[GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals
Good question. And while we're at it, why after 20 years do we still use a stovepiped, disaggregated, print model construct as the primary vehicle for digitally networked scholarly communication? Paul F. Uhlir, J.D. Scholar, National Academy of Sciences, and Consultant, Data Policy and Management 4643 Aspen Hill Court Annandale, VA 22003 USA Tel. 703 941 0817; Cell +1 703 217 5143 Skype: pfuhlir; Email: pfuh...@gmail.commailto:pfuh...@gmail.com Web: http://www.paulfuhlir.comhttp://www.paulfuhlir.com/; Twitter: @paulfuhlir From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Jacinto Dávila [jacinto.dav...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 12:54 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals May I ask a couple of naïve questions? Why do we count journals? If we are all looking forward to a global, hopefully distributed archive of knowledge, shouldn't we counting papers or some other way of displaying solutions? El 29/4/2015 11:13, Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl escribió: I’ve always been amazed how Thomson/ISI categorized English language journals (mostly published in de US/UK) as “international journals” and all other journals as “regional journals”. Should ask them. BTW Eric could you elaborate on what you say in your last sentence? Will Science Metrix launch a bibliometrics service based on GS data or do I have to interpret your words in another way? Jeroen [cid:image003.jpg@01D082A3.08BAE2D0] 101 innovations in scholarly communicationhttp://innoscholcomm.silk.co/ Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences Utrecht University Libraryhttp://www.uu.nl/library email: j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl telephone: +31.30.2536613tel:%2B31.30.2536613 mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3, Utrecht web: Jeroen Bosmanhttp://www.uu.nl/university/library/en/disciplines/geo/Pages/ContactBosman.aspx twitter @jeroenbosman/ @geolibrarianUBU profiles: : Academiahttp://uu.academia.edu/JeroenBosman / Google Scholarhttp://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-IfPy3IJhl=en / ISNIhttp://www.isni.org/28810209 / Mendeleyhttp://www.mendeley.com/profiles/jeroen-bosman/ / MicrosoftAcademichttp://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/51538592/jeroen-bosman / ORCIDhttp://orcid.org/-0001-5796-2727 / ResearcherIDhttp://www.researcherid.com/ProfileView.action?queryString=KG0UuZjN5WmCiHc%252FMC4oLVEKrQQu%252BpzQ8%252F9yrRrmi8Y%253DInit=YesSrcApp=CRreturnCode=ROUTER.SuccessSID=N27lOD6EgipnADLnAbK / ResearchGatehttp://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeroen_Bosman/ / Scopushttp://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.url?authorId=7003519484 / Slidesharehttp://www.slideshare.net/hierohiero / VIAFhttp://viaf.org/viaf/36099266/ / Worldcathttp://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n91-100619 blogging at: IM 2.0http://im2punt0.wordpress.com/ / Ref4UUhttp://ref4uu.blogspot.com/ - Trees say printing is a thing of the past From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Éric Archambault Sent: woensdag 29 april 2015 0:08 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals Jean-Claude has an excellent point. Our current outlook is extremely Western-centric. When I was in SPRU, professors (can’t remember if it was Pavitt or Ben Martin) used to joke that bibliometric measurement was highly influenced by the linguistic capacity of housewives in Philadelphia. Though today there might have been a shift towards Manila for data entry, it remains that bibliographic databases present a truncated view of the world, and bibliometrics a distorted, pro-Western/Northern Hemisphere biased view of science. If one can potentially advance the idea that all ground breaking science eventually makes it to Western journals, and that this is what current databases are reflecting, it would still remain that normal science follows similar rules in Russia, Japan, and China and yet a huge part of that content still goes unaccounted for. A normal US or UK paper is not any better than a normal Brazilian, Chinese, or Russian paper yet the former are frequently counted, the latter more frequently not. The low impact of non-Western countries is in part a reflection of the exclusion of journals published in non-English speaking countries, and Jean-Claude is right to say there are thousands of them. The effect on measurement is poisonous because national level self-citations are frequently excluded when journals are not published in English-language journal. If one wants to see the effect of removing
[GOAL] Re: Scopus and gold OA: open2closed, is this what we want?
