[GOAL] The GOAL mailing list

[Richard Poynder]

"GOAL may or may not be the right venue for this discussion. Advice on this 
would be welcome."

>>>>

On this question, on the role of GOAL, and on the future of the list I am happy 
to hear the views of list members.

I have been thinking about the future of GOAL for a while now. As the name 
signals, it was set up to discuss open access. More specifically, the 
description of the list says that it is "dedicated to the discussion of Open 
Access practice and policy-making by the worldwide research community (in no 
order: researchers, universities, research institutions, research funding 
agencies, governmental research policy-makers and commercial entities) with the 
aim of enabling concrete, practical steps to be taken to achieve Open Access. 
Chief among these goals are techniques for increasing the amount of Open 
Access, as well as metrics of research usage and impact."

However, discussions about open access have now become mainstream and the 
reality is that much of the debate tends to take place elsewhere today, not 
least on Twitter.

I am happy to continue moderating the list, I am happy for the list to continue 
as it is. I am also happy to discuss GOAL's focus, its role and its future. But 
I think this would need to be a discussion that members of the list were 
involved in.

All thoughts/suggestions are welcomed.

Best wishes,


Richard Poynder
GOAL Moderator


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org  On Behalf Of Heather 
Morrison
Sent: 03 September 2021 16:14
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] COVID IP waiver request: interesting but not entirely 
informed?

Thank you, Ulrich.

The exception does look like it would be helpful in an emergency like COVID, 
and likely necessary as the default is an expectation of protection of rights 
and commercial exploitation; this is also on p. 102.

There is a sharp contrast in the E.U. and North America between success in 
achieving OA as the default in dissemination of results and expectation of 
protecting IP for commercial exploitation. It would be interesting to have 
meaningful and informed discussion about this. To participate in informed 
discussion, participants should understand the basics about the different types 
of IP. For those who may be new to this area, WIPO's "What is intellectual 
property" page is a good starting point:
https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/

The Public Library of Science (PLOS) Terms of Use may also be helpful to OA 
advocates in understanding the different types of IP. Like most fully OA 
publishers with a firm commitment to open licensing, PLOS is very protective of 
their own work, including their own text on the website and their trademark.
https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/<https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wipo.int%2Fabout-ip%2Fen%2F=04%7C01%7C%7C6047b050d87042b8099f08d96f0ab903%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637662914109834028%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=Hz1za3hvUkRVKMxVVUOh0L9Y9y1eTHr%2B0HfIkb8wrrw%3D=0>

The Google business model of advertising-supported facilitated access to free 
knowledge and services created by others, made possible by algorithms carefully 
protected as trade secrets, is another example of how different the various 
types of IP are. It is not unusual for a single internet search to invoke 
multiple different types of IP that work in very different fashion.

COVID is an interesting case study. My impression (not based on substantive 
research) is that the world, including the traditional commercial scholarly 
publishing industry, has made considerable progress in open sharing of 
information about the virus. There is no doubt still a great deal of room for 
improvement, but this is an advance and should be celebrated as much. I wonder 
how much the success of the OA / open data movements to date contributed to the 
rapid development of COVID vaccines in multiple countries.

Manufacturing involves patent law, and the manufacturing industries are very 
different from scholarly publishing. In the case of COVID vaccine manufacture, 
even under the current licensing regime, we have instances of what looks to me 
(as a non-expert) like rapid implementation of manufacture (Johnson & Johnson 
in Baltimore, more recently a Moderna factory in Spain creating doses for 
Japan) resulting in contaminated vaccines. This is not helpful in a context 
where vaccine hesitancy and an anti-vaccination movement are significant 
barriers to addressing COVID. In this case, simply opening up the rights to 
manufacture vaccines to anyone could do more harm than good.

On the other hand, the profit-driven pharma-as-usual model may be driving a 
push for booster shots in rich countries that may not be necessary, when the 
most compassionate and smartest approach (even for the rich countries) is 
likely shots in arms 

[GOAL] Statement made by the International Science Council delegation to the UNESCO Special Committee meeting on Open Science 6-12 May 2021

[Richard Poynder]

To my mind, this statement expresses what has become a major dilemma for
those who advocate for open access. 

 

Extract: 

 

"The UNESCO recommendation and potential cascading interventions by Member
States could develop along two divergent pathways. They could enhance
governmental support for the scientific community, and the stakeholder
ecosystem of which it is part, as they develop new policies, infrastructures
and collaboration strategies that serve the Open Science paradigm as it has
progressively evolved over the last two decades. 

 

"Alternatively, Member States could disregard the tradition whereby the
scientific community self-organizes to achieve its purposes, and come to
specify, or even regulate, how it should be organized. We are strongly in
favour of the former, and concerned about the potential of the latter, which
could create a mode of Open Science that opens the door: 'to capture of
publicly funded research value by commercial platforms, yet more "metrics"
of productivity to "incentivize" scholars to work harder and a focus on the
system-wide progress of science, ignoring costs and benefits to individuals,
whether scientists or non-scientists'." 

 

More here:
https://council.science/current/news/open-science-and-the-unesco-initiative/

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

[GOAL] Problems with the GOAL mailing list

[Richard Poynder]

CAUTION: This e-mail originated outside the University of Southampton.
Dear All,

We have been experiencing problems with the GOAL mailing list over the past few 
weeks. Many apologies to those who sent messages to the list that were not 
distributed. If you receive this message the problem should now be solved.

Best wishes,



Richard Poynder
GOAL Moderator

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

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

[Richard Poynder]

 is not possible, certainly in a way
   that would satisfy all the stakeholders? After all, funders got involved
   with open access because after 20+ years the other stakeholders had failed
   to work together effectively. However, in doing so, these funders appear
   (certainly in Europe) to be pushing the world in a direction that the
   authors of this report deprecate. What, practically, can the movement do to
   achieve the aspirations of the document beyond making a call to action or
   further declarations?


The point of this call to action is to raise awareness with funders and
others about this important issue. I’m not so cynical to think
organizational perspectives can never change. Strategies can (and should)
evolve as we gain a better understanding of the landscape, and adopt new
ideas and principles. We hope that this call to action will have that type
of impact.

And, yes of course not all interests will align, but we are already seeing
more cohesiveness at the national level than in the past. In Canada, where
I am based, for example, the funders, libraries and local Canadian
publishers are now in regular dialogue and collaborating to work on common
action items and to better align policies, funding and infrastructure. This
is also happening in other jurisdictions such as France with its Committee
for Open Science
<https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/the-committee-for-open-science/> and
Portugal where the national funder, universities (including libraries and
university presses) and scholarly societies have created and maintain a
national infrastructure for Open Access (hosting repositories and journals)
and aligned policies.

All the best,
Kathleen


Kathleen Shearer
Executive Director
Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR)
www.coar-repositories.org



On Apr 16, 2020, at 1:31 AM, Richard Poynder 
wrote:

“Designing a system that fosters bibliodiversity, while also supporting
research at the international level is extremely challenging. It means
achieving a careful balance between unity and diversity; international and
local; and careful coordination across different stakeholder communities
and regions in order to avoid a fragmented ecosystem.”


That seems to me to be a key paragraph in this document. And the pandemic —
which requires that information is shared very quickly and broadly, and
across borders — does certainly highlight the fact that the current
scholarly communication system leaves a lot to be desired.


I have three questions:



   1. Are translation technologies adequate to the task envisaged for them
   in the document?



   1. How is it envisaged that researchers, policymakers, funders, service
   providers, universities and libraries from around the world will all work
   together, and by means of what forum? I know there are a number of
   organisations and initiatives focused on the different issues raised in the
   document (not least COAR) but how exactly, and by what means, will these
   different stakeholders coordinate and work together to achieve the stated
   aims? I know there are a number of library-led organisations (like COAR),
   but is not a more diverse forum (in terms of the different stakeholders)
   needed? How many members of COAR are also members of cOAlition S for
   instance?



   1. Might it be that the different interests and priorities of these
   stakeholders are such that joint action is not possible, certainly in a way
   that would satisfy all the stakeholders? After all, funders got involved
   with open access because after 20+ years the other stakeholders had failed
   to work together effectively. However, in doing so, these funders appear
   (certainly in Europe) to be pushing the world in a direction that the
   authors of this report deprecate. What, practically, can the movement do to
   achieve the aspirations of the document beyond making a call to action or
   further declarations?


Richard Poynder


On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 15:53, Kathleen Shearer 
wrote:

(Apologies for the cross posting)
Dear all,

*Today, my colleagues and I are issuing a “Call for Action!”*

With the publication of this paper, *Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly
Communications: A Call for Action*
<https://www.coar-repositories.org/news-updates/fostering-bibliodiversity-in-scholarly-communications-a-call-for-action/>,
we are calling on the community to make concerted efforts to develop
strong, community-governed infrastructures that support diversity in
scholarly communications (referred to as bibliodiversity).

Diversity is an essential characteristic of an optimal scholarly
communications system. Diversity in services and platforms, funding
mechanisms, and evaluation measures will allow the research communications
to accommodate the different workflows, languages, publication outputs, and
research topics that support the needs and epistemic pluralism of different
research communities. In addition, diversity reduces the risk of vendor
lo

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

[Richard Poynder]

“Designing a system that fosters bibliodiversity, while also supporting
research at the international level is extremely challenging. It means
achieving a careful balance between unity and diversity; international and
local; and careful coordination across different stakeholder communities
and regions in order to avoid a fragmented ecosystem.”



That seems to me to be a key paragraph in this document. And the pandemic —
which requires that information is shared very quickly and broadly, and
across borders — does certainly highlight the fact that the current
scholarly communication system leaves a lot to be desired.



I have three questions:



   1. Are translation technologies adequate to the task envisaged for them
   in the document?



   1. How is it envisaged that researchers, policymakers, funders, service
   providers, universities and libraries from around the world will all work
   together, and by means of what forum? I know there are a number of
   organisations and initiatives focused on the different issues raised in the
   document (not least COAR) but how exactly, and by what means, will these
   different stakeholders coordinate and work together to achieve the stated
   aims? I know there are a number of library-led organisations (like COAR),
   but is not a more diverse forum (in terms of the different stakeholders)
   needed? How many members of COAR are also members of cOAlition S for
   instance?



   1. Might it be that the different interests and priorities of these
   stakeholders are such that joint action is not possible, certainly in a way
   that would satisfy all the stakeholders? After all, funders got involved
   with open access because after 20+ years the other stakeholders had failed
   to work together effectively. However, in doing so, these funders appear
   (certainly in Europe) to be pushing the world in a direction that the
   authors of this report deprecate. What, practically, can the movement do to
   achieve the aspirations of the document beyond making a call to action or
   further declarations?



Richard Poynder



On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 15:53, Kathleen Shearer 
wrote:

> (Apologies for the cross posting)
> Dear all,
>
> *Today, my colleagues and I are issuing a “Call for Action!”*
>
> With the publication of this paper, *Fostering Bibliodiversity in
> Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action*
> <https://www.coar-repositories.org/news-updates/fostering-bibliodiversity-in-scholarly-communications-a-call-for-action/>,
> we are calling on the community to make concerted efforts to develop
> strong, community-governed infrastructures that support diversity in
> scholarly communications (referred to as bibliodiversity).
>
> Diversity is an essential characteristic of an optimal scholarly
> communications system. Diversity in services and platforms, funding
> mechanisms, and evaluation measures will allow the research communications
> to accommodate the different workflows, languages, publication outputs, and
> research topics that support the needs and epistemic pluralism of different
> research communities. In addition, diversity reduces the risk of vendor
> lock-in, which inevitably leads to monopoly, monoculture, and high prices.
>
> We are living through unprecedented times, with a global pandemic sweeping
> the world, leading to illness, death, and unparalleled economic upheaval.
> Although our concerns about bibliodiversity have been growing for years,
> the current crisis has exposed the deficiencies in a system that is
> increasingly homogenous and prioritizes profits over the public good.
>
> Stories abound about the urgent need for access to the research
> literature, as illustrated, for example, by this message by Peter
> Murray-Rust posted
> <http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2020-March/005395.html> to
> the GOAL mailing list on March 31, 2020
>
> “My colleague, a software developer, working for free on openVirus
> software,  is spending most of his time working making masks in Cambridge
> Makespace to ship to Addenbrooke’s hospital. When he goes to the literature
> to find literature on masks, their efficacy and use and construction he
> finds paywall after paywall after paywall after paywall ….”
>
> For those who were not in favour of open access before, this global crisis
> should settle the debate once and for all.
>
> We must move away from a pay-to-read world in which researchers,
> practitioners and the public cannot afford to access critical research
> materials, or have to wait for embargo periods to lift before they can
> develop life saving techniques, methods and vaccines. Access to the
> research is simply too important. Yet, pay-to-publish, the open access
> model being advanced by many in the commercial sector, is also
> inappropriate as it places unacceptab

[GOAL] PLOS CEO Alison Mudditt discusses new OA agreement with the University of California

[Richard Poynder]

The Public Library of Science (PLOS) and the University of California (UC)
have announced a two-year agreement designed to make it easier and more
affordable for UC researchers to publish in the non-profit open-access
publisher's suite of seven journals.

 

Under the agreement - which is planned to go into effect this Spring - UC
Libraries will automatically pay the first $1,000 of the article processing
charge (APC) incurred when UC authors choose to publish in a PLOS journal.

 

Authors who do not have research funds available can request UC Libraries
pay the full APC fee. The aim is to ensure that lack of research funds does
not present a barrier for UC authors wishing to publish with PLOS.

 

The pilot is intended to test whether an institutional participation model
that leverages multiple funding sources, rather than only grant funds, can
provide a sustainable and inclusive path to full open access.

 

PLOS CEO Alison Mudditt discusses the new agreement and addresses some of
the issues that the current trend for universities and consortia to sign
so-called transformative agreements with legacy publishers raises for native
open-access publishers like PLOS.

 

https://poynder.blogspot.com/2020/02/plos-ceo-alison-mudditt-discusses-new.h
tml

 

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

[GOAL] Open access: Could defeat be snatched from the jaws of victory?

[Richard Poynder]

When news broke early in 2019 that the University of California had walked
away from licensing negotiations with the world's largest scholarly
publisher (Elsevier), a wave of triumphalism spread through the OA
Twittersphere. 

 

The talks had collapsed because of Elsevier's failure to offer UC what it
demanded: a new-style Big Deal in which the university got access to all of
Elsevier's paywalled content plus OA publishing rights for all UC authors -
what UC refers to as a "Read and Publish" agreement. In addition, UC wanted
Elsevier to provide this at a reduced cost. Given its size and influence,
UC's decision was hailed as "a shot heard around the academic world". 

 

The news had added piquancy coming as it did in the wake of a radical new
European OA initiative called Plan S. Proposed in 2018 by a group of
European funders calling themselves cOAlition S, the aim of Plan S is to
make all publicly funded research open access by 2021. 

 

Buoyed up by these two developments open access advocates concluded that -
17 years after the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) - the goal of
universal (or near-universal) open access is finally within reach. Or as the
Berkeley librarian who led the UC negotiations put it, "a tipping point" has
been reached. 

 

But could defeat be snatched from the jaws of success?

 

More here:
https://poynder.blogspot.com/2019/11/open-access-could-defeat-be-snatched.ht
ml

 

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

[GOAL] The OA Interviews: K. VijayRaghavan, Principal Scientific Adviser, Government of India

[Richard Poynder]

India has announced that it will not, after all, be joining cOAlition S.
Instead it will focus on developing an open-access solution better suited to
its needs. What has changed?

 

https://poynder.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-oa-interviews-k-vijayraghavan.html

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

Re: [GOAL] Invitation to researchers for open access books events in USA

[Richard Poynder]

Anyone interested in the experiences of a UK author with regard to OA books
might be interested in this:

https://poynder.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-open-access-interviews-edith-hall.html

Richard Poynder

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 14:51, Christina Emery <
christina.em...@springernature.com> wrote:

> ** apologies for cross posting **
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> There is increasing discussion amongst institutions, publishers, and
> funders about open access for books. However, we know from speaking to our
> authors, and from our recent survey, The Future of OA Books, that many
> researchers still feel ill-informed about open access books.
>
>
>
> Therefore we are holding two events in the US with the aim to provide an
> introduction to OA books for academics who are keen to learn more, and to
> provide an open forum for questions and debate.
>
>
>
> I’d be grateful if you could help share some information with your
> researcher networks about these events in September in New York and Boston.
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Explore open access books: events for researchers and book authors in New
> York and Boston
>
>
>
> Springer Nature is holding two free multidisciplinary events for
> researchers and scholarly book authors in September 2019, exploring how
> open access can help make the most out of research.
>
>
>
> Topics include:
>
>
>
> - Why should academics publish an open access book?
>
> - A funder’s perspective of open access books
>
> - Author case studies showcasing OA book authors’ experiences
>
>
>
> New York: Monday 16 September 12pm - 4.30pm followed by networking drinks
>
> Boston: Co-hosted by Digital Science, Thursday 19 September 1.30pm - 5pm
> followed by networking drinks
>
>
>
> More info: http://bit.ly/2P5C1SX
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> Christina Emery
> Open access books – marketing manager at Springer Nature
> christina.em...@springernature.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone
> who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received this
> e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or
> any other storage mechanism. Springer Nature Limited does not accept
> liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and
> not expressly made on behalf of Springer Nature Ltd or one of their agents.
> Please note that Springer Nature Limited and their agents and affiliates
> do not accept any responsibility for viruses or malware that may be
> contained in this e-mail or its attachments and it is your responsibility
> to scan the e-mail and attachments (if any).
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
-- 
Richard Poynder
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Why did Riksbankens Jubileumsfond decide to leave cOAlition S?

[Richard Poynder]

Perhaps unsurprisingly, while cOAlition S is quick to tell the world when it
signs up a new funder for Plan S, it is silent when a funder leaves the
coalition. It has not, for instance, publicly commented on the decision by
the Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences (Riksbankens
Jubileumsfond, or RJ) to leave. RJ's name just disappeared from the Plan S
web page sometime during the week beginning 20th May.

 

How, when and why did RJ leave?

 

More here:
https://poynder.blogspot.com/2019/06/why-did-riksbankens-jubileumsfond.html

 

 

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

[GOAL] The OA interviews: Arianna Becerril-García, Chair of AmeliCA

[Richard Poynder]

A professor in the School of Political and Social Sciences at the Autonomous
University of the State of Mexico (UAEM), Arianna Becerril-García is also
the Executive Director of Redalyc, the Network of Scientific Journals from
Latin America and the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal. Redalyc is a regional
open access portal for the social sciences and humanities that indexes 1,305
local journals and hosts the full texts of more than 650,000 articles. 

 

In addition, Becerril-García is the Chair of a new project called AmeliCA
(Open Knowledge for Latin America and the Global South). AmeliCA’s goal is
to propagate the Redalyc model to the more than 15,000 journals in the
region and elsewhere in the Global South.

 

As Chair of AmeliCA, Becerril-García has become a vocal critic of Plan S –
the European OA initiative announced last year by a group of funders that
call themselves cOAlition S. While AmeliCA shares cOAlition S’s goal of
achieving universal open access, says Becerril-García, it fears that, as
currently conceived, Plan S would disenfranchise researchers in the Global
South and exclude them further from the international scholarly publishing
system.

 

An interview with Arianna Becerril-García can be read here:
https://poynder.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-oa-interviews-arianna-becerril.html

 

Richard Poynder

 

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

[GOAL] Fwd: Norwegian libraries cancel Elsevier

[Richard Poynder]

Forwarding from Liblicense mailing list.

-- Forwarded message -
From: LIBLICENSE 
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 23:04
Subject: Re: Norwegian libraries cancel Elsevier
To: 


From: "Reller, Tom (ELS-NYC)" 
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 12:25:01 +

Hello – Here is Elsevier’s response to the decision. Thank you.



*Elsevier’s response to The Directorate for ICT and Shared Services in
Higher Education and Research (UNIT)’s decision to not renew their
agreement with Elsevier*

Elsevier is a service provider, offering information and analytics that
help institutions and professionals progress science, advance healthcare
and improve performance. We provide those services to customers at
above-average market quality and below-average market pricing. Our approach
is to engage with our customers to understand their objectives and work
with them to help achieve those objectives in a way they ultimately find
economically attractive, while preserving the quality, integrity and
sustainability of the peer review publishing system.

While Elsevier is working hard to accommodate the desire of some for an
author-pays-to-publish (open access) world, the reality is that current
author choices mean that 85 percent of journal articles globally are
published under the reader-pays (subscription) model, where authors publish
for free. It’s possible to come up with a negotiated agreement at
reasonable costs, and Elsevier offered Norway multiple low-cost options for
a rapid transition to gold open access publishing, but open access is a
service that has to be funded in some form. Norway is essentially asking to
receive two services for the price of one.

Elsevier remains open to restarting constructive talks to help and support
Norway’s transition to open access. UNIT’s decision to discontinue access
to Elsevier’s latest high-quality content is unfortunate for everyone,
particularly researchers, especially as Elsevier cannot continue service
indefinitely without being paid. We will continue to seek an agreement with
UNIT directly and by communicating with the research community.

*Tom Reller *

Vice President, Communications

*ELSEVIER* | Global Communications

t.rel...@elsevier.com 

Twitter: @TomReller <https://twitter.com/TomReller>



*Join Elsevier’s social media communities:*

www.elsevier.com/connect
Twitter <https://twitter.com/ElsevierConnect> *|* Facebook
<http://www.facebook.com/ElsevierConnect> *|* LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/company/elsevier>



*From:* LibLicense-L Discussion Forum 
From: Ann Shumelda Okerson >

Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 22:15:16 -0400

*Norwegian research institutions have decided not to extend the agreement
with the publisher Elsevier*


"The offer from Elsevier is far from fulfilling the requirements of Norway
for open access to research articles. Nor is there any movement in the
agreement's period against paying for publishing instead of paying for
reading access. The agreement with Elsevier is therefore not renewed for
2019. The Rectorates at BOTT (the universities in Bergen, Oslo, Tromsø and
Trondheim) support the decision."

