsevier find it necessary to issue 
a Warning regarding fraudulent call for papers ... See:

http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/authors-update/authors-update/warning-re.-fraudulent-call-for-papers

or the necessity of Jeffrey Beall's extensive listing of predatory publishers 
at:

http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

I suspect that David Prosser grossly underestimates the problems these 
publishers cause for researchers in less developed countries.



Dana L. Roth
Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
dzr...@library.caltech.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of David 
Prosser [david.pros...@rluk.ac.ukmailto:david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:30 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on Predatory 
Journals

Quote: Predatory publishing has damaged the very foundations of scholarly and 
academic publishing,

No it hasn’t. It’s a minor annoyance, at most.

David



On 23 Sep 2014, at 07:47, anup kumar das 
anupdas2...@gmail.commailto:anupdas2...@gmail.commailto:anupdas2...@gmail.com
 wrote:

Predatory Journals and Indian Ichthyology
by R. Raghavan, N. Dahanukar, J.D.M. Knight, A. Bijukumar, U. Katwate, K. 
Krishnakumar, A. Ali and S. Philip
Current Science, 2014, 107(5), 740-742.

Although the 21st century began with a hope that information and communication 
technology will act as a boon for reinventing taxonomy, the advent and rise of 
electronic publications, especially predatory open-access journals, has 
resulted in an additional challenge (the others being gap, impediment and 
urgency) for taxonomy in the century of extinctions.
Predatory publishing has damaged the very foundations of scholarly and academic 
publishing, and has led to unethical behaviour from scientists and researchers. 
The ‘journal publishing industry’ in India is a classical example of ‘predatory 
publishing’, supported by researchers who are in a race to publish. The urge to 
publish ‘quick and easy’ can be attributed to two manifestations, 
i.e.‘impactitis’ and ‘mihi itch’. While impactitis can be associated with the 
urge for greater impact factor (IF) and scientific merit, mihi itch (loosely) 
explains the behaviour of researchers, especially biologists publishing in 
predatory journals yearning to see their name/s associated with a new ‘species 
name’. Most predatory journals do not have an IF, and authors publishing in 
such journals are only seeking an ‘impact’ (read without factor), and 
popularity by seeing their names appear in print media. This practice has most 
often led

[GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on Predatory Journals

[David Prosser]

I think that every article should be read on it’s own merits and it should not 
have value assigned to it just because it has managed to get into a certain 
club (journal).  It is saddening to me that this suggestion should be 
considered even vaguely radical.

When Science carried out its ‘Sting’ on open access titles there were journals 
on Beall’s list that rejected the paper.  Other not on his list (including one 
published under the auspices of Elsevier ) accepted it.  I’m all for context, 
but if we are considering a researcher’s future and funding surely we owe it to 
them to judge them on their own merits and not on the arbitrary criteria of one 
chap in Colorado.

David

On 24 Sep 2014, at 10:40, Hamaker, Charles 
caham...@uncc.edumailto:caham...@uncc.edu wrote:

So every article from every journal should be read under the assumption that 
peer review markers are a poor way to make a preliminary decision point as to 
whether  the article merits attention?
It's going to be difficult to assume every one is expert enough to judge every 
paper they read solely on the content absent context of labeling or assumption 
of  basic peer review.
 Journal labels provide a context. Are we to ignore that?
Doesn't that make introduction to a literature for novices or the task of 
anyone reading outside the narrow boundaries of their discipline almost 
impossible?

Chuck Hamaker



Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone


 Original message 
From: David Prosser
Date:09/24/2014 4:38 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on Predatory 
Journals


Of course, sharp practices such as passing yourself off for another company, 
including the names of Nobel Price winners in your editorial board, repackaging 
papers into fictitious journals at the behest of pharma companies, etc., etc. 
are all to be be deplored.  They are immoral at best and illegal at worst.  But 
they form a tiny part of the overall scholarly communications landscape.  They 
have no more 'damaged the very foundations of scholarly and academic 
publishing’ than ‘Nigerian' scams have damaged the banking industry or paypal 
scams have damaged the very foundations of e-commerce.

Why does Jeffery Beall find it necessary to compile his list of predatory 
publisher?  Well, I’m not privy to Mr Beall’s motivations, but his writing on 
OA certain makes one pause for thought and perhaps provide some clues:

http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514

But maybe I am underestimating the effect these journals have.  Does anybody 
know either:

a) What percentage of the world’s scholarly literature is published in journals 
listed by Mr Beall
b) What percentage of papers from authors in less developed countries goes to 
journals listed by Mr Beall
c) What percentage of the total revenue to publishers (estimated at about 
$10billion annually) goes to publishers listed by Mr Beall

If these journals are really 'damaged the very foundations of scholarly and 
academic publishing’ then I would expect the percentages to be higher than tiny.

The interesting point that Raghavan et al make is that these journals are 
publishing bad papers and that this is bad for research in the long run.  They 
make the suggestion that papers published in such journals should not be 
counted in research assessment.  Here’s a radical idea - rather than judge the 
quality of a paper based on Mr Beall’s rather arbitrary criteria, why not judge 
it on the quality of the research in the paper itself?

David


On 23 Sep 2014, at 23:51, Dana Roth 
dzr...@library.caltech.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
 wrote:

If it is such a minor annoyance, why would Elsevier find it necessary to issue 
a Warning regarding fraudulent call for papers ... See:

http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/authors-update/authors-update/warning-re.-fraudulent-call-for-papers

or the necessity of Jeffrey Beall's extensive listing of predatory publishers 
at:

http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

I suspect that David Prosser grossly underestimates the problems these 
publishers cause for researchers in less developed countries.



Dana L. Roth
Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
dzr...@library.caltech.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: 
goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org
 
[goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org]
 on behalf of David Prosser 
[david.pros...@rluk.ac.ukmailto:david.pros...@rluk.ac.ukmailto:david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:30 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interesting Current

[GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on Predatory Journals

[David Prosser]

Quote: Predatory publishing has damaged the very foundations of scholarly and 
academic publishing,

No it hasn’t.  It’s a minor annoyance, at most.

David



On 23 Sep 2014, at 07:47, anup kumar das 
anupdas2...@gmail.commailto:anupdas2...@gmail.com wrote:

Predatory Journals and Indian Ichthyology
by R. Raghavan, N. Dahanukar, J.D.M. Knight, A. Bijukumar, U. Katwate, K. 
Krishnakumar, A. Ali and S. Philip
Current Science, 2014, 107(5), 740-742.

Although the 21st century began with a hope that information and communication 
technology will act as a boon for reinventing taxonomy, the advent and rise of 
electronic publications, especially predatory open-access journals, has 
resulted in an additional challenge (the others being gap, impediment and 
urgency) for taxonomy in the century of extinctions.
Predatory publishing has damaged the very foundations of scholarly and academic 
publishing, and has led to unethical behaviour from scientists and researchers. 
The ‘journal publishing industry’ in India is a classical example of ‘predatory 
publishing’, supported by researchers who are in a race to publish. The urge to 
publish ‘quick and easy’ can be attributed to two manifestations, 
i.e.‘impactitis’ and ‘mihi itch’. While impactitis can be associated with the 
urge for greater impact factor (IF) and scientific merit, mihi itch (loosely) 
explains the behaviour of researchers, especially biologists publishing in 
predatory journals yearning to see their name/s associated with a new ‘species 
name’. Most predatory journals do not have an IF, and authors publishing in 
such journals are only seeking an ‘impact’ (read without factor), and 
popularity by seeing their names appear in print media. This practice has most 
often led to the publication of substandard papers in many fields, including 
ichthyology.

Download Full-text Article: 
http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/107/05/0740.pdf
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.orgmailto: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] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex

[David Prosser]

I’m not sure that Dr Weckowska has thought through the full implications of the 
HEFCE policy:

In addition, she says: “Under the new HEFCE policy, researchers have incentives 
to make their best 4 papers accessible through the gold or green OA route 
(assuming that the REF again requires 4 papers) but they do not have incentives 
to make ALL their papers openly accessible.”

Only papers that were deposited on acceptance are eligible for consideraton in 
the next REF.  It is a rare researcher who, as they are publishing, will be 
able to say ’this will be one of my top-4, I will make it OA.  But this one 
won’t be - I definitely won’t want to submit it to the REF - so I won’t make it 
OA'.   A researcher will want to choose from all of their papers and so will 
need to ensure that all of their papers fulfil the mandate - not just the 4 (or 
however many) that, with hindsight, they think are best.  It is this - rather 
clever - part of the policy that will push up the proportion of OA papers.

David


On 22 Sep 2014, at 15:02, Richard Poynder 
richard.poyn...@cantab.netmailto:richard.poyn...@cantab.net wrote:

As a result of prolonged pressure from the open access (OA) movement — and 
following considerable controversy within the research community — the UK is 
now embarked on a journey that OA advocates hope will lead to all 
publicly-funded research produced in the country being made freely available on 
the Internet.

This, they believe, will be the outcome of the OA mandates from Research 
Councils UK (which came into effect on April 1st 2013) and the Higher Education 
Funding Council for England (which will come into effect in 2016).

It has taken the OA movement twelve years to get the UK to this point (the 
Budapest Open Access Initiative was authored in 2002), but advocates believe 
that these two mandates have now made open access a done deal in the country. 
As such, they say, they represent a huge win for the movement.

Above all, they argue, HEFCE’s insistence that only those works that have been 
deposited in an open repository will be eligible for assessment for REF2020 
(which directly affects faculty tenure, promotion and funding) is a requirement 
that no researcher can afford to ignore.

But could this be too optimistic a view? Dagmara Weckowska, a lecturer in 
Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex, believes it may be. While 
she does not doubt that the RCUK/HEFCE policies will increase the number of 
research outputs made open access, she questions whether they will be as 
effective as OA advocates appear to assume.

Weckowska reached this conclusion after doing some research earlier this year 
into how researchers’ attitudes to open access have changed as a result of the 
RCUK policy. This, she says, suggests that open access mandates will only be 
fully successful if researchers can be convinced of the benefits of open 
access. As she puts it, “Researchers who currently provide OA only when they 
are required to do so by their funders will need a change of heart and mind to 
start providing open access to all their work.”

In addition, she says: “Under the new HEFCE policy, researchers have incentives 
to make their best 4 papers accessible through the gold or green OA route 
(assuming that the REF again requires 4 papers) but they do not have incentives 
to make ALL their papers openly accessible.”

The interview with Dagmara Weckowska can be reader here:

http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-open-access-interviews-dagmara.html

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.orgmailto: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] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

[David Prosser]

As I say, I think I did, accidentally, coin the phrase 'hybrid journals'.  As 
Sally notes, I saw it as a low-risk way for publishers to move subscription 
journals to open access.  It is amazing (and perhaps slight depressing) to 
think that the article I published describing the model is now ten years old:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/2003/0016/0003/art1(freely
 available)

But while the phrase may have been mine, the model wasn't - it was developed 
from that used by the Journals of the Entomological Society of America.  

What my paper missed and what may have been obvious at the time, but which I 
only saw with hindsight, were the biggest problems with the model:

1. There is little incentive for the publisher to set a competitive APC.  It is 
clear that in most cases APCs for hybrids are higher than APCs for born-OA 
journals.  But as the hybrid is gaining the majority of its revenue from 
subscriptions why set a lower APC - if any author wants to pay it then it is 
just a bonus.  Of course, this helps explains the low take-up rate for OA in 
most hybrid journals - why pay a hight fee when you can get published in that 
journal for free?  And if you really want OA then best go to a born-OA journal 
which is cheaper and may well be of comparable quality.

2. There is little pressure on the publisher to reduce subscription prices.  Of 
course, everybody says 'we don't double dip', but this is almost impossible to 
verify and  from a subscriber's point of view very difficult to police.  I 
don't know of any institution, for example, in a multi-year big deal who has 
received a rebate based on OA hybrid content.

So, the hybrid model has been a disappointment to me and I have some sympathy 
for those funders that refuse to pay APCs for hybrid journals.  A position 
Stuart Shieber has argued eloquently and compellingly for (see, for example, 
the relevant section in 
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2013/07/10/ecumenical-open-access-and-the-finch-report-principles/).
  I was very struck by the recommendation in the recent UK House of Commons BIS 
report that hybrid APCs should not be funded.  Unless we see real movement from 
publishers to address in a transparent and local manner the double-dipping 
issue then that is a position that, despite my previous advocacy for the hybrid 
model, I think I'll increasingly support.

David



On 16 Dec 2013, at 22:14, Sally Morris wrote:

 Actually, as far as I can recall, the idea of 'hybrid journals' was first 
 proposed by David Prosser of SPARC Europe in 2003, as a way for publishers to 
 move towards 100% conversion to OA
  
 David will no doubt say if this is not so
  
 Sally
  
 Sally Morris
 South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
 Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
 Email:  sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
  
 
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
 Jean-Claude Guédon
 Sent: 16 December 2013 20:29
 To: goal@eprints.org
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of 
 Beall's List
 
 Le lundi 16 décembre 2013 à 14:34 +, Graham Triggs a écrit :
 
 On 14 December 2013 20:53, Jean-Claude Guédon 
 jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote:
 
 
 
 Which terms have been introduced by the publishing industry? The majority of 
 the terms that I see regularly were introduced - or at least claimed to have 
 been - by scholars.
 
 Who introduced hybrid journals? who introduced delayed open access - an 
 oxymoron if there ever was one? What about Elsevier's universal access? 
 etc. etc.
 
 
 
 The publishing industry has been fairly quick to make use of the variety of 
 terms though - some in attempting to best engage with and understand the 
 needs and desires of the academic community; others to preserve their 
 business models for as long as possible.
 
 Fairly quick indeed! face-smile.png
 
 
 
 [snip (because irrelevant] 
 
 
 Profits alone are not a good measure of whether the public purse is being 
 pillaged or not. They are just the difference between revenue and costs. At 
 which point:
 
 
 1) Publisher revenue does not just come from the public purse - sales to 
 privately funded institutions, personal subscriptions, reprints, 
 advertising...
 
 
 2) For everything that they do (which may or may not be appropriate), the 
 publishing industry is very, very good at reducing costs.
 
 
 Ultimately, the public purse is not necessarily disadvantaged by engaging 
 with for-profit industries; although it could benefit from ensuring there 
 are competitive markets. You can argue that the publishing industry could 
 stand to reduce it's profits by charging less - but there is no guarantee 
 that an alternative would take less money overall from the public purse.
 
 Profits alone begin to indicate where the problem lies, just by comparison 
 between publishers. Enough money comes from the public purse in many 
 countries (Canada, for example

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

[David Prosser]

 Who introduced hybrid journals? 

I'm not 100% sure, but that may have been me!  It seemed like a good idea at 
the time...

David



On 16 Dec 2013, at 20:28, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:

 Le lundi 16 décembre 2013 à 14:34 +, Graham Triggs a écrit :
 
 On 14 December 2013 20:53, Jean-Claude Guédon 
 jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote:
 
 
 
 Which terms have been introduced by the publishing industry? The majority of 
 the terms that I see regularly were introduced - or at least claimed to have 
 been - by scholars.
 
 Who introduced hybrid journals? who introduced delayed open access - an 
 oxymoron if there ever was one? What about Elsevier's universal access? 
 etc. etc.
 
 
 
 The publishing industry has been fairly quick to make use of the variety of 
 terms though - some in attempting to best engage with and understand the 
 needs and desires of the academic community; others to preserve their 
 business models for as long as possible.
 
 Fairly quick indeed! face-smile.png
 
 
 
 [snip (because irrelevant] 
 
 
 Profits alone are not a good measure of whether the public purse is being 
 pillaged or not. They are just the difference between revenue and costs. At 
 which point:
 
 
 1) Publisher revenue does not just come from the public purse - sales to 
 privately funded institutions, personal subscriptions, reprints, 
 advertising...
 
 
 2) For everything that they do (which may or may not be appropriate), the 
 publishing industry is very, very good at reducing costs.
 
 
 Ultimately, the public purse is not necessarily disadvantaged by engaging 
 with for-profit industries; although it could benefit from ensuring there 
 are competitive markets. You can argue that the publishing industry could 
 stand to reduce it's profits by charging less - but there is no guarantee 
 that an alternative would take less money overall from the public purse.
 
 Profits alone begin to indicate where the problem lies, just by comparison 
 between publishers. Enough money comes from the public purse in many 
 countries (Canada, for example, or most European countries) to justify my 
 anger. As for point 2, it is quite laughable. Why does not Elsevier reduce 
 its profit rate then? The answer is that each journal is a small monopoly in 
 itself. And in monopoly situations, what is the incentive to reduce pricing? 
 
 
 
 From free and low cost access programmes, through APC waivers, and 
 charitable partnerships, the publishing industry does a lot more for 
 developing nations than the picture you are painting.
 
 Having looked fairly closely at programmes like HINARI, I beg to differ. The 
 publishing industry is very creative when it comes to growing fig leaves.
 
 
 
 Is it perfect? No. Could more be done? Probably. Can the industry do it 
 alone? No.
 
 It would be a lot cheaper if the industry got out of the way.
 
 
 
 If you want to see the situation improve, then it's going to take funders 
 and researchers to work with the publishing industry.
 
 I would rather see funders support publicly supported efforts such as Scielo 
 or Redalyc in Latin America. The publishing industry does not need yet 
 another subsidy to begin expanding its potential markets.
 
 
 
 Or you could try and ignore the industry entirely. But simply depositing 
 research in institutional repositories does not necessarily solve developing 
 nation's access problems, and does not necessarily solve their publishing 
 problems.
 
 Your last point is correct, at least until now. Laws such as the one recently 
 passed in Argentina may help further. But you are right: in developing 
 nations, the best way is to avoid the industry entirely and develop 
 evaluation methods that are a little more sophisticated than the impact 
 factor misapplied to individuals.
 
 Jean-Claude Guédon
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
 
 --
 Jean-Claude Guédon
 Professeur titulaire
 Littérature comparée
 Université de Montréal
 ___
 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] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

[David Prosser]

. To the goal of 
 optimal scholarly knowledge exchange. And so on, Russian doll like. But 
 that's a different discussion, I think
 
 Jan Velterop
 
 
 On 12 Dec 2013, at 12:03, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk 
 wrote:
 
 What I'm saying is that OA may have done itself a disservice by adhering so 
 rigidly to tight definitions.  A more relaxed focus on the end rather than 
 the means might prove more appealing to the scholars for whose benefit it is 
 supposed to exist
  
 Sally
  
 Sally Morris
 South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
 Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
 Email:  sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
  
 
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf 
 Of David Prosser
 Sent: 12 December 2013 08:37
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises 
 CredibilityofBeall's List
 
 Let me get this right, Jean-Claude mentioning the Budapest Open Access 
 Initiative to show that re-use was an integral part of the original 
 definition of open access and not some later ('quasi-religeous') addition as 
 Sally avers.  And by doing so he is betraying some type of religious zeal? 
 
 One of the interesting aspect of the open access debate has been the 
 language.  Those who argue against OA have been keen to paint OA advocates 
 as 'zealots', extremists, and impractical idealists.  I've always felt that 
 such characterisation was an attempt to mask the paucity of argument.
 
 David
 
 ___
 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] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility ofBeall's List

[David Prosser]

 objective.
 
  
 
 However, two other, financial, objectives (linked to each other, but not to 
 the above) have gained increasing prominence.  The first is the alleged cost 
 saving (or at least cost shifting).  The second - more malicious, and 
 originally (but no longer) denied by OA's main proponents - is the 
 undermining of publishers' businesses.  If this were to work, we may be sure 
 the effects would not be choosy about 'nice' or 'nasty' publishers.
 
  
 
 2) Why hasn't OA been widely adopted by now?
 
  
 
 If – as we have been repetitively assured over many years – OA is 
 self-evidently the right thing for scholars to do, why have so few of them 
 done so voluntarily? As Jeffrey Beall points out, it seems very curious 
 that scholars have to be forced, by mandates, to adopt a model which is 
 supposedly preferable to the existing one.
 
  
 
 Could it be that the monotonous rantings of the few and the tiresome debates 
 about the fine detail are actually confusing scholars, and may even be 
 putting them off?  Just asking ;-)
 
  
 
 I don't disagree that the subscription model is not going to be able to 
 address the problems we face in making the growing volume of research 
 available to those who need it;  but I'm not convinced that OA (whether 
 Green, Gold or any combination) will either.  I think the solution, if there 
 is one, still eludes us.
 
  
 
 Merry Christmas!
 
  
 
 Sally 
 
 
 Sally Morris
 South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
 Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
 Email:  sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
 
 
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf 
 Of David Prosser
 Sent: 09 December 2013 22:10
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility 
 ofBeall's List
 
 
 
 'Lackeys'? This is going beyond parody.
 
 
 David
 
 
 
 
 On 9 Dec 2013, at 21:45, Beall, Jeffrey wrote:
 
 Wouter,
 
 Hello, yes, I wrote the article, I stand by it, and I take responsibility 
 for it.
 
 I would ask Prof. Harnad to clarify one thing in his email below, namely 
 this statement, OA is all an anti-capitlist plot.
 
 This statement's appearance in quotation marks makes it look like I wrote 
 it in the article. The fact is that this statement does not appear in the 
 article, and I have never written such a statement.
 
 Prof. Harnad and his lackeys are responding just as my article predicts.
 
 Jeffrey Beall
 
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf 
 Of Gerritsma, Wouter
 Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 2:14 PM
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of 
 Beall's List
 
 Dear all.
 
 Has this article really been written by Jeffrey Beall?
 He has been victim of a smear campaign before!
 
 I don’t see he has claimed this article on his blog http://scholarlyoa.com/ 
 or his tweet stream @Jeffrey_Beall (which actually functions as his RSS 
 feed).
 
 I really like to hear from the man himself on his own turf.
 
 Wouter
 
  
 
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf 
 Of Stevan Harnad
 Sent: maandag 9 december 2013 16:04
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's 
 List
 
 Beall, Jeffrey (2013) The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open 
 Access. TripleC Communication, Capitalism  Critique Journal. 11(2): 
 589-597 http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514
 
 This wacky article is going to be fun to review. I still think Jeff Beall 
 is doing something useful with his naming and shaming of junk OA journals, 
 but I now realize that he is driven by some sort of fanciful conspiracy 
 theory! OA is all an anti-capitlist plot. (Even on a quick skim it is 
 evident that Jeff's article is rife with half-truths, errors and downright 
 nonsense. Pity. It will diminish the credibility of his valid exposés, but 
 maybe this is a good thing, if the judgment and motivation behind Beall's 
 list is as kooky as this article! But alas it will now also give the 
 genuine predatory junk-journals some specious arguments for discrediting 
 Jeff's work altogether. Of course it will also give the publishing lobby 
 some good sound-bites, but they use them at their peril, because of all the 
 other nonsense in which they are nested!) 
 