Also, in this regard it should be noted that the US federal government places all the information that is directly produced in the scope of its activities in the public domain, exempting its works from copyright (under section 105 of the 1977 Copyright Act). That is the equivalent of the CC0 license. There is not even a requirement of attribution to USG works, once lawfully accessed and may be reused for any purpose. - Paul From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Eric F. Van de Velde Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 12:07 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Scopus and gold OA: open2closed, is this what we want? Heather: Open Access was never about eliminating any possibility to make money of scholarly publications. When it came to pricing of journals, it was at most to provide some balance: if the author-formatted version is available for free, you are still welcome to pay for the published version on the basis of what publishers add to the value of the paper. Scopus, Web of Knowledge, and others are providing services that may save you time. It is up to the customer to decide how much their time is worth. Of course, much of the pricing flexibility of scholarly publishers and service providers comes from the fact that most of their customers do not pay for the service themselves. Their libraries do. A standard principle agent problem... --Eric. http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com Twitter: @evdvelde E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.commailto:eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl wrote: Heather, The share of OA papers is probably way lower, because those 14% OA journals have on average much less volumes indexed in Scopus than the paywall journals. I wouldn't be surprised if it was below 5%. But was is more important, no one buys Scopus for the (abstract) content. Libraries license Scopus for its search functionality, citation links, author disambiguation, indexing terms, advanced search capabilities, affiliation histories, book chapter indexing etc etc. Access to the abstracts is in most cases free at the publisher platforms, no matter whether it concerns OA journals or paywalled journals. So I think it would not be fair to say Scopus is making big money out of Open Access content the way you do. Best, Jeroen Op 13 okt. 2014 om 17:11 heeft Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca het volgende geschreven: Elsevier's for-pay Scopus service includes More than 20,000 peer-reviewed journals, including 2,800 gold open access journals from: http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/scopus/content-overview 14% of the journal content for this commercial toll access service comes from gold OA. When OA advocates insist on granting blanket commercial rights downstream, is this the kind of future for scholarly communication that is envisaged, one that takes free content licensed CC-BY or CC-BY-SA and locks it up in service packages for sale for those who can pay? One of the visions of the original Budapest Open Access Initiative is that OA will share the learning of the rich with the poor and the poor with the rich. I argue that if the poor are convinced or coerced to give away their work for blanket commercial rights downstream and the result is services like Scopus, this is a much more straightforward sharing of the poor with the rich. A researcher in a developing country giving away their work as CC-BY gets the benefit of wider dissemination of their own work, but may be shut out of services like Scopus, the next generation of tools designed to advance research. BOAI: http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read Thanks very much to Elsevier, Scopus, and participating gold OA publishers for a great example of the downside of granting blanket commercial rights downstream. 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.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.orgmailto:GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.orgmailto:GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly articles
Interestingly, 2003 converges with the initial years of the open access movement... Paul From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Sally Morris [sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 8:17 AM To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' Subject: [GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly articles I find Andrew's experience surprising. When Cox Cox last looked into this (in 2008), 53% of publishers requested a copyright transfer, 20.8% asked for a licence to publish instead, and 6.6% did not require any written agreement. A further 19.6%, though initially asking for transfer of copyright, would on request provide a licence document instead. There had been a steady move away from transfer of copyright since 2003. Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Andrew A. Adams Sent: 05 February 2014 00:04 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly articles Chris Zielinski ziggytheb...@gmail.com wrote: But even more prudent authors simply shouldn't sign the copyright assignment form - publishers don't need anything more than a licence to publish. Good luck with that if you're anything other than a tenured professor with a track record that means where your recent papers are published won't effect funding decisions (individually or for your univesity). I tried to apply this rule myself a few years ago and after a couple of occasions of getting nowhere with the publishers decided that doing this individually was just harming my career and not having any impact on the journals. Now, I just archive and be damnedposting the author's final text (not the publisher PDF) in open depot ignoring any embargoes. If any publisher bothered to issue a take-down I'd reset to closed access (and always respond to button requests). None have so far. -- Professor Andrew A Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Journal cancellations are primarily about journal costs
Good points, Heather. But surely free and open OA publications are about cost too (i.e., free of cost). While almost all subscription journal articles that can be freely posted do not cut into the subscription base, there must be some correlation between the most expensive subscription journals and trepidation to allow OA access, especially non-embargoed. Has anyone done an analysis of the correlation of those two price structures? Paul F. Uhlir, J.D. Director, Board on Research Data and Information National Academy of Sciences, Keck-511 500 Fifth Street NW Washington, DC 20001 U.S.A. Tel.+1 202 334 1531; Cell +1 703 217 5143 Skype: pfuhlir; Email: puh...@nas.edu Web: www.nas.edu/brdihttp://www.nas.edu/brdi; Twitter: @paulfuhlir From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 2:53 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Journal cancellations are primarily about journal costs Journal cancellations are primarily about journal costs, not whether the content is available for free. In April of last year Harvard sent a memo to faculty informing them that they cannot continue to afford high priced journals and asking them to consider costs when deciding where to publish. The memo can be found here: http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k77982tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup143448 This is not an open access issue, rather another issue that needs to be addressed, and the drive for OA policy should not impede progress on necessary market corrections. May I suggest that research funding agencies should look carefully at the publishing record of academics (past, future plans, editing etc.), and look at high-priced choices the way funding agencies and committees in my area would look at grant submissions including first-class airfares at many times the cost of available economy airfares? best, -- Dr. Heather Morrison Assistant Professor École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies University of Ottawa http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca ALA Accreditation site visit scheduled for 30 Sept-1 Oct 2013 / Visite du comité externe pour l'accréditation par l'ALA est prévu le 30 sept-1 oct 2013 http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/accreditation.html http://www.esi.uottawa.ca/accreditation.html ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: [accesouvert] Gold??