[SNIP]

https://www.unit.no/aktuelt/norske-forskningsinstitusjoner-har-besluttet-ikke-forlenge-avtale-med-forlaget-elsevier


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

[GOAL] FW: UC to ELS - Let's call the whole thing off

[Richard Poynder]

Forwarding from OSI mailing list. 

 

From: osi2016...@googlegroups.com  On Behalf Of 
Lisa Hinchliffe
Sent: 28 February 2019 18:58
To: The Open Scholarship Initiative 
Subject: UC to ELS - Let's call the whole thing off

 

UC terminates subscriptions with world’s largest scientific publisher in push 
for open access to publicly funded research

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-terminates-subscriptions-worlds-largest-scientific-publisher-push-open-access-publicly
 

___

Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
lisalibrar...@gmail.com  



 

-- 
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be 
viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv 
policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit 
http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The 
Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to osi2016-25+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To post to this group, send email to osi2016...@googlegroups.com 
 .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[GOAL] Plan S: What strategy now for the Global South?

[Richard Poynder]

Forwarding from the Scholcomm mailing list.

 


Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Plan S: What strategy now for the Global South?

 

Hi David,

 

Thank you for the feedback. I do discuss waivers on page 19. 

 

I am not sure why you say Plan S requires zero or discounted APCs for LMICS. I 
understand that David Sweeney has said he expects APCs to partly subsidise 
waiver schemes that will facilitate publishers continuing to offer discount to 
researchers from these regions, but I am not sure how much of a solution that 
offers, since the cost of APCs is already a huge issue in Europe. 
https://editorresources.taylorandfrancis.com/peersupport/coalition-s-plan-s-and-accelerating-oa/

 

But let’s just consider the current discount schemes offered by publishers and 
look at the case of India, since a series of tweets last week suggests that it 
is thinking of joining Plan S. 

 

The World Bank table you cite classifies India as a middle income country. If 
you review the waiver schemes of legacy publishers Elsevier and Wiley (I have 
not checked all legacy publishers), they indicate that waivers are given based 
not on World Bank figures, but Research4Life classification. (In fact Elsevier 
does not guarantee a waiver for any author, it just says that it will 
prioritise Research4Life countries. Wiley also seems to be a little bit 
cautious about making any firm promises.

https://authorservices.wiley.com/open-research/open-access/for-authors/waivers-and-discounts.html

https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/pricing

 

The Research4Life countries are listed here: 
https://www.research4life.org/access/eligibility/

 

I do not see India on that list.

 

If you then take the example of an OA publisher like PeerJ you see that it 
offers waivers for lower income countries, but does not mention middle income 
countries. https://peerj.com/pricing/

 

I think it might also be worth considering what the Indian publication The Wire 
says about this. It takes the example of PeerJ and calculates that joining Plan 
S would cost India an additional Rs 616.46 crore. I am not entirely sure what 
that is in dollars, but I think it is a lot of money. 

 

You will see the article lists a number of other reasons why Plan S might not 
be the best solution for India, including the fact that APC caps probably won’t 
work: 
https://thewire.in/the-sciences/six-concerns-over-india-joining-the-plan-s-coalition-for-science-journals

 

Finally, in addition to joining Plan S, India is currently thinking of paying 
PhD students who publish in “reputed” international journals a one-time payment 
of 50,000 rupees (about US$700). I am wondering why these international 
journals would want to introduce waivers for Indian researchers/ students where 
they apparently do not exist given that such schemes as this will make it more 
of a seller’s market.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00514-1

 

But as you say, it is hard to evaluate rules fully before they are announced. 

 

Best wishes,

 

 

Richard Poynder

 

 

From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org <mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org>  
mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> > On 
Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: 17 February 2019 13:11
To: Richard Poynder mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> >
Cc: mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> > 
mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> >
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Plan S: What strategy now for the Global South?

 

A lot of thoughtful analysis, Richard, as usual. However, you do not seem to 
take into account that Plan S requires zero APC for authors from low income 
countries and discounted APC for those from middle income countries. Both are 
nicely listed here (as a basis for tuition):

 

https://dental.washington.edu/wp-content/media/research/WorldBank_EconomyRanks_2018.pdf

 

Of course neither the Plan S middle income discount rate or the APC cap have 
been announced, so we do not yet know the potential impact on the Global South. 
But if the APCs were capped at $2000 and the discount were 90% then the middle 
income country APC would only be $180. Not that I am predicting that.

 

It is admittedly hard to evaluate rules that have not yet been defined.

 

David

http://insidepublicaccess.com


On Feb 16, 2019, at 8:31 AM, Richard Poynder (via scholcomm Mailing List) 
mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> > wrote:

Since the 2002 Budapest Open Access Initiative the OA movement has had many 
successes, many surprises, and many disappointments. OA initiatives have also 
often had unintended consequences and the movement has been beset with 
disagreement, divisiveness, and confusion. 

 

In that sense, the noise and rancour surrounding Plan S is nothing new, 
although the discord is perceptibly greater. What seems clear is that Plan S 
raises challenging questions for those in the Global South. 

 

And even if Plan S fails to win sufficient support to achieve its objectives, 
ongoing efforts in Europe to tr

[GOAL] Plan S: What strategy now for the Global South?

[Richard Poynder]

Since the 2002 Budapest Open Access Initiative the OA movement has had many
successes, many surprises, and many disappointments. OA initiatives have
also often had unintended consequences and the movement has been beset with
disagreement, divisiveness, and confusion. 

 

In that sense, the noise and rancour surrounding Plan S is nothing new,
although the discord is perceptibly greater. What seems clear is that Plan S
raises challenging questions for those in the Global South. 

 

And even if Plan S fails to win sufficient support to achieve its
objectives, ongoing efforts in Europe to trigger a "global flip" to open
access, and the way in which open content is likely to be monetised by
commercial publishers, both suggest that the South needs to develop its own
(alternative) strategy.

 

I have explored what I see as the issues and discuss a possible strategy in
the essay here:
https://poynder.blogspot.com/2019/02/plan-s-what-strategy-now-for-global.htm
l

 

The essay ends with an interview with Omar Barreneche, Executive Secretary
of Uruguay's National Agency for Research and Innovation.

 

The first Twitter reviews are in!

 

https://twitter.com/rschon/status/1096535339051700224

 

https://twitter.com/TomReller/status/1096565601974317056

 

https://twitter.com/irenehames/status/1096711870466142208

 

 

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

[GOAL] Max Planck Society cancels Elsevier agreement: OA via Projekt DEAL or no deal

[Richard Poynder]

Forwarding from the Scholcomm mailing list. 

 

 

From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org  On
Behalf Of Colleen Campbell
Sent: 19 December 2018 16:37
To: scholc...@lists.ala.org
Subject: [SCHOLCOMM] Max Planck Society cancels Elsevier agreement: OA via
Projekt DEAL or no deal

 

**with apologies for cross-posting**

 

The Max Planck Society, one of the world's largest research performing
organizations, counting 14,000 scientists who publish 12K new research
articles a year-around 1500 of which in Elsevier journals, has mandated the
Max Planck Digital Library to discontinue the Society's Elsevier
subscription when the current agreement expires on December 31, 2018.

 

With this move the Society joins nearly
 200 universities and research
institutions in Germany who have already cancelled their individual
agreements with Elsevier and affirmed their support of the national-level
 Projekt DEAL negotiations
seeking   transformative agreements
as a strategy to drive large scale transition of scholarly publishing to
open access. 

 

As no sustainable offer meeting DEAL's fundamental criteria for
transformation has been forthcoming, negotiations are suspended and Elsevier
cut off access last July. Despite the immediate implication of lack of
access to new Elsevier content from January 1, 2019, the Max Planck
Society's researchers and highest level administration provided their full
support in the decision. "DEAL is fully in line with the objectives of the
 OA2020 Initiative, which is strongly supported
by the Max Planck Society," emphasized MPS President Martin Stratmann.

 

Read the full press release here:  
https://www.mpdl.mpg.de/en/505

 

 

Colleen Campbell

Open Access 2020 Initiative

Max Planck Digital Library

  campb...@mpdl.mpg.de 

+49 160 9725 1536

@ColleenCampbe11

 

  https://oa2020.org

 
https://oa2020.org/Executive-Summary.pdf 

 

 

 

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

[GOAL] The OA Interviews: Peter Mandler

[Richard Poynder]

Plan S is the most ambitious OA initiative yet mooted by any public research
funder and has caused hand-wringing even amongst OA advocates. While some
have welcomed the initiative, others are critical. Yet others appear
decidedly conflicted
  about it. 

 

To date, much of the public debate has focussed on the implications for
scientists. Yet the impact on Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) scholars
looks likely to be more profound. 

 

The implications for HSS journals and learned societies are of particular
concern, and there are real fears that the rules that will be applied to
journals (including compulsory CC BY) will be extended to books too - a move
that is felt would be entirely inappropriate. cOAlition S has yet to issue
guidance on this but has said that it plans to do so. To add to the concern,
earlier this year it was announced
  that to
be eligible for the 2027 REF long-form scholarly works and monographs will
have to be published OA. Monographs are key vehicles for HSS scholars to
communicate their research.

 

What is particularly frustrating for UK-based HSS scholars is that Plan S
looks set to rip up the settlement that was reached in the wake of the 2012
Finch Report
 .
Wounds that had begun to heal will be re-opened. 

 

As Peter Mandler  ,
Professor of Modern Cultural History at Gonville and Caius College,
Cambridge, puts it, "[I]t's as if we haven't had the five years of
post-Finch arguments! We're just going to have to have them all over again."

 

For a sense of the challenge Plan S poses for HSS scholars please read the
interview with Peter Mandler here: 

https://poynder.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-oa-interviews-peter-mandler.html

 

 

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

[GOAL] Fwd: [SCHOLCOMM] Passing along in case of interest Fw: Open letter in support of open access

[Richard Poynder]

-- Forwarded message -
From: David Wojick 
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 19:39
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Passing along in case of interest Fw: [GOAL] Open
letter in support of open access
To: 


Unfortunately this new petition letter does not explicitly endorse Plan S,
so signing it does not counter the letter criticizing Plan S. This new
letter supports funder mandates but the criticisms of Plan S are not about
that. They are about the specifics of Plan S, such as not allowing the
posting of articles OA in hybrid journals, thereby excluding an estimated
85% of journals.

In fact the failure to endorse Plan S in this new letter can be argued
(apparently incorrectly) as critical of Plan S. In politics (which this is
because it is mostly about government action), if candidate S runs on
platform P and organization O endorses P but not S we would say that S
failed to be endorsed. Thus one wonders why they did not start a petition
endorsing Plan S.

My best to all,

David Wojick
http://insidepublicaccess.com/ (now including Inside Plan S)

At 02:19 PM 12/3/2018, Laura Bowering Mullen wrote:

Dear Colleagues,


I have not seen this open letter sent yet to the scholcomm list, so just
passing along in case of interest.


Thank you,

Laura Mullen



*Laura Bowering Mullen *

*Behavioral Sciences Librarian: Open Access Specialist *
Rutgers University Library of Science and Medicine

165 Bevier Road, Piscataway, NJ  08854-8009

lbmul...@rutgers.edu

<http://orcid.org/> [image:
https://orcid.org/sites/default/files/images/orcid_16x16.png]
<http://orcid.org/-0002-9847-5949%A0>
http://orcid.org/-0002-9847-5949
<http://orcid.org/-0002-9847-5949%A0>

For full text access to selected publications, please see:

http://soar.libraries.rutgers.edu/bib/Laura_Bowering_Mullen/


--
*From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org  on behalf of
Lenny Teytelman 
*Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2018 10:22 PM
*To:* Lenny Teytelman
*Subject:* [GOAL] Open letter in support of open access

Dear Open Science Supporters,

I have worked with Mike Eisen over the past 10 days on a short letter in
support of immediate open access and funder mandates for it (implicit
support for Plan S
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.coalition-s.org%2F=02%7C01%7Clbmullen%40rutgers.edu%7Cb8de89f09e7e488621aa08d65689c2fd%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636791547047347746=jCS7KqSGnMGgHM4o8cHxsAuAXUoujabseJUp0tIgUKA%3D=0>).
Please consider signing it.
http://michaeleisen.org/petition/
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmichaeleisen.org%2Fpetition%2F=02%7C01%7Clbmullen%40rutgers.edu%7Cb8de89f09e7e488621aa08d65689c2fd%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636791547047357755=qWz27E1MC7S2ScwosZfHQkIXjoGHjl0DEp005HbuX%2B4%3D=0>

A key reason for our effort is that another letter against Plan S/funder
mandates was circulated a few weeks ago. With the help of extensive
coverage from Nature
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fd41586-018-07386-x%3Futm_source%3Dfeedburner%26utm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_campaign%3DFeed%253A%2Bnature%252Frss%252Fcurrent%2B%2528Nature%2B-%2BIssue%2529%26utm_content%3DGoogle%2BInternational=02%7C01%7Clbmullen%40rutgers.edu%7Cb8de89f09e7e488621aa08d65689c2fd%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636791547047367768=R%2FhtIQEVCGEt0jPAhy4sR7wuqR2gBfSxeDQHOHWCWT4%3D=0>,
Science
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencemag.org%2Fnews%2F2018%2F11%2Fopen-access-plan-draws-online-protest=02%7C01%7Clbmullen%40rutgers.edu%7Cb8de89f09e7e488621aa08d65689c2fd%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636791547047377781=gWu6rHs5iZR%2BtW6IpB5i7UcEABZcF8T19rr1XtcgT4o%3D=0>
and many publishers, that letter now has 1,400 signatures. And EVERYONE
covering Plan S or pushing back on it points to that letter. Moreover, Plan
S architects are working hard to bring more funders into the group, and
many funders are scared of grantees' reaction. Showing support for the
mandates from researchers is very important.

If you support it, please help to share this letter on social media and
through other channels.

Kind regards,

Lenny

-- 
Lenny Teytelman, Ph.D.
CEO, protocols.io
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fprotocols.io%2F=02%7C01%7Clbmullen%40rutgers.edu%7Cb8de89f09e7e488621aa08d65689c2fd%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636791547047377781=KHnKLnlhmFOWeWsrxbg%2BAlo6qc%2BpYfctcNB5HqrhS14%3D=0>
510-301-1215



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

[GOAL] The OA Interviews: Frances Pinter

[Richard Poynder]

In 2012 serial entrepreneur Frances Pinter founded a new company called 
Knowledge Unlatched. The goal, she explained in 2013, was to "change the way we 
fund the publishing of quality content" for book-length publications, and in a 
way that would allow them to be made open access.

With that end in mind, Pinter launched a pilot project in which research 
libraries were invited to pool money to fund the "fixed costs" of publishing 
monographs. By doing so, Pinter reasoned, PDF and HTML versions of these 
"unlatched" books could be made freely available on the Web, but print and 
other premium versions would continue to be sold in the traditional manner. And 
those libraries that contributed to the pool would earn the right to buy the 
premium versions at a discounted price.

In a spirit of civic-mindedness Pinter created Knowledge Unlatched as a UK 
non-profit Community Interest Company (CIC) and initial funding for KU came 
from (amongst others) the British Library Trust, Open Society Foundations, 
HEFCE, as well as a number of Australian libraries.

When that funding ended, however, as a non-profit CIC, KU struggled to raise 
further funds or capital. And with few assets to offer as collateral, 
commercial loans were equally hard to come by. Consequently, it was not 
immediately clear how KU could become financially sustainable, or even whether 
it could. Faced with this truth, says Pinter, she was minded to call it day.

She nevertheless proceeded to a second pilot round.

In 2016, however, the bulk of KU's assets were sold, and KU was transformed 
from a UK non-profit CIC to a for-profit GmbH based in Berlin.

This has caused some concern within the research community.

An interview with Pinter can be read here:

https://poynder.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-oa-interviews-frances-pinter.html

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

[GOAL] The OA Interviews: Arul George Scaria

[Richard Poynder]

Governments and funders need to understand both the global forces at play
and local conditions prior to introducing new open policies and initiatives.

It is therefore to be welcomed that the Centre for Innovation, Intellectual
Property and Competition (CIIPC) in New Delhi has conducted a landscape
survey of the current situation in India as concerns open science.

The study's principal investigator was Arul George Scaria, Assistant
Professor of Law and Co-Director at CIIPC, and he is currently working on a
report based on the survey.

In an interview with me Arul George Scaria explains what the survey
discovered and what recommendations the report will make as a result. He
also answers some additional questions I put to him.

Here are a few quotes from the interview, but please read the full interview
to get the complete picture. Those interested in the matter will clearly
want to read the report too:

*   "The overall scenario with regard to open science practices in India
is not that promising and we need to take a lot more steps to make science
open."

 

*   "Some of the most experienced scientists and policymakers in India
maintain strongly that there is no crisis in science in India, despite clear
evidence of the magnitude of the problem. Some of them might be taking that
position because they think that accepting the existence of the crisis is
harmful to the image of science in India."

 

*   "It may not be advisable or possible to transplant the approaches
being adopted for open science in the global North to a country like India,
where access conditions and socio-economic situations are vastly different."

 

*   "In the context of global South, it is also important to focus on
creating offline resources and some of the specific suggestions put forward
in the report include more focus on print media, community radio stations,
and creation of shared physical infrastructures."

 

*   "We need to ensure that initiatives like Plan S do not incentivise a
complete shift to the pay-to-publish gold open access model. This would
certainly be detrimental to researchers in the global South, as it would
mean that most would be unable to share their research due to the exorbitant
charges imposed by publishers."

 

*   "Predatory publishing is an important challenge that needs to be
addressed in India."

 

*   "What we are witnessing today is the capture of shared community
resources by a handful of cash-rich conglomerates who want to monopolise
every aspect of science communication. We as a community need to fight back
against the monopolisation of our resources. As most researchers still
appear to be unaware of the long-term consequences of such monopolisation,
extensive campaigns are needed in order to create awareness among
researchers."

 

The interview with Arul George Scaria can be read here:

 

https://poynder.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-oa-interviews-arul-george-scaria.ht
ml

 

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

[GOAL] Plan S and Researchers' Rights: (Re)Framing Academic Freedom

[Richard Poynder]

Extract from a guest post by Marc Couture:

 

The announcement of Plan S has generated many much needed (and much heated)
discussions. I'm pleased to observe that these don't concern the relevance
of open access, whose wide-ranging benefits now seem to be almost
universally acknowledged, but only potentially negative side-effects of the
massive, if not global, shift to open access that the plan hopes to bring
about.

 

Though many aspects of the plan are somewhat unclear, and most details of
its implementation are still being drafted, what we do know already raises
various worries. One is a possible conflict with academic freedom.

 

Two requirements of the plan are specifically targeted: (1) publication only
in compliant journals (full OA, no hybrid) and (2) dissemination under a
licence compliant with the Berlin OA definition, which would require authors
to accept ceding generous usage rights in their works to others.

 

The post can be read here:

 

https://poynder.blogspot.com/2018/11/plan-s-and-researchers-rights-reframing
.html

 

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

[GOAL] “It is for publishers to provide Plan S-compliant routes to publication in their journals.”

[Richard Poynder]

An interview with Robert-Jan Smits, the Open Access Envoy of the European 
Commission, is available here:

https://poynder.blogspot.com/2018/10/it-is-for-publishers-to-provide-plan-s.html


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

[GOAL] Fwd: ACS and Elsevier file lawsuit against ResearchGate

[Richard Poynder]

-- Forwarded message -
From: LIBLICENSE 
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 at 00:44
Subject: ACS and Elsevier file lawsuit against ResearchGate
To: 


From: Ann Shumelda Okerson >
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 16:34:15 -0400

The complaint can be found here:

https://www.infodocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/acs_elsevier_rgate.pdf

US District Court -- District of Maryland

Begins :

1. This action arises from the massive infringement of peer-reviewed,
published journal articles (“PJAs”). Plaintiffs publish the articles
in their journals and own the respective copyrights. Defendant
deliberately uses infringing copies of those PJAs to drive its
business.

2. Founded in 1876, Plaintiff ACS is an internationally renowned
professional and scientific society. It publishes over 50
peer-reviewed scientific journals, primarily in the field of chemistry
and related disciplines.  Founded in 1880, Plaintiff Elsevier is an
international multimedia publishing company. Elsevier publishes
hundreds of thousands of articles annually in over 2,500 peer-reviewed
journals it maintains.  Founded in 2008, Defendant ResearchGate is a
for-profit business that owns and operates an online social network
and file sharing / download service. Each is aimed at scientists,
researchers and related professionals and located on ResearchGate’s
website at http://ResearchGate.net (the “RG Website”).

3. This lawsuit focuses on ResearchGate’s intentional misconduct
vis-à-vis its online file-sharing / download service, where the
dissemination of unauthorized copies of PJAs constitutes an enormous
infringement of the copyrights owned by ACS, Elsevier and other
journal publishers.  The lawsuit is not about researchers and
scientists collaborating; asking and answering questions; promoting
themselves, their projects, or their findings; or sharing research
findings, raw data, or pre-prints of articles.