 Before I do a critique later today), I want to post some tidbits to set the 
 stage:
 
 JB: ABSTRACT: While the open-access (OA) movement purports to be about 
 making scholarly content open-access, its true motives are much different. 
 The OA movement is an anti-corporatist movement that wants to deny the 
 freedom of the press to companies it disagrees with. The movement is also 
 actively imposing onerous mandates on researchers, mandates that restrict 
 individual freedom. To boost the open

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

[David Prosser]

'Lackeys'? This is going beyond parody.

David



On 9 Dec 2013, at 21:45, Beall, Jeffrey wrote:

 Wouter,
  
 Hello, yes, I wrote the article, I stand by it, and I take responsibility for 
 it.
  
 I would ask Prof. Harnad to clarify one thing in his email below, namely this 
 statement, OA is all an anti-capitlist plot.
  
 This statement's appearance in quotation marks makes it look like I wrote it 
 in the article. The fact is that this statement does not appear in the 
 article, and I have never written such a statement.
  
 Prof. Harnad and his lackeys are responding just as my article predicts.
  
 Jeffrey Beall
  
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
 Gerritsma, Wouter
 Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 2:14 PM
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of 
 Beall's List
  
 Dear all.
  
 Has this article really been written by Jeffrey Beall?
 He has been victim of a smear campaign before!
  
 I don’t see he has claimed this article on his blog http://scholarlyoa.com/ 
 or his tweet stream @Jeffrey_Beall (which actually functions as his RSS feed).
  
 I really like to hear from the man himself on his own turf.
  
 Wouter
  
  
  
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
 Stevan Harnad
 Sent: maandag 9 december 2013 16:04
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's 
 List
  
 Beall, Jeffrey (2013) The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open 
 Access. TripleC Communication, Capitalism  Critique Journal. 11(2): 589-597 
 http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514
  
 This wacky article is going to be fun to review. I still think Jeff Beall is 
 doing something useful with his naming and shaming of junk OA journals, but I 
 now realize that he is driven by some sort of fanciful conspiracy theory! OA 
 is all an anti-capitlist plot. (Even on a quick skim it is evident that 
 Jeff's article is rife with half-truths, errors and downright nonsense. Pity. 
 It will diminish the credibility of his valid exposés, but maybe this is a 
 good thing, if the judgment and motivation behind Beall's list is as kooky as 
 this article! But alas it will now also give the genuine predatory 
 junk-journals some specious arguments for discrediting Jeff's work 
 altogether. Of course it will also give the publishing lobby some good 
 sound-bites, but they use them at their peril, because of all the other 
 nonsense in which they are nested!) 
  
 Before I do a critique later today), I want to post some tidbits to set the 
 stage:
  
 JB: ABSTRACT: While the open-access (OA) movement purports to be about 
 making scholarly content open-access, its true motives are much different. 
 The OA movement is an anti-corporatist movement that wants to deny the 
 freedom of the press to companies it disagrees with. The movement is also 
 actively imposing onerous mandates on researchers, mandates that restrict 
 individual freedom. To boost the open-access movement, its leaders sacrifice 
 the academic futures of young scholars and those from developing countries, 
 pressuring them to publish in lower-quality open-access journals.  The 
 open-access movement has fostered the creation of numerous predatory 
 publishers and standalone journals, increasing the amount of research 
 misconduct in scholarly publications and the amount of pseudo-science that is 
 published as if it were authentic science.
  
 JB: [F]rom their high-salaried comfortable positions…OA advocates... demand 
 that for-profit, scholarly journal publishers not be involved in scholarly 
 publishing and devise ways (such as green open-access) to defeat and 
 eliminate them...
  
 JB: OA advocates use specious arguments to lobby for mandates, focusing only 
 on the supposed economic benefits of open access and ignoring the value 
 additions provided by professional publishers. The arguments imply that 
 publishers are not really needed; all researchers need to do is upload their 
 work, an action that constitutes publishing, and that this act results in a 
 product that is somehow similar to the products that professional publishers 
 produce….  
  
 JB:  The open-access movement isn't really about open access. Instead, it is 
 about collectivizing production and denying the freedom of the press from 
 those who prefer the subscription model of scholarly publishing. It is an 
 anti-corporatist, oppressive and negative movement, one that uses young 
 researchers and researchers from developing countries as pawns to 
 artificially force the make-believe gold and green open-access models to 
 work. The movement relies on unnatural mandates that take free choice away 
 from individual researchers, mandates set and enforced by an onerous cadre of 
 Soros-funded European autocrats...
  
 JB: The open-access 

[GOAL] Re: Bohannon study: No damage

[David Prosser]

I understand slightly more now that you have changed your position.  Originally 
you said:

 Unlike with today's Fool's Gold junk journals that were caught by Bohannon's 
 sting, not only will no-fault post-Green, Fair-Gold peer-review remove any 
 incentive to accept lower quality papers (and thereby reduce the reputation 
 of the journal)...
 

You now accept:

 Perhaps you meant that even in the no-fault Fair-Gold era there will still be 
 junk peer review, hence junk journals? No doubt. But they'll be known (as 
 they are now, except if they are new) and will no longer have the bogus 
 allure that they are worth trying, because they are OA (because everything 
 will be OA). But vanity press will no doubt continue to exist in the OA era 
 as long as human vanity -- and vain hopes -- continue to exist.

It was the logical leap that you were trying to make that universal green would 
remove junk journals - i.e., there would be no inceptive to accept low quality 
journals - that I didn't undertsand.  You now accept that junk journals will 
continue.  You've removed that leap.  

Thanks

David




On 13 Oct 2013, at 16:56, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 10:38 AM, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk 
 wrote:
 
 I don't follow the logic of this.
 
 [1] Authors want to get the prestige of publication in journals.  
  
 [2] Authors of very poor papers know they can only get published in journals 
 where the peer review is lax (perhaps to the point of non-existence).
 
 [3] Even if they make their papers Green OA, authors of poor papers will 
 still want 'prestige', so they will still look for a journal that will 
 publish their papers.   
  
 [4] Whatever the status of green OA, poor journals will continue to exist for 
 as long as their are authors writing poor papers.
 
 Well, it's certainly true that you didn't follow the logic, David!
 
 We agree on every point:
 
 1. Authors want to be published, preferably as prestigiously as they can. 
 Agreed.
 
 2. Low quality papers can only be published in low quality journals (whether 
 junk Gold OA journals or junk subscription journals). Agreed.
 
 3. Green OA means Green Open Access to published journal articles, so 
 whatever the quality level of the journal, the article's Green OA version 
 inherits that journal quality -- plus the bonus of OA. Agreed (but what's 
 your point?)
 
 4. Low quality papers can only be published in low quality journals (whether 
 junk Gold OA journals or junk subscription journals). Agreed (but what's your 
 point?).
 
 My point was that there are indeed junk subscription journals as well as junk 
 pay-to-publish Gold OA journals, so the Bohannon sting would no doubt have 
 caught some of both, had it been done on both. 
 
 But I added that it is very likely that the proportion would have still been 
 higher for the junk Gold (matched for field, age, and impact factor), because 
 subscription journals need to have enough of an appearance of peer review to 
 sustain subscriber appeal, not just author appeal, in order to make ends 
 meet, whereas junk pay-to-publish Gold journals can manage on author appeal 
 alone (or quit, always ahead, any time they run out of author submissions 
 because their scam is discovered by authors and users). 
 
 (And that part of the spurious author appeal of junk Gold journals comes from 
 the appeal of OA itself, today, along with its mindless conflation with Gold 
 OA publishing.)
 
 And that (once mandatory Green has become universal) post-Green Fair-Gold -- 
 paid in exchange for no-fault peer review instead of for acceptance, as with 
 pre-Green Fool's Gold -- will protect (somewhat) against lowering quality 
 standards in order to increase paid acceptance revenue.
 
 Perhaps you meant that even in the no-fault Fair-Gold era there will still be 
 junk peer review, hence junk journals? No doubt. But they'll be known (as 
 they are now, except if they are new) and will no longer have the bogus 
 allure that they are worth trying, because they are OA (because everything 
 will be OA). But vanity press will no doubt continue to exist in the OA era 
 as long as human vanity -- and vain hopes -- continue to exist.
 
 Stevan Harnad
 The inevitable sensationalism inspired by the Bohannon Sting will soon die 
 down, doing no damage to science, scholarship or peer review. And insofar as 
 OA is concerned, it helps bring out an point about pay-to-publish junk 
 journals riding the growing wave of clamor for OA:
 
 I would be surprised if there weren't subscription journals that would have 
 accepted the Bohannon bogus paper for publication too. 
 
 But I would be even more surprised if as high a proportion of subscription 
 journals -- matched for field, age, size and impact-factor -- would have 
 accepted Bohannon's bogus paper as did the pay-to-publish OA journals (Gold 
 OA). 
 
 Subscription journals have to maintain enough of an appearance of peer 
 review to sustain

[GOAL] Re: Scholars jobs not publisher profits

[David Prosser]

Jeffrey

Ignoratio elenchi? That's from Harry Potter, right?  Spell meaning 'facts be 
gone'?

Heather is interested in the flow of money out of academia.  If that is your 
area of interest then the profit margins of large commercial, legacy publishers 
are clearly of more interest than the profit margins of other players.  From 
the figures I quote (from your blog), Hindawi takes $300 of profit from each 
paper it publishers.  A large commercial, legacy publisher takes about $1200*.  
From where I sit (and I admit my knowledge of economics is almost as bad as 
that of Latin) it is clear that $1200 per paper is a significantly larger 
amount than $300 per paper and there is no way the figures back up your 
contention that 'It appears that the money is just moving from one set of 
publishers to another.'

David

*My conservative guess - happy to have people with access to the figures 
correct this.  It's basically 30% of $4000


On 3 Oct 2013, at 23:04, Beall, Jeffrey wrote:

 David,
  
 Thank you for your ignoratio elenchi.
  
 --Jeffrey
  
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
 David Prosser
 Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 3:03 PM
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Scholars jobs not publisher profits
  
 Jeffrey
  
 in the comment section to your post Ahmed Hindawi points out that the average 
 revenue per paper published by Hindawi is about $600.  For people like 
 Elsevier it is in excess of $4000 per paper.  I think it is clear which 
 publisher is taking (significantly) more money out of the system.
  
 David
  
  
  
  
 On 3 Oct 2013, at 20:31, Beall, Jeffrey wrote:
 
 
 Heather:
  
 I’ve documented that Hindawi’s profit margin is higher than Elsevier’s. So, I 
 am correct in assuming that you include Hindawi in your advice below, no? 
 Also, it’s been revealed that a number of the higher ups at PLOS are drawing 
 salaries of over a quarter-million dollars a year, and one was even drawing a 
 salary of over a half-million dollars. It appears that the money is just 
 moving from one set of publishers to another.
  
 Thanks,
  
 Jeffrey Beall
  
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
 Heather Morrison
 Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 11:43 AM
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Scholars jobs not publisher profits
  
 My reaction to the EBSCO report on expected ongoing high price increases by 
 some in the scholarly publishing sector at the same time that academics at my 
 alma mater have been asked to consider voluntary severance has been posted to 
 my blog:
 http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2013/10/scholars-lets-keep-our-jobs-and-ditch.html
  
 My conclusion:
  
 It is time for scholars, university administrators and research funders to 
 wake up and realize that creation of new knowledge is done by researchers, 
 not publishers. Don't give up your job or or let your colleagues give up 
 theirs without demanding that the large commercial scholarly publishers give 
 up their 30-40% profit margins. 
  
 best,
  
 -- 
 Dr. Heather Morrison
 Assistant Professor
 École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
 University of Ottawa
 
 http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
 heather.morri...@uottawa.ca
 
 ALA Accreditation site visit scheduled for 30 Sept-1 Oct 2013 /
 Visite du comité externe pour l'accréditation par l'ALA est prévu le 30
 sept-1 oct 2013
 
 http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/accreditation.html
 http://www.esi.uottawa.ca/accreditation.html
  
  
  
 ATT1..txt
  
 ATT1..txt

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

[GOAL] Re: Scholars jobs not publisher profits

[David Prosser]

Jeffrey

in the comment section to your post Ahmed Hindawi points out that the average 
revenue per paper published by Hindawi is about $600.  For people like Elsevier 
it is in excess of $4000 per paper.  I think it is clear which publisher is 
taking (significantly) more money out of the system.

David




On 3 Oct 2013, at 20:31, Beall, Jeffrey wrote:

 Heather:
  
 I’ve documented that Hindawi’s profit margin is higher than Elsevier’s. So, I 
 am correct in assuming that you include Hindawi in your advice below, no? 
 Also, it’s been revealed that a number of the higher ups at PLOS are drawing 
 salaries of over a quarter-million dollars a year, and one was even drawing a 
 salary of over a half-million dollars. It appears that the money is just 
 moving from one set of publishers to another.
  
 Thanks,
  
 Jeffrey Beall
  
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
 Heather Morrison
 Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 11:43 AM
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Scholars jobs not publisher profits
  
 My reaction to the EBSCO report on expected ongoing high price increases by 
 some in the scholarly publishing sector at the same time that academics at my 
 alma mater have been asked to consider voluntary severance has been posted to 
 my blog:
 http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2013/10/scholars-lets-keep-our-jobs-and-ditch.html
  
 My conclusion:
  
 It is time for scholars, university administrators and research funders to 
 wake up and realize that creation of new knowledge is done by researchers, 
 not publishers. Don't give up your job or or let your colleagues give up 
 theirs without demanding that the large commercial scholarly publishers give 
 up their 30-40% profit margins. 
  
 best,
  
 -- 
 Dr. Heather Morrison
 Assistant Professor
 École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
 University of Ottawa
 
 http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
 heather.morri...@uottawa.ca
 
 ALA Accreditation site visit scheduled for 30 Sept-1 Oct 2013 /
 Visite du comité externe pour l'accréditation par l'ALA est prévu le 30
 sept-1 oct 2013
 
 http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/accreditation.html
 http://www.esi.uottawa.ca/accreditation.html
  
  
  
 ATT1..txt

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

[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

[David Prosser]

Rick

I don't know if there is a way of getting a list, but I think you are 
conflating two things.  I assume you are saying you would cancel if all of the 
content of the journal was available without embargo.  Sherpa/Romeo doesn't 
tell you that - it just tells you whether or not the publisher allows green 
deposit without embargo.

And lots of publishers do - for the majority of papers in the majority of 
Elsevier titles, for example, the author is free to make available their papers 
- either pre- or post-prints.  But as most authors don't take advantage of that 
offer I guess you'll not want to cancel Elsevier's titles.

David



On 16 Sep 2013, at 15:31, Rick Anderson wrote:

 Is there an easy way (easier than searching title-by-title through 
 SHERPA/RoMEO) to get a complete list of journals offering Green access with 
 no embargo? I can't speak for the marketplace as a whole, but my library will 
 cancel most if not all of our subscriptions to any such journals — my 
 institution is not giving us money so that we can spend it on content that's 
 available for free.
 
 ---
 Rick Anderson
 Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources  Collections
 Marriott Library, University of Utah
 Desk: (801) 587-9989
 Cell: (801) 721-1687
 rick.ander...@utah.edu
 
 From: Friend, Fred f.fri...@ucl.ac.uk
 Date: Saturday, September 14, 2013 5:06 AM
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) goal@eprints.org, 
 LibLicense-L Discussion Forum liblicens...@listserv.crl.edu, SPARC Open 
 Access Forum sparc-oafo...@arl.org
 Subject: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
 
 This is an excellent contribution from Danny Kingsley, and it would be 
 interesting to have some real information about subscription loss from 
 publishers, and not only from the two publishers she mentions. Very 
 occasionally we do hear stories about a few journals ceasing publication, 
 but the number appears very low by comparison with the total number of 
 research journals published, and the causal link with repository deposit is 
 obscure. A reduction in the quality of a journal (and I do not mean impact 
 factor) or a reduction in library funding could be more influential factors 
 than green open access. Presumably for commercial reasons publishers have 
 not been willing to release information about subscription levels, but if 
 they are to continue to use green open access as a threat they have to 
 provide more evidence.
  
 Likewise if they expect to be believed, publishers have to provide more 
 information about sustainability. They speak about repositories not being a 
 sustainable model for research dissemination, by which they appear to mean 
 that their journals will not be sustainable in a large-scale repository 
 environment. Most institutional repositories are fully-sustainable, their 
 sustainability derived from the sustainability of the university in which 
 they are based. If any research journals are not sustainable, the reasons 
 may have nothing to do with repositories. Those reasons are currently hidden 
 within the big deal model, the weak journals surviving through the 
 strength of other journals. Rather than blame any lack of sustainability 
 upon green open access, perhaps publishers should take a harder look at the 
 sustainability of some of their weaker journals. Repositories are 
 sustainable; some journals may not be.
  
 Fred Friend
 Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL  
 
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org goal-boun...@eprints.org on behalf of Danny 
 Kingsley danny.kings...@anu.edu.au
 Sent: 14 September 2013 08:39
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
  
 It is not that there is not sufficient data, it is that the 'threat' does 
 not exist. 
 
 The only 'evidence' to support the claim that immediate green open access 
 threatens the 'sustainability' (read: profit) of commercial publishers comes 
 in the form of the exceptionally questionable ALPSP survey sent out early 
 last year to librarians 
 http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/ALPSPPApotentialresultsofsixmonthembargofv.pdf
  . Heather Morrison wrote a piece on the methodological flaws with that 
 survey 
 http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/publishers-association-survey-on.html
  
 
 And yet, when questioned earlier this year by Richard Poynder, this is what 
 Springer referred to as their 'evidence' 
 http://poynder.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/open-access-springer-tightens-rules-on.html
  .
 
 There are, however currently two clear opportunities for the industry to 
 collect some actual evidence either way (as opposed to opinions on a badly 
 expressed hypothetical):
 
 Taylor  Francis have decided to indefinitely expand their trial of 
 immediate green permissions to articles in their Library  Information 
 Science journals. If they were to run a comparison of those titles against 
 the titles in, say , three other disciplinary areas over two to three years 
 they 

[GOAL] Re: FW: [SCHOLCOMM] Message from Emerald for Librarians

[David Prosser]

There is a lot to object to in this.  But what struck me as odd was:

 Due to the recognized half-life of social science research, Emerald has 
 followed guidance in reviewing its approach, and has requested that authors 
 wait 24 months before depositing their post-prints if a mandate is in place.


What guidance?  Who is issuing guidance on this matter that Emerald feel 
compelled to follow?  (And this is before we note that nobody has shown any 
correlation between half-life and embargoes.)

David


On 21 Jun 2013, at 13:51, Richard Poynder wrote:

 Forwarding from the Scholcomm mailing list.
  
  
 *Apologies for cross-posting*
  
 The staff and directors at Emerald have naturally been concerned about the 
 feedback to the launch of its Gold Open Access model and the approach to 
 self-archived content that is subject to a mandate. Emerald has demonstrated 
 a long-term commitment to the LIS community and we recognize that our policy 
 has marked an important part of this relationship.
  
 Emerald has had a Green Open Access policy for over a decade. We support 
 authors who personally wish to self-archive the pre- or post-print version of 
 their article on their own website or in a repository; authors can do this 
 immediately upon official publication of their paper. This principle 
 continues to underpin our Green OA policy and remains unchanged. Our 
 understanding is that a large proportion of our authors who wish to make 
 their post-prints open access are currently accommodated through this 
 approach.
  
 In more recent times the need to provide a Gold route for all authors has 
 emerged in some countries, and we have responded to this with the 
 introduction of a Gold OA model in April 2013. This has provided an 
 alternative route to OA for researchers who are mandated to make their papers 
 Open Access immediately, or after a specified period. We also set the Article 
 Processing Charge (APC) at a relatively low level to assist authors. We do 
 recognize this is an evolving landscape with policies and advice changing 
 rapidly around the world, and as such we wish to work with our communities to 
 develop models that are in the best interests of both our authors and the 
 titles.
  
 Due to the recognized half-life of social science research, Emerald has 
 followed guidance in reviewing its approach, and has requested that authors 
 wait 24 months before depositing their post-prints if a mandate is in place. 
 Where a mandate exists for deposit immediately on publication or with a 
 shorter mandate but no APC fund is provided, we invite all authors to contact 
 us. There has not been an author or repository manager request to place a 
 post-print in a repository that we have not agreed to, but we now need to 
 monitor and fully assess the long-term impacts upon the titles.
  
 In the second half of 2013 we are putting together an advisory group of 
 editors and authors from across the disciplines in which we publish to help 
 shape our approach in this dynamic environment in the future. We are also 
 continuing to support our communities through innovative solutions such as 
 the agreement with IFLA whereby papers that have their origins in an IFLA 
 conference or project have the opportunity to be published in one of 
 Emerald’s LIS journals and become freely accessible nine months after 
 publication, as well as a number of other collaborations currently in the 
 pipeline.
  
 We are committed to finding solutions that are both beneficial for our 
 authors and ensure the sustainability of research communication in the 
 subject disciplines we serve. Therefore, we will regularly review our global 
 approach going forwards, in consultation with this advisory group of editors 
 and authors.
  
 The full policy can be found at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/openaccess.htm.
  
 On behalf of
  
 Rebecca Marsh
 Director of External Relations and Services | Emerald Group Publishing Limited
  
 
  
 Tony Roche
 Publishing Director | Emerald Group Publishing Limited
  
 
 Howard House | Wagon Lane
 Bingley, BD16 1WA | UK
 Tel: +44 (0) 1274 00 | Fax: +44 (0)1274 785200
 ape...@emeraldinsight.com | www.emeraldinsight.com
  
  
 
 Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Registered Office: Howard House, Wagon 
 Lane, Bingley, BD16 1WA United Kingdom. Registered in England No. 3080506, 
 VAT No. GB 665 3593 06
 ATT1..txt

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

[GOAL] Re: Comparing Revenues for OA and Subscription Publishing

[David Prosser]

Stevan has been consistent over the years in his message that we should not 
discuss Gold OA at all until we have 100% Green OA.  And yet some of us still 
insist on doing so!