…et autrement peut-etre c’est pier reviewed? From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Johnson Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 12:20 PM To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' Subject: [GOAL] Re: [accesouvert] Gold?? A propos de rien, a part un peu de curiosite… Que veut dire “novlangue”? Et n’y as t’il pas encore de traduction en francais pour “peer-reviewed”? Katherine Johnson Digital Repositories Coordinating Librarian Millikan Library 1-32 California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA 91125 Office: (626) 395-6065 Fax: (626) 792-7540 kjohn...@library.caltech.edumailto:kjohn...@library.caltech.edu From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 4:52 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: [accesouvert] Gold?? Les historiens qui écriront la chronique du passage traînard vers l'accès libre vont s'amuser à raconter comme les chercheurs préféraient rester affamés en débattant les vertus de la cuisine cordon bleu biologique pas encore abordable plutôt que de se sustenter avec la bonne cuistance campagnarde déjà disponible. 2013/3/26 Jean-Yves CHAPEAU jean-yves.chap...@uni.lumailto:jean-yves.chap...@uni.lu Bonjour, Traduire Open Access / Accès libre en gratuit pour le lecteur reviendrait à supprimer 2/3 du concept d'Open Access. Le concept d'Open Access, c'est : 1) pas de barrière financière à l'accès (à la littérature peer-reviewed) 2) pas de barrière technique ou juridique à l'accès (à la littérature peer-reviewed) 3) liberté de rediffuser ou de réutiliser (en citant la source) (la littérature peer-reviewed) Je ne suis pas fan de la novlangue mais l'Open Access n'est pas qu'un terme , c'est un concept... qui ne se limite pas à trouver un début de solution au problème du coût de l'accès à la publication scientifique (ou qui aurait pour but de faire la peau aux éditeurs) Cordialement/Cordially, Jean-Yves Chapeau -Original Message- From: accesouvert-requ...@groupes.renater.frmailto:accesouvert-requ...@groupes.renater.fr [mailto:accesouvert-requ...@groupes.renater.frmailto:accesouvert-requ...@groupes.renater.fr] On Behalf Of allou...@math.jussieu.frmailto:allou...@math.jussieu.fr Sent: 25 March 2013 21:40 To: accesouv...@groupes.renater.frmailto:accesouv...@groupes.renater.fr Subject: Re: [accesouvert] Gold?? Je crois de plus en plus qu'il serait sage de choisir des termes parfaitement definis et non parasit'es par des considerations politiques ou commeciales : clairement les mots acces libre gold ou pas gold ont plusieurs acceptions et sont recuperes tour `a tour par les uns et par les autres *avec des sens DIFFERENTS*. En particulier on a bien compris que les differences consistent essentiellement `a savoir qui paie quoi et si ou pas l'article a ete arbitre/refere/valide par les pairs. Il serait lumineux de le dire lorsque l'on parle : on remplacerait acces libre par gratuit pour le lecteur, avec abonnement par payant pour le lecteur. De meme on aurait avec frais de publication pour l'auteur ou son institution qu'on pourrait peut-etre simplifier en avec frais de publication et `a l'oppose gratuit pour l'auteur. On distinguerait aussi entre pretirage (en anglais preprint) non necessairement arbitre/relu/refere, et article arbitre. Puis retirage (dans le cas du papier on dit tiré à la suite qui est plus juste que tiré à part) qu'on pourrait specifier par exemple en retirage gratuit couvrant ainsi le cas de la periode post-embargo et celui du depot de la version n ou n-1 dans une archive gratuite. On saurait enfin de quoi les uns et les autres parlent et les ambiguites --pas necessairement innocentes...-- disparaitraient si la terminologie est parfaitement claire. Et on se debarrasserait des mots ambigus comme acces libre gold etc. etc. En clair appeler un chat un chat... et en finir avec le double langage, voire la double novlangue... jpa BAUIN Serge serge.ba...@cnrs-dir.frmailto:serge.ba...@cnrs-dir.fr a écrit : Oui, et la maison d'édition ne doit pas être mise au centre. Envoyé d'un téléphone portable, désolé pour le caractère cavalier... Le 25 mars 2013 à 21:23, Vincent Battesti x...@vbat.orgmailto:x...@vbat.orgmailto:x...@vbat.orgmailto:x...@vbat.org a écrit : Donc, l'article du Monde À qui appartient le savoir? use d'une définition non partagée de Gold open access ? Voir la figure. [http://s1.lemde.fr/image/2013/03/01/310x0/1841302_5_aa7c_ill-1841302- e8e0-web-scie-0913-parcours-publicat_92a432d5571905d1dfead832ed069a18. png] Réf.: 2013/02/28/a-qui-appartient-le-savoir_1840797_1650684.html Cordialement, Vincent Battesti Anthropologue CNRS http://ⓥⓑⓐⓣ.org Muséum national d’histoire naturelle, Paris New York University, NYC Le 25/03/13 09:52, « BAUIN Serge »
[GOAL] Re: Thank you Jeffrey Beall!