4. ResearchGate’s infringing activity is no accident. Infringing
copies of PJAs are a cornerstone to ResearchGate’s growth strategy.
ResearchGate deliberately utilizes the infringing copies to grow the
traffic to its website, its base of registered users, its digital
content, and its revenues and investment from venture capital.
ResearchGate knows that the PJAs at issue cannot be lawfully uploaded
to and downloaded from the RG Website.  Nevertheless, in violation of
the rights of ACS, Elsevier, and others, ResearchGate uploads
infringing copies of PJAs and encourages and induces others to do so.
ResearchGate finds copies of the PJAs on the Internet and uploads them
to computer servers it owns or controls.  In addition, ResearchGate
lures others into uploading copies of the PJAs, including by directly
asking them to do so, encouraging use of a “request full-text”
feature, and misleadingly promoting the concept of “selfarchiving.”
ResearchGate is well aware that, as a result, it has turned the RG
Website into a focal point for massive copyright infringement.

[AND SO ON]
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Elsevier, the European Commission, and the Open Science Monitor

[Richard Poynder]

Forwarding from the Scholcomm mailing list.

 

>>> 

Dear all,

 

As I'm sure many of you are aware, recently around 1100 researchers from

around the world signed a complaint regarding Elsevier and their role in

the European Commission's Open Science Monitor.

 

Now, the Directorate-General of Research and Innovation, Jean-Eric Paquet,

has provided a full response, available online here:

https://zenodo.org/record/1443395#.W7Ta22j0lPZ (posted with permission).

There is also a version here that can be annotated using Hypothes.is:

https://docdrop.org/pdf/Annex-to-letter-to-Jon-Tennant-1--BbPfR.pdf/

 

At this stage, while much clarity has been provided into the process and

situation, there are still many apsects which remain unclear or unresolved.

Thus, I invite you all to participate in the ongoing discussion by

annotating the response, sharing with your colleagues, and contributing

your own views and comments. It might be the case that a follow up response

is required, depending on how satisfactory the community regards this

letter.

 

Best,

 

Jon

 


--

 

*  Nomadic Palaeontologist, Rogue Open Scientist; PhD, MEarthSci, MSc*

 

   - Founder of *paleorXiv* , a free digital

   publishing platform for Palaeontology

   - Companion Website 

   - Founder of the *Open Science MOOC

   *

  - Project development on GitHub 

   - Freelance science communicator and consultant

   - Author of Excavate! Dinosaurs

 


and

  World of Dinosaurs (coming 2018)

   - Executive Editor of Geoscience Communication

   

   - Editor for the PLOS Paleo Community 

 

*Personal website  - Home of the Green Tea and

Velociraptors blog.*

 

*ORCID:* -0001-7794-0218 

*Twitter:* @protohedgehog



 

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

[GOAL] Fwd: Assessment of Predatory Publishing -- our new project

[richard . poynder]

Forwarding from the OSI mailing list.






Inside Public Access is proud to announce our new project -- Assessment of 
Predatory Publishing (APP). This crowdsourced effort aims to explore the nature 
and scope of predatory publishing. We will also track and report on the 
emerging Crusade to curb the practice and use of predatory journals.




For more information, see 
https://www.gofundme.com/assessment-of-predatory-publishing.




Questions, suggestions and leads to new or ongoing efforts to curb predatory 
publishing are always welcome. OSI is certainly high on the list of efforts. We 
have been covering the growing issue of predatory publishing for several years 
now and finally decided it was worthy of its own assessment project.




My best to all,




David




David Wojick, Ph.D.


http://insidepublicaccess.com/


davidwoj...@insidepublicaccess.com




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

[GOAL] The OA Interviews: Virginia Steel, Norman and Armena Powell University Librarian at UCLA

[Richard Poynder]

Dear All,

 

An interview with UCLA university librarian Virginia Steel has just been
posted and is available here:

 

https://poynder.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-oa-interviews-virginia-steel-norman
.html

 

Richard Poynder 

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

Re: [GOAL] Predatory Publishing

[Richard Poynder]

Dear Falk,

Thank you for responding. Unfortunately, what you say does not comfort me
and, I would think, would not comfort anyone who has become a victim of a
predatory publisher. I say this because:

1. Whitelists like DOAJ are not perfect and, like Think.Check.Submit, offer
no remedy or solution for those who have become victims. Likewise, I cannot
see how OpenAPC or open contracts are going to help victims of predatory
publishing.

2. I find it odd that you should respond by saying that there is no
evidence that the problem is increasing. Is it not enough that there are
victims and that no one seems willing to help them?

3. In my post, I say exactly what I mean when I use the term predatory
publisher. By your response, I can only assume you are saying either that
a) you don't agree that there are any publishers who fall within my
definition or b) you don't believe there are enough of them to warrant
trying to help them?

I have no idea what you mean by "Crusaderism and missing checks and
balances".

Richard Poynder


On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 at 14:50, Reckling, Falk 
wrote:

> Hi Richard,
>
>
>
> 1) A number of actions are mentioned in the response, the most important
> one is to support DOAJ, to publish publication costs via Open APC and make
> publishing contracts openly in the future.
>
>
>
> 2) There is no reliable empirical evidence that the phenomenon of
> predatory publishing has increased massively over time.
>
>
>
> 3) There is still a problem of definition: Currently all sorts of things
> are subsumed under predatory publishing. This ranges from naive,
> under-funded, unprofessional, joke to profit-seeking and fake. That was one
> reason why Beall's black list was useless, not to mention Crusaderism and
> missing checks and balances.
>
>
>
> In short, we should observe and scientifically analyse the phenomenon, but
> also not overestimate and panic.
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
> Falk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* goal-boun...@eprints.org  *Im Auftrag
> von *Richard Poynder
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2018 15:22
> *An:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
> *Betreff:* Re: [GOAL] Predatory Publishing
>
>
>
> Thanks for posting this Falk. I have yet to see concerted action taken
> anywhere to support researchers who become victims of predatory publishers.
>
>
>
> I also do not think I see any recognition of their plight, or details of
> what is being planned to help them, in your document. Perhaps I missed it.
>
>
>
> Anyway, I have blogged about the topic here:
>
>
>
>
> https://poynder.blogspot.com/2018/07/falling-prey-to-predatory-oa-publisher.html
>
>
>
> Richard Poynder
>
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018, 13:51 Reckling, Falk, 
> wrote:
>
> The Austrian Science Board and the FWF Respond to the Recent Media Reports
> on the Questionable Practices of Several Scholarly Publishers
>
>
> https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/news-and-media-relations/news/detail/nid/20180724-2314/
>
>
>
> ___
> Falk Reckling, PhD
> Head of Department
> Strategy - Policy, Evaluation, Analysis
>
> FWF Austrian Science Fund
> 1090 Vienna, Sensengasse 1, Austria
> T: +43 1 505 67 40 8861
> M: +43 664 530 73 68
> falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at
> CV via ORCID https://orcid.org/-0002-1326-1766
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *BE OPEN - Science & Society Festival*
> 50 years of top research funded by FWF
> Sep 8 to 12, 2018 | Vienna | www.fwf.ac.at/beopen
>
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
> * BE OPEN - Science & Society Festival*
> 50 years of top research funded by FWF
> Sep 8 to 12, 2018 | Vienna | www.fwf.ac.at/beopen
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>


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

Re: [GOAL] Predatory Publishing

[Richard Poynder]

Thanks for posting this Falk. I have yet to see concerted action taken
anywhere to support researchers who become victims of predatory publishers.

I also do not think I see any recognition of their plight, or details of
what is being planned to help them, in your document. Perhaps I missed it.

Anyway, I have blogged about the topic here:

https://poynder.blogspot.com/2018/07/falling-prey-to-predatory-oa-publisher.html

Richard Poynder

On Wed, 25 Jul 2018, 13:51 Reckling, Falk,  wrote:

> The Austrian Science Board and the FWF Respond to the Recent Media Reports
> on the Questionable Practices of Several Scholarly Publishers
>
>
> https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/news-and-media-relations/news/detail/nid/20180724-2314/
>
>
>
> ___
> Falk Reckling, PhD
> Head of Department
> Strategy - Policy, Evaluation, Analysis
>
> FWF Austrian Science Fund
> 1090 Vienna, Sensengasse 1, Austria
> T: +43 1 505 67 40 8861
> M: +43 664 530 73 68
> falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at
> CV via ORCID https://orcid.org/-0002-1326-1766
>
>
>
>
>
> * BE OPEN - Science & Society Festival*
> 50 years of top research funded by FWF
> Sep 8 to 12, 2018 | Vienna | www.fwf.ac.at/beopen
> ___
> 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] OA Big Deals: VSNU embraces greater transparency

[Richard Poynder]

Over three months ago (in March) the Association of Universities in the
Netherlands (VSNU) published a very brief news item announcing that it had
reached agreement with Springer Nature on a new OA Big Deal. 

 

Curious as to the details of the agreement, I invited VSNU to answer some
questions, both about the Springer Nature deal and VSNU's failure to reach
agreement with the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), concerning which
another short news item had been published at the same time. VSNU's
Spokesperson and Advisor Public Affairs Bart Pierik agree to answer my
questions.

 

When I sent my list of questions to him, however, Pierik appeared to change
his mind. "Considering the fact that we are finalising some more deals with
publishers at this moment (we just published good news about Oxford
University Press) my proposal is that we would be glad to make one Q in
April about all of these deals," he emailed me.

 

I was disappointed but decided instead to write something more wide-ranging
about the growing number of OA Big Deals we can see being agreed between
legacy publishers and the research community and to mention VSNU in that
larger piece.

 

I concluded that article by again inviting VSNU to answer my questions,
adding, "By doing so they can help shine a light on this somewhat
crepuscular corner of scholarly communication and demonstrate that
affordability and transparency are just as important as accessibility."

 

April came and went, and I assumed my questions had fallen into a black hole
somewhere never to be seen again. 

 

To my surprise, however, yesterday I received an email from Wilma Van
Wezenbeek, Programme Manager Open Access at VSNU.

 

Not only did Van Wezenbeek attach answers to my questions but she informed
me that VSNU has now published the contracts it has signed with both
Springer Nature and Taylor & Francis (although Springer Nature has not
permitted VSNU to disclose their general terms and conditions).

 

The email and the Q can both be read here:

 

https://poynder.blogspot.com/2018/07/oa-big-deals-vsnu-embraces-greater.html

 

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

[GOAL] Negotiating Journal Agreements at UC: A Call to Action

[Richard Poynder]

Forwarding from SCOLCOMM 




Get Outlook for Android







From: Ivy Anderson


Sent: Thursday 21 June, 18:38


Subject: [SCHOLCOMM] Negotiating Journal Agreements at UC: A Call to Action


To: liblicens...@listserv.crl.edu, scholc...@lists.ala.org






List members may be interested in this statement from the University of 
California, issued today:  


Over the past year, the University of California’s Systemwide Library and 
Scholarly Information Advisory Committee (SLASIAC), in partnership with our 
university libraries and the systemwide academic senate’s Committee on Library 
and Scholarly Communication (UCOLASC), has been considering the twin challenges 
of journal affordability and the moral imperative of achieving a truly open 
scholarly communication system.  Making the research produced at the University 
of California open to the world has long been an important goal at UC, as 
evidenced by the strong Open Access policies enacted at the campus and 
systemwide level, our many initiatives to create open access publishing options 
for UC authors (including CDL’s eScholarship publishing service and our early 
open access pilots with third party publishers), and most recently, a 
Declaration of Rights and Principles to Transform Scholarly Communication 
promulgated by UCOLASC.


We believe it is time to take a further step along this road.


http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2018/06/championing-change-in-journal-negotiations/
 


 


Ivy Anderson


Associate Executive Director & Director of Collections


California Digital Library


University of California, Office of the President


ivy.ander...@ucop.edu  |  http://cdlib.org


 


 






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

[GOAL] COS Receives Three New Open Science Grants

[RICHARD POYNDER]

Forwarding from Scholcomm mailing list.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
   - Forwarded message - 
  All,
See our announcement today regarding three new grants that will allow us to 
continue improving our open science tools and initiatives. We are most grateful 
for this support.
https://cos.io/about/news/center-open-science-receives-grants-john-templeton-foundations/

Thanks,
RustyRusty SpeidelMarketing DirectorCenter for Open Science
https://cos.io | @osframework

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

[GOAL] The OA Interviews: Taylor & Francis' Deborah Kahn discusses Dove Medical Press

[Richard Poynder]

The open-access publisher Dove Medical Press has a controversial past and I
have written about the company on a number of occasions.

 

When Dove was acquired by Taylor & Francis last September it was assumed (by
me at least) that controversy had become a thing of the past for the
publisher.

 

Seven months after the purchase, however, a medical technology company
called Minerva Surgical took the unusual step of publishing a press release
alleging that a paper published in Dove's International Journal of Women's
Health makes "material misleading statements" about the nature of a study
funded by a rival in "clear violation of the COPE guidelines." As a result,
Minerva said, the paper should be retracted immediately.

 

To discuss this latest incident, Dove's background, and some of the
"historical issues" the publisher has faced, Taylor & Francis' Director,
Medicine and Open Access Deborah Kahn, agreed to do a Q with me, which I
have published on Open & Shut?.

 

Of the latest controversy Kahn says, "our investigations show that the peer
review was carried out to high standards and that the journal behaved well,
and the authors responses have satisfied us that the complaints are
unfounded."

 

On the historical issues, she adds, the naysayers were wrong to have doubted
Dove's probity. "We went through very detailed due diligence, carrying out
an extremely thorough process, when we acquired Dove Medical Press. We were
satisfied that, after some historical issues, improvements had been made to
their peer review process working with the OASPA membership team . Eight
months on from our acquisition, Dove are performing well in all areas, we
remain confident that we got value for money, and are delighted that they
are part of Taylor & Francis Group."

 

The interview with Deborah Kahn can be read here:
https://poynder.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-oa-interviews-taylor-francis.html

 

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

[GOAL] Six questions about openness in science

[Richard Poynder]

Recently I was contacted by a student from a Russian university who is writing 
a dissertation on the influence of open access on modern scientific 
communication.

She sent me six questions. The questions and my answers can be read here: 
https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/six-questions-about-openness-in-science.html

Richard Poynder

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

[GOAL] The final part of an experiment in a matched interview process is now available

[Richard Poynder]

The last part of an experiment in a matched interview process is now
available. 

 

The experiment consists of Q with two OA advocates, one from the global
North and one from the global South, along with their responses to each
other's Q 

 

The first Q was undertaken with Jeffrey MacKie-Mason, UC Berkeley's
University Librarian and Chief Digital Scholarship Officer, and was
published on April 8th.

 

https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/north-south-and-open-access-view-from
.html

 

The second Q was conducted with Mahmoud Khalifa, a librarian at the
Library of Congress Cairo Office and DOAJ Ambassador for the Middle East and
Persian Gulf, and was published on April 24th.

 

https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/north-south-and-open-access-view-from
_24.html

 

Khalifa's response to MacKie-Mason's Q was published on 19th April. 

 

https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/north-south-and-open-access-mahmoud.h
tml

 

The final part (published on May 4th) consists of four sections. First (A),
MacKie-Mason responds to Khalifa's Q second (B), MacKie-Mason comments on
Khalifa's response to his Q third (C), Mackie-Mason comments on the
"polemical" nature of the preambles I attached to the interviews; fourth
(D), I respond to MacKie-Mason's comments about my style.

 

This last item can be accessed here:
https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/north-south-and-open-access-jeff-mack
ie.html

 

Richard Poynder

 

 

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

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

[Richard Poynder]

Hi Heather,

I am not sure I follow your logic. As I read it, FWF-funded researchers
publish in non-APC journals too, but fewer of them. I don't think you are
suggesting that researchers are told by FWF which publishers they are
supposed to publish with?

What I take from the FWF figures is that most of the OA journals that
researchers want to publish in charge an APC.

By the way, FWF also supports models that do not charge an APC:
https://www.fwf.ac.at/de/forschungsfoerderung/open-access-policy/open-access-publikationsmodelle/

Richard


On 26 April 2018 at 22:56, Heather Morrison <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>
wrote:

> Thanks Richard.
>
> I see that the FWF makes funding available for open access article
> processing charges and targets particular publishers that use the APC
> method. Details here: https://m.fwf.ac.at/en/research-funding/fwf-
> programmes/peer-reviewed-publications/
>
> This is a tautological argument: FWF pays APCs because they fund APCs. I
> would expect the same in the UK. The RCUK has provided block funding to pay
> for APCs. It seems reasonable to hypothesize that this approach results in
> APC payments and a tendency to find that UK funded research will be found
> in APC journals.
>
> Scielo is a journal subsidy model. When countries subsidize journals for
> OA, the tendency is to not charge APCs.
>
> In other words, what model(s) to support is a policy decision with
> real-world impacts.
>
> best,
>
> Heather Morrison
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@gmail.com>
> Date: 2018-04-26 5:28 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org>
> Subject: Re: [GOAL] North, South, and Open Access: The view from Egypt
> with Mahmoud Khalifa
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> Thanks for providing these figures. Maybe we could consider them alongside
> some figures produced by the  Austrian Science Fund (FWF) here:
>
> http://beta.briefideas.org/ideas/f2e9ebaa34cd5655203c7de332618061.
>
> I quote:
>
> *Problem:* There is an ongoing debate on the share of OAJ and OAA
> charging APC from authors. It has been shown that 67% of OAJ listed in the
> Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) work without APC and costs get
> subsidised by other resources. But it is still unclear what the actual
> share of OAA in OAJ with and without APC is
>
> *Data:* We analysed this question for OAA published via FWF funded
> projects from 1/2013 to 8/2015. The sample includes 730 pure OAA published
> in 224 OAJ (Hybrid OAA are excluded).
>
> *Results*: 83.0% (186) of the OAJ charge APC, while 17.0% (38) of the OAJ
> don’t. On the article level, 93.6% (683) of the articles were published
> with and 6.4% (47) without APC. This is driven by the fact that 84.9% (620)
> of all articles are published in journals from just 15 publishers charging
> APC by default.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 26 April 2018 at 17:32, Marc Couture <jaamcout...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter Murray-Rust wrote :
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>> I suspect that the "most journals have no APCs " are in the long tail of
>> the distribution. If you correlate volume of articles against APC you will
>> resolve this.
>> >
>>
>> To get a (much) more detailed description of the OA world, I use the
>> works of Walt Crawford, who did incredibly thorough studies of OA journals.
>> Yes, I know it’s not peer-reviewed research, but don’t let me start on this
>> (besides, I have reviewed a few papers on the subject for various journals,
>> and Walt’s work certainly meets the usual scientific standards).
>>
>> Thus, according to his comprehensive study GOAJ2 - Gold Open Access
>> Journals 2011-2016 (http://waltcrawford.name/goaj.html)
>>
>> In 2016 :
>>
>> 1. Among the 8.4k journals listed in DOAJ and having published articles
>> that year, for a total of ~520k articles, 68 % of the journals, publishing
>> 43% of the articles, had no APCs.
>>
>> 2. The 700 largest (> 150 articles/y) journals (8% of total) published
>> 280k articles (54% of total).
>> Among these, 220 journals (31%), publishing 63k articles (22%), had
>> no APCs.
>>
>> 3. The 7.7k smallest (< 150 articles/y) journals (92 % of total)
>> published 240k articles (46% of total).
>> Among these, 5.5k journals (72%), publishing 160k articles (67%) had
>> no APCs.
>>
>> In brief, one can say that the “long tail” of small OA journals (92% of
>> total) published a little bit less than half of the articles, 2/3 of those
>> without APCs (compared to less than 1/4 f

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

[Richard Poynder]

Hi Marc,

Thanks for providing these figures. Maybe we could consider them alongside
some figures produced by the  Austrian Science Fund (FWF) here:

http://beta.briefideas.org/ideas/f2e9ebaa34cd5655203c7de332618061.

I quote:

*Problem:* There is an ongoing debate on the share of OAJ and OAA charging
APC from authors. It has been shown that 67% of OAJ listed in the Directory
of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) work without APC and costs get subsidised by
other resources. But it is still unclear what the actual share of OAA in
OAJ with and without APC is

*Data:* We analysed this question for OAA published via FWF funded projects
from 1/2013 to 8/2015. The sample includes 730 pure OAA published in 224
OAJ (Hybrid OAA are excluded).

*Results*: 83.0% (186) of the OAJ charge APC, while 17.0% (38) of the OAJ
don’t. On the article level, 93.6% (683) of the articles were published
with and 6.4% (47) without APC. This is driven by the fact that 84.9% (620)
of all articles are published in journals from just 15 publishers charging
APC by default.