My point was to highlight a particular data point for 2012.  Are there 
quibbles? Of course.  Does it give us the whole picture?  Of course not.  But 
for those interested in the transition mechanism it is, as I say, a data point.

But Steven makes a central assumption that is misleading - his point 6.  It is 
certainly true that in a mixed economy institutions will pay both subscriptions 
and publication fees (where such fees exist).  But Steven implies that this is 
for the same content.  With the exception of some hybrid OA papers (which are 
in the minority) this is not the case.  One paper published in an OA journal 
is, literally, one less paper in a subscription journal.   All the librarians 
on the list know that one of the justifications for subscription and big deal 
price rises is increasing volume of content - either within current journals or 
through the launch of new journals.  

Naturally, there is not a simple one-to-one relationship between volume 
increase and price increase, but there is a strong relationship.  OA is taking 
thousands of papers out of the subscription model and therefore reducing price 
pressures on subscriptions.  Put simply, if these OA papers had been published 
in subscription journals then subscription prices would have been higher.  This 
is substitution, not addition.  (This is obvious if you think what would have 
happened if those 190k OA papers had been in subscription journals - do we 
think that the publishers would have just absorbed the costs and accepted 
reduced profits/surpluses?)

So, even in a transition period it is clear that there are cost savings in OA 
Gold publishing.

David



On 4 May 2013, at 14:39, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 --_004_CAE7iXOgrGVp9JXUMTc8CgjfO9FTodnhFLyroU9JoMJ4FQmailgmail_
 Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
   boundary=_000_CAE7iXOgrGVp9JXUMTc8CgjfO9FTodnhFLyroU9JoMJ4FQmailgmail_
 
 --_000_CAE7iXOgrGVp9JXUMTc8CgjfO9FTodnhFLyroU9JoMJ4FQmailgmail_
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
 Comparing the average price per article of Gold OA today with the average s=
 ubscription publisher revenue per article today is uninformative and mislea=
 ding.
 
 1. These are averages across many different forms of Gold OA: (i) subsidy- =
 or subscription-based Gold OA (no author fee), (ii) hybrid subscription/Gol=
 d OA, (iii) Gold-only OA, (iv) junk Gold OA (no or next to no peer review).
 
 2. They are averages across all journal qualities.
 
 3. They are averages calculated at a time when subscriptions are still in t=
 he vast majority, and cannot be canceled until/unless their articles are ac=
 cessible in some other way.
 
 4. Hence not only do the (arbitrary) asking prices for Gold vary widely, bu=
 t they vary widely in the quality and service they deliver.
 
 5. Subscription journals vary too, but it is not at all clear (and indeed v=
 ery unlikely) that the Gold subset today matches their quality distribution=
 .
 
 6. While un-cancellable subscriptions still prevail, Gold OA is just a supp=
 lement, not a substitute, it entails double-payment by institutions (subscr=
 iptions + Gold) and even double-dipping by publishers (for hybrid Gold).
 
 7. The missing factor in all of this is the potential of mandatory Green OA=
 to first provide OA at no extra cost, and once it reaches 100% globally, t=
 o make journals cancellable, so they are forced to cut costs by downsizing =
 to peer-review alone.
 
 8. Post-Green Gold OA will then be provided at a fair, sustainable price, p=
 aid (and not double-paid) out of a fraction of the institutional subscripti=
 on cancellation savings.
 
 None of this can be calculated on the basis of averaging the price per arti=
 cle of Gold today -- but we can be sure that the post-Green cost will be su=
 bstantially lower than the average publisher revenue per article for subscr=
 iptions today, pre-Green.
 
 Stevan Harnad
 
 On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:18 AM, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.ukma=
 ilto:david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk wrote:
 (Cross-posted)
 
 The Economist has published another piece on open access publishing:
 
 http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21577035-open-access-s=
 cientific-publishing-gaining-ground-free-all
 
 I was struck by one paragraph in particular:
 
 Outsell, a Californian consultancy, estimates that open-access journals gen=
 erated $172m in 2012. That was just 2.8% of the total revenue journals brou=
 ght their publishers (some $6 billion a year), but it was up by 34% from 20=
 11 and is expected to reach $336m in 2015. The number of open-access papers=
 is forecast to grow from 194,000 (out of a total of 1.7m publications) to =
 352,000 in the same period.
 
 
 By my reckoning this means that in 2012 the revenue breakdown

[GOAL] Re: Comparing Revenues for OA and Subscription Publishing

[David Prosser]

This could, of course, run and run with Stevan and I mis-understanding each 
other forever.  I'm not sure how I can make my point any simpler than I did:

'Put simply, if these OA papers had been published in subscription journals 
then subscription prices would have been higher.'

Steven is arguing that the $172 million that Outsell identified as revenue for 
190k OA gold articles is on top of subscription revenue for those articles - 
i.e., the community pays for them twice.  I'm arguing that it is a substitution 
- an OA gold article is not paid for by subscriptions (with the possible 
exception of the minority of articles in hybrid journals where 'douple-dipping' 
may exists).  I can't believe that subscription publishers would have been 
happy publishing extra 190k papers in 2012 without some reflection in increased 
pricing (perhaps time-shifted to 2013).  We are not at the stage of large-scale 
price reductions, but there is less pressure on price increases - which is what 
I thought I'd said.

 It is a safe bet that (apart from the hybrid Gold minority) those 190K 
 articles are not articles from the must-see journals to which most 
 institutions have been reduced by the un-affordability of subscriptions.


Is Steven saying that Gold OA articles are, on average, articles where the 
authors couldn't have been published in subscription journals?  If so, I'll bet 
against him.  How do we measure this?  

On publisher double-talk, my only point was that a publisher who indulges in it 
cannot be described as on the side of the angels.  For reasons I don't 
understand Steven wants to give Elsevier that title, despite all the evidence 
of their policy.

David


On 5 May 2013, at 14:07, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 5:32 AM, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk 
 wrote:
 
 Stevan makes a central assumption that is misleading  It is certainly 
 true that in a mixed economy institutions will pay both subscriptions and 
 publication fees...  But Stevan implies that this is for the same content.  
 With the exception of some hybrid OA papers (which are in the minority) this 
 is not the case OA is taking thousands of papers out of the subscription 
 model and therefore reducing price pressures on subscriptions.  Put simply, 
 if these OA papers had been published in subscription journals then 
 subscription prices would have been higher.  (This is obvious if you think 
 what would have happened if those 190k OA papers had been in subscription 
 journals - do we think that the publishers would have just absorbed the costs 
 and accepted reduced profits/surpluses?) So, even in a transition period it 
 is clear that there are cost savings in OA Gold publishing
 
 Here (as in his advice to authors to worry about the double-talk hedging the 
 publisher's statement that Immediate posting and dissemination of accepted 
 author manuscripts is allowed to personal websites, to institutional 
 repositories, or to arXiv) I think David Prosser is quite simply wrong.
 
 190K Gold OA articles sounds like a lot, but as we know These are 
 averages across many different forms of Gold OA: (i) subsidy or 
 subscription-based Gold OA (no author fee), (ii) hybrid subscription/Gold OA, 
 (iii) Gold-only OA, (iv) junk Gold OA (no or next to no peer review).
 
 It is a safe bet that (apart from the hybrid Gold minority) those 190K 
 articles are not articles from the must-see journals to which most 
 institutions have been reduced by the un-affordability of subscriptions. 
 Those are the subscription journals at the heart of the serials crisis. They 
 are the ones that institutions must keep buying in for their users, 
 regardless of how many papers are being published as Gold OA in other 
 journals. They can only be cancelled when their content is accessible by 
 other means. (And it is that other means on which I think all efforts should 
 be focussed.)
 
 Nor is it clear why David imagines that those must-see journals would lower 
 their subscription prices because 190K articles published in other journals 
 happen to be Gold OA.
 
 The double-payment is not to the same publisher (except in the case of hybrid 
 Gold, in which case it is also double-dipping): The institution continues to 
 pay, undiminished, for the must-see subscription journals it can afford to 
 buy in, and, on top of that, the institution's authors pay for whatever Gold 
 they are foolish enough to pay-to-publish, instead of providing cost-free 
 Green (if their motivation was just to provide OA). (I hope David will not 
 reply but they are paying for it with RCUK funds, not subscription funds!: 
 Payment to publishers -- not necessarily the same one -- is doubled no matter 
 whose pocket it is being poached from, as long as subscriptions still have to 
 be paid: that's what double-payment means. The payers and payees may both 
 differ, but any Gold payment is over and what is already being paid via 
 subscriptions.)
 
 Now what

[GOAL] Re: Elsevier Still Onside of Angels on Immediate, Unembargoed Green OA Self-Archiving By Its Authors

[David Prosser]

 Since -- exactly like Springer's (hedge-free) rights-retention policy (and 
 countless others) -- Elsevier's policy does indeed formally recognize right 
 of the authors of the articles published in 2000 Elsevier journals to make 
 them immediately OA (unembargoed), I would say that the angelic tag was 
 fully earned.

Actually, they don't.  See:

http://www.elsevier.com/authors/author-rights-and-responsibilities

Penultimate row of the column:

'Mandated deposit or deposit in or posting to subject-oriented or centralized 
repositories'

for 'accepted author manuscripts' 'Yes under specific agreement between 
Elsevier and the repository**'

To me that means 'no' if no agreement between Elsevier and the repository.  The 
exception is arXiv where Elsevier obviously feel the horse has bolted and there 
is no point trying to close that stable door. 

David



On 3 May 2013, at 12:25, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 On 2013-05-03, at 2:57 AM, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk wrote:
 
 I agree with Andras and I cannot see how any publisher who has a policy 
 along the lines of:
 
 You may make your author version freely available without embargo unless you 
 are mandated (by funder or institution) to do so, in which case you may not 
 make your author version freely available without embargo
 
 can be described as being on the side of the Angels.  We may dismiss such a 
 policy as FUD or even claim that it is illogical and unenforceable - as 
 Stevan does - but we cannot possibly describe it as angelic.
 
 Since -- exactly like Springer's (hedge-free) rights-retention policy (and 
 countless others) -- Elsevier's policy does indeed formally recognize right 
 of the authors of the articles published in 2000 Elsevier journals to make 
 them immediately OA (unembargoed), I would say that the angelic tag was 
 fully earned.
 
 The tag is not earned for the FUD. The right right response to the FUD is to 
 ignore it.
 
 Let's not waste time and divert attention to the question of whether they are 
 Cherubim or Seraphim: The fact that Elsevier give their Green Light to 
 immediate, unembargoed OA-provision by their authors is what matters (to 
 those who care more about OA than about journal pricing or publisher 
 boycotting).
 
 Harrumph!
 
 Stevan
 
 On 2 May 2013, at 08:17, Andras Holl wrote:
 
 
 Dear Stevan, 
 
 Regardless however right you are, Elsevier's play with words succesfully 
 confuses 
 a large number of authors, who do not deposit because of this. 
 
 Andras 
 
 On Wed, 1 May 2013 20:24:46 -0400, Stevan Harnad wrote 
  On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:10 PM, BISSET J. james.bis...@durham.ac.uk 
  wrote: 
  
   
 
  
  From our understanding of Elsevier policy this is not the case in two 
  instances: 
  
  1) if the institution requires deposit in their institutional repository 
  2) if the funder requires open access.
 
  
  Dear James, 
  
  Elsevier rights agreements state that authors retains the right to make 
  their final drafts OA immediately upon publication: no embargo. 
  
  I will answer your more detailed questions below, but let me already give 
  you a simple general answer from which all the specific ones can be 
  deduced. 
  
  If a contract says you have the right to do X, then it cannot go on to 
  stipulate that you only have the right to exercise your right to do X 
  if you are not required to exercise it. That is empty double-talk, and 
  can and should be completely ignored as empty. A right is a right; you 
  either have it or you don't. 
  
  Moreover, Elsevier authors do not need Elsevier's permission to deposit 
  in their IRs any more than they need Elsevier's permission to go to the 
  WC!  
  
  The only thing at issue is the right to make the deposit immediately OA 
  (i.e., free online). And Elsevier (like Springer, and about 60% of all 
  publishers) state that the author retains the right to make the final 
  draft OA immediately upon publication: no OA embargo. 
  
  So all authors with any sense should go ahead and exercise that formally 
  endorsed right that they retain! 
  
 
 
  
  I have an email from Elsevier today confirming that in either of the two 
  cases above, immediate deposit is permitted but open access is not 
  permitted until [after] an embargo period... 
 
 
  
  Elsevier is just playing on words here. As I said, the right to deposit 
  is not at issue. Elsevier does not have any say over where I put my final 
  draft.  
  
  The only right at issue is the right to make the deposit immediately OA 
  (i.e., free online). 
  
 
 
  
  Additionally, Durham has reissued its mandate for self-archiving, 
  including a requirement that only those deposited (not necessarily open 
  access) can be used for consideration in promotion or probation (the 
  'how' this will work us still being looked at - So this has not yet been 
  registered anywhere). 
 
 
  
  Bravo on adopting the optimal institutional OA mandate. Soon we can hope 
  that the Durham mandate

[GOAL] Comparing Revenues for OA and Subscription Publishing

[David Prosser]

(Cross-posted)

The Economist has published another piece on open access publishing:

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21577035-open-access-scientific-publishing-gaining-ground-free-all

I was struck by one paragraph in particular:

Outsell, a Californian consultancy, estimates that open-access journals 
generated $172m in 2012. That was just 2.8% of the total revenue journals 
brought their publishers (some $6 billion a year), but it was up by 34% from 
2011 and is expected to reach $336m in 2015. The number of open-access papers 
is forecast to grow from 194,000 (out of a total of 1.7m publications) to 
352,000 in the same period.


By my reckoning this means that in 2012 the revenue breakdown was :

For Open Access = $890 per paper ($172m / 194k papers)
For Sub Access = $3,500 per paper ($6 billion / 1.7m papers) 

If the 194,000 papers published in OA had been published in subscription 
journals the extra costs could have been around $500 million 
((3500-890)x194000).  If you believe that all of these papers would probably 
have been published whatever the business model you could recast this as the 
worldwide community having made a saving of $500 million.

If all 1.7m papers published in 2012 had been OA at $890 per paper the $6 
billion a year business would shrink to a $1.5 billion a year business.

There are lots of assumptions here (not least that my maths are correct), but 
it is clear that 

a) the direct costs of publishing in OA journals are current significantly 
lower than publishing in subscriptions journals

b) the average cost per paper in OA is significantly lower than the roughly 
£1,450 per article that represented the break-even point for the UK under which 
the UK would save money if we moved totally to OA

c) the average is much, much lower than the typical price being offered for 
'hybrid' OA. 

It would be very easy to construct an argument that the $890 per paper figure 
is not scaleable to all of journal publishing, but it is interesting that, at 
least for the moment, the figure is so low.

David





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

[GOAL] Re: Comparing Revenues for OA and Subscription Publishing

[David Prosser]

Sally

Cost to the research community, not the narrow costs to the publisher.  If it 
helps you just add 'to the research community' every time you see the word 
'cost' or 'costs'.

Of course many would agree that in the current system there is little relation 
between costs to the publisher and price.

David



On 3 May 2013, at 18:21, Sally Morris wrote:

 Surely these figure have nothing to do with COST, and everything to do with 
 PRICE?
  
 Sally
  
 Sally Morris
 South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
 Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
 Email:  sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
  
 
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
 David Prosser
 Sent: 03 May 2013 15:18
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); boai-fo...@ecs.soton.ac.uk 
 post
 Subject: [GOAL] Comparing Revenues for OA and Subscription Publishing
 
 (Cross-posted)
 
 The Economist has published another piece on open access publishing:
 
 http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21577035-open-access-scientific-publishing-gaining-ground-free-all
 
 I was struck by one paragraph in particular:
 
 Outsell, a Californian consultancy, estimates that open-access journals 
 generated $172m in 2012. That was just 2.8% of the total revenue journals 
 brought their publishers (some $6 billion a year), but it was up by 34% from 
 2011 and is expected to reach $336m in 2015. The number of open-access papers 
 is forecast to grow from 194,000 (out of a total of 1.7m publications) to 
 352,000 in the same period.
 
 
 By my reckoning this means that in 2012 the revenue breakdown was :
 
 For Open Access = $890 per paper ($172m / 194k papers)
 For Sub Access = $3,500 per paper ($6 billion / 1.7m papers) 
 
 If the 194,000 papers published in OA had been published in subscription 
 journals the extra costs could have been around $500 million 
 ((3500-890)x194000).  If you believe that all of these papers would probably 
 have been published whatever the business model you could recast this as the 
 worldwide community having made a saving of $500 million.
 
 If all 1.7m papers published in 2012 had been OA at $890 per paper the $6 
 billion a year business would shrink to a $1.5 billion a year business.
 
 There are lots of assumptions here (not least that my maths are correct), but 
 it is clear that 
 
 a) the direct costs of publishing in OA journals are current significantly 
 lower than publishing in subscriptions journals
 
 b) the average cost per paper in OA is significantly lower than the roughly 
 £1,450 per article that represented the break-even point for the UK under 
 which the UK would save money if we moved totally to OA
 
 c) the average is much, much lower than the typical price being offered for 
 'hybrid' OA. 
 
 It would be very easy to construct an argument that the $890 per paper figure 
 is not scaleable to all of journal publishing, but it is interesting that, at 
 least for the moment, the figure is so low.
 
 David
 
 
 
 
 
 ATT1..txt

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

[GOAL] Fwd: Re: Is CC-BY analogous to toll access?

[David Prosser]

So, if I understand Heather's last paragraph the concern appears to be that if 
somebody can become the sole supplier of CC-BY articles there is nothing to 
stop them from charging exorbitant prices for access.  And this would be 
impossible if the articles were CC-BY-NC.  

To see how this might work, let's imagine that I develop a fancy new service 
based on the CC-BY corpus currently available in PMC, but for my service to be 
attractive I need to ensure that the corpus of papers is only available through 
my service.  What do I need to do to make this happen?

1. I need to get all of the CC-BY papers from PMC.  That's easy - license 
allows me to do that.

2. I need to get PMC shut down.  Little bit harder, but well I have lots of 
corporate lobbying power and governments have been known to withdraw services 
(especially in times of financial hardship), so possible.

3. Annoyingly, PMC is mirrored in Europe PMC.  Slightly harder nut to crack as 
this has 17 funders from a number of different countries.  Some funders are 
governmental, some charities, including the Wellcome Trust.  But somehow or 
other I manage to convince them all to shut Europe PMC down.

4. So, all good.  Except that all the papers are also on the original publisher 
sites.  So I need to buy-up all of the OA publishers, or convince them to 
remove al CC-BY material from their sites.  That's fine - I have deep pockets 
and they say everybody has a price.  PLoS may be a little bit resistant, but 
I'n sure I can wear them down.

5. I now have exclusive control to all the CC-BY material is PMC.  Oh, except 
all those papers that are also in institutional repositories worldwide.  So my 
next job is to persuade administrators at a few hundred (thousand?) 
universities that they need to take down all of their CC-BY material.  
(Interesting aside - I wonder what % of CC-BY material in PMC is also in local 
university repositories.)

6. OK, I've done it.  I've convinced the world's open access publishers, a 
number of governments, charities, and hundreds of universities to take down 
their content to allow me to have exclusive control.  And I've down this 
quietly and surreptitiously cause if word gets out that this is what I'm doing 
you know that Peter Murray-Rust, Heather Piwowar, and a hundred other of those 
pesky data-miners are going to download the whole corpus and threaten to make 
it all available.

7. And that reminds me- what about people who have already done this? Who 
already have downloaded the corpus for data-mining.  I'm going to have to 
somehow ensure that they never club together, buy a server and make the whole 
lot available to everybody.  Looks like I'm going to be busy.

If you think that the above is plausible then you may share Heather's concerns. 
 For those of us who find it beyond far-fetched (and I haven't even addressed 
how you maintain monopoly access to CC-BY once you've managed to achieve it) 
then this remains the reddest of red herrings. 

David




Begin forwarded message:


 From: Heather Morrison hgmor...@sfu.ca
 Date: 14 March 2013 20:00:03 GMT
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) goal@eprints.org
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Is CC-BY analogous to toll access?
 Reply-To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) goal@eprints.org
 
 On 2013-03-14, at 12:09 PM, David Prosser wrote:
 
 Surely this is a red herring.  Open access is about making the papers freely 
 available, not about making any services that can be built on top of them 
 freely (or 'cheaply', however we want to define 'cheaply') available.  If 
 somebody can make a lot of money mining the literature and identifying the 
 ten exactly apposite papers for the problem a pharmaceutical company is 
 trying to solve then good luck to them!  The ten papers are still going to be 
 open access.
 
 Comment
 
 This is just one example. To go back to my toll access analogy, that would be 
 like saying: So what if people can take a few scholars' papers and sell 
 them. What can go wrong? What can go wrong in the print world is that a few 
 commercial scholarly publishers end up making a great deal of money and 
 lobbying governments for policies and laws to protect their profits, even 
 when this is contrary to the purposes of scholarship.
 
 With respect to CC-BY as a default for scholarship: it's not just a few 
 papers that can be found, mined or sold. The whole corpus could be sold, with 
 value-added services available only to those willing to pay. A successful 
 business using this approach might well be inclined to view the free versions 
 as competition and lobby to remove their funding.
 
 best,
 
 Heather Morrison
 
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: Is CC-BY analogous to toll access?

[David Prosser]

Surely this is a red herring.  Open access is about making the papers freely 
available, not about making any services that can be built on top of them 
freely (or 'cheaply', however we want to define 'cheaply') available.  If 
somebody can make a lot of money mining the literature and identifying the ten 
exactly apposite papers for the problem a pharmaceutical company is trying to 
solve then good luck to them!  The ten papers are still going to be open access.

David



On 14 Mar 2013, at 16:57, Heather Morrison wrote:

 A problem with CC-BY: permitting downstream use with no strings attached is 
 the toll access model
 
 The Creative Commons - Attribution (CC-BY) only license grants blanket 
 permission rights for commercial use to any third party downstream. 
 Proponents of CC-BY argue that this will open up the possibility for new 
 commercial services to serve scholarship. This may or may not be; this is a 
 speculative argument at this point. However, if this happens, this opens up 
 the possibility that these new services will be made available on a toll 
 access basis, because none of the CC-BY licenses is specific to works that 
 are free of charge. 
 