Kudos to Jeffrey Beall, and regrets for the negative spam you have endured. Jeffrey, even though it may create some extra traffic for everyone on this listserv, may I suggest that you forward at least examples of the offending spam attacks, so that we are all well informed and can perhaps help or independently evaluate those messages. I realize that I am asking for something that everyone may not appreciate nor that may be acceptable to members of this list or to the moderator, but nothing serves to expose darkness like light. In any case, keep up the good work, despite the efforts to curtail it! Best wishes, Paul From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison [hgmor...@sfu.ca] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:19 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); scholc...@ala.org T.F. Cc: SOAF post; BOAI Forum post Subject: [GOAL] Thank you Jeffrey Beall! My reaction: thank you, Jeffrey Beall! - both for the important service of tracking those predatory open access publishers, and for exposing this attempt to discredit you. Bravo! Further applause on IJPE: http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/12/a-huge-thank-you-to-jeffrey-beall.html best, Heather Morrison, PhD The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com On 18-Dec-12, at 9:48 AM, Peter Suber wrote: [Forwarding from Jeffrey Beall, via the ScholComm list. --Peter Suber.] Colleagues, I am the author of Scholarly Open Access, a blog that includes lists of questionable scholarly publishers and questionable independent journals. I'm writing to let people that I've been the victim of an ongoing, organized attempt to discredit me and my blog. Specifically, I've been a victim of email spoofing, in which someone is sending emails that appear to be from me but really are not. One of the spoofed emails is an offer to reevaluate a publisher's presence on my list for five thousand dollars. These emails try to make it look like I am extorting money from publishers. Also, someone is going around setting up new blogs that reprint the spoofed email or that include contrived quotes from scholars. An example is here. Additionally, someone is leaving negative comments about me and my work on various OA-related blogs and websites, writing in the names of people prominent in the OA movement. One place this occurred was in the comments section of my October Nature piece. The publisher has removed these spurious statements and closed further comments. I'm going to continue my work identifying questionable and predatory publishers as best I can. Because many of the publishers on my list are true criminals, it's no surprise that they would respond in a criminal way. I realize my blog is not perfect; I've made mistakes and have tried to learn from them. Many of you have given me valuable advice, and I have tried to implement the good advice as best I could. I have not engaged in any of the activities that they are trying to frame me with. Thanks for your understanding. Jeffrey Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor Scholarly Initiatives Librarian Auraria Library University of Colorado Denver 1100 Lawrence St. Denver, Colo. 80204 USA (303) 556-5936 jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu image001.jpg ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Nice blog post on OA
Not bad, except in economic terms, food is a private good (it is rivalrous and can be excluded, and can only be consumed only once), whereas publicly-funded research results (articles, data) on digital networks are public goods (they are non-rival and difficult or inefficient to exclude, since the value increases with use). So the situation is actually much worse than the analogy leads one to conclude.  Paul  From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of CHARLES OPPENHEIM [c.oppenh...@btinternet.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 6:53 AM To: GlobalOpen Access List ( Successor of Am Sci) Subject: [GOAL] Nice blog post on OA http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/feb/10/parable-farmers-teleporting- duplicator?CMP=twt_gu Very nice analogy! Charles  Professor Charles Oppenheim [ Part 2: Attached Text ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Re: On Not Conflating Open Data (OD) With Open Access (OA)
Apropos this discussion, for those interested in the management and policy details associated with scientific data, primarily from the US (government and National Academy of Sciences) perspectives, you may wish to refer to the following publications, going back 15 years. All are openly available. National Science Foundation [NSF] (2010), Sustainable Economics for a Digital Planet: Ensuring Long-Term Access to Digital Information. National Research Council [NRC] (2009a), Ensuring the Integrity, Availability, and Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age. NRC (2009b), The Socioeconomic Effects of Public Sector Information on Digital Networks: Toward a Better Understanding of Different Access and Reuse Policies, US CODATA. Office of Science and Technology Policy [OSTP] (2009), Harnessing the Power of Digital Data for Science and Society. Microsoft Research (2009), The Fourth Paradigm: Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery. Uhlir, et al. (2009), Toward Implementation Guidelines for the GEOSS Data Sharing Principles, published concurrently in the Journal of Space Law and the CODATA Data Science Journal. NSF (2008), Fostering Learning in the Networked World: The Cyberlearning Opportunity and Challenge. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2008), Recommendation on Principles for Access to Public Sector Information. OECD (2007), Principles and Guidelines for Access to Research Data from Public Funding. NRC (2007), Environmental Data Management at NOAA: Archiving, Stewardship, and Access. Uhlir and Schröder (2007), Open Data for Global Science. Uhlir (2007), The Emerging Role of Open Repositories for Scientific Literature as a Fundamental Component of the Public Research Infrastructure, in Open Access: Open Problems, G. Sica, ed., Polimetrica. NRC (2006), Strategies for Preservation of and Open Access to Scientific Data in China, US CODATA. Association of Research Libraries [ARL] (2006), To Stand the Test of Time: Long-term Stewardship of Digital Data Sets in Science and Engineering. National Science Board [NSB] (2005), Long-Lived Digital Data Collections: Enabling Research and Education in the 21st Century. NRC (2005), Expanding Access to Research Data: Reconciling the Risks and Opportunities. ERPANET and CODATA (2004), Electronic Preservation and Access Network Training: The Selection, Appraisal, and Retention of Digital Scientific Data NRC (2004a), Open Access and the Public Domain in Digital Data and Information for Science, ISTIP. (2004b), Electronic Scientific, Technical, and Medical Journal Publishing and Its Implications. (2004c), Licensing Geographic Data and Services. International Council for Science [ICSU] (2004), Scientific Data and Information: A Report of the Committee on Scientific Planning and Review Assessment Panel. Uhlir (2004), UNESCO Policy Guidelines on the Development and Promotion of Governmental Public Domain Information. NRC (2003a), The Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain, ISTIP. (2003c), Resolving Conflicts Arising from the Privatization of Environmental Data. (2003d), Ensuring the Quality of Data Disseminated by the Federal Government. (2003e), Sharing Publication-related Data and Materials: Responsibilities of Authorship in the Life Sciences. (2003g), Government Data Centers: Meeting Increasing Demands. NSF (2003), NSFâs Cyberinfrastructure Vision for 21st Century Discovery. Reichman and Uhlir (2003), A Contractually Reconstructed Research Commons for Scientific Data in a Highly Protectionist Intellectual Property Environment. NRC (2002a), Access to Research Data in the 21st Century. (2002b), Health Data in the Information Age: Use, Disclosure, and Privacy. (2002c), Geoscience Data and Collections: National Resources in Peril. NRC (2000a), Improving Access to and Confidentiality of Research Data. (2000b), The Digital Dilemma. NRC (1999), A Question of Balance: Private Rights and the Public Interest in Scientific and Technical Databases, US CODATA. NRC (1997), Bits of Power: Issues in Global Access to Scientific Data, US CODATA. NRC (1995), Preserving Scientific Data on Our Physical Universe: A New Strategy for Archiving the Nation's Scientific Information Resources, US CODATA. From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad [amscifo...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:11 PM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: On Not Conflating Open Data (OD) With Open Access (OA) When should research data be made OD? Not immediately upon collection, since then the collectors lose the first crack at mining their own hard-won data. Benjamin Geer suggests immediately upon publication (presumably the publication of a refereed journal article based on the data in question). But the first of the
Re: Captured product vs. service
I certainly agree with Marc that a non-exclusive license from the author to the publisher, along with whatever terms and conditions may be needed to, e.g., make back issues available in some format or other similar provisions, could address the problem raised by the APS via Steve. The transfer of full copyright is not required. The National Academy of Sciences, for instance, currently asks the authors of papers or presentations in symposium or conference proceedings to sign a non-exclusive license, not transfer the copyright.  Paul From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Marc Couture Sent: Sat 2/20/2010 3:16 PM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Captured product vs. service Steve Berry wrote: if the journal that published the article wants to make back issues available in some new format, e.g. some new electronic means, and the authors hold the copyrights, then the journal must get permission from every author to put their articles in the new format. There is another solution, much more author-friendly: instead of requiring transfer of the full copyright, then giving (back) the author some specific permissions, the journal could simply require to be granted a non-exclusive license to do what it wants, that is, to publish the article in any format. But it appears the APS wants more than make back issues available in some new format (see below). ... APS now holds the copyrights but gives authors full permission to distribute their articles with no constraint. This seems to achieve the situation for authors that we'd like to see, yet does not constrain the publisher.  