Richard







On 26 April 2018 at 17:32, Marc Couture <jaamcout...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Peter Murray-Rust wrote :
>
>
>
> >
>
> I suspect that the "most journals have no APCs " are in the long tail of
> the distribution. If you correlate volume of articles against APC you will
> resolve this.
> >
>
> To get a (much) more detailed description of the OA world, I use the works
> of Walt Crawford, who did incredibly thorough studies of OA journals. Yes,
> I know it’s not peer-reviewed research, but don’t let me start on this
> (besides, I have reviewed a few papers on the subject for various journals,
> and Walt’s work certainly meets the usual scientific standards).
>
> Thus, according to his comprehensive study GOAJ2 - Gold Open Access
> Journals 2011-2016 (http://waltcrawford.name/goaj.html)
>
> In 2016 :
>
> 1. Among the 8.4k journals listed in DOAJ and having published articles
> that year, for a total of ~520k articles, 68 % of the journals, publishing
> 43% of the articles, had no APCs.
>
> 2. The 700 largest (> 150 articles/y) journals (8% of total) published
> 280k articles (54% of total).
> Among these, 220 journals (31%), publishing 63k articles (22%), had no
> APCs.
>
> 3. The 7.7k smallest (< 150 articles/y) journals (92 % of total) published
> 240k articles (46% of total).
> Among these, 5.5k journals (72%), publishing 160k articles (67%) had
> no APCs.
>
> In brief, one can say that the “long tail” of small OA journals (92% of
> total) published a little bit less than half of the articles, 2/3 of those
> without APCs (compared to less than 1/4 for the large journals).
>
> There is a wealth of information and data in Walt Crawford’s study that
> allows the interested reader to explore issues like differences between
> domains, publisher types, regions, etc. And, in the spirit of open science,
> the underlying data are available.
>
> Marc Couture
>
>
>
>
>
> *De :* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *De la
> part de* Peter Murray-Rust
> *Envoyé :* 25 avril 2018 11:56
> *À :* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Objet :* Re: [GOAL] North, South, and Open Access: The view from Egypt
> with Mahmoud Khalifa
>
>
>
> I agree with Ricky and Hilda that the "most journals charge no APCs" is
> misleading. It's been around for years and has worried me. Assuming the
> normal power-law distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law)
> the following are by statistical definition true:
>
> * most journals have small volumes
> * most papers are published in a few large volume journals
>
> That's true regardless of whether they are Open Access or not.
>
> I suspect that the "most journals have no APCs " are in the long tail of
> the distribution. If you correlate volume of articles against APC you will
> resolve this.
>
> Now ... for speculation
>
>
> The long tail of small journals are likely to be niche journals in some
> way. There are exceptions such as the J Machine Learning Research which is
> APC-less, and CC BY  run by the goodwill of the community. That used to be
> fairly common. (I used to be the treasurer of a scholarly society and all
> work was voluntary). When all the articles are from and to a smallish
> community of practice it makes sense. But I suspect that when a journal
> gets to a over a few hundred articles a year then most organizations need
> to pay staff to manage the process. Maybe not much. But it's a temptation
> to solve the admin by paying.
>
> Then the options are:
>
> * subsidise from elsewhere (University, or in my society's case revenue
> from events).
>
> * membership scheme 

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

[Richard Poynder]

Heather,

I could be wrong, but I am thinking that you are implying that Hilda
Bastian is an employee, or some kind of spokesperson, for PLOS. If so, you
have inferred incorrectly.

See this tweet:

https://twitter.com/PLOS/status/989174553657032704?s=19

Richard



On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, 16:21 Heather Morrison, <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>
wrote:

> The Public Library of Science has done important work in the areas of open
> access advocacy and open access publishing. However, it is important to
> understand that PLOS is also a publishing business, even if it is
> not-for-profit. Their business model is based on APCs. PLOS staff arguing
> on the importance of APCs and discounting arguments for other business
> models is essentially the same thing as traditional commercial publishers
> arguing for the subscriptions model and discounting arguments for any OA
> business model. PLOS, in this respect, is understandably looking out for
> their own interests.
>
>
> I am a recently tenured professor with many friends who are emerging
> scholars, students who would like to go on to tenured positions, and a
> workload that is impacted by university hiring (or lack thereof) of new
> professors and support staff. When I argue for funding for university
> hiring, I am arguing for my own interests and the interests of this sector,
> one that in my experience has been under-represented in open access
> discussions.
>
>
> best,
>
>
> Heather
> ------
> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org <goal-boun...@eprints.org> on behalf of
> Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 25, 2018 10:46:48 AM
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] North, South, and Open Access: The view from Egypt
> with Mahmoud Khalifa
>
> Heather,
>
> Personally, I think that any statement that says that most OA journals do
> not charge an APC needs to be set alongside the following blog post by
> Hilda Bastian:
>
>
> http://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2018/04/02/a-reality-check-on-author-access-to-open-access-publishing/
>
> Extract:
>
> 'Technically, the “most journals don’t charge authors” statement could
> well be true. Most open access journals may not charge authors. The source
> that’s used to support the claim is generally DOAJ – the Directory of Open
> Access Journals. One of the pieces of meta-data for journals in DOAJ is
> whether or not the journal levies an APC – an author processing charge for
> an open access (OA) publication.
>
> But I think this is a data framing that’s deeply misleading. And it does
> harm. As long as people can argue that there are just *so many* options
> for fee-free publishing, then there will be less of a sense of urgency
> about eliminating, or at least drastically reducing, APCs. As Kyle
> Siler and colleagues show in the field of global health research, the APC
> is adding a new stratification of researchers globally, between those who
> can afford open publishing in highly regarded journals, and those who
> can’t.'
>
> Richard
>
>
> On 25 April 2018 at 15:16, Heather Morrison <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> Correction: Chris, you have the proportion of OA journals with APCs in
>> reverse. Data and calculations follow.
>>
>> 73% of fully OA journals (about three quarters) do not charge APCs.
>>
>> To calculate go to DOAJ Advanced Search, select journals / articles
>> select journals, and click on Article Processing Charges. As of today,
>> April 25, 2108, the response to the DOAJ question of whether a journal has
>> an APC is:
>>
>> 8,250: no (73%)
>> 2,979 yes (26%)
>> 65: no information (.5%)
>>
>> Total # of journals in DOAJ: 11,294
>> (Note rounding error)
>>
>> OA journals with no APCs have a variety of business models. Direct and
>> indirect sponsorship appears to be common. For example in Canada our Social
>> Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) has an Aid to Scholarly
>> Journals Program. Journals can apply for grants; these applications go
>> through a journal-level peer review process. This program has been in place
>> for many years. Originally all supported journals were subscription-based.
>> The trend is towards open access, with many journals now fully OA and all
>> or almost all have free access after an embargo period.
>>
>> I recommend this model as a means of support for open access journals
>> that also ensure high-level academic quality control. Regions with no
>> existing program in place would probably find it easier to start with an OA
>> requirement than those with legacy pr

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

[Richard Poynder]

d 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
> ch...@chriszielinski.com
> Blogs: http://ziggytheblue.wordpress.com and
> http://ziggytheblue.tumblr.com
> Research publications: http://www.researchgate.net
>
> On 25 April 2018 at 08:47 Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@cantab.net>
> wrote:
>
> To try and get a sense of how open access looks from different parts of
> the world, particularly as the strategy of engineering a global “flip” of
> subscription journals to a pay-to-publish gold OA model gains more
> traction, I am interested in talking to open access advocates in different
> parts of the world, ideally by means of matched interviews.
>
>
>
> Earlier this month, for instance, I published a Q with Jeff
> MacKie-Mason, UC Berkeley’s University Librarian and Chief Digital
> Scholarship Officer. (https://poynder.blogspot.co.
> uk/2018/04/north-south-and-open-access-view-from.html).
>
>
>
> Yesterday, I published a matched Q covering the same themes with Mahmoud
> Khalifa, a librarian at the Library of Congress Cairo Office, and DOAJ
> Ambassador for the Middle East and Persian Gulf. This interview can be read
> here: https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/north-south-and-
> open-access-view-from_24.html
>
>
>
> I have also been asking those I interview to comment on the answers given
> by their matched interviewee. Mahmoud Khalifa’s response to the
> MacKie-Mason Q is incorporated in this post:
> https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/north-south-and-
> open-access-mahmoud.html
>
>
>
> I am open to suggestions for further matched interviews.
>
>
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
Richard Poynder
www.richardpoynder.co.uk
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[Richard Poynder]

To try and get a sense of how open access looks from different parts of the
world, particularly as the strategy of engineering a global "flip" of
subscription journals to a pay-to-publish gold OA model gains more traction,
I am interested in talking to open access advocates in different parts of
the world, ideally by means of matched interviews.

 

Earlier this month, for instance, I published a Q with Jeff MacKie-Mason,
UC Berkeley's University Librarian and Chief Digital Scholarship Officer.
(https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/north-south-and-open-access-view-fro
m.html).

 

Yesterday, I published a matched Q covering the same themes with Mahmoud
Khalifa, a librarian at the Library of Congress Cairo Office, and DOAJ
Ambassador for the Middle East and Persian Gulf. This interview can be read
here:
https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/north-south-and-open-access-view-from
_24.html

 

I have also been asking those I interview to comment on the answers given by
their matched interviewee. Mahmoud Khalifa's response to the MacKie-Mason
Q is incorporated in this post:
https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/north-south-and-open-access-mahmoud.h
tml

 

I am open to suggestions for further matched interviews.

 

Richard Poynder

 

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

[GOAL] FW: North, South, and Open Access: The view from California with Jeff MacKie-Mason

[Richard Poynder]

Dear All, 

Apologies, I missed an important word from Leslie Chan's quote. Here is the
correct version:

"The institutions and countries adopting the OA2020 initiative express very
clearly that it is not their problem that scientists from developing
countries can publish or not. It is a very selfish attitude, individualistic
and even nationalistic."

Richard Poynder

 

 

From: Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> 
Sent: 09 April 2018 11:50
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: North, South, and Open Access: The view from California with Jeff
MacKie-Mason

 

As anyone who has followed the story of open access will know, a multitude
of issues has arisen since the 2002 Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI)
adopted the term in order to promote the idea of research being made freely
available on the internet. It has also led to a great deal of debate and
disagreement over the best way of making open access a reality. 

 

However, we seem to be arriving at the point where consensus is growing in
the global North around the idea of persuading and/or forcing legacy
publishers to convert ("flip") all their journals from a subscription model
to an open access model. This is being spearheaded by the OA2020 Initiative.


 

One implication of this would seem to be that we can expect widespread use
of the pay-to-publish model where, instead of readers paying to access other
researchers' papers, authors will pay to publish their own papers - by means
of article-processing charges (APCs). Currently, APCs are around $3,000 a
paper, although they can be both higher and lower than this.

 

Researchers in the global South view a mass flipping of subscription
journals to OA with considerable concern. Since most have little or no
access to APC funding they can expect to see today's paywalls replaced by
publication walls, making it extremely difficult for them to publish in
international journals.

 

Leslie Chan, associate professor at the University of Toronto and Principal
Investigator of the Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network
argues, "The institutions and countries adopting the OA2020 initiative
express very clearly that it is not their problem that scientists from
countries can publish or not. It is a very selfish attitude, individualistic
and even nationalistic."

 

By contrast, Jeffrey MacKie-Mason, UC Berkeley's University Librarian and
Chief Digital Scholarship Officer argues that engineering a mass conversion
of subscription journals to OA is currently the only practical way of
achieving open access in the near term, and that while a global flip
presents challenges for those in the global South, the current paywall
situation for them is "awful". He adds that we cannot expect open access "to
remedy all inequities".

 

MacKie-Mason expands on this views in an interview here
https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/north-south-and-open-access-view-from
.html

 

The interview invites us to ask whether a global OA solution is actually
possible. If it is not possible, then we might wonder how the BOAI's promise
that OA would enable the world to "share the learning of the rich with the
poor and the poor with the rich . and lay the foundation for uniting
humanity in a common intellectual conversation and quest for knowledge" can
hope to be realised.

 

List members are invited to comment on these issues on the interview.

 

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

[GOAL] North, South, and Open Access: The view from California with Jeff MacKie-Mason

[Richard Poynder]

As anyone who has followed the story of open access will know, a multitude
of issues has arisen since the 2002 Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI)
adopted the term in order to promote the idea of research being made freely
available on the internet. It has also led to a great deal of debate and
disagreement over the best way of making open access a reality. 

 

However, we seem to be arriving at the point where consensus is growing in
the global North around the idea of persuading and/or forcing legacy
publishers to convert ("flip") all their journals from a subscription model
to an open access model. This is being spearheaded by the OA2020 Initiative.


 

One implication of this would seem to be that we can expect widespread use
of the pay-to-publish model where, instead of readers paying to access other
researchers' papers, authors will pay to publish their own papers - by means
of article-processing charges (APCs). Currently, APCs are around $3,000 a
paper, although they can be both higher and lower than this.

 

Researchers in the global South view a mass flipping of subscription
journals to OA with considerable concern. Since most have little or no
access to APC funding they can expect to see today's paywalls replaced by
publication walls, making it extremely difficult for them to publish in
international journals.

 

Leslie Chan, associate professor at the University of Toronto and Principal
Investigator of the Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network
argues, "The institutions and countries adopting the OA2020 initiative
express very clearly that it is not their problem that scientists from
countries can publish or not. It is a very selfish attitude, individualistic
and even nationalistic."

 

By contrast, Jeffrey MacKie-Mason, UC Berkeley's University Librarian and
Chief Digital Scholarship Officer argues that engineering a mass conversion
of subscription journals to OA is currently the only practical way of
achieving open access in the near term, and that while a global flip
presents challenges for those in the global South, the current paywall
situation for them is "awful". He adds that we cannot expect open access "to
remedy all inequities".

 

MacKie-Mason expands on this views in an interview here
https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/north-south-and-open-access-view-from
.html

 

The interview invites us to ask whether a global OA solution is actually
possible. If it is not possible, then we might wonder how the BOAI's promise
that OA would enable the world to "share the learning of the rich with the
poor and the poor with the rich . and lay the foundation for uniting
humanity in a common intellectual conversation and quest for knowledge" can
hope to be realised.

 

List members are invited to comment on these issues on the interview.

 

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

[GOAL] The Open Access Big Deal: Back to the Future

[Richard Poynder]

On a superficial reading open access is intended to do no more than what it
says on the can: provide an internet-based scholarly communication system in
which research is made available sans paywall - in other words, a system
offering improved accessibility over the traditional subscription system. 

 

On a deeper reading, however, we learn that the OA movement was a response
to the unsustainably high costs of the subscription system and that it was
based on a conviction that open access would be a more cost-effective way of
sharing research - in other words, a system offering improved affordability.

 

In addition, it was argued, open access would be a more transparent way of
doing things than the subscription-based system.

 

Essentially, the argument went like this: If researchers paid an
article-processing charge (APC) every time they wanted to publish a paper
(rather than librarians paying the costs of publishing by purchasing
subscriptions to large bundles of journals courtesy of the so-called Big
Deal), then not only could research papers be made freely available to all,
but authors would be able to make price-based decisions when choosing where
to publish.

 

This price transparency, argued OA advocates, would introduce market forces
into scholarly publishing that are absent in the subscription system. It
would also allow new open access publishers to enter the market with
lower-priced products, which would help drive down prices.

 

In short, OA advocates promised that open access would not only provide
greater accessibility but a more cost-effective scholarly communication
system, thereby solving the affordability problem that has long dogged
scholarly publishing. And to achieve this, they said, transparency is key.

 

Today we see the emergence of the OA Big Deal. Why has it emerged? What is
it? What might be the implications were to become the norm?

 

More here:
https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/the-open-access-big-deal-back-to-futu
re.html

 

 

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

Re: [GOAL] My mistake - dont't post

[Richard Poynder]

Hi Marc,

I think most of the messages have been copied to GOAL, including those from
Danny.

Richard

On 25 March 2018 at 16:42, Couture, Marc <marc.cout...@teluq.ca> wrote:

> Hi Richard,
>
>
>
> I sent a reply to a SCHOLCOM thread to both that list and GOAL, by
> mistake: I did Reply to All to Danny Kingsley seed message, which had both
> forums as recipients.
>
>
>
> I don’t think it should be posted on GOAL, as the thread isn’t on both
> forums (though the subject certainly interests GOAL subscribers).
>
>
>
> I’m not sure Danny’s post appeared in GOAL, so maybe there was no need for
> this message.
>
>
>
> Thank you, and have a good day,
>
>
>
> 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] Fwd: [SCHOLCOMM] bepress and SSRN Announce Integration Pilot with Columbia and University of Georgia Law Schools

[Richard Poynder]

Forwarding from Scholcomm

>>


Hi Paige and all -



I just responded to this thread on our Digital Commons Google Group, but I
wanted to make sure I send this out to the folks on the this list as well.
I expect you'll soon get a response from others on the list as well as our
advisory board, but I thought I'd add a few notes from our end that can
clarify a few points:



Since joining Elsevier, we have been looking for ways to leverage our
position to help our customers get access to their faculty content and make
it available as part of their open access IR initiatives. This pilot is a
first step in that direction. As you know, any content on your Digital
Commons platform belongs to the institution and is completely portable.
Instead of enclosing works within a closed we ecosystem, we believe that
this pilot explores the opposite - the potential of making a greater amount
of content openly available.



John, to answer your question, the content we are looking at making open
access isn't just from one publisher, but represents the a really broad
swath and is determined by what faculty post on SSRN.



In designing the pilot, we have been very much customer-driven. Our
customers, particularly those who face reluctance from faculty to engage in
their IR fearing that they will be penalized in their rankings, have long
asked for more interoperability with SSRN.  For this pilot, we asked our
participants what they'd like, and what they wouldn't and that's what we
are setting out to explore. Actual integration plans will depend on what
the results are, again from the perspective of the customer.



Finally, our integrations with products like SSRN and soon with Plum are
being pursued agnostically. What does this mean? Heres' an example:  PlumX
metrics will soon be available on DC article pages; however, you'll be able
to opt-out, have Altmetrics badges in addition or instead, or just stick to
your current download counts. Hopefully this also clarifies Gregg Gordon's
quote: if the pilot’s results are positive, SSRN can see the potential of
similar integration with other repository platforms.



If anyone has questions about the pilot, I'm happy to talk to you more.
Please reach out to me at my email at pchatte...@bepress.com.



Promita



-- 

Promita Chatterji

Product Marketing Manager

bepress









*From: *"John G. Dove" 
*Date: *Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 9:11 AM
*To: *Promita Chatterji 
*Cc: *"scholc...@lists.ala.org" 
*Subject: *Re: [SCHOLCOMM] bepress and SSRN Announce Integration Pilot with
Columbia and University of Georgia Law Schools



Promita,

You say that "One goal of the pilot is to support open access initiatives
by helping libraries quickly populate their institutional repositories".
This begs the question "populate from where"?  If it is only populating
from one publisher, this is not Open Access.

My question is, have you engaged any set of publishers to make sure that
your solutions allow any and all publishers to provide things like
free-auto-deposit using appropriate standards like SWORD 1.3?

-john dove



_

John G. Dove, personal e-mail

johngd...@gmail.com

Check out my latest post on LinkedIn:  Not all Open Content is fully
Discoverable







_

John G. Dove, personal e-mail

johngd...@gmail.com

Check out my latest post on LinkedIn:  Not all Open Content is fully
Discoverable




On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Chatterji, Promita (ELS-BKY) <
pchatte...@bepress.com> wrote:

**apologies for cross-posting**



bepress and SSRN Announce Integration Pilot with Columbia and University of
Georgia Law Schools



Bepress  and SSRN  are
pleased to announce a joint pilot to explore integration between their two
platforms. The four-month pilot launches today with the participation of
Columbia Law School’s Arthur W. Diamond Law Library and University of
Georgia School of Law’s Library.



Both bepress and SSRN are eager to explore potential solutions to the
obstacles that professional schools and their libraries face in promoting
their open access scholarship. The initial pilot offers one possible model
for demonstrating the increased reach of legal scholarship when work is
available through an open access repository as well as a specialized
network of peers, by simplifying population of and aggregating research
impact from both platforms.



“We are incredibly excited to launch this project,” stated Jean-Gabriel
Bankier, Managing Director at bepress. “It is the first step in our vision
to work together with others in the Elsevier ecosystem in order to better
support our community with their open access initiatives.” Columbia Law
School Library Director Kent McKeever noted, “this is exactly the 

[GOAL] The Intellectual Properties of Learning: John Willinsky discusses his new book

[Richard Poynder]

Sixteen years ago, the Budapest Open Access Initiative predicted the dawn of
a new age of scholarly communication. Its declaration begins, "An old
tradition and a new technology have converged to make possible an
unprecedented public good. The old tradition is the willingness of
scientists and scholars to publish the fruits of their research in scholarly
journals without payment, for the sake of inquiry and knowledge. The new
technology is the internet." 

 

Looking back, we might want to suggest that OA advocates spent too much time
in the early years promoting the merits of openness, and too little time
working out the best way of marrying the old tradition with the new
technology. In addition, more time should have been spent on establishing
what other old traditions of learning would need to be accommodated (and
how) if the new world of scholarly communication that BOAI envisaged was to
be realised. That too little consideration was given to these matters
doubtless explains why so much confusion surrounds open access today, and
why we are seeing growing frustration with it.

 

In light of this, a new book by John Willinsky - The Intellectual Properties
of Learning, A Prehistory from Saint Jerome to John Locke - is timely.

 

More here:
https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/the-intellectual-properties-of-learni
ng.html

 

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

Re: [GOAL] MDPI annual report 2017 has been released

[Richard Poynder]

Dear Franck,

Thank you for posting this. Am I right in thinking that the report does not
include any financial information about MDPI?

If that is right, do you not think it should, or that MDPI ought to publish
a financial overview in the way that PLOS does?
https://www.plos.org/financial-overview

Best wishes,


Richard Poynder


On 15 February 2018 at 10:07, Dr. Franck Vazquez | CEO | MDPI <
vazq...@mdpi.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> On 9th of February 2018, MDPI released its 2017 Annual Report.
>
> It contains information regarding company and journal performance,
> conferences and the publishing services that we have provided throughout
> 2017.
>
> To read or download the report, please click
> http://img.mdpi.org/data/ar-2017.pdf
>
> Best wishes,
> Franck
>
> --
> Franck Vazquez, Ph.D
> Chief Executive Officer, MDPI AG
> St. Alban-Anlage 66, 4052 Basel, Switzerland
> Tel. +41 61 683 77 34
> http://www.mdpi.com
> --
> http://orcid.org/-0002-7967-3798
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Franck_Vazquez
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/franck-vazquez-932a96a8/
> ___
> 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] Two blog posts on the Finland and Elsevier 3-year OA publishing and licensing deal

[Richard Poynder]

1.  Q with FinELib, the consortium of Finnish Universities, Research
Institutes and Public Libraries

 

https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/q-with-finelib-consortium-of-finnish.
html

 

2.  Finland takes a step back in the openness of academic journal
pricing

 

https://www.mostlyphysics.net/blog/2018/1/25/finland-takes-a-step-back-in-th
e-openness-of-academic-journal-pricing

 

There is also a Twitter poll on the transparency aspect of the deal here: 

 

https://twitter.com/MostlyPhysics/status/956488745511014401

 

 

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

Re: [GOAL] SAGE Publishing purchases Data-Planet **Apologies for cross posting**

[Richard Poynder]

​Dear Tiffany,

This is a paid-for product is it not?