 This is very similar to the current model for dissemination of scholarship. 
 Scholarly research is largely funded by the public, whether through research 
 grants or university salaries. Scholars must make their work public (publish) 
 in order to continue to receive grants, retain their jobs and advance in 
 their careers. They give away their work to publishers with no strings 
 attached, often signing away all copyright. A few publishers have taken 
 advantage of this system to lock up scholarship for their private profit.
 
 One potential outcome of a CC-BY default for scholarship is a next generation 
 of Elsevier-like toll access services. Many scholars and the public whose 
 work was given away through CC-BY could be unable to afford the latest and 
 best services made possible by their contributions. This is just one of the 
 reasons to give serious thought to this matter before recommending a CC-BY 
 default. For more, please see my Creative Commons and open access critique 
 series. 
 
 Thanks to Heather Piwowar for posting an opposing view on google g+ that 
 helped me to work through this argument.
 
 from:
 http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2013/03/a-problem-with-cc-by-permitting.html
 
 best,
 
 Heather Morrison, PhD
 The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
 http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
 
 
 
 ___
 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] Re: OASPA CC-BY chart: where's the data?

[David Prosser]

As the chart has data going back to 2000 and OASPA was only formed in 2008 I'm 
finding it difficult to see how the figures can be influenced by growing OASPA 
membership!

David



On 11 Mar 2013, at 20:57, Heather Morrison wrote:

 OASPA has posted a picture of a chart of CC-BY growth on their blog:
 http://oaspa.org/growth-in-use-of-the-cc-by-license-2/
 
 The chart by itself is difficult to interpret. For example, to what extent is 
 CC-BY growth conflated with OASPA membership growth or overall open access 
 growth? 
 
 Will OASPA be releasing the data for all to mine?
 
 best,
 
 Heather G. Morrison
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal


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

[GOAL] Re: OASPA CC-BY chart: where's the data?

[David Prosser]

No, any upswing in 2008 is not the result of the formation of OASPA.  My simple 
point was that the growth was clearly not the result of membership of OASPA as 
the chart extended to before the creation of OASPA.  Hans has pointed out the 
obvious interpretation of the chart - as supported by the text given by OASPA.  
Also the data are now available. 

And I've seen nobody complain about 'scholarly critiques' so I'm not sure why 
Heather has put that into the mix.

David




On 12 Mar 2013, at 16:24, Heather Morrison wrote:

 To illustrate how growth in the use of this one license is likely conflated 
 with overall growth of open access and other factors such as an increas in 
 OASPA membership, here are the data for the growth in DOAJ including search 
 by article for 2012:
 
   • 8,461 journals - increased by 1,133 over past year or 3 titles per day
   • 4,199 journals searchable by article - up 739 over past year, 2 per 
 day
   • 944,804 articles searchable by article - up 246,258 over past year, 
 674 per day
   • easy prediction: over 1 million articles searchable by article early 
 in 2013 
 
 from: The Dramatic Growth of Open Access 2012 early year-end edition:
 http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/12/dramatic-growth-of-open-access-2012.html
 
 The total number of articles searchable by article is impacted or potentially 
 by several factors:
 - additive - new articles published by existing journals
 - increasing publication rates for OA journals
 - technical - more journals added to the mix (more journals searchable by 
 article at DOAJ)
 - digitization of back issues for journals that have converted from print
 
 What does this mean for interpreting the OASPA chart?
 
 - the growth shown likely mirrors the overall growth of open access. 
 During this time frame, there has been dramatic growth not only in OA 
 journals, but also in repositories and their contents.
 - the OASPA chart shows a significant upswing in 2008, the year OASPA was 
 formed as David Prosser points out.
 
 In order to properly assess the data, what is needed is an explanation of the 
 research method and details about the data itself. Ideally, the full data for 
 anyone for download and mine.
 
 I find it mind-boggling that scholarly publishers and their associations, 
 whether traditional or open access, need to have someone point out to them 
 that if they wish to present data / chart to make a case, they should present 
 their research method and be prepared to accepted scholarly critique.
 
 best,
 
 Heather Morrison, PhD
 The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
 http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
 
 On 2013-03-12, at 1:46 AM, David Prosser wrote:
 
 As the chart has data going back to 2000 and OASPA was only formed in 2008 
 I'm finding it difficult to see how the figures can be influenced by growing 
 OASPA membership!
 
 David
 
 
 
 On 11 Mar 2013, at 20:57, Heather Morrison wrote:
 
 OASPA has posted a picture of a chart of CC-BY growth on their blog:
 http://oaspa.org/growth-in-use-of-the-cc-by-license-2/
 
 The chart by itself is difficult to interpret. For example, to what extent 
 is CC-BY growth conflated with OASPA membership growth or overall open 
 access growth? 
 
 Will OASPA be releasing the data for all to mine?
 
 best,
 
 Heather G. Morrison
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
 
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
 
 
 ___
 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] Re: OASPA's ironic demonstration of the inadequacy of CC-BY for data mining

[David Prosser]

This is a slightly odd argument.  I don't think that anybody has ever claimed 
that a CC-BY license is all that you need to data mine.  Obviously, if the data 
are not in a format that can be mined then the license is almost irrelevant.  
The claim by CC-BY supporters is that it is the optimal license for data mining 
research papers - i.e., of all the licenses it (or its equivalent) is the one 
that allows the greatest freedom by the miners.  

(An additional complication is, of course, that we are really talking about 
data here rather than papers, and so perhaps a database license would be even 
more appropriate.)

David



On 12 Mar 2013, at 16:38, Heather Morrison wrote:

 The Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)'s chart illustrating 
 the growth of the CC-BY license ironically demonstrates the inadequacy of the 
 license for data mining. This chart is posted in image format on a CC-BY 
 licensed blog. The data per se has not been posted for download, and there is 
 no explanation of the method of data capture. One could copy out the data 
 points manually, with some estimation, for manipulation. However, this 
 blogpost illustrates very well that a work can be CC-BY licensed but 
 virtually useless for data mining.
 
 I would contrast this with my similar data set for The Dramatic Growth of 
 Open Access, which for years has been available through a CC-BY-NC-SA 
 license. The full dataset is available for anyone, anywhere to download and 
 manipulate. This practice is probably not optimal for several reasons. The 
 most important from the perspective of data manipulation, I suspect, is 
 because I use an excel spreadsheet. I suspect csv format would be more 
 useful. I'd  appreciate some advice on this; perhaps this will be an emerging 
 role for librarians? Public domain for the data per se would make more sense. 
 What's needed here is a way to manage granting credit to the dataset creator 
 that doesn't impose restrictive terms on the data per se.
 
 Links:
 OASPA ironically demonstrates limitations of CC-BY:
 http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2013/03/open-access-scholarly-publishers.html
 
 OASPA growth in the use of the CC-BY license:
 http://oaspa.org/growth-in-use-of-the-cc-by-license-2/
 
 Dramatic Growth of Open Access Series:
 http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2006/08/dramatic-growth-of-open-access-series.html
 
 Where to download full data:
 http://summit.sfu.ca/item/10990
 
 best,
 
 Heather G. Morrison, PhD
 The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
 http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
 ___
 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] OAI8: Call for Posters

[David Prosser]

With apologies for cross-posting.

Dear colleagues,

OAI8, the 8th Workshop on Innovations in Scholarly Communication will be held 
in Geneva, Switzerland, from Wednesday 19th to Friday 21st June 2013. Program 
details, registration and the call for posters are now available at 
https://indico.cern.ch/event/oai8. It will be possible to register for a part 
or all of the programme.

You are invited to submit a description in the form of a short abstract if you 
wish to bring a poster to the workshop giving details of your project. The 
poster should be of interest to OAI8 participants and directly related to the 
general themes of the workshop.

Posters will be displayed in the Uni Mail main hall and an extended coffee 
break will take place on Thursday 20 June 2013. This will give attendees the 
chance to view these and discuss them with the author. Attendees will also have 
the opportunity to vote for the poster which delivers the most impact. Posters 
should be A0 in size (841 x 1189 mm) for portrait or A1 (594 x 841 mm) for 
landscape. Any special equipment requests should be addressed to the workshop 
organisers when a poster has been accepted.

If your poster is accepted you should still register for the workshop as normal 
and you will be expected to pay your own expenses. Owing to the large demand on 
accommodation, we advise you to register early - you may cancel your 
registration later if your submission is not successful.

Poster abstracts can be submitted between 19 February 2013 - 1 April 2013 after 
a quick registration process (different from the conference registration). 
Decisions will be made on an ongoing basis (and no later than the end April) 
and communicated to the submitters.

Poster submission form: 
https://indico.cern.ch/abstractSubmission.py?confId=211600   

The committee looks forward to welcoming you to Geneva.

OAI8 Organising Committee

==

David C Prosser PhD
Executive Director, RLUK

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7848 2737
Mob: +44 (0) 7825 454586
www.rluk.ac.uk

RLUK Twitter feed: RL_UK
Director's Twitter feed: RLUK_David 

Maughan Library and Information Services Centre, King's College London, 
Chancery Lane,  London WC2A 1LR 
Registered Company no: 2733294
Registered Charity no: 1026543


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

[GOAL] OAI8 - opening of registration

[David Prosser]

Apologies for cross-posting

Please note the early-bird registration date of 27 March

David




Dear colleagues,

OAI8, the 8th Workshop on Innovations in Scholarly Communication will be held 
in Geneva, Switzerland, from Wednesday 19th to Friday 21st June 2013. Program 
details and registration are now available at 
https://indico.cern.ch/event/oai8. It will be possible to register for a part 
or all of the programme.

The workshop will follow the successful format of previous sessions mixing 
practical tutorials, presentations from cutting-edge projects and research, 
discussion groups, posters, and an intense social programme to maximise 
interaction and communication. Previous workshops have built a strong community 
spirit. The event is a unique opportunity to exchange ideas and contact details 
with a large public connected to the OA movement. The OAI workshops are a 
series of the most important international meetings in this field and take 
place roughly every two years.

Each iteration of the workshop series has dealt with issues relevant to today. 
This year, research data will be one of the topics tackled. In the light of the 
Royal Society Report Science as an Open Enterprise, European universities are 
beginning themselves to consider the impact of the data deluge. The workshop 
will also revisit the topic of metrics and suggest new approaches.

Thanks to the continued support of our sponsors, the organisers have been able 
to maintain the modest registration fee at the same level as for the previous 
workshop, i.e. CHF 275. Moreover, a special early bird fee of CHF 230 is 
offered until Wednesday 27th of March.

Further information will be added to the website 
https://indico.cern.ch/event/oai8, including details of the Breakout Groups, of 
a pre-conference day about Duraspace, and the Call for posters.

The committee looks forward to welcoming you to Geneva.

OAI8 Organising Committee



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

[GOAL] Fwd: Business, Innovation and Skills Committee announces inquiry into Open Access

[David Prosser]

Apologies, as ever, for cross positing. A new Inquiry on Open Access in the UK Parliament. This is a committee of MPs who scrutinise the workings of our Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). Universities and research funding sit under this department.David


Begin forwarded message:From: "MORRIS, Pam" morri...@parliament.ukDate: 18 January 2013 12:53:20 GMTTo: "MORRIS, Pam" morri...@parliament.ukSubject: Business, Innovation and Skills Committee announces inquiry into Open AccessBusiness, Innovation and Skills CommitteeSelect Committee Announcement No.42Friday 18 January, 2013For immediate releaseOPEN ACCESSAnnouncement of InquiryThe Business, Innovation and Skills Committee today announces its intention to inquire into the Government’s Open Access policy.Written submissions addressing the Committee’s inquiry are invited by close of business on7 February 2013. Respondees are requested not to submit copies of responses to other consultations or to the Finch Report.The Committee will consider a range of topics including:·The Government’s acceptance of the recommendations of the Finch Group Report ‘Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications’, including its preference for the ‘gold’ over the ‘green’ open access model;·Rights of use and re-use in relation to open access research publications, including the implications of Creative Commons ‘CC-BY’ licences;·The costs of article processing charges (APCs) and the implications for research funding and for the taxpayer; and·The level of ‘gold’ open access uptake in the rest of the world versus the UK, and the ability of UK higher education institutions to remain competitive.Written evidence should be sent to the Committee,as an MS Word document, by e-mail tobiscom...@parliament.uk.A guide for written submissions to Select Committees may be found below:http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/witnessguide.pdf (PDF 431 KB)Parties submitting evidence are requested to follow these guidelines. Email submissions are strongly preferred. If you wish your evidence to remain confidential, please contact the Committee staff.FURTHER INFORMATION:Committee Membership is as follows:Chair: Mr Adrian Bailey MP (Lab) (West Bromwich West)Mr Brian Binley MP (Con) (Northampton South) Paul Blomfield MP (Lab) (Sheffield Central)Katy Clark MP (Lab) (North Ayrshire and Arran) Mike Crockart MP (Lib Dem) (Edinburgh West)Caroline Dinenage MP (Con) (Gosport) Julie Elliott MP (Lab) (Sunderland Central)Rebecca Harris MP (Con) (Castle Point)  Ann McKechin MP (Lab) (Glasgow North)Mr Robin Walker MP (Con) (Worcester)  Nadhim Zahawi MP (Con) (Stratford upon Avon)Committee Website:www.parliament.uk/bisMedia Information: David Fosterfoste...@parliament.uk 020 719 7556Specific Committee Information:bis...@parliament.uk/020 7219 5777/ 020 7219 5779Watch committees and parliamentary debates online:www.parliamentlive.tvPublications / Reports / Reference Material:Copies of all select committee reports are available from the Parliamentary Bookshop (12 Bridge St, Westminster, 020 7219 3890) or the Stationery Office (0845 7023474). Committee reports, press releases, evidence transcripts, Bills; research papers, a directory of MPs, plus Hansard (from 8am daily) and much more, can be found onwww.parliament.ukUK Parliament Disclaimer:This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] New Year's challenge for repository developers and managers: awesome cross-search

[David Prosser]

I would echo Fred's comments, but would urge respondents not to avoid the issue 
of embargo periods for green OA.  You may have a view as to how long embargoes 
should be, whether they should be lengthened, and whether there is any evidence 
that embargoes harm subscriptions.  

David




On 11 Jan 2013, at 12:07, Frederick Friend wrote:

 It is certainly worth any subscriber to this list who supports open access 
 submitting evidence, whether institutional or personal. Submissions to the 
 2004 Enquiry by the equivalent House of Commons Select Committee were taken 
 seriously and many did influence the Committee’s Report, although 
 (unfortunately) not the UK Government’s Response. I urge everybody not to tie 
 themselves too closely to the four issues highlighted by the Committee. In 
 particular it would be good to see submissions which look at OA from 
 researchers’ or taxpayers’ perspectives.
  
 Fred Friend
 Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
 http://www.friendofopenaccess.org.uk 
  
 From: Alma Swan
 Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 8:48 AM
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) ; SPARC Open Access Forum
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: [SCHOLCOMM] New Year's challenge for repository 
 developers and managers: awesome cross-search
  
 The UK's House of Lords (upper chamber of Parliament) Science  Technology 
 Committee is conducting an enquiry into Open Access. Written submissions are 
 welcome. Individuals and organisations are invited to give their views on the 
 actions taken by Government and RCUK following publication of the Finch 
 report. 
 
 The HoL has issued guidance  
 http://www.openscholarship.org/jcms/c_7334/hol-guidance-notes-open-access-enquiry
  on how to make written submissions. 
 
 In particular, there are four issues highlighted by the committee:
 support for universities in the form of funds to cover article processing 
 charges, and the response of universities and HEIs to these efforts
 embargo periods for articles published under the Green model
 engagement with publishers, universities, learned societies and other 
 stakeholders in the development of research council Open Access policies and 
 guidance
 challenges and concerns raised by the scientific and publishing communities, 
 and how these have been addressed
 
 The deadline is 18th January.
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups SPARC OA Forum group.
 To post to this group, send email to sparc-oafo...@arl.org
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.org
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum

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

[GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber

[David Prosser]

I must admit that intuitively (and with no real evidence!) I wonder about the 
50% figure for the proportion of Gold OA articles for which no APC payment has 
been made.  The reason being that the biggest OA journals and publishers - PLoS 
One, BMC, Hindawi - all charge APCs and so although the proportion of journals 
may be 50%, I would guess that the proportion of articles is significantly less.

But these large publishers are mainly in the life and medical sciences and if 
one looks at other disciplines the ratio may be closer to 50%.  The reason I 
think this is an important distinction to make is that we often hear objections 
from arts and humanities scholars that they cannot support Gold OA as they do 
not have the funds to pay for APC.  But in their fields (and others) there are 
many, many Gold OA journals that make no publication charges.  This is where 
the 'Gold OA journals charge APCs' shorthand becomes rather unhelpful.

I must admit I am completely bemused by Alicia's comments.  She suggests that 
Elsevier has pioneered a number of business models that are now being clammed 
by the OA community as being Gold OA.  To help could she give, say, three 
concrete examples?

Best wishes

David




On 12 Dec 2012, at 23:15, Hans Pfeiffenberger wrote:

 Hi Alicia,
 
 an hour before your mail, I suggested a blog article which seems to say that 
 about 50% of all gold OA journals do not ask for APCs at all and APCs were 
 indeed not paid for by half of all Gold OA articles. 
 
 This is not reconcilable with the 3-4% you report. Are we perhaps talking 
 about completely different ratios?
 
 best,
 
 Hans
 
 for your convenience: the link, again, was: 
 http://svpow.com/2012/12/10/what-does-it-cost-to-publish-a-gold-open-access-article/
 
 
 Am 12.12.12 13:59, schrieb Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF):
 Hi Richard,
  
 My colleague does an in-depth annual study on the uptake of different 
 business models, and suggests that this figure was 3-4% of total articles at 
 the start of 2012.  Elsevier, and I’m sure a wide array of other publishers, 
 have used a range of business models to produce free-to-read journals for 
 decades. I find it very interesting that these models are now claimed by the 
 open access community as ‘gold oa’ titles although I suppose that’s much 
 less of a mouthful than ‘free-at-the-point-of-use’ titles! 
  
 With kind wishes,
  
 Alicia
  
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf 
 Of Richard Poynder
 Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 8:42 AM
 To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber
  
 Thanks for the comments David. Your point about not equating Gold OA with 
 APCs is well taken.
  
 But it also invites a question I think: do we know what percentage of 
 papers(not journals, but papers) published Gold OA today incur no APC 
 charge, and what do we anticipate this percentage becoming in a post-Finch 
 world?
  
 Richard
  
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf 
 Of David Prosser
 Sent: 11 December 2012 19:53
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber
  
 As ever, Richard has put together a fascinating and entertaining interview, 
 and augmented it with a really useful essay on the current state of OA 
 policies.
  
 I have a small quibble.  On page two, Richard writes:
  
 ...or by means of gold OA, in which researchers (or more usually their 
 funders) pay publishers an article-processing charge (APC) to ensure that 
 their paper is made freely available on the Web at the time of publication.
  
 APCs make up just one business model that can be used to support Gold OA.  
 Gold is OA through journals - it makes no assumption about how the costs of 
 publication are paid for.  I think it is helpful to ensure that we do not 
 equate Gold with APCs.
  
 David
  
  
  
  
 On 3 Dec 2012, at 18:51, Richard Poynder wrote:
  
 
 Stuart Shieber is the Welch Professor of Computer Science at Harvard 
 University, Faculty Co-Director of the Berkman Center for Internet and 
 Society, Director of Harvard’s Office for Scholarly Communication (OSC),  
 and chief architect of the Harvard Open Access (OA) Policy — a 2008 
 initiative that has seen Harvard become a major force in the OA movement.
  
 http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/the-oa-interviews-harvards-stuart.html
  
 ATT1..txt
  
 Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, 
 Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 
 (England and Wales).
 
 
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
 
 
 
 ATT1..txt

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

[GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber

[David Prosser]

Actually, I find it very easy not to conclude with Beall's sentiments.  I think 
'predatory' publishers are, and will continue to be, a small unpleasant corner 
of the publishing landscape.

And are we really saying that the average cost of APCs is artificially lowered 
by including 'predatory' publishers?  Odd predators who make the system cheaper!

David




On 13 Dec 2012, at 13:09, Richard Poynder wrote:

 Another way would be for DOAJ to start excluding journals but that could
 become very complicated and resource demanding.
 
 This is no doubt true, but isn’t it time that some organisation took
 responsibility for doing this difficult work? As it is, it is being left to
 a lone individual with, I must assume, little in the way of resources. And
 instead of trying to help Jeffrey Beall, many in the OA movement seem more
 inclined to criticise him.
 
 All in all, it is hard not to conclude with the sentiments expressed by
 Beall on this list last week:
 
 The entire scholarly publishing system is in danger of eroding due to the
 increasing influence of predatory publishing.
 (http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2012-December/001353.html). 
 
 Richard Poynder
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Bo-Christer Björk [mailto:bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi] 
 Sent: 13 December 2012 12:17
 To: Richard Poynder
 Cc: bj...@hanken.fi; 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
 Subject: Re: [GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber
 
 We did a scientific empirical study of APCs of journals listed in DOAJ as
 Open Access peer reviewed journals. We did not attempt to out screen
 journals not fulfilling certain quality norms. If somebody wishes to
 replicate the study and exclude certain publishers, that's obviously doable.
 Another way would be for DOAJ to start excluding journals but that could
 become very complicated and resource demanding.
 
 Best Bo-Christer
 
 
 On 12/13/12 1:36 PM, Richard Poynder wrote:
 Point taken, but was there a particular reason for including the Beall
 journals in your study? What purpose did it serve?
 
 The criticism of some of these journals, by the way, goes some way 
 beyond the fact that they are guilty of spamming researchers.
 
 Richard Poynder
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: bj...@hanken.fi [mailto:bj...@hanken.fi]
 Sent: 13 December 2012 11:24
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); Richard Poynder
 Cc: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
 Subject: Re: [GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber
 
 In our study with David Solomon we weighted the APCs of different 
 journals with the number of articles they had published to arrive at 
 the average APC of around 900 USD. For instance the impact of PloS One 
 alone is bigger than all the 200+ journals of Bentham together. So 
 although we didn't calculate any share for Beall journals their 
 overall impact is not that big. More disturbing is the bad press they
 create by spamming.
 
 Bo-Christer
 
 
 
 Quoting Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk:
 
 Hi Ross,
 
 
 
 Absolutely, I see no problem at all with a publisher being based in 
 the developing world and, as you point out, Hindawi is a good example 
 of a respected publisher based in a developing country.
 