It's true that, according to the APS copyright agreement (http://forms.aps.org/author/copytrnsfr.pdf), authors may distribute quite freely, in print and electronic formats, their postprints, or revised manuscripts. As publishers copyright agreements go, this is quite generous. But restrictions to the uses allowed the author do exist: for instance, use must not involve a fee; derivative works must contain less than 50% of the original and at least 10% of new content. This means that an author could not publish a translation, or a slightly modified version of his article, as a book chapter, without permission from the publisher. I think this could also qualifiy as a situation we (authors) would like to see. Marc Couture
Re: Captured product vs. service
Dear Steve, In response to your last question, yes, if the article is made available under an Attribution Only (ATT 3.0) Creative Commons license. This is the recommended license for open access journals and is already broadly in use. The advantage of this license is that it also allows various types of automated knowledge discovery. Paul -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Steve Berry Sent: Sun 2/21/2010 10:54 AM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject:     Re: Captured product vs. service There are multiple ways to achieve that same goal. If the society is willing to give up copyright altogether, that offers one pathway. For authors to give publishers unrestricted licenses is another. Both represent larger changes from the present system than for the publisher to give an unrestricted license to the author. But let's look one step further: can any reader, anyone who downloads a publication, distribute that download completely without restriction?        Just to stimulate...        Best to all,        Steve Berry On Feb 20, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Marc Couture wrote: Steve Berry wrote: if the journal that published the article wants to make back issues available in some new format, e.g. some new electronic means, and the authors hold the copyrights, then the journal must get permission from every author to put their articles in the new format. There is another solution, much more author-friendly: instead of requiring transfer of the full copyright, then giving (back) the author some specific permissions, the journal could simply require to be granted a non-exclusive license to do what it wants, that is, to publish the article in any format. But it appears the APS wants more than make back issues available in some new format (see below). ... APS now holds the copyrights but gives authors full permission to distribute their articles with no constraint. This seems to achieve the situation for authors that we'd like to see, yet does not constrain the publisher. It's true that, according to the APS copyright agreement (http://forms.aps.org/author/copytrnsfr.pdf ), authors may distribute quite freely, in print and electronic formats, their postprints, or revised manuscripts. As publishers copyright agreements go, this is quite generous. But restrictions to the uses allowed the author do exist: for instance, use must not involve a fee; derivative works must contain less than 50% of the original and at least 10% of new content. This means that an author could not publish a translation, or a slightly modified version of his article, as a book chapter, without permission from the publisher. I think this could also qualifiy as a situation we (authors) would like to see. Marc Couture
Re: Captured product vs. service
I was referring to the first license below, Les. It has very few restrictions. One could use the CC0 license, which dedicates the work to the public domain, but almost all scientists want attribution, since that is the currency of non-commercial intellectual work. This is why I would reject the pure public domain status of research publications that are the result of government funded research, as suggested by Michael Eisen. There are other reasons to treat the pure public domain option with scepticism, but that is the main one in my view. Paul -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Leslie Carr Sent: Sun 2/21/2010 4:52 PM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject:Â Â Â Â Â Re: Captured product vs. service On 21 Feb 2010, at 20:56, Uhlir, Paul wrote: In response to your last question, yes, if the article is made available under an Attribution Only (ATT 3.0) Creative Commons license. This is the recommended license for open access journals and is already broadly in use. The advantage of this license is that it also allows various types of automated knowledge discovery. CC licenses are not without restrictions! By Attribution Only do you mean http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ or http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ ? --- Les Carr
Report on the Socioeconomic Effects of Public Sector Information Online