Richard Poynder
​

On 17 January 2018 at 18:07, Tiffany Medina <tiffany.med...@sagepub.com>
wrote:

> **With apologies for cross posting**
>
>
>
> *The below announcement has today been released by SAGE – we thought that
> it may be of interest to members of this group.*
>
>
>
> SAGE Publishing has today announced the purchase of Data-Planet, a
> statistical multidisciplinary data repository that has application in
> academic libraries, public libraries, government and commercial markets. The
> full press announcement can be read here
> <https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/press/sage-publishing-expands-data-offering-with-the-purchase-of-data-planet>.
>
>
>
>
> Current customers of Data-Planet and SAGE Stats will continue to access
> the content as usual and should expect to hear more from SAGE in due
> course. There will be no changes to their access.
>
>
>
> For more information, please visit the FAQ page
> <http://data.sagepub.com/sagestats/static.php?type=public=transition-faq>,
> or email: librarym...@sagepub.com
>
>
>
> Tiffany Medina
>
> *PR Assistant*
>
> SAGE Publishing
>
> 2455 Teller Road
>
> Thousand Oaks, CA 91320
>
> USA
>
>
>
> T: 805.410.7612 <(805)%20410-7612>
>
> www.sagepublishing.com
>
>
>
> Los Angeles | London | New Delhi
>
> Singapore | Washington | Melbourne
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] The BOAI at 15

[Richard Poynder]

Dear All,

 

I have posted a number of responses to my question asking people what they
think the stakeholders of scholarly communication should be doing now to
fully realise the vision outlined at the 2002 meeting that led to the
Budapest Open Access Initiative.

 

Below are the links to those responses:

 

 

Danny Kingsley: Open Access: What should the priorities be today?
https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/open-access-what-should-priorities-be
.html

 

Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe: Achieving the BOAI Vision: Possible Actions for
Realization
https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/achieving-boai-vision-possible-action
s.html

 

Richard Fisher: Open Access and its Discontents: A British View from Outside
the Sciences
https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/open-access-and-its-discontents-briti
sh.html

 

Alison Mudditt: Realising the BOAI vision: The view from PLOS
https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/realising-boai-vision-view-from-plos.
html

 

Dominique Babini: Realising the BOAI vision: A view from the global South
https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/realising-boai-vision-view-from-globa
l.html

 

Peter Suber: Realising the BOAI vision: Peter Suber's Advice
https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/realising-boai-vision-peter-suber.htm
l

 

Best wishes to all for the Holiday Season, and good luck for the New Year. 

 

Richard Poynder

 

 

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

[GOAL] Open Access: What should the priorities be today?

[Richard Poynder]

This year marks the 15th anniversary of the Budapest Open Access Initiative
(BOAI), the meeting that led to the launch of the open access movement. A
great deal of water has passed under the bridge since 2002, but as 2017
draws to an end what should the stakeholders of scholarly communication be
doing now to fully realise the vision outlined at the Budapest meeting? That
is a question I have been putting to a number of people, inviting them to
say what they believe the priorities should be going forward for the
following stakeholders: researchers, research institutions, research
funders, politicians and governments, librarians and publishers. 

 

The response I received from Danny Kingsley, Deputy Director of Scholarly
Communication & Research Services and Head of the Office of Scholarly
Communication at Cambridge University, can be read here:
https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/open-access-what-should-priorities-be
.html

 

Richard Poynder

 

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

[GOAL] Fwd: [SCHOLCOMM] New Zealand subscription prices

[Richard Poynder]

Forwarding from Scholcomm.

>>>

Hi all,

A colleague in New Zealand, Dr Mark C Wilson, has used Official Information
requests and appeals over the past 3.5 years to obtain "fairly complete
information on NZ university expenditure on journals by Elsevier, Springer,
Wiley, Taylor & Francis 2013-2016”.

The slightly processed data is here:  https://figshare.com/
articles/Spreadsheet_of_journal_subscription_costs/5656069/1 and the raw
replies here: *https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5656054*

The numbers are eye opening. Elsevier 2016 expenditure:

   - Auckland University (33,000 students and 2200 staff) $1.55 million
   (~£780,000)
   - Otago University (19,000 students and 1600 staff) $1.59 million
   (~£790,000)

Danny

Dr Danny Kingsley

Deputy Director - Scholarly Communication & Research Services

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

[GOAL] Fwd: New SPARC Resource: Big Deal Cancellations

[Richard Poynder]

Forwarding from SPARC via the Liblicense mailing list.

>>

SPARC is pleased to release a new resource
 exploring
a growing trend within the global library community -  the cancellation of
so-called "big deals" (large bundles of journal titles sold at a discount
off of aggregate list price). The goals of this resource are threefold: to
contextualize why a growing number of libraries worldwide have undertaken
big deal assessments and cancellations; to detail what specifics steps
libraries have taken to "cut the cord"; and to provide practical resources
for libraries interested in evaluating collection strategies, honing
value-for-money calculations, integrating faculty input into the process,
and negotiating an exit from big deals.  The resource includes a detailed
look at what more than two dozen libraries from all around the world have
done to assess and adjust their approaches to these bundled subscription
schemes.

We invite you to both explore SPARC's big deal cancellation resource
, and to
add your voice to the dialog.  If you have experience in evaluating and
cancelling subscription journal bundles, please let us know if we can add
your data to the resource.  Additionally, if you are at a library
considering its own big deal assessment and could benefit from the insight
of your peers, please don't hesitate to contact SPARC for guidance.

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

[GOAL] The OA Interviews: Judy Ruttenberg, ARL Program Director for Strategic Initiatives/Co-Director of SHARE

[Richard Poynder]

When the open access movement began it was focused on solving two problems -
the affordability problem (i.e. journal subscriptions are way too high, so
research institutions cannot afford to buy access to all the research their
faculty need), and the accessibility problem that this gives rise to. 

 

Today, however, there is a growing sense that what really needs addressing
is an ownership problem - that is, who should "own" and control scholarly
communication?

 

The linked interview with Judy Ruttenberg, Co-Director of SHARE, surfaces
the issues well I think.

 

More here: 

 

https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/the-oa-interviews-judy-ruttenberg-arl
.html

 

 

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

[GOAL] Scientists in the Lurch After Imprecise MHRD Notice About 'Paid Journals'

[Richard Poynder]

Has pay-to-publish gold OA been outlawed in India?

 

https://thewire.in/187601/mhrd-open-access-nit-predatory-journals-career-adv
ancement-impact-factor/

 

Richard Poynder

 

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

[GOAL] Confessions of an open access advocate

[Richard Poynder]

The following items may be of interest to the list:

Confessions of an open access advocate
https://ocsdnet.org/confessions-of-an-open-access-advocate-leslie-chan/

Has the open access movement delayed the revolution?
https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/has-open-access-movement-delayed.html

Q with PLOS co-founder Michael Eisen
https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/q-with-plos-co-founder-michael-eisen.html

Penn Libraries to End Partnership with bepress
https://beprexit.wordpress.com/

Publishers are increasingly in control of scholarly infrastructure and why we 
should care
http://knowledgegap.org/index.php/sub-projects/rent-seeking-and-financialization-of-the-academic-publishing-industry/preliminary-findings/


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

[GOAL] So what exactly would Elsevier’s geo-blocked open access look like?

[Richard Poynder]

***Forwarding from the OSI mailing list.***

 

From: osi2016...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi2016...@googlegroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Hersh, Gemma (ELS-LOW)
Sent: 29 September 2017 10:58



Hi Robert

 

Your outline is certainly one way this could work, but there will no doubt be 
others/alternative views. We haven’t addressed elements such as how access 
would be granted, reuse rights etc. This would all be up for discussion if 
there was appetite to do so.

 

This particular idea has attracted a lot of attention, which is great, but I 
would point out that there are other things we say in the piece too, for 
example regarding principles behind SCOAP3 and how those might be useful.

 

Gemma

 

From: Robert Kiley 
Sent: 29 September 2017 08:55
To: Hersh, Gemma (ELS-LOW)

Subject: RE: Working towards a transition to open access

*** External email: use caution ***

 Gemma

 

Thanks – but I’m still confused.

 

Is the model you suggesting – and I recognise that you say that this needs 
further thought with “seriously interested parties” – something like this:

 

1.  A researcher based somewhere in Europe – and has access to funds to 
meet OA costs – pays a publication fee.  [You are clear that this is NOT an APC]
2.  This article would then be made free to read for researchers in Europe 
at the time of publication.  Access would be granted/denied based on IP address 
(or equivalent)
3.  This fee would (presumably) not include re-use rights (like CCBY) or 
deposit in a subject repository (like Europe PMC) – else this would mean that 
immediate access was available to all.
4.  After a period of time, a version of the article – presumably the 
author manuscript version – would be made available to the rest of the world.
5.  The publication fee, charged to the researcher (or his/her 
funder/institution) would, presumably, be lower than the APC

 

Is this approximately right?

 

If so, my immediate instinct is that this will make an already complex system, 
even more complicated.  And, whatever colour got ascribed to this method 
publishing – it would need to be made clear that this is NOT open access.

 

R

 

 

From: Hersh, Gemma (ELS-LOW) 
Sent: 29 September 2017 08:31
To: Glenn Hampson; Robert Kiley
Subject: RE: Working towards a transition to open access

 

Hi Robert

 

There is an assumption in your response that this model would be supported by 
APCs (which is a perfectly reasonable assumption, of course).  However 
region-specific OA would be a new model not yet tried out, so would need 
careful working through with seriously interested parties – including on what 
costs need to be covered, for what and by who. We have always been clear that 
APCs pay to broadcast research, globally, free of charge to the end user while 
subscriptions pay to access or receive the rest of the world’s articles 
published under the subscription model. If gold OA were to be limited to 
Europe, this would not fall neatly into either the APC or subscription buckets, 
so a new approach could be crafted.

 

Best wishes

Gemma

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

[GOAL] Elsevier: Working towards a transition to open access

[Richard Poynder]

"Thoughtful contributions from the Max Planck Digital Library and the 
University of California Libraries have shown how gold OA could play a central 
role; as the world's second largest gold OA publisher, we offer insights to 
make the transition possible", writes Elsevier's Gemma Hersh here: 
https://www.elsevier.com/connect/working-towards-a-transition-to-open-access

And in a post headed: "Elsevier & Open Access: 'the primary reason to 
transition to gold open access should not be to save money'", Ulrich Herb 
offers some commentary here:  
https://www.scinoptica.com/2017/09/elsevier-open-access-the-primary-reason-to-transition-to-gold-open-access-should-not-be-to-save-money/

Richard Poynder



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

[GOAL] The Open Access Interviews: Justin Flatt on the Self-Citation Index

[Richard Poynder]

In a recently published paper, Justin Flatt and his two co-authors proposed the 
creation of the Self-Citation Index, or s-index. The purpose of the s-index 
would be to measure how often a scientist cites their own work. This is 
desirable the authors believe because current incentive systems tend to 
encourage researchers to cite their own works excessively.

In other words, since the number of citations a researcher's works receive 
enhances his/her reputation there is a temptation to add superfluous 
self-citations to articles. This boosts the authors' h-index - the author-level 
metric now widely used as a measure of researcher productivity.

Amongst other things, excessive self-citation gives those who engage in it an 
unfair advantage over more principled researchers, an advantage moreover that 
grows over time: a 2007 paper estimated that every self-citation increases the 
number of citations from others by about one after one year, and by about three 
after five years. This creates unjustified differences in researcher profiles.

Since women self-cite less frequently than men, they are put at a particular 
disadvantage. A 2006 paper found that men are between 50 and 70 per cent more 
likely than women to cite their own work.

However, any plans to create and manage a researcher-led s-index face a 
practical challenge: much of the data that would be needed to do so are 
currently imprisoned behind paywalls - notably behind the paywalls of the Web 
of Science and Scopus.

More here: 
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/in-recently-published-paper-justin.html

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

[GOAL] The State of Open Access: Some New Data

[Richard Poynder]

On the day it was announced that scholar-founded for-profit academic
software firm bepress was being acquired by Elsevier for an estimated £100
million, a preprint was posted on PeerJ reporting on a study into the
current state of open access. 

 

The PeerJ preprint is interesting in a number of ways, not least because it
includes data from users of Unpaywall, a browser plug-in that identifies
papers that researchers are looking for, and then checks to see whether
those papers are available for free anywhere on the Web. Unpaywall is based
on oaDOI, a tool that scours the web for open-access full-text versions of
journal articles.

 

Both Unpaywall and oaDOI were developed by Impactstory, a scholar-founded
non-profit open source, web-based tool developer focused on open-access
issues in science. Two of the authors of the PeerJ preprint – Heather
Piwowar and Jason Priem – founded Impactstory. They also wrote the Unpaywall
and oaDOI software.

 

The new study could be said to offer both good news and less good news. The
good news is that it estimates that 28% of the scholarly literature (19
million articles) is now OA, and growing, and that for recent articles this
percentage rises to 45%. Also good news is that the authors estimate OA
articles receive 18% more citations than average.

 

The less good news is that a large number of the OA papers located in the
study are available on a free-to-read basis on publishers’ websites without
an explicit open licence – a form of open access the study authors refer to
as Bronze OA. As such, the OA status of these papers could be lost in the
future. It also means that they are not licensed for reuse – which many OA
advocates believe ought to be a given with open access. 

 

A Q with Heather Piwowar is available here:

 

 

http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/the-state-of-open-access-some-new.html

 

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

[GOAL] Elsevier acquires bepress

[Richard Poynder]

Forwarding from Scholcomm

-- Forwarded message --
From: "Roger Schonfeld" 
Date: 2 Aug 2017 16:11
Subject: [SCHOLCOMM] Elsevier acquires bepress
To: "scholc...@lists.ala.org" 
Cc:

Today’s breaking news: Elsevier has acquired bepress

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/08/02/elsevier-acquires-bepress/



Roger



Roger C. Schonfeld‪
Director, Library and Scholarly Communication Program
Ithaka S+R‪

Twitter: @rschon 

Facebook: roger.schonfeld 

LinkedIn: rogerschonfeld 

Email: r...@ithaka.org

Tel: 212-500-2338 <(212)%20500-2338>

Ithaka S+R (www.sr.ithaka.org/) is a strategic consulting and research
service that focuses on the transformation of scholarship and teaching in
an online environment, with the goal of identifying the critical issues
facing our community and acting as a catalyst for change.  Ithaka S+R is
part of ITHAKA (www.ithaka.org), a not-for-profit organization that also
includes JSTOR (www.jstor.org) and Portico (www.portico.org).
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[Richard Poynder]

Dear Glenn,

 

I appreciate your taking the time to respond to the thoughts I posted on the
theme of publisher sponsorship. 

 

As you say, we don't want to try people's patience so I will just make a few
comments in response.

 

1.  On sponsorship. I think we both agree that, as you put it, "Right or
wrong, sponsorships are part of modern society and an important part at
that." What separates us I think is that you believe that since it is the
way things work nowadays, we should just accept it and make the most of it.
I guess you also feel it is a good thing. My view is that (since it is
corrosive and gives even more power to the powerful) we should resist it,
and speak out against it. 

 

You seem to be saying that since OSI's budget is only about $150,000 a year
then where the money comes from is less important. If so, I can only say
that I disagree.

 

You go on to caricature my concern about publisher sponsorship in this way:
"Hello, OSI? We'll give you $100k if you promote Product X as the new
solution to peer review?" Really? Can I keep $99k of that for my legal
bills?" I would hope that a careful reading of my text would show that my
argument is not really that simplistic. In fact, my comments about OSI were
one small part of a larger argument, and I would invite people to read the
whole text, which is available here: http://bit.ly/2taOuoL

 

2.  On OSI membership. I assume we are both working from the document
you posted recently to the OSI list, which shows that there are 375 members
of OSI. You rightly point out that establishing how to categorise people on
the list is not always easy. However, by my reckoning the list includes 122
publishers (primary and secondary), of which 52 are commercial concerns. Of
the latter, 13 appear to be employees of Elsevier/RELX (3.5% of the total
membership of the list). And by my reckoning there are around 114 libraries
(mainly from the US). By contrast I could find only 18 researchers, although
again establishing these numbers cannot be a precise art given the nature of
the data.  

 

3.  On conversations on the list. I think you are saying that the bad
temper on the list is infrequent and short-lived, and that publishers do not
generally contribute. It is true that publishers don't generally post to the
list, but I think it is also true that you see one of your tasks as being to
contribute on their behalf after having off list conversations with them.
Either way, that they are reluctant to speak might seem to support my
assertion that it will be hard for OSI to arrive at meaningful consensus, or
satisfactory conclusions about the future of scholarly communication.
Indeed, one of the OSI member publishers wrote on Twitter, "The listserv is
toxic and in no way moving anything forward." 

 

4.  On censorship. I think our memory of the incident is similar, except
that it was not my understanding that it was mutually agreed that there
would be no more censorship. My recollection is that I pointed out that it
would not be practically possible to censor without deleting whole threads
from the list.

 

As I say, I am grateful for your feedback.  

 

Richard Poynder

 

 

From: Glenn Hampson [mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org] 
Sent: 19 July 2017 18:31
To: 'Richard Poynder' <richard.poyn...@btinternet.com>;
scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org; 'The Open Scholarship Initiative'
<osi2016...@googlegroups.com>
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 stakeholde

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

[Richard Poynder]

From: Glenn Hampson [mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org] 
Sent: 19 July 2017 18:31
To: 'Richard Poynder' <richard.poyn...@btinternet.com>;
scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org; 'The Open Scholarship Initiative'
<osi2016...@googlegroups.com>
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 specific corrections to Richard's article:

1.  "Membership of OSI is made up primarily of legacy publishers and US
librarians." This is incorrect. As noted above, about 10% of OSI members are
commercial publishing reps and another 10% are librarians. However, most OSI
reps wear several hats, so research university reps are often library heads
and scholarly society reps may come from their publishing division. This may
be a source of Richard's misinterpretation. Even counting this overlap,
though, the totals are far from "primarily."
2.  ".as the funding provided for OSI by UNESCO has been falling, so th

[GOAL] On sponsorship, transparency, scholarly publishing, and open access

[Richard Poynder]

Sponsorship in the research and library communities is pervasive today, and
scholarly publishers are some of the most generous providers of it. While
the benefits of this sponsorship to the research community at large are
debatable, publishers gain a great deal of soft power from dispensing money
in this way. And they use this soft power to help them contain, control and
shape the changes scholarly communication is undergoing, often in ways that
meet their needs more than the needs of science and of scientists. 

 

This sponsorship also often takes place without adequate transparency. 

 

These are the kinds of issues explored in this (pdf) document
http://bit.ly/2taOuoL, which includes some examples of publisher
sponsorship, and the associated problems of non-transparency that often go
with it. In particular, there is a detailed case study of a series of
interviews conducted by Library Journal with leading OA advocates that was
sponsored by Dove Medical Press.

 

Amongst those interviewed was the de facto leader of the OA movement Peter
Suber. Suber gave three separate interviews to LJ, but not once was he
informed when invited that the interviews were sponsored, or that they would
be flanked with ads for Dove - even though he made it clear after the first
interview that he was not happy to be associated with the publisher in this
way.

 

http://bit.ly/2taOuoL

 

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

Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

[Richard Poynder]

On a related topic, this poster might be of interest to list members:


*Exploiting Elsevier’s Creative Commons License Requirement to Subvert
Embargo*


"In the last round of author sharing policy revisions, Elsevier created a
labyrinthine title-by-title embargo structure requiring embargoes from
12-48 months for author sharing via institutional repository (IR), while
permitting immediate sharing via author's personal website or blog. At the
same time, all pre-publication versions are to bear a Creative
Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND) license.


"At the time this policy was announced, it was rightly criticized by many
in the scholarly communication community as overly complicated and
unnecessary. However, this CC licensing requirement creates an avenue for
subverting the embargo in the IR to achieve quicker open distribution of
the author's accepted manuscript.