 
 
 But that does not mean that one should avoid any criticism of 
 publishers because they are based in a certain geographical location.
 
 
 
 What I am saying is that if you put together the fact that the study 
 included quite a few publishers on Jeffrey Beall's list with the fact 
 that these publishers seem invariably to be based in the developing 
 world (even though some claim to be based in the US) then you might 
 wonder whether the average APC figure arrived at in the study could 
 have been subject to some bias.
 
 
 
 My point is less about the developing world than it is about 
 predatory publishers, and whether they ought to be included in a 
 study aimed at establishing the average cost of publishing in an OA
 journal.
 
 
 
 I do understand that Beall's list is a controversial one, but I have
 looked
 at a number of these publishers myself and I have reached my own 
 conclusions.
 
 
 
 Richard
 
 
 
 
 
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On 
 Behalf Of Ross Mounce
 Sent: 13 December 2012 09:59
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber
 
 
 
 On 13 December 2012 09:32, Richard Poynder 
 ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk mailto:ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk  wrote:
 
 I believe this latter study included a number of publishers based in 
 the developing world
 
 
 
 Hi Richard,
 
 
 
 
 
 I hope you see nothing wrong in a number of publishers being based in 
 the 'developing world' ?
 
 Hindawi are perhaps one such publisher, if one classes Egypt as a 
 'developing world' country. You've even written yourself that there 
 tends
 to
 be perhaps an unjust bias against 'developing world' publishers
 
 

[GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber

[David Prosser]

As ever, Richard has put together a fascinating and entertaining interview, and 
augmented it with a really useful essay on the current state of OA policies.

I have a small quibble.  On page two, Richard writes:

...or by means of gold OA, in which researchers (or more usually their 
funders) pay publishers an article-processing charge (APC) to ensure that their 
paper is made freely available on the Web at the time of publication.

APCs make up just one business model that can be used to support Gold OA.  Gold 
is OA through journals - it makes no assumption about how the costs of 
publication are paid for.  I think it is helpful to ensure that we do not 
equate Gold with APCs.

David




On 3 Dec 2012, at 18:51, Richard Poynder wrote:

 Stuart Shieber is the Welch Professor of Computer Science at Harvard 
 University, Faculty Co-Director of the Berkman Center for Internet and 
 Society, Director of Harvard’s Office for Scholarly Communication (OSC),  and 
 chief architect of the Harvard Open Access (OA) Policy — a 2008 initiative 
 that has seen Harvard become a major force in the OA movement.
  
 http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/the-oa-interviews-harvards-stuart.html
  
 ATT1..txt

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

[GOAL] Re: Springer for sale - implications for open access?

[David Prosser]

From the Springer website (http://www.springeropen.com/about):

SpringerOpen supports several international archives and digital repositories, 
and encourages self-archiving by authors
All research articles published in a SpringerOpen journal are archived without 
delay in several international archives. SpringerOpen also allows authors to 
immediately deposit the official, final version of their published article in 
any suitable digital repository. Several institutions and research funders have 
introduced official policies requesting or requiring their authors to deposit 
the articles they publish in a central archive. SpringerOpen fully supports 
these deposition policies and is compliant with them.


Not least of these, of course, is PMC and UKPMC (now renamed European PubMed 
Central) where the vast majority of Springer articles are (non-exclusively) 
deposited.  To stop these papers from being OA PMC, European PMC, and every 
institutional repository worldwide would need to be shut down or the 
international copyright agreements underpinning CC licenses completely 
rewritten.

I completely agree that robust digital preservation plans are essential.  But 
the original question was what are the implications for OA of the Springer sale 
and my answer is still that for the OA papers already published - none. 

Further, I think this who point is moot.  What little I do know about 
Springer's business suggests that the OA part of it is growing and profitable. 
I haven't seen a plausible scenario whereby any new owner would want to cut off 
the company's engine of growth either with a futile attempt to retroactively 
take published papers out of OA (a move that would cause extreme repetitional 
damage even if it worked, which it wouldn't) or discontinue current OA business.

David




On 11 Oct 2012, at 02:32, Heather Morrison wrote:

 On 10-Oct-12, at 2:58 PM, David Prosser wrote:
 
 ...The simple fact is that the Springer OA articles published to date  
 will remain OA whoever purchases the company
 
 Comment:
 
 This sounds very reassuring. However, I argue that this is not a  
 simple fact at all. Please explain how this work and how you know this  
 work. For example, are you privy to inside knowledge about Springer  
 contracts? Are your Research Libraries copying the Springer OA content  
 and planning making this available? If the latter, are these concrete  
 plans with funding attached or tentative?
 
 If Springer went out of business altogether, that would constitute a  
 trigger event for CLOCKSS, but not if the business is transferred.
 
 At the very least, can we agree that something other than using a  
 particular CC license needs to happen to make works open access for  
 the long term, such as a library or archive storing, preserving, and  
 making the works OA?
 
 best,
 
 Heather Morrison
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: Springer for sale - implications for open access?

[David Prosser]

Unless you believe that private companies should not be allowed to run 
scholarly publishing services (a position I don't hold) then I don't see any 
implications.  I guess any new owner may feel that the OA business is not 
profitable enough, in which case they will either a) put prices up and risk 
pricing themselves out of the market, b) lower costs and risk losing out to 
competitors who provide better services or c) exit the OA journal publishing 
busy entirely.  In any case, all the papers that Springer has already published 
OA will remain OA.


David



On 10 Oct 2012, at 17:44, Heather Morrison wrote:

 According to Mark Kleinman, the private equity owners of Springer (EQT, a 
 private investment company in Sweden and the Government Investment 
 Corporation of Singapore) are making moves to solicit offers to purchase 
 Springer. Details:
 http://news.sky.com/story/995576/academic-publishing-giant-springer-for-sale
 
 Springer is the world's second-largest scholarly publisher (after Elsevier), 
 and owner of BioMedCentral. 
 
 This might be a good time to start thinking about the implications of private 
 ownership of scholarly publishing. For example, my understanding (please 
 correct me if I am wrong) is that Springer was actively involved in lobbying 
 for gold UK cash for CC-BY from RCUK, and that one of the rationales for 
 providing this funding is to support UK-based industry. This puzzles me for 
 many reasons; one is that the major beneficiaries of this policy are not 
 UK-based at all, and the actual UK-based commercial outfits (Elsevier, 
 Informa.plc also known as Taylor  Francis, Routledge etc.) are likely to be 
 hurt by this policy and are likely opposed to it. The largest OA via CC-BY 
 publishers are BioMedCentral, with an office in London but ownership in 
 Sweden and Singapore, and PLoS, with a principle US base.  Again, corrections 
 appreciated.
 
 At any rate, even if Springer currently were UK-owned, what happens when it 
 is sold? There are no guarantees that the company will be bought by an 
 organization with a philosophical commitment to open access. Considering the 
 price, the only likely guarantee is that the next owner will have a firm 
 commitment to making profits for private owners.
 
 BioMedCentral and PLoS have done outstanding work as OA publishing pioneers 
 and developed practices that are good models for others. However, when 
 planning for the future of OA, it is important to take into account the 
 environment in which these organizations work. In the commercial for-profit 
 sector, changes of ownership and/or management, often accompanied by changes 
 of direction, are much more common than new companies developing practices 
 that then become the traditions for decades and centuries that would be 
 needed to ensure ongoing open access.
 
 best,
 
 Heather Morrison, MLIS
 Doctoral Candidate, Simon Fraser University School of Communication
 http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/
 The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
 http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
 
 
 
 
 ___
 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] Re: Europe PubMed as a home for all RCUK research outputs?

[David Prosser]

Or you could ask your friendly local librarian if it is available on 
inter-library loan - there are at least two copies of the print version in UK 
libraries, plus there should be a copy in the BL.

David



On 9 Oct 2012, at 17:38, Pippa Smart wrote:

 Alternatively it might be an incentive to join ALPSP: membership for
 an individual is very little more than the cost of the report, and
 there are other benefits, including other publications and a monthly
 newsletter about what is happening in academic publishing (disclosure:
 I am the newsletter editor).
 Pippa
 
 *
 Pippa Smart
 Research Communication and Publishing Consultant
 PSP Consulting
 3 Park Lane, Appleton, Oxon OX13 5JT, UK
 Tel: +44 7775 627688 or +44 1865 864255
 email: pippa.sm...@gmail.com
 Web: www.pspconsulting.org
 
 Editor of the ALPSP-Alert, Reviews editor of Learned Publishing
 
 
 
 On 9 October 2012 17:23, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote:
 I don't see why ALPSP's ability to recoup the cost of  this research should
 be undermined by open distribution of pirate copies - shame on you!
 However, I did summarise their findings, and combine them with other data,
 in a paper for the Publishing Research Consortium
 (http://www.publishingresearch.net/author_rights.htm)
 
 Sally
 
 
 Sally Morris
 South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
 Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
 Email:  sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
 
 
 
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf
 Of Ross Mounce
 Sent: 09 October 2012 16:59
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Europe PubMed as a home for all RCUK research outputs?
 
 Thank you Sally.
 
 These are exactly the kind of evidence-based contributions we should be
 striving for in our discussions, in my opinion.
 
 I found Cox  Cox 2008 here:
 http://test.alpsp.org/ngen_public/article.asp?id=200did=47aid=24781st=oaid=-1
 
 but regrettably it is only available for 'free' to ALPSP Members.
 
 It would seem that I would have to pay £250/$480/€330 as a non-member to
 read this report!  If anyone could furnish me with a PDF copy I'd be much
 obliged.
 
 Best,
 
 Ross
 
 On 9 October 2012 16:39, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
 wrote:
 
 On one point - publishers' insistence on (c) transfer - there certainly
 are facts available.  The most recent study of which I am aware is Cox 
 Cox, Scholarly Publishing Practice 3 (2008).  They surveyed 400 publishers
 including most leading journal publishers, and received 203 usable
 responses.  According to further analysis by Laura Cox, 181 of these
 publishers represented 753,037 articles (74.7% of ISI's world total for that
 year).
 
 In their 2008 study, they found just over 50% of publishers asking for
 copyright transfer in the first instance (this had declined steadily from
 over 80% in 2003 and over 60% in 2005);  of these, a further 20% would
 provide a 'licence to publish' as an alternative if requested by the author.
 At the same time, the number offering a licence in the first instance had
 grown to around 20% by 2008.  So that's nearly 90%, by my reckoning, who
 either don't ask for (c) in the first place, or will provide a licence
 instead on request.
 
 They also found that over 40% (by number of articles) made the finally
 published version open to text mining.  In addition, 80% or more allowed
 self-archiving to a personal or departmental website, 60% to an
 institutional website and over 40% to a subject repository (though authors
 often don't know that they are allowed to do this).  In most cases this
 applied to the submitted and/or accepted version; self-archiving of the
 final published version was much less likely to be permitted (though it
 appears to be what authors really want).
 
 I understand ALPSP are currently repeating the study, so we may soon know
 if these trends have continued - I'd be amazed if they have not.
 
 Sally
 
 
 Sally Morris
 South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
 Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
 Email:  sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
 
 
 
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf
 Of Ross Mounce
 Sent: 09 October 2012 15:51
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Cc: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Europe PubMed as a home for all RCUK research outputs?
 
 Dear Stevan,
 
 I'm disappointed that you continue to make wild assertions without backing
 them up with good evidence. I, like many readers of this list (perhaps?)
 suggest you're not doing your credibility any favours here...
 
 A grating example:
 
 Moreover, most fields don't need CC-BY (and certainly not as urgently as
 they need access).
 
 
 [citation needed!!!]
 
 Who (aside from you) says that most fields don't need CC-BY?
 You're the only person I know saying this.
 
 *I* argue that we 

[GOAL] Re: Publications managed byscholarly communities/institutions

[David Prosser]

Of course, to a greater or lesser extent all journals are supported by the 
'fairy godmother' model.  With peer reviewers playing the part of the fairy 
godmothers!

David Prosser


On 9 Aug 2012, at 11:50, Sally Morris wrote:

 These are all examples of the 'fairy godmother' payment model
  
 Sally
  
  
 Sally Morris
 South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
 Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
 Email:  sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
  
 
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
 Reckling, Falk, Dr.
 Sent: 09 August 2012 10:53
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Cc: Laurent Romary
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Publications managed byscholarly communities/institutions
 
 I would add some journal form economics:
  
 a) E-conomics (institutional funding):
 http://www.economics-ejournal.org/
  
 b) Theoretical Economics (society based funding): http://econtheory.org/
  
 c) 5x IZA journals published with SpringerOpen (institutional funding by IZA):
 http://journals.iza.org/
  
 d) Journal of Economic Perspective (a former subscription journal but now 
 society based funding):
 http://www.aeaweb.org/jep/index.php
  
 b) and d) have an impact factor, a) and c) are new
  
 ___
 Falk Reckling, PhD
 Humanities  Social Science
 Strategic Analysis, Open Access
  
 Department Head
  
 Austrian Science Fund
 Sensengasse 1
 A-1090 Vienna
 Tel: +43-1-505 67 40-8301
 Mobile: +43-699-19010147
 Email: falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at
 http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/contact/personen/reckling_falk.html
 image003.jpg
  
  
 Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] Im Auftrag 
 von Bo-Christer Björk
 Gesendet: Donnerstag, 09. August 2012 11:43
 An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Cc: Laurent Romary
 Betreff: [GOAL] Re: Publications managed by scholarly communities/institutions
  
 Good idea,
 
 Here are four such journals, all of which have been there since the 1990s:
 
 Information Research
 
 Journal of Information Technology in Construction
 
 Journal of Electronic Publishing
 
 First Monday
 
 best regards
 
 Bo-Christer Björk
 
 Journal of On 8/9/12 11:35 AM, Laurent Romary wrote:
 Dear all,
 As an echo to the fourth option mentioned by Peter, I would like to gather 
 references to journals and initiatives which are notoriously community based. 
 Could members of the list point to what they would be aware of? 
 Thanks in advance,
 Laurent
  
 Le 7 août 2012 à 16:11, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit :
 
 
  
 
 On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Sally Morris 
 sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote:
 We should not delude ourselves; journals can only be 'free' if someone pays
 the costs.
 
 All the work involved in creating and running a journal has to be paid for
 somehow - they don't magically go away if a journal is e-only (in fact,
 there are some new costs, even though some of the old ones disappear).
 
 I can only see three options for who pays:  reader-side (e.g. the library);
 author-side (e.g. publication fees);  or 'fairy godmother' (e.g. sponsor).
 
 There is a fourth option, which works: the scholarly community manage 
 publication through contributed labour and resources and the net amount of 
 cash is near-zero. This is described 
 inhttp://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/ 
 where the J. Machine Learning Research is among the highest regarded journals 
 in the area (top 7%) and free-to-authors and free-to-readers. There is an 
 enlightening debate (on this URL) between those who run the journal and Kent 
 Anderson of the Scholarly Kitchen who cannot believe that people will run and 
 work for journals for the good of the community.
 
 There is no law of physics that says this doesn't scale. It is simply that 
 most scholars would rather the taxpayer and students paid for the 
 administration publishing (either as author-side or reader-side) so the 
 scholars don't have to do the work. And they've managed ot get 10 B USD per 
 year. If scholars regarded publishing as part of their role, of if they were 
 prepared to involved the wider community (as Wikipedia has done) we could 
 have a much more C21 type of activity - innovative and valuable to the whole 
 world rather than just academia. It would cost zero, but it would be much 
 cheaper than any current model.
 
 And of course we now have a complete free map of the whole world 
 (openstreetmap.org) which is so much better than other alternatives that many 
 people and organizations are switching to it. And, for many years, it didn't 
 have a bank account and existed on marginal resources from UCL (and 
 probably still does).
 
 But most people will regard this as another fairy tale.
  
 
 -- 
 Peter Murray-Rust
 Reader in Molecular Informatics
 Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
 University of Cambridge
 CB2 1EW, UK
 +44-1223-763069
 ___
 GOAL

[GOAL] Re: Publications managed byscholarly communities/institutions

[David Prosser]

I didn't say they were paid or that they should be.  I merely pointed out that 
each and ever scholarly journal has at least some of its costs covered by 
'fairy godmothers'.  They all benefit from massive subsidies.  The journals we 
are talking about here just extend those subsidies a little.

David




On 9 Aug 2012, at 14:56, Sally Morris wrote:

 As far as I am aware, peer reviewers are almost never paid under any model (I 
 am aware of one publisher that used to reward rapid responses).   I believe 
 there were surveys (sorry, no reference to hand) which indicated that 
 everyone involved felt that it would be inappropriate to pay peer reviewers.
  
 Sally
  
  
 Sally Morris
 South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
 Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
 Email:  sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
  
 
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
 David Prosser
 Sent: 09 August 2012 12:08
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Publications managed byscholarly communities/institutions
 
 Of course, to a greater or lesser extent all journals are supported by the 
 'fairy godmother' model.  With peer reviewers playing the part of the fairy 
 godmothers! 
 
 David Prosser
 
 
 On 9 Aug 2012, at 11:50, Sally Morris wrote:
 
 These are all examples of the 'fairy godmother' payment model
  
 Sally
  
  
 Sally Morris
 South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
 Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
 Email:  sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
  
 
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf 
 Of Reckling, Falk, Dr.
 Sent: 09 August 2012 10:53
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Cc: Laurent Romary
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Publications managed byscholarly communities/institutions
 
 I would add some journal form economics:
 a) E-conomics (institutional funding):
 http://www.economics-ejournal.org/
  
 b) Theoretical Economics (society based funding): http://econtheory.org/
  
 c) 5x IZA journals published with SpringerOpen (institutional funding by 
 IZA):
 http://journals.iza.org/
  
 d) Journal of Economic Perspective (a former subscription journal but now 
 society based funding):
 http://www.aeaweb.org/jep/index.php
  
 b) and d) have an impact factor, a) and c) are new
 ___
 Falk Reckling, PhD
 Humanities  Social Science
 Strategic Analysis, Open Access
 Department Head
 Austrian Science Fund
 Sensengasse 1
 A-1090 Vienna
 Tel: +43-1-505 67 40-8301
 Mobile: +43-699-19010147
 Email: falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at
 http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/contact/personen/reckling_falk.html
 image003.jpg
 Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] Im Auftrag 
 von Bo-Christer Björk
 Gesendet: Donnerstag, 09. August 2012 11:43
 An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Cc: Laurent Romary
 Betreff: [GOAL] Re: Publications managed by scholarly 
 communities/institutions
 Good idea,
 
 Here are four such journals, all of which have been there since the 1990s:
 
 Information Research
 
 Journal of Information Technology in Construction
 
 Journal of Electronic Publishing
 
 First Monday
 
 best regards
 
 Bo-Christer Björk
 
 Journal of On 8/9/12 11:35 AM, Laurent Romary wrote:
 Dear all,
 As an echo to the fourth option mentioned by Peter, I would like to gather 
 references to journals and initiatives which are notoriously community 
 based. Could members of the list point to what they would be aware of? 
 Thanks in advance,
 Laurent
 Le 7 août 2012 à 16:11, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit :
 
 
 
 On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Sally Morris 
 sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote:
 We should not delude ourselves; journals can only be 'free' if someone pays
 the costs.
 
 All the work involved in creating and running a journal has to be paid for
 somehow - they don't magically go away if a journal is e-only (in fact,
 there are some new costs, even though some of the old ones disappear).
 
 I can only see three options for who pays:  reader-side (e.g. the library);
 author-side (e.g. publication fees);  or 'fairy godmother' (e.g. sponsor).
 
 There is a fourth option, which works: the scholarly community manage 
 publication through contributed labour and resources and the net amount of 
 cash is near-zero. This is described 
 inhttp://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/ 
 where the J. Machine Learning Research is among the highest regarded 
 journals in the area (top 7%) and free-to-authors and free-to-readers. There 
 is an enlightening debate (on this URL) between those who run the journal 
 and Kent Anderson of the Scholarly Kitchen who cannot believe that people 
 will run and work for journals for the good of the community.
 
 There is no law of physics that says this doesn't scale. It is simply that 
 most scholars would rather the taxpayer and students paid

[GOAL] Re: Why should publishers agree to Green OA?

[David Prosser]

Laurent makes an important point.  OA policies are between the funders or 
institutions and the researchers.  These agreements come before any agreement 
regarding copyright assignment between authors and publishers.  So, it is the 
job of publishers to decide if they are willing to live with the deposit 
agreement between the funder/institution and researchers, not the job of 
funders and institutions to limit their policies to match the needs of 
publishers.


David


On 20 Jun 2012, at 11:04, Laurent Romary wrote:

 Not that I know. I think the French Research Performing Organizations are not 
 planning to put negotiation with editors as a premise to defining their own 
 OA policy. 
 Laurent
 
 
 Le 20 juin 2012 à 11:45, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) a écrit :
 
 Hi Laurent,
  
 Institutions already do have agreements with publishers via their libraries 
 and/or library consortia.  This is certainly the case for INRIA. 
  
 With kind wishes,
  
 Alicia
  
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf 
 Of Laurent Romary
 Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:11 AM
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Why should publishers agree to Green OA?
  
 This definitely makes no sense. Institutions are not going to start 
 negotiating agreements with all publishers one by one. Does Elsevier have so 
 much man power left to start negotiating with all institutions one by one as 
 well. The corresponding budget could then probably used to reduce 
 subscriptions prices ;-)
 Laurent
  
 Le 20 juin 2012 à 09:53, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) a écrit :
 
 
 Hi all,
  
 Just a quick point of clarification…. Elsevier doesn’t forbid posting if 
 there is a mandate.  We ask for an agreement with the institution that has 
 the mandate, and there is no cost for these agreements.  The purpose of 
 these agreements is to work out a win-win solution to find a way for the 
 underlying journals in which academics choose to publish to be sustainable 
 even if there are high posting rates.
  
 With kind wishes,
  
 Alicia
  
 Dr Alicia Wise
 Director of Universal Access
 Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB
 M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com
 Twitter: @wisealic
  
  
  
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf 
 Of Peter Murray-Rust
 Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:23 PM
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Why should publishers agree to Green OA?
  
  
 I have some simple questions about Green OA. I don't know the answers.
 
 * is there any *contractual* relationship between a Green-publisher and any 
 legal body? Or is Green simply a permission granted unilaterally by 
 publishers when they feel like it, and withdrawable when they don't.
 * if Green starts impacting on publishers' revenues (and I understand this 
 is part of the Green strategy - when we have 100% Green then publishers will 
 have to change) what stops them simply withdrawing the permission? Or 
 rationing it? Or any other anti-Green measure
 * Do publishers receive any funding from anywhere for allowing Green? Green 
 is extra work for them - why should they increase the amount they do?
 * Is there any body which regularly negotiates with publishers such as 
 ACS, who categorically forbid Green for now and for ever.
 