The report announced below is focused on improving the understanding of different access and reuse policies for public sector information on digital networks --including publicly produced scientific information. Paul Uhlir Dear Colleague, While governments throughout the world have different approaches to how they make their public sector information (PSI) available and the terms under which the information may be reused, there appears to be a broad recognition of the importance of digital networks and PSI to the economy and to society. However, despite the huge investments in PSI and the even larger estimated effects, surprisingly little is known about the costs and benefits of different information policies on the information society and the knowledge economy. By understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the current assessment methods and their underlying criteria, it should be possible to improve and apply such tools to help rationalize the policies and to clarify the role of the internet in disseminating PSI. This in turn can help promote the efficiency and effectiveness of PSI investments and management, and to improve their downstream economic and social results. The workshop that is summarized in this volume, organized by the U.S. National Committee for CODATA and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, was intended to review the state of the art in assessment methods and to improve the understanding of what is known and what needs to be known about the effects of PSI activities. The report, The Socioeconomic Effects of Public Sector Information on Digital Networks, is available freely online at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12687 Questions or comments about this volume may be sent to me at the contact information below. Paul Uhlir Paul F. Uhlir, J.D. Director, NRC Board on Research Data and Information, and IAP Program on Digital Knowledge Resources and Infrastructure in Developing Countries The National Academies, Keck-511 500 Fifth Street NW Washington, DC 20001 USA Tel. + 1 202 334 1531 Fax + 1 202 334 2231 Email: puh...@nas.edu Web: http://www.national-academies.org/brdi Web: http://www.interacademies.net/CMS/Prog
Re: Elsevier's fake journal scandal
Sally, I don't wish to belabour the point, but I also don't want it to be missed. I appear to have been too oblique in my original comment, which may have obscured its relevance to you as well as to others on this listserv. What I meant to address was your assertion that you think it is a fallacy that publishers launch new journals in order to make money. The link I provided was to a report by Peter Suber that Elsevier in Australia launched 6 fake biomedical journals that included a series of sponsored article publications. Elsevier declined to name the sponsors, although when this story initially broke about the first two journals, it was reported that those were sponsored by Merck. It is quite clear, however, that all 6 journals were launched solely to make money, basically to provide infomercials written by Elsevier's clients under the guise of independent, peer-reviewed research results. More important than addressing your assertion, however, was to bring this scandal to the attention of the recipients of this listserv, since these incidents do not appear to have been widely reported. They strike me as a rather fundamental breach of scientific integrity and publishing ethics in the sensitive area of public health that should be of concern to everyone--researchers, publishers, and the broader public. Paul From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Sally Morris Sent: Sun 5/17/2009 4:48 AM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Kathryn Sutherland's Attack on OA in the THES Sorry Paul, I don't see the relevance of this to my general response to a wide-ranging and, IMHO, unfounded comment Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK Tel: +44(0)1903 871286 Fax: +44(0)8701 202806 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Uhlir, Paul Sent: 15 May 2009 22:38 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Kathryn Sutherland's Attack on OA in the THES Sally, you may wish to reconsider your assumptions and assertions in light of the following: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/05/elsevier-confirms-6-fake-journals -more.html Paul From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Sally Morris Sent: Fri 5/15/2009 10:56 AM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Kathryn Sutherland's Attack on OA in the THES Tenopir and King found that the average number of articles per journal was, in fact, increasing steadily. I think it's a fallacy that publishers launch new journals in order to make money; it is, surely, more profitable to expand an existing journal (assuming you can increase the price accordingly)? New journals take years to make any money, even if they succeed - and not all do Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK Tel: +44(0)1903 871286 Fax: +44(0)8701 202806 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 15 May 2009 15:33 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Kathryn