"In short, authors may post an appropriately licensed copy on their
personal site, at which point we may deposit without embargo in the IR, not
through the license granted in the publication agreement, but through the
CC license on the author's version, which the sharing policy mandates. This
poster will outline this issue, our experimentation with application, and
engage viewers in questions regarding its potential risks, benefits, and
workflows."



https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/24107

​


On 18 June 2017 at 12:24, Mittermaier, Bernhard <b.mitterma...@fz-juelich.de
> wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> on sharing in file-sharing networks, Creatice Commons explain:
>
>
>
> “Can I share CC-licensed material on file-sharing networks?
>
> Yes. All CC licenses allow redistribution of the unmodified material by
> any means, including distribution via file-sharing networks. Note that
> file-trading is expressly considered to be noncommercial for purposes of
> compliance with the NC licenses. Barter of NC-licensed material for other
> items of value is not permitted.”
>
> https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-share-cc-licensed-
> material-on-file-sharing-networks
>
>
>
> The “Elsevier Sharing Rules” say
>
> “CC-BY-NC-ND licensed articles may be shared on non-commercial platforms
> only.”
>
> http://help.sciencedirect.com/flare/sdhelp_Left.htm#CSHID=
> password.htm|StartTopic=Content%2Fsharing_pubs.htm|SkinName=svs_SD
> <http://help.sciencedirect.com/flare/sdhelp_Left.htm#CSHID=password.htm%7CStartTopic=Content%2Fsharing_pubs.htm%7CSkinName=svs_SD>
>
>
>
> and again in the table at the bottom of that webpage: “Public posting on
> commercial platforms (e.g., www.researchgate.net, www.academia.edu)” :not
> allowed
>
>
>
> I’ve been asking Alicia Wise, on what grounds why Elsevier takes that
> position. She replied:
>
> „Both ResearchGate & academia.edu use content commercially to sell
> advertising & services around the content they disseminate” and “Both
> ResearchGate & academia.edu <https://t.co/IQgdiiCF1s> are problems in
> Germany as they go beyond private use to make NC content publicly
> available” (https://twitter.com/wisealic/status/874284792275140609 and
> https://twitter.com/wisealic/status/874284916644696066 )
>
>
>
> My interpretation of the CC licence is that sharing of CC BY-NC-ND article
> by commercial platforms is OK as long as they don’t sell the articles
> (which they don’t do).
>
> But apart from that - what authors are doing is IMHO definitely not
> prohibited because they have no commercial gain whatsoever.
>
>
>
> What do you think?
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Bernhard
>
> ###
>
>
>
> Dr. Bernhard Mittermaier
>
> Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH
>
> Leiter der Zentralbibliothek / Head of the Central Library
>
> 52425 Jülich
>
> Tel  ++49-2461-613013 <+49%202461%20613013>
>
> Fax ++49-2461-616103 <+49%202461%20616103>
>
>
>
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich
> Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher
> Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Wolfgang Marquardt (Vorsitzender),
> Karsten Beneke (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt,
> Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] American Psychological Association "pilot program" of takedown notices

[Richard Poynder]

List members will perhaps be aware that the American Psychological
Association recently launched a "pilot program" in which it has been issuing
takedown notices to authors who have posted the final published PDFs of
their articles on personal websites and third-party sites. 

(http://www.apa.org/pubs/authors/unauthorized-internet-posting.aspx).

 

There have been a number of articles about this e.g. here
(http://retractionwatch.com/2017/06/14/researchers-protest-publishers-orders
-remove-papers-websites/) and here
(http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49670/title/Authors-P
eeved-by-APA-s-Article-Takedown-Pilot/
<http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49670/title/Authors-P
eeved-by-APA-s-Article-Takedown-Pilot/_campaign=NEWSLETTER_TS_The-Scient
ist-Daily_2016> _campaign=NEWSLETTER_TS_The-Scientist-Daily_2016). 

 

Yesterday the APA announced that it is refocusing the program -- here
(http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/06/curtailing-journal-articles.
aspx?utm_content=1497568913
<http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/06/curtailing-journal-articles.
aspx?utm_content=1497568913_medium=social_source=twitter>
_medium=social_source=twitter).

 

>From that announcement: 

 

"We are refocusing this program to target commercial piracy sites," said APA
Executive Publisher Jasper Simons. "We regret that our recent takedown
messages upset some of our authors, who are not the target of the program.
Our goal remains to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record and stop
the illegal sharing of content on piracy sites. We support the
non-commercial sharing of content by our authors in line with our posting
guidelines."

 

"We are sorry that we put the scholars in the middle," Simons said. "APA
welcomes and encourages the sharing of scientific research by APA authors.
We value our work with the scientific community and want to continue this
collaboration."

 

Under APA's publishing guidelines, authors are free to post the final
accepted, preformatted versions of their articles - the accepted manuscript
- on their personal websites, university repositories and author networking
sites without an embargo. However, any posted manuscripts must include a
note linking to the final published article, the authoritative document.

 

Richard Poynder

 

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

[GOAL] Fwd: [SCHOLCOMM] PKP position on online harassment

[Richard Poynder]

​Forwarding from Scholcomm

​
-- Forwarded message --
From: "Jacqueline Whyte Appleby" 
Date: 29 May 2017 21:20
Subject: [SCHOLCOMM] PKP position on online harassment
To: "scholc...@lists.ala.org" 
Cc:

Good afternoon,

The following has just been released by the Public Knowledge Project,
developers of the Open Journal System: https://pkp.sfu.ca/pkp
-position-on-online-harassment/

Many in the schol comm community have been victims of this harassment. As
both PKP and this person use the name Open Journal System, it’s easy to
mistakenly tag this person when you mean to mention PKP in your tweets, or
even to inadvertently recommend his hosting service.

I think it’s quite possible this person is watching this, so I’m hesitant
to say more on-list.

Cheers,
Jacqueline

-- 
Jacqueline Whyte Appleby
Scholarly Resources Librarian
Scholars Portal, Ontario Council of University Libraries
jacquel...@scholarsportal.info
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] The Open Access Interviews: Jutta Haider

[Richard Poynder]

Many of us join causes and movements at different times in our lives, if
only because we like to feel part of something bigger than ourselves, and
because most of us have a healthy desire to improve the world.
Unfortunately, movements often fail to achieve their objectives, or their
objectives are significantly watered down - or lost sight of - along the
way. Sometimes they fail completely.

 

When their movement hits a roadblock, advocates will respond in a variety of
ways: "True believers" tend to carry on regardless, continuing to repeat
their favoured mantras ad nauseam. Some will give up and move on to the next
worthy cause. Others will take stock, seek to understand the problem, and
try to find another way forward.

 

Jutta Haider, an associate professor in Information Studies at Lund
University, would appear to be in the third category. Initially a proponent
of open access, Haider subsequently "turned into a sceptic". This was not,
she says, because she no longer sees merit in making the scientific
literature freely available, but because the term open access "has gained
meanings and tied itself to areas in science, science policy-making, and the
societal and economic development of society that I find deeply
problematic."

 

But she has not given up on open access, as will be evident from reading the
Q with Jutta Haider here:

 

http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/the-open-access-interviews-jutta-haide
r.html

 

Richard Poynder

 

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

[GOAL] Fwd: [SCHOLCOMM] Preprint Servers and You

[richard . poynder]

Forwarding from Scholcomm. 


From: Rusty Speidel

Sent: Wednesday, 19 April, 15:40

Subject: [SCHOLCOMM] Preprint Servers and You

To: Rusty Speidel



Colleagues --



You may have seen these interesting posts about preprints on Scholarly Kitchen 
yesterday and today:



Yesterday's: 
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/04/18/stars-aligning-preprints/



Today's: 
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/04/19/preprint-server-not-preprint-server/




We took this as an opportunity to articulate the status and direction of OSF 
Preprints and the branded services it supports with a blog post:



https://cos.io/blog/public-goods-infrastructure-preprints-and-innovation-scholarly-communication/




We'd appreciate your comments as always, and your sharing it in your social 
networks.  Also, it offered the occasion to describe the ongoing effort to 
build moderation workflows on the service, and to announce some of the new 
partners that will be offering preprint services using the open infrastructure:



LawArXiv -- A partnership of Legal Information Preservation Alliance (LIPA), 
Mid-American Law Library Consortium (MALLCO), NELLCO Law Library Consortium 
Inc. (NELLCO) and Cornell Law LibraryMarXiv: Marine Affairs Research and 
Education will offer a preprint service for the ocean sciences.SciELO: SciELO’s 
preprint service will extend their substantial support of scholarly publishing 
in Latin America, Portugal, Space, and South Africa. PaleoArXiv: A community of 
researchers has organized to offer a preprint service to the paleontology 
community.MindArkīv: The Mind & Life Institute will operate MindArkīv to foster 
preprints in the contemplative sciences. FUSF: The Focused Ultrasound 
Foundation will operate a preprint service to accelerate sharing of research 
related to their funding mission.



Hope you find this discussion useful. 



Regards,


Rusty





Rusty Speidel


Marketing Director


Center for Open Science



https://cos.io | @osframework


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

[GOAL] ResearchGate announces $52m investment

[Richard Poynder]

It has been reported this week that in November 2015 ResearchGate received $52m 
in investment money, although the investment has only just been made public.

News items below.

https://www.researchinformation.info/news/researchgate-announces-52m-investment

http://uk.businessinsider.com/researchgate-raised-52-million-goldman-bill-gates-2017-2?r=US=T

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/technology/science-research-researchgate-gates-goldman.html?smid=tw-share&_r=2

Of note: this paywalled article reports that 51% of a random sample of non-OA 
articles on ResearchGate infringed the copyright and were non-compliant with 
publishers' policy.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-017-2291-4

Amongst those to invest in the company were the Wellcome Trust. It would be 
interesting to hear more from Wellcome as to why it has invested in 
ResearchGate.

Richard Poynder




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

Re: [GOAL] Copyright: the immoveable barrier that open access advocates underestimated

[Richard Poynder]

I would be interested in further details of the survey you mention Paul.
Have the details been published?

My suspicion is that ORBi and Liège are not typical so far as OA and
institutional repositories are concerned.

Richard Poynder


On 23 February 2017 at 12:35, Paul THIRION <paul.thir...@ulg.ac.be> wrote:

> Dear Richard
>
> Maybe what you say  is not as general as you think. For example in my
> institution a recent large survey shows that 91% of researchers are
> "satisfied" or "very satisfied" by ORBi (our IR). +90 % add all or allmost
> all their publications on ORBi. For the deposits made in 2016, +65% of
> deposits with FT are OA. Last thing, recently it's the researchers
> themselves who asked to add Open Access as a key element in the strategic
> plan of the institution...
> Not sure we are the only one institution in the world where OA won the
> hearts and minds of most researchers :-)
>
> Best regards
>
> Le 22/02/17 à 09:17, Richard Poynder a écrit :
>
> In calling for research papers to be made freely available open access
> advocates promised that doing so would lead to a simpler, less costly, more
> democratic, and more effective scholarly communication system.
>
>
>
> However, while the OA movement has succeeded in persuading research
> institutions and funders of the merits of open access, it has failed to win
> the hearts and minds of most researchers.
>
>
>
> More importantly, it is not achieving its objectives. There are various
> reasons for this, but above all it is because OA advocates underestimated
> the extent to which copyright would subvert their cause.
>
>
>
> That is the argument I make in a recently-posted text on my blog, which
> can be accessed from this page: http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/
> 2017/02/copyright-immoveable-barrier-that-open.html
>
>
>
> Richard Poynder
>
>
>
>
> ___
> GOAL mailing 
> listGOAL@eprints.orghttp://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
> --
>
> *Paul THIRION*
>
> Directeur ULg Library
>
> *Quartier des Urbanistes 1*
>
> *Traverse des architectes, 5D *
>
> B-4000 LIEGE
>
> BELGIQUE
>
>
> +32 (0)4 366 20 22 <+32%204%20366%2020%2022>
>
> paul.thir...@ulg.ac.be (secrétariat bib.direct...@ulg.ac.be)
>
> http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/ph-search?uid=U013783
>
> http://lib.ulg.ac.be
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

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

[Richard Poynder]

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 <marc.cout...@teluq.ca> 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] FW: [sparc-oaforum] Fwd: [SCHOLCOMM] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Richard Poynder]

Forwarding from SPARC-OAForum. 

 

From: Rick Anderson [mailto:rick.ander...@utah.edu] 
Sent: 23 January 2017 16:03
To: richard.poyn...@btinternet.com; sparc-oafo...@arl.org
Subject: Re: [sparc-oaforum] Fwd: [SCHOLCOMM] How much of the content in open 
repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

 

For what it’s worth, Richard and I seem to have been thinking along similar 
lines recently. My posting in the Scholarly Kitchen today is about competing 
definitions of OA; part 2, tomorrow, will be about competing visions for the 
future of scholarly communication among various members of the OA community:

 

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/01/23/diversity-open-access-movement-part-1-differing-definitions/

 

---

Rick Anderson

Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication

Marriott Library, University of Utah

Desk: (801) 587-9989

Cell: (801) 721-1687

rick.ander...@utah.edu <mailto:rick.ander...@utah.edu> 

 

-- Forwarded message ------
From: Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@btinternet.com 
<mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> >
Date: 23 January 2017 at 11:19
Subject: [SCHOLCOMM] How much of the content in open repositories is able to 
meet the definition of open access?
To: scholc...@lists.ala.org <mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> 

OA advocates maintain that the formative definition of open access agreed at 
the meeting that led to the Budapest Open Access Initiative means that only 
papers with a CC BY licence attached can be described as open access. And yet 
millions of papers in open repositories are not available with a CC BY licence.

 

Take, for instance, PubMed Central, which currently has 4.2 million documents 
deposited in it. A recent search shows that only 24% of the non-historical 
documents in PMC have a CC BY licence, and so 76% of the content cannot be 
described as open access.

 

The good news is that the CC BY percentage in PMC is growing over time. 
Nevertheless, that it has still only reached 24% a decade after the NIH Public 
Access policy came into effect suggests that the OA movement still has a way to 
go if it is to live up to the BOAI definition. 

 

More here: 
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/the-nih-public-access-policy-triumph-of.html

 

Richard Poynder





 

-- 

Richard Poynder
www.richardpoynder.co.uk <http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk> 

-- 
-- 
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 
<mailto:sparc-oafo...@arl.org> 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.org <mailto:sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.org> 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"SPARC OA Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.org <mailto:sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.org> 
.

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

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

[Richard Poynder]

Personally,  yes I do Paul. Indeed, I also agree with Heather Morrison that
insisting on the use of  CC BY is a strategic error on the part of the OA
movement, and I hope to publish a somewhat longer piece arguing as much in
the near future.

Richard Poynder

On 23 Jan 2017 12:21, "Paul THIRION" <paul.thir...@ulg.ac.be> wrote:

But don't you think the most important and the most urgent is free access ?

Le 23/01/17 à 10:41, Richard Poynder a écrit :

OA advocates maintain that the formative definition of open access agreed
at the meeting that led to the Budapest Open Access Initiative means that
only papers with a CC BY licence attached can be described as open access.
And yet millions of papers in open repositories are not available with a CC
BY licence.



Take, for instance, PubMed Central, which currently has 4.2 million
documents deposited in it. A recent search shows that only 24% of the
non-historical documents in PMC have a CC BY licence, and so 76% of the
content cannot be described as open access.



The good news is that the CC BY percentage in PMC is growing over time.
Nevertheless, that it has still only reached 24% a decade after the NIH
Public Access policy came into effect suggests that the OA movement still
has a way to go if it is to live up to the BOAI definition.



More here: http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/the-nih-public-access-
policy-triumph-of.html



Richard Poynder


___
GOAL mailing 
listGOAL@eprints.orghttp://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal


-- 

*Paul THIRION*

Directeur ULg Library

*Quartier des Urbanistes 1*

*Traverse des architectes, 5D *

B-4000 LIEGE

BELGIQUE


+32 (0)4 366 20 22 <+32%204%20366%2020%2022>

paul.thir...@ulg.ac.be (secrétariat bib.direct...@ulg.ac.be)

http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/ph-search?uid=U013783

http://lib.ulg.ac.be



___
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] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Richard Poynder]

OA advocates maintain that the formative definition of open access agreed at
the meeting that led to the Budapest Open Access Initiative means that only
papers with a CC BY licence attached can be described as open access. And
yet millions of papers in open repositories are not available with a CC BY
licence.

 

Take, for instance, PubMed Central, which currently has 4.2 million
documents deposited in it. A recent search shows that only 24% of the
non-historical documents in PMC have a CC BY licence, and so 76% of the
content cannot be described as open access. 

 

The good news is that the CC BY percentage in PMC is growing over time.
Nevertheless, that it has still only reached 24% a decade after the NIH
Public Access policy came into effect suggests that the OA movement still
has a way to go if it is to live up to the BOAI definition. 

 

More here:
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/the-nih-public-access-policy-triumph-o
f.html

 

Richard Poynder 

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

Re: [GOAL] OA Overview January 2017 (Arthur Sale)

[Richard Poynder]

Danny,

 

I am reminded here of a paper you wrote in 2013 in which you said:

 

"The requirement to collect information about research output in Australia
for ERA [the Australian Excellence in Research for Australia] and HERDC
reporting is a double-edged sword. The research community in Australia has
adapted to providing this information, albeit not without frustration at the
high level of administration involved in compliance. And while some
universities consider ERA to have helped the awareness of their repository
and open access, overall, the evidence seems to indicate ERA has been
detrimental to the promotion of open access in Australia."

 

http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/39/122

 

Richard Poynder

 

 

 

 

Hi all,

 

Arthur's statements are slightly off kilter. The reason why all research
outputs in Australia are collected is because of the requirements for the
Higher Education Research Data Collection - HERDC
https://www.education.gov.au/higher-education-research-data-collection which
determines the block grant funding allocation to universities on an annual
basis. This has nothing to do with open access.

 

In some instances universities have tied this long standing process into
their OA systems, in others they have not. So there are plenty of situations
where a copy of the research output is collected, but it is the final pdf
(that in most cases would not be able to be made open access anyway) and
these are also collected within an internally facing system, so there is no
exposure even of the metadata.

 

It is my understanding that there is movement in Australia to make open
access more closely tied into this process at a policy level - but that has
not happened yet. As someone managing a large UK institution's compliance
with very serious mandates at the highest level, I can say that we still
have a huge battle ahead.

 

Danny

 


Dr Danny Kingsley
Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437 <tel:+44%201223%20747437> 
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564 <tel:+44%207711%20500564> 
E: da...@cam.ac.uk <mailto:da...@cam.ac.uk> 
T: @dannykay68
B: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/
S: http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley
ORCID iD: -0002-3636-5939

On 11 Jan 2017, at 08:02, goal-requ...@eprints.org
<mailto:goal-requ...@eprints.org>  wrote:

 

Send GOAL mailing list submissions to
goal@eprints.org <mailto:goal@eprints.org> 

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
goal-requ...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-requ...@eprints.org> 

You can reach the person managing the list at
goal-ow...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-ow...@eprints.org> 

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of GOAL digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. Re: OA Overview January 2017 (Arthur Sale)


--

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:38:30 +1100
From: "Arthur Sale" <a...@ozemail.com.au <mailto:a...@ozemail.com.au> >
Subject: Re: [GOAL] OA Overview January 2017
To: "'Global Open Access List \(Successor of AmSci\)'"
<goal@eprints.org <mailto:goal@eprints.org> >
Message-ID: <006101d26b92$44c564b0$ce502e10$@ozemail.com.au
<http://ozemail.com.au> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Keep up the emphasis, Stevan, as appropriate. I totally agree that the
double-payment argument is absurd, as I wrote. And yes there is added value
in published books, including but not limited to preservation. I did not
need the spray.



As a result of the OA movement (including your and my efforts) all
Australian universities have 100% of their articles self-archived. Yes all
and 100%, for audit purposes. That?s been the case for many years now.

Unfortunately they are not all open access immediately, but they are
available within the institution on one server, and the academics all
comply. Their departmental standing and funding would otherwise suffer.

It is a small victory, to be sure, but the inability of people to think
outside the box of their scholarly training is a huge problem. It helps that
we have a few people at the decision levels in Australia who are ICT-savvy
and more flexible. I think the same is true of Canada.



Best wishes

Arthur Sale

 

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

[GOAL] FW: Tracking Trump re the US Public Access Program

[Richard Poynder]

Forwarding from the Open Scholarship Initiative mailing list

 

>> 

 

From: osi2016...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi2016...@googlegroups.com] On 
Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: 06 December 2016 14:55
To: osi2016-25-googlegroups.com <osi2016...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Tracking Trump re the US Public Access Program

 

Richard Poynder has kindly published an edited version of the latest issue of 
my newsletter -- Inside Public Access -- as a guest post on his OA blog. It 
explores how the US Public Access Program might fare under the coming Trump 
Administration (and Congress). Its fate is uncertain, up or down. Given that 
this is a huge green OA program it seems relevant to our deliberations here.

http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/tracking-trump.html

Happy to discuss it.

David
http://insidepublicaccess.com/

-- 
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be 
viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv 
policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit 
http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.



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

[GOAL] PLOS CEO steps down as publisher embarks on "third revolution"

[Richard Poynder]

On 31st October, PLOS sent out a surprise tweet saying that its CEO
Elizabeth Marincola is leaving the organisation for a new job in Kenya.
Perhaps this is a good time to review the rise of PLOS, put some questions
to the publisher, and consider its future.

 

https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/plos-ceo-steps-down-as-publisher.html
?spref=tw

 

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

Re: [GOAL] 100 Stories of Open Access Impact

[Richard Poynder]

Thank you for responding Promita.



Forgive me for concluding that bepress produced this document to promote
itself and its Digital Commons product, and thus ultimately to sell more
product, rather than to help the OA community.



But let me explain why I feel it would have helped to cast the net wider.
Digital Commons is not a typical institutional repository solution. As
bepress’ Jean-Gabriel Bankier put it to me when I interviewed him in 2014,
“Digital Commons is an integrated platform to support the full spectrum of
scholarly publishing and institutional repository needs. Imagine ContentDM,
DSpace, Dryad, Figshare, ePrints, Open Journal Systems, Open Monograph
Press, and Open Conference Systems all rolled into one solution, and you
have the Digital Commons platform.”



Indeed, I believe that bepress began life as a journal publisher, and that
Digital Commons was developed as its publishing platform, not as an
institutional repository solution. For this reason, at least until
recently, Digital Common has been promoted primarily as a tool for
library-led publishing, not for IRs.



Given this, we might wonder whether the uses that institutions are making
of Digital Commons is typical (certainly so far as open access is
concerned), and we might therefore wonder how representative the stories in
the document are of open access and its impact.