 Various publishers seem to indicate that they will allow Green as long as 
 it's a relatively small percentage. But, as Stevan has noted, if your 
 institution mandates Green, then Elsevier forbids it. So I cannot see why, 
 if Green were to reach - say - 50%, the publishers wouldn't simply ration it 
 and prevent 100%.  
 
 
 -- 
 Peter Murray-Rust
 Reader in Molecular Informatics
 Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
 University of Cambridge
 CB2 1EW, UK
 +44-1223-763069
 Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, 
 Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 
 (England and Wales).
  
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
  
 Laurent Romary
 INRIA  HUB-IDSL
 laurent.rom...@inria.fr
  
  
  
 Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, 
 Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 
 (England and Wales).
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
 
 Laurent Romary
 INRIA  HUB-IDSL
 laurent.rom...@inria.fr
 
 
 
 ATT1..txt

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

[GOAL] Re: Effect of Green OA on Publishers

[David Prosser]

Peter

I'm not going to argue the piblishers' case for them, but...

1. This is cost per submission, while the hybrid OA publication cost is per 
published paper.  A journal that rejects a lot of papers will obviously rack-up 
a lot of multiples of $250.  (This raises the whole issue of submission charges 
- if a journal can't go open access because of the cost of rejecting 95% of 
papers then could it consider a submission charge to cover it.  Would people be 
willing to pay $250 to be considered by Nature and Science?)

2. I think the $250 was a direct cost and so something more should be added for 
overheads.

3. This is just organisation of peer review.  The study did look at other 
costs, but as there were so many problems with getting comparable costs from 
publishers for online hosting the study was not able to provide a total 
cost-per-article.

4. Disappointingly, but not unsurprisingly, I think a lot of publishers set 
hybrid OA charges at a level to try to cover their current revenue per papers.  
That's why hybrid OA charges tend to be higher than those for 'born OA' 
journals.  It's also why, I suspect, hybrid has never taken off (except in a 
few cases) - it's just too expensive.  If you want OA there are cheaper - and 
often better - alternatives.

David



On 30 May 2012, at 16:46, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:

 
 
 On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:36 PM, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk 
 wrote:
 Dear All
 
 
 An economic analysis also suggested that the cost of organising peer review 
 is $250 per submission - an interesting factoid.
 
 Thanks David - this is a very interesting fact(oid). I have always found it 
 hard to understand why a hybrid OA publication should cost 5000 USD [*]. If 
 the peer-review organization is the key thing and the monopoly that the 
 publishers assert, then everything else can go to the market.
 
 Hey! I can create a PDF myself!  I can create images. I can write an 
 abstract. I put the paper on the web. I can do this myself or contract it 
 out. This would lead to a better universal quality of publications. And all 
 of this should be possible for a few hundred dollars - let's say anoth 250 
 USD on top. Limit of 500 USD.
 
 [*] So the rest of the 5000 USD is profit (and the ruinous cost in the UK of 
 stamps for first class letters).
  
 P.
 
 -- 
 Peter Murray-Rust
 Reader in Molecular Informatics
 Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
 University of Cambridge
 CB2 1EW, UK
 +44-1223-763069
 ATT1..txt

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

[GOAL] Re: Open Access Priorities: Peer Access and Public Access

[David Prosser]

 Whenever I talk to university administrators, heads of school, individual 
 researchers, or other library staff about Open Access I have to be strategic 
 about it. I have to predict which of the many arguments in favour of Open 
 Access will resonate most directly with the specific audience.

Brava!  The whole point in a nutshell.  We have a list of benefits of OA - we 
should tailor the list depending on which of the benefits is most effective at 
any particular moment with whatever the particular audience is that we find 
ourselves in front of.  If I can find an ally then I will take their support - 
even if they have been convinced by only the officially sanctioned third 
highest OA priority. 

David




On 1 May 2012, at 00:01, Vanessa Barrett wrote:

 Stevan Harnad says The idea is to find reasons why those researchers should 
 provide
 OA (80% of them are not doing it)  and why their institutions and 
 funders should mandate that they do it.
 
 Note the use of reason as a plural, not singular noun.  There is no one 
 reason to rule them all.
 
 Whenever I talk to university administrators, heads of school, individual 
 researchers, or other library staff about Open Access I have to be strategic 
 about it. I have to predict which of the many arguments in favour of Open 
 Access will resonate most directly with the specific audience.
 
 I have learnt a lot from Stevan Harnad's tireless work in promoting Open 
 Access.  His presentation on Mandates and Metrics: How Open Repositories 
 Enable Universities to Manage, Measure and Maximise their Research Assets 
 http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/265693/ is a powerful tool in building persuasive 
 cases for OA, but it contains 100 slides and there are few occasions where I 
 have the luxury of having that much time to present the case for OA.
 
 Instead I need to be prepared to focus in on one or two arguments that will 
 gain most traction with the audience I have. 
 
 
 Cheers,
 
 Vanessa Barrett
 Digital Services Librarian
 The University of Adelaide, AUSTRALIA 5005
 Ph: +61 8 8313 4625
 e-mail: vanessa.barrett at adelaide.edu.au
 
 CRICOS Provider Number 00123M
 --- 
 This email message is intended only for the addressee(s) 
 and contains information which may be confidential and/or
 copyright.  If you are not the intended recipient please
 do not read, save, forward, disclose, or copy the contents
 of this email. If this email has been sent to you in error,
 please notify the sender by reply email and delete this 
 email and any copies or links to this email completely and
 immediately from your system.  No representation is made
 that this email is free of viruses.  Virus scanning is 
 recommended and is the responsibility of the recipient.
 
 -Original Message-
 From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On 
 Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
 Sent: Tuesday, 1 May 2012 12:24 AM
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Open Access Priorities: Peer Access and Public Access
 
 On 2012-04-30, at 7:16 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
 
 The idea that there is a set of researchers in Universities who
 deserve special consideration and for whom public funds must
 be spent is offensive.
 
 The idea is to find reasons why those researchers should provide
 OA (80% of them are not doing it)  and why their institutions and 
 funders should mandate that they do it.
 
 Peer access is a credible, practical reason, pertains to all
 research and researchers, and is based on their own self-interest.
 
 Public access is worthy, desirable, and automatically comes along
 with OA, but on its own it is not a credible, practical reason, 
 pertaining to all research and researchers, and based on their 
 own self-interest. 
 
 That is the practical, strategic reason why peer access needs to be
 primary and public access secondary, in promoting rationales
 for providing and mandating OA.
 
 I fall directly into SH's category of the general public,
 
 Not at all. PM-R is a researcher, whether retired or not.
 He falls squarely in the category of peer access rather
 than public access.
 
 I am a supporter of publicly funded Gold OA and of domain repositories.
 I am not prepared for these to be dismissed ex cathedra.
 
 Eighty percent of researchers are not providing OA. That's why OA
 mandates are needed, from researchers' institutions and funders. 
 
 Gold OA publishing cannot be mandated, only Green OA self-archiving
 can be.
 
 Only some research is funded, but all research comes from institutions.
 Hence funder mandates and institutional mandates need to  be
 convergent and mutually reinforcing rather than divergent and competitive:
 
 The locus of mandatory deposit should be institutional: domain repositories
 can then harvest the data or metadata.
 
 None of this is ideological or ex cathedra. These are considerations
 of direct practical strategy, to get us out of 

[GOAL] Re: RCUK Open Access Feedback

[David Prosser]

Say I wanted to data mine 10,000 articles.  I'm at a university, but I am 
co-funded by a pharmaceutical company and there is a possibility that the 
research that I'm doing may result in a new drug discovery, which that company 
will want to take to market.  The 10,000 articles are all 'open access', but 
they are under CC-BY-NC-SA licenses.  What mechanism is there by which I can 
contact all 10,000 authors and gain permission for my research?


David
 
David C Prosser PhD
Executive Director, RLUK

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7848 2737
Mob: +44 (0) 7825 454586
www.rluk.ac.uk

RLUK Twitter feed: RL_UK
Director's Twitter feed: RLUK_David 

Maughan Library and Information Services Centre, King's College London, 
Chancery Lane,  London WC2A 1LR 
Registered Company no: 2733294
Registered Charity no: 1026543


On 14 Mar 2012, at 16:40, Heather Morrison wrote:

 Following are my comments to the RCUK open access consultation. 
 
 
 Dear RCUK Open Access Policy group,
 
 First of all let me say congratulations and thank you to RCUK for your 
 continuing inspiring leadership on open access policy. Following are my 
 comments, based on many years of experience in open access policy advocacy, 
 my work as a professional librarian and adjunct faculty at the University of 
 British Columbia's School of Library, Archival and Information Studies, where 
 I have developed and taught courses on scholarly communication, and my 
 doctoral studies (communications, in progress) in the area of scholarly 
 communication and open access. 
 
 Overall, from my perspective this draft policy introduces two important 
 innovations: reducing the permitted embargo period, and pushing towards libre 
 open access (e.g. allowing use for data and text-mining). In brief, I 
 recommend strengthening the language on shortening embargo periods, and 
 eliminating reference to CC-BY in favor of broader language against 
 restrictions and requiring formats usable for text and data-mining purposes. 
 Also, I recommend that the policy specify immediate deposit, with optional 
 delayed release to accomodate the permitted embargoes.
 
 With respect to the embargo period, I recommend strengthening the language 
 indicating that any permitted embargo periods are designed as a temporary 
 measure to give publishers time to adjust to an open access environment, with 
 a view to eventually requiring open access immediately on publication. This 
 language can be found on page 4, I recommend including this in the 
 introductory language to underscore this point.
 
 Kudos to RCUK for adopting a leadership position on libre open access.  
 However, I would recommend against specifying the Creative Commons CC-BY 
 license. While many open access advocates understandably see CC-BY as the 
 expression of the BOAI definition of open access, my considered opinion is 
 that CC-BY is a weak license for libre OA which fails to protect OA 
 downstream and will not accomplish the Budapest vision of open access,. My 
 perspective is that the best license for libre open access is Creative 
 Commons - Attribution - Noncommercial - Sharealike (CC-BY-NC-SA), as this 
 protects OA downstream (recognizing that the current CC NC definition is 
 problematic, and noting that commercial rights should be retained by authors, 
 not publishers). As one example of where open access might need such 
 protection, because CC-BY allows for resale of open access materials: if all 
 of PubMedCentral were CC-BY, a commercial company could copy the whole thing, 
 perhaps add some value, and sell their version of PMC. They could not legally 
 stop PMC from providing free access. However, I very much doubt that CC-BY 
 could prevent such a company from lobbying to remove funding for the public 
 version. If this sounds ludicrous and unconscionable, may I present as 
 evidence that just such a scenario is realistic: 1) the efforts a few years 
 ago by the American Chemical Society to prevent the U.S. government from 
 providing PubChem on the grounds that this was competition with a private 
 entity; 2) the Research Works Act, and 3) the current anti-FRPAA lobbying in 
 the U.S., which, similarly to the Research Works Act, claims that published 
 research funded by the public is private research works which should belong 
 solely to the publisher.
 
 Another reason for avoiding CC-BY is that while the contributions of funders 
 are very important, so are the contributions of scholar authors. Many 
 scholars do not wish to see others who have contributed nothing to a 
 scholarly work sell their work and pocket the money; I certainly don't. For 
 example, Peter Suber recently posted this note to the SPARC Open Access Forum 
 which expresses the distress of an author who published CC-BY in a BMC 
 journal and then found a bogus publisher selling her article for $3. 
 https://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum/browse_thread/thread/fc977cabd0d59bcc#.
   The more work that is published CC-BY, the 

[GOAL] Re: Nice blog post on OA

[David Prosser]

Hi Stevan

While it is nice to be agreed with, perhaps you are thinking of somebody else 
in your third paragraph?  I don't recall being part of the debate recently.

Best wishes

David
 


On 11 Feb 2012, at 14:31, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 A HAPPIER ENDING: UNBUNDLING QUALITY CONTROL
 
 Mike Taylor's allegory is brilliant. But its pessimistic ending is not
 inevitable.
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/feb/10/parable-farmers-teleporting-duplicator?CMP=twt_gu
 
 The distributors (journals) performed two functions in the
 pre-teleportation (Gutenberg, per-web) era: One was (1) to package
 and distribute (but not produce) the produce (articles), for those who
 could afford to pay the price; and the other was (2) to manage (but
 not provide) the quality control (peer review) that would ensure and
 certify that the produce was fit for consumption. (The peers did the
 actual reviewing for free.)
 
 Mike's analogy suggests that the producers (authors) only need the
 quality control (peer review) for their careers (journal prestige).
 But they need it as consumers (users) too, so they know what is safe
 to eat (use, apply, build upon). [And (as David Prosser has been
 correctly but so far unsuccessfully trying to explain here) the
 quality control (provided free by the peers) does not just *rate* the
 quality of the produce: it *improves* it, to the benefit of authors,
 users, and public health. ]
 
 Since the peers review for free, the only essential service that
 peer-reviewed journals still perform in the teleportation
 (Post-Gutenberg web) era is to manage the peer review. Teleportation
 can now take care of all the rest of the obsolete Gutenberg products
 and services (distribution and storage) for free, but quality control
 itself still has to be managed by a neutral 3rd party honest-broker,
 as farmers cannot be entrusted to police their own produce, and that
 still costs a little money (though incomparably less than the whole
 obsolescent bundle now costs).
 
 So here comes another wrinkle in Mike's analogy: Journals, unlike
 food, are purchased by users' institutions (universities) via annual
 institutional journal subscriptions, not by individual consumers. If
 there were a way to unbundle the obsolete products and services
 (distribution and storage) from the sole remaining essential service
 (managing peer review), then institutions could easily pay the far
 lower cost of just the quality control for just their own outgoing
 produce out of their windfall savings from no longer having to pay for
 the incoming quality-controlled produce of other institutions
 (co-bundled in annual journal subscriptions).
 
 So the outcome of the allegory need not be pessimistic if there is a
 way to get from here (increasingly unaffordable annual institutional
 subscriptions to obsolete products and services) to there
 (downsizing journals to just the costs of managing quality control).
 
 And there is a way. And that way is precisely the one that the
 distributors have been vigorously lobbying against:
 
 The institutions and funders of the farmers (researchers) need to
 mandate (require) that their quality-controlled produce (peer-reviewed
 final drafts of their articles -- not yet packaged by the
 distributor) must be teleported (deposited in their institutional
 repositories, free for all online) by their employees and fundees,
 immediately upon being certified as having met the quality control
 standards of the distributor (i.e., upon acceptance by the journal).
 
 This way the full cost of the essential quality control (as well as
 the obsolete packaging and distribution) is still being paid for in
 full (by the institutions that can still afford the journal
 subscriptions), but no one is going hungry, because teleportation
 makes the quality-controlled food accessible free for all (open
 access).
 
 Then, if and when institutions decide that they no longer need or want
 the obsolete products and services still co-bundled with the quality
 control, they can cancel their subscriptions. And if and when
 institutional cancelations make subscriptions unsustainable as the
 means of covering their costs, the (former) distributors can cut the
 obsolete costs (per journal) of packaging and distribution, offloading
 them onto teleportation (the global network of mandated institution
 repositories), leaving just the essential service of managing and
 certifying the quality control, which the institutions can then pay
 (per outgoing article) out of a fraction of their annual subscription
 cancelation savings.
 
 Harnad, S. (2007) The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged
 Transition. In: Anna Gacs. The Culture of Periodicals from the
 Perspective of the Electronic Age. L'Harmattan. 99-106.
 http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/
 
 Public Access to Federally Funded Research
 http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/865-guid.html
 
 CHARLES OPPENHEIM [c.oppenheim -- btinternet.com]
 Sent: Friday, February

[GOAL] Re: op-ed on Research Works Act in today's NYT

[David Prosser]

Oh come on Thomas, I know you like to be provocative, but:

It is not libraries that submit their papers to publishers and sign over 
exclusive rights, nor is it libraries that compel researchers to do so.

It is not libraries that provide peer-review services to publishers for free

It is not libraries that decide promotion and tenure conditions, or make 
research funding decisions based on the journal in which researchers publish, 
rather than the quality of the research itself.

If libraries unilaterally cancelled all subscriptions today the immediate 
result would not be open access tomorrow - it would be the sacking of library 
directors by their institutions!

David



On 11 Jan 2012, at 08:08, Thomas Krichel wrote:

  Michael Eisen writes
 
 I have an op-ed in today's NYT about the Research Works Act
 
  Excellent job. 
 
 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/research-bought-then-paid-for.html
 
  I especially note
 
 Libraries should cut off their supply of money by canceling subscriptions.
 
  Finally somebody agrees with what I have been saying for years.  It
  is libraries, rather than publishers or researchers, that hold back
  open access.
 
  Cheers,
 
  Thomas Krichelhttp://openlib.org/home/krichel
  http://authorprofile.org/pkr1
   skype: thomaskrichel
 ___
 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] Re: op-ed on Research Works Act in today's NYT

[David Prosser]

Thomas

Your original assertion was:

  It is libraries, rather than publishers or researchers, that hold back open 
 access.

The point I was trying to make was that it is researchers who maintain the 
current system by submitting their papers to subscription journals; it is 
researchers who who maintain the current system by signing their rights to 
subscription journals so limiting open access options; it is researchers who 
who maintain the current system by peer reviewing papers in subscription 
journals; and it is funders and administrators who who maintain the current 
system by setting evaluation terms and conditions that encourage researchers to 
publish in subscription journals.

All of these actions help to hold back open access and have absolutely nothing 
to do with libraries.  Of course libraries purchase the subscriptions, but they 
don't do this on a whim.  They do it because the researchers, administrators, 
and students at their institutions require them to do it.  

David



On 11 Jan 2012, at 10:34, Thomas Krichel wrote:

 
  David Prosser writes
 
 Oh come on Thomas, I know you like to be provocative, but:
 
  I think it better to stick to the issues, rather than personalise
  the debate. 
 
 It is not libraries that submit their papers to publishers and sign
 over exclusive rights, nor is it libraries that compel researchers
 to do so.
 
  This is orthogonal to the open vs toll-gated access issue, since the
  sign-over could occur also to an open-access outlet. I agree that
  blank sign-over of rights is bad in many cases but this not what the
  issue is about here.
 
 It is not libraries that provide peer-review services to publishers for free
 
  Again this is orthogonal to the open vs toll-gated access issue
  because the peer review is essentially the same process for open
  access as for toll-gated journals.
 
 It is not libraries that decide promotion and tenure conditions, or
 make research funding decisions based on the journal in which
 researchers publish, rather than the quality of the research itself.
 
  Again this is essentially orthogonal to the open vs closed access
  issue because the evaluation of research by the outlet is
  independent of the fact if the research is in an open access vs a
  toll-gated journal.  I concede that the majority of high quality
  outlets are old. Thus evaluation by outlet introduces a bias.
 
  Dismissing academics as only looking at the publishing outlet when
  evaluation research quality strikes me as provocative but it's a
  provocation that is not central to the toll-gated vs open-access
  debate.
 
 If libraries unilaterally cancelled all subscriptions today the
 immediate result would not be open access tomorrow - it would be the
 sacking of library directors by their institutions!
 
  This is completely unproven. I suggest to give half of the money
  saved for faculty travel and/or submission fees to journals and half
  to institutional repository (IR) development. All jobs in the
  library will be saved and new staff for IR development will be hired
  in the library. My assertion is as unproven as David's, of course.
 
  Now back to bed... 
 
  Cheers,
 
  Thomas Krichelhttp://openlib.org/home/krichel
  http://authorprofile.org/pkr1
   skype: thomaskrichel
 
 
 ___
 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

OAI7 Workshop on Innovations in Scholarly Communication

[David Prosser]

Colleagues

Apologies for cross-postings

OAI7, the 7th Cern Workshop on Innovations in Scholarly Communication,
at http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?ovw=TrueconfId=103325, is being
held on 22-24 June 2011 in the University of Geneva. OAI Workshops 
are THE Open
Access event in Europe in the year in which they are held. They bring together a
community of librarians, IT specialists, publishers, funders and researchers and
are a real community occasion. A full programme of papers and posters has been
prepared by the Organising Committee for this event. A new development for OAI7
is the introduction of a session on Open Access publishing, the first time this
subject has received such treatment at OAI Workshops. The full programme of
Tutorials and Papers can be found
athttp://indico.cern.ch/conferenceTimeTable.py?confId=103325#20110622. 

Registrations are proceeding apace and we encourage you to register quickly
at http://indico.cern.ch/confRegistrationFormDisplay.py?confId=103325 to 
ensure
you have a place at the event. There is a Social Programme to accompany OAI7,
which will include a visit to the Cern Laboratories, with the opportunity to
tour some of the exhibitions there, as well as a buffet and the now-traditional
drinks sharing, where every attender is invited to bring something to drink and
share which represents their home country. A second social occasion will be the
drinks aperitif on the rooftop of the University buildings, giving panoramic
views across the city.

We look forward to meeting you in Geneva in June.

OAI7 Workshop Organising Committee



David C Prosser PhD
Executive Director, RLUK

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7848 2737
Mob: +44 (0) 7825 454586
www.rluk.ac.uk

RLUK Twitter feed: RL_UK
Director's Twitter feed: RLUK_David 

Maughan Library and Information Services Centre, King's College London,
Chancery Lane,  London WC2A 1LR 
Registered Company no: 2733294
Registered Charity no: 1026543

Re: Organisation of Repository Managers?

[David Prosser]

Andrew
In the UK we have the United Kingdom Council of Research Repositories (UKCoRR):

http://www.ukcorr.org/index.php

which supports and represents repository managers.

Best wishes

David
 
David C Prosser PhD
Executive Director, RLUK



On 30 Nov 2010, at 03:16, Stevan Harnad wrote:



  Begin forwarded message:

  From: Andrew A. Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
Date: November 29, 2010 7:42:01 PM EST
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Organisation of Repository Managers?
Reply-To: American Scientist Open Access Forum
american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org

I gave a talk last week at a Digital Repository Foundation meeting
in Japan.
This is a group of (primarily) librarians involved in running
repositories
for their institutions here in Japan. They asked if there was an
equivalent
organisation in the UK or elsewhere. I don't know of one, but that
doesn't
mean there isn't, since I'm not actively involved in running a
repository,
merely evangelising about IRs and mandates. Does anyone know of
similar
organisations elsewhere that I can point the Japanese DRF people at?