Sutherland's Attack on OA in the THES -- Forwarded message -- From: Colin Smith at Open University I've just realised I quoted the wrong day in the email I just sent to the forum. It should have been Mon 11 May, not Fri. If this reaches you in time, please correct it during moderation. On Mon 11 May 2009 at 09:27 Sally Morris wrote: While Andrew Adams' letter makes some valid points, I would like to point out that the number of articles per author has not changed over many years (Tenopir and King have excellent data on this). Thus neither 'publish or perish' nor 'greedy publishers' have contributed in any way to the steady growth (not 'explosion') of research articles - it simply reflects growth in research funding, and thus number of researchers. Even if the number of articles per author has not changed significantly, surely the issue here is the number of journals in which those articles are published? Is there any data on this? If the steady growth in articles is being spread thinly across a larger number of titles then this could be interpreted as evidence for the needless launch of new journals in a saturated market. Anecdotally, I seem to come across more
Announcement: Symposium on Author Deposit Mandates for Government Grantees - 29 January 2009
I would like to announce two new activities of potential interest to the participants on this listserv. The first is the formation of a new Board on Research Data and Information at the U.S. National Research Council. The Board's mission is to improve the management, policy, and use of digital data and information for science and the broader society. The Board is funded by federal government agencies to provide advice and to serve as a forum to address these issues. Additional information about the Board may be obtained at our website: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/pga/brdi/index.htm. The Board's inaugural meeting will be held January 29-30, and will include a mini-Symposium on Author Deposit Mandates for Government Grantees. The symposium, which is open to the public and will be netcast (audio only), will begin at 4:30 EST (Washington, DC time) on the afternoon of Thursday, 29 January. Comments and questions from remote participants will be possible. Information about the symposium is available under Upcoming Events on the upper right corner of our website. In addition, the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP), an organization of the world's academies of sciences, has a new Program on Digital Knowledge Resources and Infrastructure in Developing Countries, which was initiated last year. This program is focused on the greater involvement of science academies in a number of areas in developing countries, including: OA digitization of valuable analog research material; open institutional repositories; socially beneficial research applications of data centers and networks; development of interactive open knowledge environments; and greater involvement by the academies in the promotion and use of high-speed research and education networks. The IAP Program's website, which is still being developed, is available with some preliminary information at: http://www.interacademies.net/CMS/Programmes/4704.aspx. Additional information about both the Board on Research Data and Information and the IAP Program can be obtained from me at puh...@nas.edu. Your comments, suggestions, and collaborations will be welcome. Paul Uhlir Paul F. Uhlir, J.D. Director, NRC Board on Research Data and Information, and IAP Program on Digital Knowledge Resources and Infrastructure in Developing Countries The National Academies, Keck-511 500 Fifth Street NW Washington, DC 20001 USA Tel. + 1 202 334 1531 Fax + 1 202 334 2231 Email: puh...@nas.edu Web: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/pga/brdi/index.htm Web: http://www.interacademies.net/CMS/Programmes/4704.aspx -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 10:45 PM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Fwd: Statement on Open Cyberinfrastructure from NSF From: Tony Hey Tony.Hey -- microsoft.com List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: January 5, 2009 10:34:40 PM EST (CA) To: Peter Suber peters -- earlham.edu, Stevan Harnad harnad -- ecs.soton.ac.uk Cc: Brewster Kahle brews...@archive.org Subject: Statement on Open Cyberinfrastructure from NSF Peter, Stevan At the recent December meeting of NSF's Advisory Committee on Cyberinfrastructure (ACCI) the following statement was agreed in the minutes of the previous meeting: In order to help catalyze and facilitate the growth of advanced CI, a critical component is the adoption of open access policy for data, publications and software. CI = Cyberinfrastructure. Brewster Kahle was one of the architects of this statement and I know that Brewster would like to see this advice from ACCI to NSF gain wide publicity. He may be willing to provide a supporting statement. Ed Seidel is the new Director of the Office of Cyberinfrastructure and the committee were also keen to see this more widely promoted ... Hope this is of interest ... Tony