As you will know, BOAI defined the target content of open access as being
“peer-reviewed journal articles” and “unreviewed preprints”.  I note that
in footnote 1 of the document (citing one of the interviews I conducted
with a user of Digital Commons) open access is redefined. I also note the
document states that of the stories in it only 21% relate to research. Of
course, it is great that Digital Commons is being used to host patents,
yearbooks, institutional documents, oral history, and creative works, but
that is not content the open access movement was created to make free.



So, my concern is that this document is about how a publishing platform
that later had institutional repository functionality added to it is being
used, not how institutional repositories *per se* are being used, or the
kind of impact that OA is having. It may well be that similar stories would
have emerged if the net had been cast wider, but we couldn’t know that
unless or until a wider survey were undertaken. My wish is that the net had
been cast wider.



That it was not cast wider is why I concluded (incorrectly apparently) that
the document is focused more on promoting bepress’ Digital Commons product
than on assisting the OA movement forward.



All that said, good luck with your project.


Richard


PS: One reason for my scepticism, by the way, was that when bepress sold
its OA journals they appear to have been put back behind a paywall:
https://svpow.com/2014/10/29/cc-by-documents-cannot-be-re-enclosed-if-their-publisher-is-acquired/#comment-90222
).





On 29 October 2016 at 00:03, Promita Chatterji <
​​
p
​​
chatte...@bepress.com <pchatte...@bepress.com>> wrote:

> Hi Richard -
>
>
> Thanks for your message.
>
> We did this work because people were really hungry for stories around open
> access impact, and we knew we had a significant volume of relevant data. We
> work in partnership with hundreds of institutions on their open access
> initiatives and see first-hand the impacts of their efforts. While the
> report draws on bepress data, the framework and the stories themselves
> highlight the accomplishments of institutions and their librarians that
> have advanced open access. We believe they deserve to be recognized for it.
>
>
> We enjoy working with UNESCO and very much value their work on open
> access: they have a broad and inclusive perspective that serves to move the
> community forward. We’ve been getting a lot of positive feedback on the
> pre-print of the report and we hope that it inspires other institutions and
> platforms to follow suit. The community would only be helped by having
> additional stories of open access impact.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Promita
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 8:38 AM, Richard Poynder <
> richard.poyn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for posting this Promita Chatterji.
>>
>>
>> Would it be accurate to say that this is, in effect, a document promoting
>> bepress' commercial repository platform Digital Commons that UNESCO will
>> publish and distribute?
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> On 28 October 2016 at 15:21, Promita Chatterji <pchatte...@bepress.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Happy Open Access Week!
>>>
>>> To end the week, we are excited to share 100 stories and a framework
>>> for describing the impact of open access
>>> <https://works.bepress.com/jea

Re: [GOAL] 100 Stories of Open Access Impact

[Richard Poynder]

Thank you for this Bhanu. 

 

I am aware of the repository document that you refer too, which I think is
this one:
http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/news/institution
al_repository_software.pdf. I believe that document reviewed a number of
different repository systems, including the bepress software. 

 

Unless I have misunderstood, the current document covers only repositories
based on the bepress product. If that is right, I cannot help but think that
the document might have benefited if the net for case studies been cast a
little wider.  

 

Apologies if I have misunderstood. 

 

Best wishes,

 

Richard

 

 

 

 

 

From: Neupane, Bhanu [mailto:b.neup...@unesco.org] 
Sent: 28 October 2016 17:26
To: richard.poyn...@btinternet.com
Cc: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] 100 Stories of Open Access Impact

 

Richard! Unesco isn't promoting bepress but unesco is working with bepress -
the difference!  Unesco has previously worked with bepress to evaluate
repository softwares. 

 

 

Thanks. 



Sent from my iPad


On Oct 28, 2016, at 17:39, Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@gmail.com
<mailto:richard.poyn...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Thanks for posting this Promita Chatterji. 

 

Would it be accurate to say that this is, in effect, a document promoting
bepress' commercial repository platform Digital Commons that UNESCO will
publish and distribute?

 

Best wishes,

 

 

Richard

 

On 28 October 2016 at 15:21, Promita Chatterji <pchatte...@bepress.com
<mailto:pchatte...@bepress.com> > wrote:

Happy Open Access Week!

To end the week, we are excited to share 100 stories and a framework for
describing the impact of open access
<https://works.bepress.com/jean_gabriel_bankier/27/> . 

 

We look forward to hearing your stories of open access success.

 

Best,

Promita Chatterji

 




 

-- 

Promita Chatterji

bepress 

510-665-1200 x141

http://www.bepress.com


bepress: the frontier of scholarly publishing since 1999

 

Check out IR success stories on the DC Telegraph at
http://blog.digitalcommons.bepress.com


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





 

-- 

Richard Poynder
www.richardpoynder.co.uk <http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk> 

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

Re: [GOAL] Dramatic Growth of Open Access September 30, 2016

[Richard Poynder]

​I agree that like-for-like comparisons are needed.



BASE says that around 60% of the documents it indexes are full-text. See
here: https://www.base-search.net/about/en/



Some of its records also appear to be a little lightweight. Consider, for
instance, the first item listed here: https://www.base-search.
net/Search/Results?lookfor=poynder+timothy=all=
1=1===dcresen=1



This essentially seems to be a link to a link.



I understand that 1Science (of which I think Eric is CEO) says it currently
offers 18.5 million OA articles, but its OAfindr does not appear to be an
OA service itself. Presumably users have to pay to access the service? That
seems to be an important factor when making comparisons. If there is an
access charge for OAfindr, how much is that charge?



It is also worth noting that ScienceOpen, which says it allow users to
search over 25 million articles, actually only provides OA to 10% of those
articles. See: https://twitter.com/RickyPo/status/783575794471886848.



Has anyone done a review/comparison of all these services in order to allow
us to get a better sense of like-for-like?

Richard Poynder​

On 7 October 2016 at 11:55, Éric Archambault <
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote:

> Just a quick note.
>
> The fact that BASE has more than 100 million "documents" is not such a
> meaningful information as they do not define "documents". My impression is
> that they are truly speaking about metadata records, not full-text
> documents as a large number of these records do not contain documents - so
> document is a misnomer. Scopus and WoS both have more than half a billion
> references compiled. This is also several order of magnitude greater than
> ScienceDirect but what is the value of that information as we are not
> comparing likes. ScienceDirect comprises full-text articles. How many are
> from peer-reviewed journals; are many such articles (deduplicated) are in
> BASE. This is the relevant statistics. Of course, extending this to
> monographs and conference proceedings full-text papers is also relevant,
> but we need to compare likes for likes.
>
>
>
>
> Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
> President and CEO | Président-directeur général
> Science-Metrix & 1science
>
> T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
> C. 1.514.518.0823
> F. 1.514.495.6523
>
>
> Come visit us at the Frankfurt Book Fair at booth L85 in Hall 4.2 on
> October 19-23!
> Venez nous rencontrer à la Foire du livre de Francfort du 19 au 23
> octobre, kiosque L85 du Hall 4.2.
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On
> Behalf Of Heather Morrison
> Sent: October-06-16 9:56 PM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Dramatic Growth of Open Access September 30, 2016
>
> The third quarter Dramatic Growth of Open Access is now available. There
> will be plenty to celebrate for this year’s open access week!
>
> Highlights:
>
> Globally OA repository contents have exceeded a milestone of over 100
> million documents as indirectly measured by a BASE meta-search. This
> dispersed collection is now an order of magnitude larger than Science
> Direct!
>
> Despite a vigorous weeding and new get-tough inclusion policy, DOAJ
> articles searchable at article level grew by about a quarter million this
> past year, and DOAJ is now adding titles at the rate of 1.5 per day.
> OpenDOAR added new repositories at almost exactly the same rate as DOAJ
> added journal titles.
>
> Internet Archive now has over 3 million audio recordings. There are over
> 2,000 more OA books and 161 more publishers in DOAB than there were a year
> ago.
>
> PubMedCentral continues to show strong growth in every measure: more
> journals actively participating, more providing immediate free access, all
> articles open access, some articles open access.
>
> Details and links: http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2016/10/dramatic-
> growth-of-open-access.html
>
> To download the data: https://dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dataverse/dgoa
>
> 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
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13121 - Release Date: 09/30/16
>
> ___
> 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] Q with CNI's Clifford Lynch: Time to re-think the institutional repository?

[Richard Poynder]

I thank Kathleen Shearer for her comments. I have responded to them here:

 

http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/institutional-repositories-response-to.html

 

Richard Poynder

 

 

From: Repositories discussion list [ <mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk> 
mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Kathleen Shearer
Sent: 28 September 2016 14:59
To:  <mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk> jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Q with CNI's Clifford Lynch: Time to re-think the institutional 
repository?

 

“The reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated” (to paraphrase Mark 
Twain)

 

Although I agree with some of what Richard Poynder writes in the introduction 
to his recent  <http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk/Clifford_Lynch.pdf> interview 
with Cliff Lynch published on September 22, 2016, I do take exception to a 
number of the assertions he makes about the current state of IRs, especially 
his comments that green OA has failed (although this is clearly what the 
publishers would have us believe).

 

It is true that repositories have not yet completely fulfilled their potential, 
and there are efforts to shift the transition to open access through APC-based 
gold OA. However, this is a critical time for IRs. The global network is now at 
a point where we have an international mechanism to communicate with each other 
(COAR) and we are consolidating around a common vision and strategy for 
repositories. 

 

In the last 3 months I have been traveling extensively in Europe, Latin America 
and China. All of these regions are investing in repository infrastructure to 
support open access, are working actively to improve interoperability across 
regions, and are establishing regional and/or national networks for 
repositories. In this respect, the United States is an outlier, since it has 
yet to leverage the strategic value of its institutional repositories through 
developing a national network. I hope this will change in the near future. 

 

As Poynder alludes to in his introduction, highly centralized systems are far 
easier to launch, nurture and promote, however, there are significant benefits 
to a distributed system. It is much less vulnerable to buy-out, manipulation, 
or failure. Furthermore, a global network, managed collectively by the 
university and research community around the world, can be more attuned to 
local values, regional issues and a variety of perspectives. Repositories do 
have the potential to change scholarly communication, but there is some urgency 
that we start to build greater momentum now. 

 

Recognizing the current challenges and opportunities for repositories, COAR 
launched a  
<https://www.coar-repositories.org/activities/advocacy-leadership/working-group-next-generation-repositories/>
 working group in April 2016 to identify priority functionalities for the next 
generation of repositories. In this activity, our vision is clearly articulated,

 

"To position distributed repositories as the foundation of a globally networked 
infrastructure for scholarly communication that is collectively managed by the 
scholarly community. The resulting global repository network should have the 
potential to help transform the scholarly communication system by emphasizing 
the benefits of collective, open and distributed management, open content, 
uniform behaviors, real-time dissemination, and collective innovation.”

 

Ultimately, what we are promoting is a conceptual model, not a technology. 
Technologies will and must change over time, including repository technologies. 
We are calling for the scholarly community to take back control of knowledge 
production process via a distributed network based at scholarly institutions 
around the world. 

The aim of our next generation repositories working group is to better 
integrate repositories into the research process and make repositories truly 
‘of the web, not just on the web’. Once we do that, we can support the creation 
of better, more sophisticated value added services.

 

In his comments, Poynder also talks about the lack of full text content in 
repositories and cites one example, the University of Florida, which is working 
with Elsevier to add metadata records. However, one repository does not make a 
trend and COAR  
<https://www.coar-repositories.org/news-media/publications/coar-guidelines-for-assessing-publisher-repository-services/>
 does not support this type of model. The vast majority of repositories focus 
on collecting full text content and the primary raison d’etre of repositories 
has always been and remains to provide access to full text articles, and other 
valuable research outputs, so they can be re-used and maximize the value and 
impact of research.

 

Poynder also mis-characterizes many of the centralized services aggregating 
repository content saying they “appear (like SSRN) to be operated by for-profit 
concerns”. On the co

[GOAL] Q with CNI's Clifford Lynch: Time to re-think the institutional repository?

[Richard Poynder]

Seventeen years ago 25 people gathered in Santa Fe, New Mexico, to discuss
ways in which the growing number of e-print servers and digital repositories
could be made interoperable.

 

As scholarly archives and repositories had begun to proliferate a number of
issues had arisen. There was a concern, for instance, that archives would
needlessly replicate each other's content, and that users would have to
learn multiple interfaces in order to use them. What was therefore needed
was to develop tools and protocols that would allow repositories to work in
concert on a distributed basis. Above all, there was a need to make
distributed archives interoperable so that their content could be aggregated
into a single searchable virtual archive of (eventually) all published
research. 

 

The meeting led to the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata
Harvesting (OAI-PMH), and to the institutional repository movement. Today
there are thousands of institutional repositories around the world.

 

Yet 17 years later the interoperability promised by OAI-PMH has not really
materialised, few third-party service providers have emerged to leverage the
content in repositories, and duplication has not been avoided. Moreover, to
the exasperation of green OA advocates, authors have proved reluctant to
take on the task of depositing their papers in these repositories. Some
therefore now believe that the institutional repository faces an existential
threat. At the very least, they say, it is time to rethink the role and
purpose of the institutional repository. 

 

These and other matters are discussed in an interview with Clifford Lynch,
director of the Washington-based Coalition for Networked Information and one
of those who attended the Santa Fe meeting. 

 

The Q (plus introduction) can be accessed here:
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/q-with-cnis-clifford-lynch-time-to-re_
22.html

 

 

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

[GOAL] SocArXiv debuts, as SSRN acquisition comes under scrutiny

[Richard Poynder]

The arrival of a new preprint server for the social sciences called SocArXiv
comes just a month after news that Elsevier is acquiring the Social Science
Research Network (SSRN), a preprint repository and online community founded
in 1994 by two researchers. 

 

Given the concern and disappointment expressed over the SSRN purchase by
researchers, it is no surprise that the launch of SocArXiv has been very
well received. Still smarting from Elsevier's 2013 acquisition of Mendeley -
another formerly independent service for managing and sharing scholarly
papers - many (especially OA advocates) were appalled to hear that the
publisher has bought a second OA asset. The reasons for this were
encapsulated in a blog post by University of Iowa law professor Paul Gowder
entitled "SSRN has been captured by the enemy of open knowledge".

 

This concern has also attracted the attention of the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) which has launched a review of the SSRN purchase. The FTC
is currently contacting many institutions and experts in scholarly
publishing to assess the implications of the acquisition, presumably in
order to decide whether it needs to intervene in some way.

 

Elsevier is understandably keen to downplay the interest the US government
is showing in its latest acquisition. "The Federal Trade Commission is
conducting a routine, informal review of our acquisition of the Social
Sciences Research network," vice president and head of global corporate
relations at Elsevier Tom Reller emailed me. "Elsevier's interest in SSRN is
and has been about SSRNs' ethos, a place where it is free to upload, and
free to download. We are working cooperatively with the FTC, and believe
that the review will conclude favourably."

 

In other words, Elsevier does not believe the FTC's interest in its purchase
will lead to a formal investigation.

 

But however timely SocArXiv's launch may be, the service is not a response
to the SSRN acquisition, the director of the new service, and professor of
sociology at the University of Maryland, Philip Cohen assured me. "We were
already in planning before we heard about the SSRN purchase."

 

More here:
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/socarxiv-debuts-as-ssrn-acquisition.ht
ml

 

 

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

[GOAL] The OA Interviews: Michaël Bon, Founder of the Self-Journal of Science

[Richard Poynder]

Fifteen months ago 35-year old French scientist Michaël Bon launched a new
open-access publishing service called the Self-Journal of Science (SJS). 

 

SJS describes itself as a “non-commercial, multidisciplinary repository that
provides journal-like services to entrust the evaluation, classification and
communication of research to the unrestricted collective intelligence of the
scientific community itself.”

 

What is noteworthy about SJS is that it is not another open access journal,
but a new-style publishing platform, and one that could be viewed as a
direct challenge to the top-down power structure of academia, and to the
oligarchic editorial boards of legacy journals.

 

It is also worth noting that Bon was not aware of the open access movement
when he conceived SJS. His aim was to fix what he sees as serious problems
in the current scholarly communication system – problems of quality, of
transparency, and of effectiveness. 

 

When he did find out about the open access movement Bon concluded that OA
advocates have been trying to do things back to front, and as a result have
played into the hands of publishers.

 

That is, in seeking to fix the access issue prior to fixing the structural
flaws in the current publishing system the open access movement is
overseeing the relocation of a broken model into a new environment. 

 

By contrast, says Bon, SJS is focused on exploiting the new environment to
reinvent scholarly communication. In the process, he says, the access issue
is solved collaterally – since openness is a given in SJS’ modus operandi.

 

If you want to find out more about how SJS works, about Bon’s philosophy and
objectives, and where he thinks the OA movement has gone wrong, you can read
a Q with him here: 

 

http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/the-oa-interviews-michael-bon-founder.
html

 

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

[GOAL] The Open Access Interviews: Sir Timothy Gowers, Mathematician

[Richard Poynder]

As the use of green open access policies looks increasingly like a failed
strategy, and as universities, research funders, and governments in Europe
seek to engineer a mass “flipping” of subscription journals to gold OA, has
the open access movement reached a watershed moment? 

 

If so, how will it develop from here, is it headed in the right direction,
and who should be leading the way? 

 

One remarkable thing about the OA movement is that it has primarily been
driven by people other than researchers. The President of the Royal
Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, José van Dijck drew attention to
this recently when she pointed out that the debate about open access has
been mostly about what university administrators, librarians, government,
funding organizations and publishers think, not what researchers think, or
need. 

 

Yet it is researchers who create, quality check, and consume the papers that
make up scholarly journals. They are the originators of, and primary
audience for, the literature, so should they not have a large say in how
scholarly communication develops?

 

As the financial consequences of gold OA become apparent, and as researchers
are confronted with ever more onerous bureaucratic rules (policies)
requiring them to make their work OA, however, this is likely to change.
Certainly we can see researchers beginning to take more of an interest in
the topic, and the signs are that they are not at all happy with the mess
and confusion created by the OA movement.

 

Might we, therefore, see researchers become the foot soldiers of the next
battle in the revolution the OA movement began? And might they want to do
things somewhat differently?

 

If so, given his credentials who could claim to be better qualified to lead
the troops over the top than Sir Timothy Gowers? 

 

Read a Q with Gowers and see if you agree. 

 

http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/the-open-access-interviews-sir-timothy
.html

 

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

[GOAL] Sponsorship of video interviews by open access publishers, and related issues

[Richard Poynder]

Recently I was contacted by Library Journal (LJ) in connection with a series
of video interviews it is conducting with open access "VIP's and leaders".
The first interview - with the Director of Harvard University's Office for
Scholarly Communication Peter Suber - has already been published. Would I
have some time to do an interview myself, I was asked? The project is for a
new section of LJ's web site sponsored by the open access publisher Dove
Press.

 

I liked the idea of doing a video interview but I was instinctively shy of
being associated with a project that has a large Dove Press banner on the
top right hand corner proclaiming it to be the "exclusive sponsor" of the
site, along with a list of featured articles with "Sponsored by Dove Medical
Press" in prominent red ink strapped across the top of each one. I felt that
taking part would amount to endorsing Dove Press, which for reasons I
explain in a blog post I did not want to do.

 

I emailed LJ back to say I was not comfortable with doing an interview for a
site sponsored by Dove Press, and asked whether it would consider posting
any such video elsewhere on the LJ site. Strangely, I received no reply to
this. As I was now intrigued as to how this site had come about, who had
suggested the idea, and what its purpose was I also emailed LJ's Managing
Editor. To this too I received no reply.

 

The blog post on this can be accessed here:

 

http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/why-i-wont-be-doing-that-video.html

 

Some comments on my post by Peter Suber can be read here:

 

http://bit.ly/1Qu7LF4

 

A tweet to Library Journal inviting it to respond to the about comments is
available here:

 

https://twitter.com/RickyPo/status/702241648839958534

 

Richard Poynder

 

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

[GOAL] The OA Interviews: Kamila Markram, CEO and Co-Founder of Frontiers

[Richard Poynder]

Based in Switzerland, the open access publisher Frontiers was founded in
2007 by Kamila and Henry Markram, who are both neuroscientists at the Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne. 

 

A researcher-led initiative envisaged as being "by scientists, for
scientists" the mission of Frontiers was to create a "community-oriented
open access scholarly publisher and social networking platform for
researchers."

 

Like most successful open access publishers Frontiers has attracted
controversy along the way. There have been complaints, for instance, about
its peer review process (including an oft-repeated claim that its editorial
system does not allow papers to be rejected), complaints about the level of
"spam" it bombards researchers with, and complaints that its mode of
operating is inappropriately similar to the one used by multi-level
marketing company Amway.

 

Frontiers has also attracted criticism for publishing a number of
controversial papers, and in 2014 it was accused of caving in to specious
libel threats by retracting a legitimate paper. 

 

The wave of criticism reached a peak last October when Jeffrey Beall added
Frontiers to his list of "potential, possible, or probable predatory
scholarly open-access publishers".

 

But Frontiers has no shortage of fans and supporters, not least amongst its
army of editors and authors. It has also received public support from a
number of industry organisations. 

 

Supporters suspect that much of the criticism comes from researchers who
have failed to understand, or are not comfortable with, Frontiers'
distinctive "impact-neutral" collaborative peer review process.