--
Professor Andrew A Adams 
                     a...@meiji.ac.jp
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan       http://www.a-cubed.info/

OAI7 Call for Ideas - June 2011 Geneva

[David Prosser]

*Apologies for cross-posting*

OAI7, the seventh CERN Workshop is meeting in the University of Geneva on 22 to
24 June 2011. The theme of the workshop is innovations in scholarly
communication with particular attention to technical infrastructures and
protocols, Open Access publishing, and community developments and solutions.

To maximise the impact of this workshop, the Organising Committee urges our
communities to propose:
 *  overall themes for conference sessions,
 *  ideas for individual talks and names of speakers,
 *  themes for tutorials and names of presenters.

You can propose yourself, a project or a colleague which would be of interest
for this workshop. Please submit your ideas using the form on the website of the
conference http://indico.cern.ch/event/oai7 by the 15th of September at the
latest.

The Committee will award one free registration to the person who makes the best
suggestion. The result will be publicised on the programme.

OAI7 Organising Committee



David C Prosser PhD
Executive Director, RLUK

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7848 2737
Mob: +44 (0) 7825 454586
www.rluk.ac.uk

RLUK Conference 2010: Edinburgh - Registration Now Open!!
Wednesday 10th - Friday 12th November
http://www.rluk.ac.uk/node/597

FW: OA in High Energy Physics Arxiv Yields Five-Fold Citation Advantage

[David Prosser]

Am I the only person who thinks this just isn't good enough?  We need either
a citation or a retraction.

David



-Original Message-
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On
Behalf Of Sally Morris (Morris Associates)
Sent: 21 July 2009 10:44
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: OA in High Energy Physics Arxiv Yields Five-Fold Citation
Advantage

Since my informants are no longer at IOP, I can't give you chapter and
verse, but assure you I'm not making it up (and it was about subscriptions).
I recall a speaker at an ALPSP seminar telling us much the same story for
London Mathematical Society journals.

Back to the Gentil-Beccot et al article, however - they only looked at
clickstream data on SPIRES, didn't they? When Kurtz et al
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/095315107779490661 - see Fig 5) looked at ArXiv
stats directly, together with ADS statistics for access to astrophysics
journals (which must be an underestimate, since not all readers come in via
ADS), they found that while HE physicists use ArXiv about twice as
frequently for older papers as do astrophysicists or condensed matter
scientists (who go directly to the journals).  Unless HE physicists have a
very different pattern of use from astrophysicists, however, it would seem
that they still preferentially use the journals for older articles.


Sally


Sally Morris
Partner, Morris Associates - Publishing Consultancy
 
South House, The Street
Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
 
Tel: +44(0)1903 871286
Fax: +44(0)8701 202806
Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk

-Original Message-
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On
Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 20 July 2009 18:04
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: OA in High Energy Physics Arxiv Yields Five-Fold Citation
Advantage

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Sally
Morrissa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote:
 Stevan is, I'm sure, well aware that IOP at least has claimed that point
(2)
 is erroneous and that it was misquoted by Swan

No, I am not aware of that at all.

All I am aware of is that IOP said that they had data showing that
downloads of their online contents declined with the growth of Green
OA self-archiving.

That point is not in the least disputed, and is not the question at issue.

(Indeed, the recent preprint by Gentil-Beccot et al (2009)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.5418v1 in HEP, Figure 6, showed quite
clearly that where there is a Green OA version accessible in Arxiv,
HEP users prefer to use that, rather than going to the journal site;
Kurtz et al had some slightly different behavior patterns in
astrophysics, where usage shifts to the journal version -- probably
because of ADS -- once it becomes available.)

But the journal destruction issue is not about preferred download
sites, but about subscriptions. And that was what Alma Swan asked APS
and IOP specifically about: Has Green OA caused a decline in
subscriptions?

And the answer to that question -- from both APS and IOP -- was and is: No.

If what you are instead referring to is the hypothesis that a decline
in downloads will lead to a decline in subscriptions, then this is
very much the same as the original hypothesis that Green OA will lead
to a decline in subscriptions:

The objective evidence in both cases is and remains that it has not
done so, in 18 years of HEP self-archiving, the last 10 of them at
near 100%.

Stevan Harnad



 -Original Message-
 From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
 [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On
 Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
 Sent: 20 July 2009 16:35
 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
 Subject: Re: OA in High Energy Physics Arxiv Yields Five-Fold Citation
 Advantage

 On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Sally
 Morrissa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote:

 It could be that the HE physicists (a) value journals too much to let
them
 be destroyed by green OA and (b) are convinced that, if they don't put an
 alternative funding model in place, that is what will eventually happen

 That is a logical possibility but:

 (1) HE physicists have been doing Green OA self-archiving for 18 years
 -- the last 10 of them at virtually 100% (see Figure 1 of
 Gentil-Beccot et al 2009  http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.5418v1 ).

 (2) The two most important physics publishers -- APS and IOP -- have
 reported that there has been no detectable decline associated with
 those many years of Green OA self-archiving.
 http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11006/

 (3) It hence seems hard to imagine that HE physicists have suddenly
 begun worrying that it will destroy their journals.

 (4) Besides, the proponents of SCOAP3 have stated quite clearly why
 they are doing it: It is not to save journals (which, while
 subscriptions 

Re: Submission Fees (was: RE: Overlay Journals Over Again...)

[David Prosser]

OUP has taken the proportion of OA content in it's journals into account
when setting prices.  For 2009 prices see:

http://www.oxfordjournals.org/oxfordopen/charges

David

David Prosser
Director, SPARC Europe

-Original Message-
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On
Behalf Of Bill Hooker
Sent: 05 July 2009 21:26
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Submission Fees (was: RE: Overlay Journals Over Again...)

Heather Morrison:
 If 10% of last year's revenue
 stream is coming from publication charges, prices should be decreased
 by 10%.  OR, libraries and others such as funding agencies,
 departments, etc., should not support the publication charges.

While I have seen publishers claim that OA uptake is very low or
similar, I have not seen any figures -- does anyone know of a hybrid
model where the %OA uptake has been quantified?  Does anyone know of a
hybrid publisher who has explicitly adjusted their subscription prices
in accordance with OA uptake?

The numbers may prove useful, because libraries etc who are going to
refuse to support hybrid charges at popular journals will have to deal
with unhappy faculty, and perhaps the best way to defuse that situation
is to have actual data to hand showing %OA uptake and the absence of any
proportional subscription adjustment.  Even monkeys have been shown to
have an innate sense of fairness...


B.

Re: Funder Grant Conditions, Fundee/Institutional Compliance, and 3rd-Party Gobbledy-Gook

[David Prosser]

Hang on, deposit is not an `arbitrary hoop' that the publisher can
jump through as and when they are bothered.  It is a condition of the
contract between the Wellcome and the publisher.  If a publisher
accepts Wellcome's money to make a paper Gold OA then one of the
conditions of the contract between them is that the publisher does
the deposit.  It is exactly one of the services that the Gold
publisher is being paid to publish (irrespective of whether or not
its part of the definition of Gold OA.). 

 

You may not agree with the strategy, but let's not get confused about
what is being paid for.

 

 

 





From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]
On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 25 June 2009 22:22
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Funder Grant Conditions, Fundee/Institutional Compliance,
and 3rd-Party Gobbledy-Gook

 

There is a very simple fix for the (self-created) problem of
noncompliant publishers -- i.e., those who are paid for Gold OA by
funders like Wellcome and then fail to deposit the paid-up article:

Gold OA fees are paid for Gold OA. That means the publisher makes the
article OA on his own website (and, of course, since all Gold OA
journals are also Green, also endorses immediate Green OA
self-archiving by the author in any repositories he chooses).

Let us not castigate publishers if they do not immediately also jump
through the arbitrary hoop of further depositing their Gold OA
article in some designated repository or other on behalf of the
author or the funder. That is an extra (and as far as I know, it is
not part of the definition of Gold OA publication, nor the service
that the Gold OA publisher is being paid to provide).

So if not the publisher, who is at fault if the article is not
deposited?

(I pause to let you reflect a few moments.)

Well of course the fault is the absurd, again-not-thought-through
mandate requiring fundees to make their articles OA, but relying on a
3rd party (unfunded by the funder, and merely paid to make the
article OA) to do the deposit!

Not only does that make no sense at all for Gold OA articles, but it
also makes compliance and grant fulfillment a gratuitously
complicated overall affair, complicated to comply with, even more
complicated to monitor compliance with: http://bit.ly/3oxWHy

 

For articles published in non-OA journals, the fundee must do the
deposit; for articles published in Gold OA journals (or only those
that are paid-OA? or only those whose paid-OA is paid by the funder?)
the publisher must do the deposit.

I truly hope that the sensible reader will see at once that the
sensible way for a funder to mandate deposit is to put the onus for
compliance eclusively on the grantee and the grantee's institution,
as with all other funding conditions, not to offload it willy-nilly
onto non-grantee 3rd parties (whose services may be paid for, but who
certainly are not being paid for repository deposit but for Gold OA
publishing).

And while we're at it, this is yet another reason why the default
repository specified by the funder should be the grantee's own
institutional repository and not, again, institution-external
repositories. For with local, one-stop deposit, the institution can
collaborate, as usual, in ensuring compliance with grant fulfillment
conditions, by monitoring the deposits in its own repository, making
sure that every grant-funded article has been deposited, regardless
of whether it happens to be published in a Gold or non-Gold journal.
(And, as a bonus, the institution is then also more likely to go on
to adopt an IR deposit mandate of its own, for the rest of its
research output, in all fields, whether or not funded by that
funder.)

Chasing after 3rd parties -- whether publishers or
institution-external repositories -- creates gratuitous complications
for absolutely no extra gain, only needless extra pain.

Is there any hope at all that funders who have committed to these
dysfunctional and counterproductive stipulations will be enlightened
enough to fix them at this point (it's easy) rather than (as I fear),
just digging in deeper with a harrumph and we know what we're
doing and mind your own business...

With a sigh of resignation,

Your weary archivangelist.

 

PS If you want to find the origin of much of this easily remedied
confusion, look again at that mixed blessing, the well-meaning,
timely, welcome and highly influential -- but relentlessly
unreflective -- ebiomed proposal
http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/com0509.htm and its
subsequent incarnations across the years...

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Sally
Morrissa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote:
 Isn't it the case that it's only in the case of articles published
Open
 Access, and where the fee is paid by Wellcome, that there is any
requirement
 on the publisher to do 

Re: Funder Grant Conditions, Fundee/Institutional Compliance, and 3rd-Party Gobbledy-Gook

[David Prosser]

`and I repeat: it is an arbitrary and counterproductive hoop that the
publisher is being paid to jump through, for no good reason
whatsoever, and to no genuine advantage, just disadvantage'

 

And I repeat that if you have taken money to jump through an
arbitrary hoop then you can, and should, be castigated if you don't
jump through that hoop.  But I must admit I do love the implication
that this is heroic `passive resistance' on the part of the
publishers to a `bad' policy!

 

 

David





From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]
On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 26 June 2009 20:39
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Funder Grant Conditions, Fundee/Institutional
Compliance, and 3rd-Party Gobbledy-Gook

 



On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:20 PM, David
Prosserdavid.pros...@bodley.ox.ac.uk wrote:

 Hang on, deposit is not an `arbitrary hoop' that the publisher can
jump
 through as and when they are bothered.  It is a condition of the
contract
 between the Wellcome and the publisher.  If a publisher accepts
Wellcome's
 money to make a paper Gold OA then one of the conditions of the
contract
 between them is that the publisher does the deposit.  It is exactly
one of
 the services that the Gold publisher is being paid to publish
(irrespective
 of whether or not its part of the definition of Gold OA.). 

 You may not agree with the strategy, but let's not get confused
about what
 is being paid for.

I think I fully understand and understood that, David, and I repeat:
it is an arbitrary and counterproductive hoop that the publisher is
being paid to jump through, for no good reason whatsoever, and to no
genuine advantage, just disadvantage (for the reasons I had been at
pains to explain fully in the posting appended below, as well as the
posting following it).

And, yes, this concerns a short-sighted and unreflective component of
Wellcome's strategy -- one that is making the otherwise commendable
and historic Wellcome OA mandate not only far less effective than it
could be, but providing a dysfunctional model for others to emulate,
instead of one that really could scale, systematically, and
successfully, globally: The fundee and fundee institution should be
required to make the deposit, whether the article be published in a
paid-Gold OA journal or a subscription journal. (And the default
deposit should be the author's refereed final draft [or better]; and
the default locus of deposit should be the author's institutional
repository, from which it can then be harvested or imported to
further repositories if desired.)

And I can only repeat my hope that Wellcome's response may be
enlightened enough to fix [this dysfunctional component of Wellcome's
policy] at this point (it's easy) rather than (as I fear), just
digging in deeper with a 'harrumph' and 'we know what we're doing'
and 'mind your own business'... -- which, I regret to have to say,
David, is a lot closer to the spirit of your own response here...

Stevan Harnad


 

 From: American Scientist Open Access Forum

[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]
On
 Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
 Sent: 25 June 2009 22:22
 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
 Subject: Funder Grant Conditions, Fundee/Institutional Compliance,
and
 3rd-Party Gobbledy-Gook

  

 There is a very simple fix for the (self-created) problem of
noncompliant
 publishers -- i.e., those who are paid for Gold OA by funders like
Wellcome
 and then fail to deposit the paid-up article:

 Gold OA fees are paid for Gold OA. That means the publisher makes
the
 article OA on his own website (and, of course, since all Gold OA
journals
 are also Green, also endorses immediate Green OA self-archiving by
the
 author in any repositories he chooses).

 Let us not castigate publishers if they do not immediately also
jump through
 the arbitrary hoop of further depositing their Gold OA article in
some
 designated repository or other on behalf of the author or the
funder. That
 is an extra (and as far as I know, it is not part of the definition
of Gold
 OA publication, nor the service that the Gold OA publisher is being
paid to
 provide).

 So if not the publisher, who is at fault if the article is not
deposited?

 (I pause to let you reflect a few moments.)

 Well of course the fault is the absurd, again-not-thought-through
mandate
 requiring fundees to make their articles OA, but relying on a 3rd
party
 (unfunded by the funder, and merely paid to make the article OA) to
do the
 deposit!

 Not only does that make no sense at all for Gold OA articles, but
it also
 makes compliance and grant fulfillment a gratuitously complicated
overall
 affair, complicated to comply with, even more complicated to
monitor
 compliance with: http://bit.ly/3oxWHy

  

 

Re: On Proportion and Strategy: OA, non-OA, Gold-OA, Paid-OA

[David Prosser]

So, there is little hard evidence as to whether discussion of Gold helps or
hinders in an institution's attempt to implement a Green OA mandate.  One of
the few pieces of evidence that we have, from Harvard, suggests that it can
help.  However, this fails to fit in with Stevan's narrative and so we are
encouraged to ignore it.

I think that we can all agree that the Harvard mandate(s) is vitally
important in triggering discussions at other universities - everybody want
to ape Harvard.  However, rather than saying 'here are the arguments that
led Harvard to adopt these polices' we appear to be putting forward reasons
why these arguments will not work elsewhere: 'these arguments were a great
success - don't under any circumstances use them!'.  I find this positioning
rather bizarre.

If I were offering advice it would be for each institution to focus on the
arguments that will work best locally.  The 85 existing mandates have used a
variety of arguments and strategies - adopt those that will work best
locally.  And if that includes talking about Gold then talk about Gold.  

David
-Original Message-
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On
Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 13 June 2009 22:03
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: On Proportion and Strategy: OA, non-OA, Gold-OA, Paid-OA

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 2:16 PM, David
Prosserdavid.pros...@bodley.ox.ac.uk wrote:

 SH: The implication is that it is far more productive (of OA) for
universities
 and funders to mandate Green OA than to fund Gold OA.

 DP: And if it was a case of either/or then you may well be right.  But
it's not
 and I still see no strategic benefit in pretending that it is.

See: The Argument Against (Premature) Gold OA Support:
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/590-guid.html

 Although Green and Gold OA are definitely not independent of each other,
 their interdependence is subtle and not at all the simple, parallel
complementarity
 that many imagine it to be...

 Any needless cost at all associated with adopting and implementing a
Green OA
 mandate is a deterrent to arriving at consensus on adoption, not an
incentive...

 Once Green OA mandates are safely universalizing, then any institution
or funder
 that has cash to spare can spend as much of it as it likes on Gold OA.
But not now,
 when talk of Gold OA just distracts -- and talk of spending extra money
on it
 deters -- from mandating Green OA...

If there were any evidence (or any reason to believe) that a both/and
policy -- a Green OA deposit requirement plus finding and providing
funds to pay for for Gold OA -- was more rather than less likely to
achieve worldwide consensus on adoption than just a Green OA deposit
mandate alone, with no extra cost, then you would be right. Otherwise
I still see no strategic benefit in pretending that it is.

For the baseline difficulty of achieving consensus on mandate adoption
at all, I have in mind the fact that, although it is thankfully
beginning to accelerate now, there have been only 85 adoptions since
the first mandate in 2002 (with only a handful of them offering any
Gold OA subsidy).

For the deterrence, I have in mind the vast majority of the Have-Not
Universities of the world, compared to the Harvards, along with the
commonsense fact that it is easier to achieve agreement on doing
something that costs less rather than more (and especially if it costs
unnecessarily more).

For the distraction, I have in mind the mind-boggling fact that there
have been proposals and even adoption of policies to fund Gold OA
without even mandating Green OA: http://bit.ly/z8LEY.

Having said that, on what institutions and funders elect to do with
any spare cash *after* they have mandated Green OA *nolo contendere*.

Stevan Harnad

PS Testimony from institutional policy-makers would be welcome: Do you
have any evidence that achieving consensus on adopting both/and
policies (Green OA mandates coupled with Gold OA subsidies) is more
likely than achieving consensus on adopting Green OA mandates alone?
This is worthy of open discussion in this Forum, which is devoted to
OA strategy: Stuart Shieber, for example, has reported that at Harvard
he found Gold OA subsidies helpful in assuaging worries about the
future of journal publishing, should it turn out that universal Green
OA makes subscriptions unsustainable: http://bit.ly/bn7jG --  But that
was at Harvard (and I responded to that by suggesting that it might be
even more effective to spell out for worriers that institutional
subscription collapse by the same token releases the institutional
windfall subscription cancellation savings to pay for Gold OA, with no
need for any extra subsidy http://bit.ly/2lsaj0 ). -- What is the
experience of the Have-Nots on this strategic question?

Re: On Proportion and Strategy: OA, non-OA, Gold-OA, Paid-OA

[David Prosser]

The implication is that it is far more productive (of OA) for universities
and funders to mandate Green OA than to fund Gold OA.

And if it was a case of either/or then you may well be right.  But it's not
and I still see no strategic benefit in pretending that it is.

David

David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe

Tel:  +44 (0) 1865 277 614
Mobile: +44 (0) 7974 673 888
Web:www.sparceurope.org
-Original Message-
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On
Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 13 June 2009 17:30
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: On Proportion and Strategy: OA, non-OA, Gold-OA, Paid-OA

As I do not have exact figures on most of the 9 proportions I
highlight below, I am expressing them only in terms of vast majority
(75% or higher) vs. minority (25% or lower) -- rough figures that we
can be confident are approximately valid. They turn out to have at
least one rather important implication.

1. The vast majority of current (peer-reviewed) journal articles are
not Open Access (OA) (i.e., they are neither self-archived as Green OA
nor published in a Gold OA journal).

2. The vast majority of journals are Green OA.

3. The vast majority of journals are not Gold OA.

4. The vast majority of citations are to the top minority of articles
(the Pareto/Seglen 90/10 rule).
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/474-guid.html

5. The vast majority of journals (or journal articles) are not among
the top minority of journals (or journal articles).

6. The vast majority of the top journals are not Gold OA.

7. The vast majority of the top journals are Green OA.

8. The vast majority of Gold OA journals are not paid-publication journals.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/06/careful-confirmation-that-70-of-o
a.html

9. The vast majority of the top Gold OA journals are paid-publication
journals.

I think two strong conclusions follow from this:

The fact that the vast majority of Gold OA journals are not
paid-publication journals is not relevant if we are concerned about
providing OA to the articles in the top journals.

Green OA is the vastly underutilized means of providing OA.

The implication is that it is far more productive (of OA) for
universities and funders to mandate Green OA than to fund Gold OA.


Stevan Harnad

Re: Gold Fever: Read and Weep

[David Prosser]

Interestingly, the main objection against the policy as reported was:

 

Open access will kill the journals you need during your career,
women's studies professor and university senator Claire Moses said.
It's as simple as that.

 

That is not a gold/green OA misunderstanding.  That's just a
misunderstanding.  It is not clear to me that this would have been
cleared-up if the Maryland resolution had removed all mention of
journals - some academics fear that green OA will destroy journals.

 

I know that some feel that all the world's ills can be layed at the
door of gold OA, but this really doesn't look like a case of
so-called `gold fever'.

 

David

 

David C Prosser PhD

Director

SPARC Europe

 

Tel:  +44 (0) 1865 277 614

Mobile: +44 (0) 7974 673 888

Web:    www.sparceurope.org





From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]
On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 24 April 2009 17:27
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Gold Fever: Read and Weep

 

** Apologies for cross-posting **

 

Those who still harbor any doubt that the mixing of talk about Gold
OA publishing or funding with plans for Green OA self-archiving
mandates causes anything but confusion, distraction, delay and
failure to make progress toward universal OA: Please readPeter
Suber's comments on this this latest fiasco at the University of
Maryland -- and weep.

And then please trust some sound advice from a weary and wizened but
world-wise archivangelist:

Disentangle completely all talk and policy concerning the requirement
to self-archive refereed journal articles (the Green OA mandate) from
any advice concerning whether or not to publish in Gold OA journals,
and from any plans to help authors pay for Gold OA journal publishing
charges, should they elect to publish in a fee-based Gold OA journal.