 

A detailed Q with CEO and Co-Founder of Frontiers Kamila Markram can be
read here:

 

http://poynder.blogspot.ca/2016/02/the-oa-interviews-kamila-markram-ceo.html

 

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

[GOAL] The OA Interviews: Mikhail Sergeev, Chief Strategy Officer at Russia-based CyberLeninka

[Richard Poynder]

Open access advocates in Europe are becoming increasingly concerned that OA
is in danger of being appropriated by publishers, and in a way that will see
the "publishing oligopoly" maintain an unhealthy grip on scholarly
communication. Amongst other things, they worry, it will allow legacy
publishers to continue charging the research community excessive fees for
the services they provide.

 

Keen to find alternative models, some have been casting jealous eyes on the
Global South and pointing to Latin American initiatives like SciELO and
Redalyc. Both these services started out as online bibliographic databases,
but over time have added more and more freely-available full-text content
from regional journals. Today SciELO hosts 573,525 research articles from
1,249 journals. Redalyc has more than 425,000 full-text articles from over
1,000 journals.

 

But does Western Europe need to look as far afield as Latin America for this
kind of model? The Moscow-based CyberLeninka, for instance, reports that it
currently hosts 940,000 papers from 990 regional journals, all of which are
open access, and approximately 70% of which are available under a CC BY
licence. And it has amassed this content in just three years.

 

Moreover, CyberLeninka has achieved this without the support of either the
Russian government, or any private venture capital, as Chief Strategy
Officer at CyberLeninka Mikhail Sergeev explains in a Q Rather, the
service was created, and is maintained, by just five people working from
home. The goal: to create a prototype for a Russian open science
infrastructure.

 

But could CyberLeninka be developing a solution that the West could learn
from? 

 

The Q with Sergeev can be access here:
http://poynder.blogspot.ru/2016/01/the-oa-interviews-mikhail-sergeev-chief.h
tml

 

 

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

[GOAL] The OA Interviews: Toma Susi, physicist, University of Vienna

[Richard Poynder]

Since the birth of the open access movement in 2002, demands for greater
openness and transparency in the research process have both grown and
broadened. Today there are calls not just for OA to research papers, but
(amongst other things) to the underlying data, to peer review reports, and
to lab notebooks. 

 

In response to these developments, earlier this year the Research Ideas &
Outcomes (RIO) Journal was launched. RIO's mission is to open up the entire
research cycle - by publishing project proposals, data, methods, workflows,
software, project reports and research articles. These will all be made
freely available on a single collaborative platform. 

 

Unsurprisingly perhaps, the first grant proposal made openly available on
RIO was published by a physicist - Finnish-born Toma Susi, who is based at
the University of Vienna in Austria. 

 

An interview with Susi about his proposal, and his experience of publishing
on RIO is available here:

 

http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/the-oa-interviews-toma-susi-physicist.
html

 

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

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

[Richard Poynder]

I don't think it matters whether or not it is a rubbish argument. If that is
what politicians believe, or how they want to justify their decisions, then
the strength or weakness of the argument is not the key factor. And as
Andrew Odlyzko points out, it may be more a case of protecting jobs than tax
receipts. Certainly the UK has talked in terms of supporting the publishing
industry, and The Netherlands will (as you say) have that in mind. Both
these countries are in the vanguard of pushing for national deals with
publishers, and both are seeking to persuade other countries to do the same
- as was doubtless what the UK sought to do in 2013 when it had G8
Presidency:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/g8-science-ministers-statement.

 

That said, this CNI presentation argues that the US and Europe could be
moving in different directions with OA:
https://www.cni.org/topics/e-journals/is-gold-open-access-sustainable-update
-from-the-uc-pay-it-forward-project. But even if that is true today, for how
long will they drift apart?

 

The fact is that the OA movement has spent the last 13 years arguing with
itself. During that time it has convinced governments and research funders
that OA is desirable. What is has not done is shown how it can be achieved
effectively. In such situations, at some point governments inevitably step
in and make the decisions. And that is how Dutch Minister Sander Dekker
expressed it last year: "[W]hy are we not much farther advanced in open
access in 2014? The world has definitely not stood still in the last ten
years. How can it be that the scientific world - which has always been a
frontrunner in innovation - has made so little progress on this? Why are
most scientific journals still hidden away behind paywalls?"
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/toespraken/2014/01/28/open-acess-goi
ng-for-gold

 

In the absence of unity in the OA movement, who better for governments to
work with in order to achieve OA than with publishers, either directly, or
by instructing national research funders to get on with it (as the UK did
with RCUK). 

 

This suggests to me that the OA is set to slip into closed mode, with
behind-closed-doors meetings and negotiations. As Andrew points out, "Secret
national-level negotiations with commercial entities about pricing are not
uncommon."

 

Richard Poynder

 

 

 

 

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf
Of Velterop
Sent: 30 December 2015 16:05
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
Subject: [GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

 

What a rubbish argument! This can only be true of a small country with a
disproportionally massive commercial scholarly publishing sector (that isn't
avoiding taxes via some small island tax haven). 

The Netherlands? Perhaps Britain? That's it.

Jan Velterop

On 30/12/2015 12:25, Richard Poynder wrote:

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.

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

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

[Richard Poynder]

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] On Behalf Of 
David Prosser
Sent: 30 December 2015 10:24
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <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 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 <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: "Let them pay or let them wait"

[Richard Poynder]

But it is not a co-conspiracy -- much as conspiratorial thinking comes in handy 
at lean times when there is nothing new to talk about. 

 

So although the dupees have themselves to blame for allowing themselves to be 
duped, that does not put them on the same plane of culpability as the dupers. 
After all, it is the dupers who gain from the duping, and the dupees who lose, 
whether or not they have themselves to blame for falling for it.

 

Blaming the victim, as Richard does, below, also has a long predigree 
<http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0364.html>  in this Forum, 
but I will not rebut it again in detail. The short answer is that adopting 
effective Green OA mandates (rather than vilifying the victims for their 
foolishness) is the remedy for all the damage the victims have unwittingly 
allowed to be done them for so long.

 

And stop fussing about metrics. They too will sort themselves out completely 
once we have universally mandated (and provided) green OA.

 

Richard Poynder: What Jean-Claude’s criticism of large publishers like Elsevier 
and Wiley omits is the role that the research community has played in their 
rise to power, a role that it continues to play. In fact, not only has the 
research community been complicit [emphasis added] in the rise and rise of the 
publishing oligarchy that Jean-Claude so deprecates, but one could argue that 
it created it — i.e. this oligarchy is a creature of its own making. 

After all, it is the research community that funds these publishers, it is 
the research community that submits papers to these publishers (and signs over 
copyright in the process), and it is the research community that continues to 
venerate the brands (essentially a product of the impact factor) that allow 
these publishers to earn the high profits that Jean-Claude decries.

And by now seeking to flip this oligarchy’s journals to OA the research 
community appears to be intent on perpetuating its power (and doubtless 
profits).

One might therefore want to suggest that Jean-Claude’s animus is 
misdirected.

 

So are Richard's reproaches.

 

Your increasingly bored archivangelist,

 

Stevan Harnad

 

 

>>> 

 

And I might be tempted to suggest that Stevan has misinterpreted what I said. 
But I am happy to let him have the last word (I would hate to be charged with 
conspiring to fuel the boredom of a bored archivangelist!)

 

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

[GOAL] Re: "Let them pay or let them wait"

[Richard Poynder]

God forbid that I should find myself defending a for-profit publisher, and
God forbid that I should charge anyone with speaking with a forked tongue,
but I cannot help but think that OA advocates sometimes allow their animus
towards Elsevier (and its employees) to get the better of their good wisdom.

I also cannot help but point out that on a separate mailing Jean-Claude
Guédon has been arguing that "flipping" subscription journals to OA models
is as valid a way of achieving open access as self-archiving. Yet, flipping
subscription journals will in the long run benefit legacy publishers like
Elsevier far more than it will ever benefit the research community. 

That aside, I am not aware that Alicia Wise has ever been anything other
than polite to members of this list. It does not show open access in a good
light that every time she posts to the list her comments generate the kind
of response we see below.

Richard Poynder


-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf
Of Guédon Jean-Claude
Sent: 24 December 2015 17:32
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
Subject: [GOAL] Re: "Let them pay or let them wait"

Hear! Hear!

Alicia Wise always speaks with a forked tongue! I wonder how much she is
paid to practise this dubious art.

Self-archiving as described by Stevan is the right way to go.

Happy holidays to all those exploited by Elsevier!

Jean-Claude Guédon



De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] de la part de
Stevan Harnad [amscifo...@gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 23 décembre 2015
08:18 À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Objet : [GOAL] "Let
them pay or let them wait"

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)
<a.w...@elsevier.com<mailto:a.w...@elsevier.com>> wrote:
Hi Thomas -

All our authors, no matter where in the world they are, have both gold and
green Open Access publishing options.

With best wishes for a peaceful and relaxing holiday season,

Alicia
Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane,
Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084,
Registered in England and Wales.

Translation of Alicia’s Xmas message:

"Let them pay (gold fees) or let them wait (green embargoes)."

I add only that they can (if they have any sense at all) completely ignore
all of Elsevier’s absurd, incoherent, and ever-changing
double-talk<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?serendipity%5Baction%5D=
search%5BsearchTerm%5D=systematic%5BsearchButton%5D=
%3E> about green and make their refereed, revised final drafts green OA
immediately upon acceptance for  publication -- by self-archiving them.

With best wishes for a peaceful and relaxing holiday season,

Stevan

On 22 Dec 2015, at 17:39, Thomas Hervé Mboa Nkoudou
<thomasm...@gmail.com<mailto:thomasm...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On this post,

http://www.scidev.net/global/publishing/news/elsevier-african-open-access-jo
urnal.html,

Elsevier plans an African Open Journals, using the Gold voice. But for me,
it is not the right way for us (Africa).

I want all GOAL members to join me in an open letter adressed to Elsevier,
with the objective to claim the full green voice for Africa.

Since I am an African searcher, your support will be helpful


___
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] The open access movement slips into closed mode

[Richard Poynder]

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] Re: Insistence by researchers that we do not make metadata available prior to publication for Nature, NEJM and Cell journals

[Richard Poynder]

I think this conversation has strayed a little from Danny Kingsley’s original 
message (as has the subject line). I have reverted to the original title, and 
attach Danny’s message again at the bottom. 

 

As I read it, Danny’s question was not about whether universities can make the 
full-text available on acceptance, but whether they can make the metadata 
discoverable at that point. MRC’s Geraldine Clement-Stoneham replied, “One of 
the issues with the HEFCE requirement to add article metadata to a repository 
at the acceptance stage, was that this could inadvertently breach such 
publishers’ embargo by release some (even if not much) information about the 
paper ahead of time. I believe this is what your researcher is concerned about. 
I am not sure that at this stage there is a way around it, but it would deserve 
a wider conversation.”

 

HEFCE responded to this on Twitter by saying that the matter has been addressed 
and resolved in its FAQ (5.1) — 
(https://twitter.com/ersatzben/status/669920110849708032). 5.1 says the 
following:

 

5.1. When do outputs need to become discoverable?

We would expect outputs to become discoverable as soon as possible after 
deposit to allow for maximum visibility and use of the deposited work.

When depositing on acceptance: If the paper cannot be made discoverable until 
it is published, the repository record need not become discoverable (‘live’) 
until publication. In these circumstances, we would expect the output to be 
discoverable as soon as possible after the point of first publication 
(including any early online publication), but we encourage early 
discoverability. For the purposes of reporting, outputs of this nature should 
be considered to be following Route 2 in the access requirements of the policy.

 

By my reckoning this means that HEFCE acknowledges that neither the paper nor 
the metadata need be made discoverable at acceptance stage. However, it does 
not address Danny’s issue so much as confirm that HEFCE accepts publishers’ 
right to impose such restrictions.

 

HEFCE’s 5.1 also does not address the problem of how repository managers can 
know what different publishers’ policies are on metadata being discoverable 
before publication. (Danny believes she needs written confirmation from 
publishers as to what their policy is. Clearly, it would be better if the 
information from all publishers was publicly available in one place). 

 

More importantly, it does not address Danny’s final point, which was: “If 
anyone cracks an automated way of finding whether an accepted article has been 
published (given that hybrid journal articles are poorly indexed and that 
article titles can change etc.) we would love to hear about it.” This, of 
course, is a further knowledge problem repository managers appear to face. 

 

As a matter of interest, what is the average time span between acceptance and 
publication? 

 

Richard Poynder

 

 

 

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Stevan Harnad
Sent: 26 November 2015 23:26
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
Cc: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Instistence by researchers that we do not make metadata

 

 

On Nov 26, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Thom Blake <thom.bl...@york.ac.uk 
<mailto:thom.bl...@york.ac.uk> > wrote:

 

Hello Stevan,

 

HEFCE does not require immediate OA but it does, very reasonably,

expect immediate 'discoverability' on deposit (i.e. acceptance).

This is where the conflict comes in. The 3 months should be enough

time for publication but sadly this isn't always the case. 

 

Nope, it’s deposit of the full-text and “discoverability" of the metadata 
(Title, author, etc.) 

on acceptance (+ 3). Nothing whatsoever to do with the Ingelfinger Rule.

 

Difficult to understand how there can be misunderstanding of something so clear 
and simple.

 

Best wishes,

 

Stevan


>>

 

Hi,

 

I have just had a fraught conversation with a researcher who supports open 
access and what the OA policies in the UK are trying to achieve. 

But he is saying that we cannot under any circumstances make the metadata 
available for Nature, NEJM and Cell journals available prior to publication. He 
said he personally knows that people's papers have been pulled from Nature and 
NEJM for this reason. He said he became aware of the issue because the details 
of a recent paper of his that is not yet published turned up in Google Scholar 
when he was looking for something else (evidence that our are indexing is very 
good BTW, but that's a separate issue).

 

So this raises a few issues:

 

1. I think I need to get written confirmation from these journals about what 
their policy is relating to metadata being available prior to publication - 
does anyone have anything along these lines they can share?

 

2. There is a risk that if we start putting articles in these specific journals 

[GOAL] The OA Interviews: ScienceOpen's Alexander Grossmann

[Richard Poynder]

In his time, the founder and president of ScienceOpen, Alexander Grossmann,
has sat on both sides of the scholarly publishing table. He started out as a
researcher and lecturer, working variously at the Jülich Research Centre,
the Max Planck Institute in Munich and the University of Tübingen.

 

Then in 2001 he reinvented himself as a publisher, working first at
Wiley-Blackwell, and subsequently as managing director at Springer-Verlag
GmbH in Vienna, and a vice president at De Gruyter.

 

An important moment for Grossmann came in 2008, when Springer acquired the
open-access publisher BioMed Central from serial entrepreneur Vitek Tracz.
Listening to a presentation on the purchase given at a management meeting by
the company’s CEO Derk Haank, Grossmann immediately saw the logic of the
move, and the imperatives of open access.

 

In 2013, therefore, Grossmann partnered with Boston-based entrepreneur and
software developer Tibor Tscheke to found a for-profit OA venture called
ScienceOpen. At the same time, he took a post as professor of publishing
management at the Leipzig University of Applied Sciences. 

 

A Q with Grossmann can be accessed here:
http://poynder.blogspot.de/2015/11/the-oa-interviews-scienceopens.html

 

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

[GOAL] Inside Higher Ed: All six editors and all 31 editorial board members of Lingua resign over Elsevier

[Richard Poynder]

I am posting this message on behalf of Jean-Claude Guédon:

 

 

The article below (thanks to Colin Steele) is an example of a courageous
move that must be supported by the libraries.

With regard to the Lingua (now Glossa) editorial board, libraries could, for
example,

1. Remove access to Lingua going forward (keep access to archive up to
December 31st, 2015) if caught in a Big Deal; remove Lingua from
subscriptions, starting in 2016, if not in a Big Deal

2. Support Glossa (the new journal) financially,

3. Promote Glossa widely. ERIH is already classifying the new journal at the
level of its current status by arguing that the quality of a journal is
linked to the editors and editorial board, and not to the publisher.

Researchers in linguistics, of course, should boycott Elsevier's Lingua from
now on.

This event also demonstrates the importance for Learned and scientific
societies not to sell the title of their journals to publishers. So long as
we foolishly evaluate research according to the place where it is published
(i.e. a journal title), publishers will hold a strong trump card.

Finally, this event displays the incredible behaviour of the multinational,
commercial, publishers with particular clarity. These are not the friends of
the scientific communication system we need.

 

>> 

 

Extract from Inside Higher Ed article:

 

“All six editors and all 31 editorial board members of Lingua, one of the
top journals in linguistics, last week resigned to protest Elsevier's
policies on pricing and its refusal to convert the journal to an open-access
publication that would be free online. As soon as January, when the
departing editors' noncompete contracts expire, they plan to start a new
open-access journal to be called Glossa.”

 

The article can be read in full here: 

 

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/02/editors-and-editorial-board-q
uit-top-linguistics-journal-protest-subscription-fees

 

For a list of some of the other coverage of this issue see here:
http://kaivonfintel.org/2015/11/05/lingua-roundup/

 

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

[GOAL] OA Interviews, Scholastica blog

[Richard Poynder]

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Danielle Padula http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal> >
> Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Interview inquiry, Scholastica blog
> Date: October 19, 2015 at 3:54:21 PM GMT-4
> To: Stevan Harnad http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal> >
> 
> Hi Stevan, 
> 
> I hope this email finds you well! I wanted to let you know that I just
posted your interview to the blog. Here's a link:
http://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/131505407913/the-open-access-stories-stev
an-harnad-oa-pioneer
<http://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/131505407913/the-open-access-stories-ste
van-harnad-oa-pioneer>

 

Below are links to the other OA interviews on the Scholastica blog:

 

Jesper Sørensen, Editor-in-Chief of Sociological Science:
http://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/131554324943/the-open-access-stories-jesp
er-s%C3%B8rensen

 

Torsten Reimer, Imperial College OA and Research Data Management:
http://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/131558355223/the-open-access-stories-tors
ten-reimer-imperial

 

Roland Meesters, Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Applied Bioanalysis:
http://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/131621729568/the-open-access-stories-rola
nd-meesters

 

Ian Beilin, Editor of In the Library with the Lead Pipe:
http://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/131684849988/the-open-access-stories-ian-
beilin-editor-of-in

 

Amy Vilz & Molly Poremski Co-Editors-in-Chief, The Reading Room:
http://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/131688536528/the-open-access-stories-amy-
vilz-molly-poremski

 

Alison Mudditt, Director of University of California Press:
http://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/131754612078/the-open-access-stories-alis
on-mudditt-director

 

Alexander Grossmann, Co-Founder of ScienceOpen:
http://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/131786121688/the-open-access-stories-alex
ander-grossmann

 

Sean Michael Morris, Co-Director of Hybrid Pedagogy:
http://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/131787060323/the-open-access-stories-sean
-michael-morris

 

Richard Poynder, Reporter of the OA Movement:
http://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/131902107928/the-open-access-stories-rich
ard-poynder-reporter

 

 

Elsewhere, on the Editage website:

 

Abel Packer, co-founder of SciELO:
http://www.editage.com/insights/taking-open-access-one-step-further-the-role
-of-scielo-in-the-global-publication-landscape

 

Richard Poynder, independent blogger/journalist:
http://www.editage.com/insights/the-research-deposited-in-repositories-is-no
t-always-freely-or-easily-available

 

Apologies for the element of self-promotion in this list.

 

Richard Poynder

 

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

[GOAL] Re: [SCHOLCOMM] The Open Access Interviews: F1000 Founder Vitek Tracz

[Richard Poynder]

Dear Thomas,

Thank you for the feedback. I apologise if my message read like an
advertisement. But can I ask that you read the Q (along with my commentary
here: http://richardpoynder.co.uk/Tracz_Interview.pdf) before passing
judgement. If you were able to find time to do that I would hope you would
see what it has to do with open access, and I would hope you would be able
to conclude that my purpose was not to advertise F1000, but to discuss the
issues.

Best wishes,


Richard


-Original Message-
From: Thomas Krichel [mailto:kric...@openlib.org] 
Sent: 21 September 2015 12:54
To: Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@btinternet.com>
Cc: ACRL Scholarly Communication List <scholc...@ala.org>; Global Open
Access List <goal@eprints.org>
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] The Open Access Interviews: F1000 Founder Vitek
Tracz

  Richard Poynder writes

> A Q with Tracz is available here:
>
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/the-open-access-interviews-f1000.html

  This reads like an advertizing piece for ft1000. And since that
  is a subscription service, I wonder what it has to do with 
  open access?

-- 

  Cheers,

  Thomas Krichel  http://openlib.org/home/krichel
  skype:thomaskrichel

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

[GOAL] The Open Access Interviews: F1000 Founder Vitek Tracz

[Richard Poynder]

Vitek Tracz is a hero of the open access movement, and it is not hard to see
why. Fifteen years ago he founded the world's first for-profit OA publisher
BioMed Central (BMC), and pioneered pay-to-publish gold OA. Instead of
charging readers a downstream subscription fee, BMC levies an upfront
article-processing charge, or APC. By doing so it is able to cover its costs
at the time of publication, and so make the papers it publishes freely
available on the Internet.

 

Many said Tracz's approach would not work. But despite initial scepticism
BMC eventually convinced other publishers that it had a sustainable business
model, and so encouraged them to put their toes in the OA waters too. As
such, OA advocates believe BMC was vital to the success of open access. As
Peter Murray-Rust put it in 2010, "Without Vitek and BMC we would not have
open access".

 

Today Tracz has a new, more radical, mission, which he is pursuing with
F1000.

 

A Q with Tracz is available here:
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/the-open-access-interviews-f1000.html

 

A commentary on the issues arising from the interview is separately
available here: http://richardpoynder.co.uk/Tracz_Interview.pdf

 

Richard Poynder

 

 

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