Otherwise this mindless and thoughtless Gold Fever will just usher in
yet another half-decade of failure to reach for what is already fully
within the global research community's grasp: universal Green OA
through universal Green OA self-archiving mandates adopted by
universities and research funders worldwide.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

SPARC Europe Award for Outstanding Achievements in Scholarly Communications - 2009

[David Prosser]

*Apologies for Cross Posting*

Press Release

SPARC Europe Announces Call-for-Nominations for the Fourth Award for
Outstanding Achievements in Scholarly Communications

 

Award to Honour Leaders in Field of Scholarly Communications

17th March, 2009

For more information, contact: David Prosser,
david.pros...@bodley.ox.ac.uk

 

Oxford, UK - SPARC Europe (Scholarly Publishing and Academic
Resources Coalition), a leading organization of European research
libraries, today announced the opening of nominations for the Fourth
SPARC Europe Award for Outstanding Achievements in Scholarly
Communications.  Launched in 2006, this annual Award recognises an
individual or group within Europe that has made significant advances
in our understanding of the issues surrounding scholarly
communications and/or in developing practical means to address the
problems with the current systems.  The First Award, in 2006, was
presented to the Wellcome Trust, with the second in 2007 going to the
SHERPA group and the third in 2008 to Leo Waaijers.

Nominations are open to all who have made major contributions in the
field of scholarly communications, and the judging panel, formed from
members of the SPARC Europe Board of Directors, particularly wishes
to receive nominations for individuals or groups working in any of
the following areas:

 

 

Research that helps illuminate the scholarly communications landscape

Advocacy for new models of scholarly communications

Development of new tools to aid scholarly communication (e.g.
repository software)

Interesting new projects or products

Implementation of policies that promote new scholarly communication
models.

 

 

Nominations may come from any part of the world, but nominees should
work mainly within Europe.  (Self-nominations will not be accepted.) 
Preference will be given to activity within the past two years.
Nominations, together with a short (approximately 500 words) outline
of the nominee's work, should be sent to David Prosser, Director of
SPARC Europe no later than 20th April 2009. The Award will be present
at the CERN Workshop on Innovations in Scholarly Communication
(OAI6), (http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=48321) to
be held in Geneva, Switzerland, 17-19 June 2009.

SPARC Europe is an alliance of 110 research-led university libraries
from 14 European countries. It is affiliated with SPARC based in
Washington, D.C., which represents over 200 institutions, mainly in
North America. SPARC Europe and SPARC work to develop and promote new
models of scholarly communication that increase the access to and
utility of the research literature.

 

Re: [SOAF] Another Winning Article From OA's Chronicler and Conscience: Richard Poynder

[David Prosser]

I'm afraid that I still don't understand where this idea comes from
that deposit mandates and open access journal deals are either/or
propositions.  They are not and never will be.

 

I think some confusion is arising from a misunderstanding of how
decisions are made in universities.  The mechanism for taking out a
membership deal for an open access publisher is a relatively simple
one - a library director can look at his or her budget and make the
decision.  Even these large-scale consortia deals with publishers
such as Springer are relative simple.  Of course they require a great
deal of negotiation and hard work on the part of people such as Ivy
(who deserves much kudos for all her efforts at UC), but as they do
not require large additional funds or significant changes to
researchers' working practices they are manageable decisions.  (And
just to avoid the howls of protest from library friends, `relatively
simple' does not mean `easy'!)

 

Institution-wide mandates on the other hand are much harder.  They
require lobbying at the highest level of the institution, they
require assuaging the concerns of the entire academic community, they
require briefing papers, presentations at committee meetings, support
from the VC or Rector, discussions at academic board and university
senate level (or their equivalent), votes, etc. etc.  Looking at
those mandates that are already in place it can take at least two
years from the idea of a mandate being mooted to it being agreed. 

 

And it takes at least two years not because people are wasting their
time talking about OA journals, but because the decision-making
processes in academic institutions are relatively slow and unwieldy. 
Stevan's arguments might have some force if there was evidence that
discussing OA journals slows down that decision-making progress, but
I don't think 
tha.=UTF-8q=escher+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2FbtnG=Search
+Blogsroublesome complications, since they concern how the client is
to deal with their competitors, further down the road, when one's own
Big Deal is no longer the only deal in town...

 

 Stevan Harnad

 

 

 

SPARC Europe Award for Outstanding Achievements in Scholarly Communications - 2008

[David Prosser]

(*Apologies for cross-posting*)

 

 

Press Release

 

Leo Waaijers Receives SPARC Europe Award for Outstanding Achievements
in Scholarly Communications, 2008


April 22, 2008

For more information, contact: David Prosser,
david.pros...@bodley.ox.ac.uk

LUND, Sweden - As part of the Fourth Nordic Conference on Scholarly
Communications, held at the University of Lund in Sweden, Dr Leo
Waaijers has been presented with the 2008 SPARC Europe Award for
Outstanding Achievements in Scholarly Communications.

 

SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition)
Europe initiated the Award in 2006 to recognise the work of an
individual or group within Europe that has made significant advances
in our understanding of the issues surrounding scholarly
communications and/or in developing practical means to address the
problems with the current systems. In making the Award to Dr Waaijers
the judging panel noted his tireless support for new models of
scholarly communication and his innovative approach to repositories
and their promotion, especially as initiator of the DARE programme
and manager of DAREnet.

 

As manager of the SURF Platform ICT and Research, Dr Waaijers has
initiated a number of important projects within the Netherlands,
including the original DARE programme, the Keur der Wetenschap (Cream
of Science) initiative and the honDAREduizend - or HunDAREdthousand -
project.  In addition, his influence as been felt throughout Europe
and beyond as a widely-travelled advocate, initiator of the 2007
petition to the European Commission, and an important player in the
DRIVER and DRIVER II programmes.

 

Wim Liebrand, director of SURF commented Leo Waaijers deserves this
tangible recognition for his work in the world of libraries,
information technology and Open Access. We all know that Leo has been
highly effective in his energetic attempts to improve the easier
dissemination of knowledge. And that has had a direct and beneficial
impact on both research and educational environments. Leo has guided
the Netherlands to a lead position in supporting the fast changing
world of scholarly communication and we, at SURF, are proud of that.

 

Leo Waaijers said Open Access is also about sharing inspiration,
best practices and knowledge within the OA community itself. This has
been the key success factor of DAREnet. For me, the SPARC Europe
Award is recognizing exactly this. It is a great stimulus to proceed
with this modus operandi.'

 

This is the third time the SPARC Europe Award for Outstanding
Achievements in Scholarly Communications has been made.  The first
Award, in 2006, went to the Wellcome Trust and the second in 2007 to
the SHERPA Group. 

SPARC Europe is an alliance of 110 research-led university libraries
from 14 European countries. It is affiliated with SPARC based in
Washington, D.C., which represents over 200 institutions, mainly in
North America. SPARC Europe and SPARC work to develop and promote new
models of scholarly communication that increase the access to and
utility of the research literature.

About SURF

SURF is the collaborative organisation for academic universities,
universities of applied sciences and research institutions aimed at
breakthrough innovations in ICT. SURF supports higher education and
research in taking optimum advantage of the possibilities offered by
ICT to improve the quality of education and research. SURF provides
the foundation for the excellence of higher education and research in
the Netherlands.

 

More information on DRIVER: www.driver-community.eu

More information on SURFshare: www.surf.nl/surfshare

 

Re: OA in Europe suffers a setback

[David Prosser]

However, despite the six out of seven funding bodies requiring green OA, we
do not yet see substantial compliance from academics as a result.


One thing to remember is that most of these policies apply to papers
resulting from new projects funded after 1 October 2006 (or 1 December 2006
for the STFC).  In many cases the research will not yet be completed, never
mind the papers written.  We will see over the next few years an ever
increasing proportion of UK Research Council funded papers available through
repositories as the articles written under the new polices come through the
system.

David

David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe
 
E-mail:  david.pros...@bodley.ox.ac.uk
Tel:   +44 (0) 1865 277 614
Mobile:  +44 (0) 7974 673 888
http://www.sparceurope.org
 

Re: [SOAF] PRISM doesn't speak for Rockefeller University Press (fwd)

[David Prosser]

It is extremely difficult to know who PRISM speaks for.  On the website
(http://www.prismcoalition.org/about.htm) they claim to be a partnership and
coalition.  The press release announcing the launch of PRISM talks of a
'coalition of scholarly societies and publishers'.  However, I can't see
anywhere on the website a list of these partner or coalition members.

David

David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe
 
E-mail:  david.pros...@bodley.ox.ac.uk
Tel:   +44 (0) 1865 277 614
Mobile:  +44 (0) 7974 673 888
http://www.sparceurope.org
 

-Original Message-
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On
Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 30 August 2007 20:05
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: [SOAF] PRISM doesn't speak for Rockefeller University Press (fwd)



-- Forwarded message --
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:46:53 -0400
From: Peter Suber peters--earlham.edu
To: SPARC Open Access Forum sparc-oafo...@arl.org
Subject: [SOAF] PRISM doesn't speak for Rockefeller University Press

[Forwarding from Mike Rossner, Executive Director of Rockefeller University 
Press, with his permission.  --Peter Suber.]


To the American Association of Publishers:

I am writing to request that a disclaimer be placed on the PRISM website 
(http://www.prismcoalition.org/) indicating that the views presented on the 
site do not necessarily reflect those of all members of the AAP.  We at the 
Rockefeller University Press strongly disagree with the spin that has been 
placed on the issue of open access by PRISM.

First, the website implies that the NIH (and other funding agencies who
mandate 
release of content after a short delay) are advocating the demise of peer 
review.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  These agencies completely

understand the need to balance public access to journal content with the 
necessity for publishers to recoup the costs of peer review.  After extended

discussions with publishers, these agencies have determined that delayed 
release of content (none of them are advocating immediate release unless 
publishers are compensated handsomely for such release) is consistent with
the 
STM subscription business model, in which peer review is a basic tenet.

Second, how can PRISM refer to bias when the government is mandating that
ALL 
papers resulting from research they fund be released to the public after a 
short delay?   The major potential for bias by the government and other
funding 
agencies has already occurred when they decide what research to fund (e.g., 
stem cell research).

Third, PRISM takes issue with government spending on a repository of papers 
resulting from government-funded research.  The government has been forced
into 
this position by those publishers who refuse to ever release most of their 
content to the public.

Fourth, PRISM maintains that published papers are private property.  Most of

the research published by STM publishers only exists because of public
funding. 
No public funding - no research - no millions in profit.  Publishers thus
have 
an obligation to give some of their private property back to the public, on 
whose taxes they depend for their very existence.

Finally, we take issue with the title: Partnership for Research Integrity in

Science and Medicine.  The use of the term research integrity is 
inappropriate in this context.  The common use of this term refers to
whether 
the data presented are accurate representations of what was actually
observed. 
In other words, has any misconduct occurred?  This is not the primary
concern 
of peer reviewers, who ask whether the data presented support the
conclusions 
drawn.  It is thus incorrect to link the term research integrity directly
with 
peer review.

I could go on, but I think you will get the point that we strongly disagree 
with the tack AAP has taken on this issue.  We urge you to put a disclaimer
on 
the PRISM site, to make it clear that your assertions do not represent the 
views of all of your members.

Yours sincerely,
Mike Rossner, Ph.D.
Executive Director
The Rockefeller University Press

RE: : US University OA Resolutions Omit Most Important Component

[David Prosser]

In these discussions about authors doing, or being forced to do, what is
'good for them' we appear to forget that we already force authors to do
'what is good for them'.  For example:

In return for providing research grants we force researchers to deposit
gene sequences, protein sequences, etc.  It is not to the benefit of the
individual researcher to deposit, they don't volunteer, but we recognise
the value of it being done and so insist on it. In doing so we create
databases that are of benefit to all researchers.

In return for providing research grants we force researchers to write and
file end-of-project reports.  Again, researchers don't volunteer to write
these reports, but we recognise the value of having a reporting step and
insist on it.

In return for providing (significant) research grants the NIH is now
insisting on strategies to make data available.  The researchers are not
queuing-up to volunteer, but NIH sees it as important and so forces
researchers to 'do the right thing'.

Open access advocates would argue that in return for research grants
funding agencies have the right to 'force' researchers to make a copy of
their research papers available through open access.  The fact that some
may not volunteer to do this no more significant than the fact the some do
not volunteer to deposit sequences, write reports, or publicly archive
their data.  If the funders of research believe it is important then they
have a right to 'force' researchers to do something that benefits research
by widening access and dissemination of the research they have paid for.

David

David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe
 
E-mail:  david.pros...@bodley.ox.ac.uk
Tel:   +44 (0) 1865 277 614
Mobile:  +44 (0) 7974 673 888
http://www.sparceurope.org
 

-Original Message-

[mailto:owner-liblicens...@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Lisa Dittrich
Sent: 12 May 2005 03:37
To: liblicens...@lists.yale.edu; mef...@mail.med.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: US University OA Resolutions Omit Most
ImportantComponent

People have been educated to death about what's good for them health wise;
the public knows all this, they (we) just won't act on it.  So the
question is, do we legislate behavior?  We all know that is the issue now.  
And who gets legislated/punished?  The companies that make the bad
products (Mcdonalds, etc.) or the people that practice the bad behaviors
(through higher insurance rates, etc.).  OA is hardly brand new, and
lord knows PLOS and others have worked the press very well indeed.  
Perhaps (shock!) researchers aren't as generous minded as OA/IR proponents
would like to think (remember all that fighting over who discovered the
AIDS virus?)?  Or perhaps, indeed, busy researchers are just too busy
doing their jobs (and the problem is...?)  What OA and IR evangelists seem
increasingly eager to do is legislate when recruiting volunteers doesn't
work.  They are like the Republicans ranting about family values--if they
can't change peoples hearts, they'll by God force! them to follow the
Moral Law as they see it.

Researchers give our journal their papers--via an online ms. submission
system that we pay a monthly fee for (and that we paid a hefty fee and
lots of staff time to start up); that we then review (more staff time, on
the part of our editor and other staff); that we generate correspondence
for; substantively edit if accepted, etc. etc. etc.  The reason the author
gives it to us is that he/she wants the imprimature of our journal's
name and reputation to enhance his or her reputation.  That's the fact.

Otherwise, OA/IR advocates would promote simply bypassing the journal
process altogether and recommend posting mss. on online repositories and
forget we money-grubbing journals altogether.

Lisa Dittrich
Managing Editor
Academic Medicine
lrdittr...@aamc.org (e-mail)

Re: Mandating OA around the corner?

[David Prosser]

Ensuring that the results of the research projects they fund are
disseminated as widely as possible is surely a legitimate thing for the
NIH to do and for the US Government to require the NIH to do.  The
current system does not maximise the dissemination of those results so
resulting in reduced impact for the authors, reduced efficiency for
readers, and reduced return on the research investment made by the NIH.

I'm not at all convinced by the 'spending money on dissemination impedes
the discovery of a cure for cancer' argument.  Spending money on making
sure that data are easily available has accelerated the pace of
scientific discovery (most famously in genome research) and there is no
reason to think that this will not be the same for papers.  Anyway, if
the argument did hold, could NIH not extend it and suggest that if it
was not paying out millions of dollars each year in submission charges,
page charges, and colour figure charges it could support more research
grants?

David

David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe

E-mail: david.pros...@bodley.ox.ac.uk
Tel:+44 (0) 1865 284 451
Mobile: +44 (0) 7974 673 888
http://www.sparceurope.org


-Original Message-
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On
Behalf Of Martin Frank
Sent: 22 July 2004 22:20
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Mandating OA around the corner?

Mark brings up a good point, especially in light of David Lipmann's
claim that it would only cost about $700,000 based on the hosting of
50,000 manuscripts annually.  While this might be the number which
PubMed Central conveys to the public, without a true cost accounting I
am unconvinced that this is a real number.  I suspect that the $700,000
does not take into account the general overhead (rent, heat,
electricity, janatorial) that most publishers have to include in their
cost analyses.  I believe that Martin Blume alluded to that in his
response to David.  I also question David's analysis because of his
claim that PubMed Central has an annual budget of approximately $2.5
million.  While this is not a lot of money as compared to the total NIH
budget, it is in my view $2.5 million more than needs to be spent and
could instead be used to support approximately 6 research grants
designed to find cures for cancer, etc.

If the PubMedCentral budget is indeed $2.5 million as claimed by David
Lipmann, one could use that number as the basis for establishing what an
expanded PubMedCentral might cost if it started receiving articles from
50,000 authors per year from 4000 or more journals.  At least when PMC
gets their downloads from journals now, they come in bunches using the
appropriate DTD, etc.  Dealing with 50,000 submissions would probably be
much less efficient than PMC's current efforts with its existing journal
customers.

As I indicated, David claims that his budget for PMC is $2.5 million.
PMC currently hosts about 150 journals. That translates into $16,666 per
journal.  Assuming that PMC is likely to receive submissions from the
equivalent of 3000 journals, that translates into a cost of
approximately $50,000,000.

I don't claim to know the right answer for the future cost of PMC, but
extrapolating from their own numbers, it is a lot of money and a lot of
lost research opportunities.

martin frank
 do...@aps.org 07/21/04 02:00PM 
Greetings,

On Jul 18, 2004, at 1:08 PM, Martin Frank wrote:

 However, based on knowledge of the costs associated with the hosting
 of journals at HighWire Press, it is estimated that a full fledged
 archive of NIH funded manuscripts at NIH would cost in the
 neighborhood of $75-100 million.

Wild (uncalled for!) speculation in my opinion (additonal FUD removed).

According to David Lipman, this is off by at least an order of
magnitude. They
expect about 50-60,000 NIH funded manuscripts per year. Even a generous
$100
per hosted manuscript* gives only $5-6 million. Lipman also pointed out
that one would not expect to have to immediately deal with this number
of
articles. Considering that NLM can leverage off of the existing PubMed
infrastructure,
I think they are in quite good shape (even creating by hand good XML
metadata
with tagged references can be done for about $5/article). It should be
noted that
if this is really author-deposit of manuscripts (again, Lipman's
impression of the
intent of the legislative language), than this might even be doable on
the same
cost scale of arXiv.org ($1 - $10 per article). I suspect the real cost
will be
somewhere in the middle.

Regards,
Mark

Mark Doyle
Assistant Director, Journal Information Systems
The American Physical Society

* My understanding is that hosting an article on Highwire is about $100
per article.

Martin Frank, Ph.D.
Executive Director
American Physiological Society
9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20814-3991
Tel: 301-634-7118   Fax: 301-634-7242
Email: mfr...@the-aps.org
APS Home 

Re: EPRINTS = PREPRINTS (unrefereed) + POSTPRINTS (refereed)

[David Prosser]

I certainly intended the article to reflect the first of the
interpretations that Stevan gives, i.e., that self-archiving is for
papers at all stages of their evolution from pre-print to post-print.
In the paper, I give a very brief (non-official) definition of self
archiving as:

'...the right of scholars to deposit their refereed journal articles in
searchable and free electronic archives'

I also talk about authors placing 'a peer-reviewed 'post-print' onto
their local institutional repository ensuring that both versions were
archived.'  Admittedly, this last comment is in relation to the
interaction with open access journals, but I agree that authors should
be doing that now where they can, even if the paper is published in a
subscription-based journal.

I plead guilty as charged to my tardiness in making my papers available.
The LIBER Quarterly paper (amongst others) is on the SPARC Europe
website at:

http://www.sparceurope.org/resources/index.html

I refer to the free version as a 'pre-print' only because it is the
version that I sent before it was printed - it should not vary from the
final version as there were no changes (to my knowledge).

I am also guilty of not formally archiving my papers in a repository,
only of (eventually) placing them on the SPARC Europe website.  If
anybody has a good suggestion as to a suitable repository I will load
them there.

I am not sure if the LIBER Quarterly is a 'green' journal or not, but I
side-stepped the issue by not assigning copyright.  I never give away my
copyright or sign a license that will stop me from putting up a version
of the final text.

I hope that this begins to return me to the ranks of a good citizen!

David

David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe

E-mail: david.pros...@bodley.ox.ac.uk
Tel:+44 (0) 1865 284 451
Mobile: +44 (0) 7974 673 888
http://www.sparceurope.org


-Original Message-
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On
Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 24 January 2004 14:11
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: EPRINTS = PREPRINTS (unrefereed) + POSTPRINTS (refereed)

Subject Thread begins (2000):
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0661.html

Open Access News http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
(Friday January 23 2004) contains the following item:

 OA will transform scholarly communication

   David C. Prosser, The Next Information Revolution - How Open Access
   repositories and Journals will Transform Scholarly Communications,
   Liber Quarterly, 13, 3/4 (2003) (accessible only to subscribers).
   http://liber.library.uu.nl/cgi-bin/pw.cgi/articles/47/index.html
   Abstract: Complaints about spiralling serials costs, lack of
   service from large commercial publishers, and the inability to
   meet the information needs of researchers are not new. Over the
   past few years, however, we have begun to see new models develop
   that better serve the information needs academics as both authors
   and readers. The internet is now being used in ways other than just
   to provide electronic facsimiles of print journals accessed using
   the traditional subscription models. Authors can now self-archive
   their own work making it available to millions and new open access
   journals extend this by providing a peer-review service to ensure
   quality control.  Posted by Peter Suber at 11:29 PM.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_01_18_fosblogarchive.html#a10749
1856636195137

I could not access the article as Liber is toll-access; but perhaps
David Prosser could explain the last sentence in the above summary:

   Authors can now self-archive their own work making it available to
   millions and new open access journals extend this by providing a
   peer-review service to ensure quality control

Without the full text it is hard to know which of two possible senses
is intended here. The first sense is spot-on and irreproachable:

(1) Authors can now provide open access to the articles they publish
in toll-access journals by self-archiving them AND (2) there are
also new open-access peer-reviewed journals in which authors can
publish their articles.

If this is the intended sense of the passage, it is a very welcome
statement of the UNIFIED OPEN-ACCESS PROVISION POLICY:

(OAJ) Researchers publish their research in an open-access
journal if a suitable one exists, otherwise

(OAA) they publish it in a suitable toll-access journal and also
self-archive it in their own research institution's open-access
research archive.

But unfortunately there is another possible construal of the above
passage, and it would be very helpful if David would clarify whether it
was in fact this that he meant:

 Authors can now (1) self-archive unrefereed drafts of their work
 and then (2) extend this by submitting them to open-access journals

Re: Written evidence for UK Select Committee's Inquiry into Scientific Publications

[David Prosser]

The Press Release is now online at:

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_and_technology
_committee/scitech111203a.cfm

David

David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe

E-mail:  david.pros...@bodley.ox.ac.uk
Tel:   +44 (0) 1865 284 451
Mobile:  +44 (0) 7974 673 888
http://www.sparceurope.org http://www.sparceurope.org/