On 2012-06-20, at 5:45 AM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote:
Hi Laurent,
Institutions already do have agreements with publishers via their libraries
and/or library consortia. This is certainly the case for INRIA.
Some humble advice for institutions and libraries:
Negotiate with publishers
Laurent makes an important point. OA policies are between the funders or
institutions and the researchers. These agreements come before any agreement
regarding copyright assignment between authors and publishers. So, it is the
job of publishers to decide if they are willing to live with the
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.ukwrote:
On 2012-06-20, at 5:45 AM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote:
Hi Laurent,
** **
Institutions already do have agreements with publishers via their
libraries and/or library consortia. This is certainly the case for
Hi David,
What I really liked about the Finch Report is that it points a way forward that
can enable different stakeholders to work together constructively to widen
access. Changes would be required from all stakeholders, but we would all get
further faster by working together. I know it
ELSEVIER FUNDING BODY AGREEMENTS POLICIES says in its second paragraph:
The agreements and policies are intended to support the needs of
Elsevier authors, editors and society publishing partners, and to
protect the quality and integrity of the peer-review process
Does it mean that the
On 2012-06-20, at 7:15 AM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote:
...perhaps time to explore opportunities to work with publishers?
No, precisely the opposite, I think: It's time for institutions to realize that
institutional
Green OA self-archiving policy is (and always has been) exclusively their
Below is my comment posted originally on Cameron Neylon's blog
http://cameronneylon.net/blog/first-thoughts-on-the-finch-report-good-steps-but-missed-opportunities/#comment-562279021.
Can be of interest for GOAL.
/On publicity front the Finch Report is a good news, as it restates that
Open
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:15 PM, THE DIRECTOR OF UNIVERSAL ACCESS,
ELSEVIER wrote:
Hi David,
** **
What I really liked about the Finch Report is that it points a way forward
that can enable different stakeholders to work together constructively to
widen access. Changes would be
Hi Stevan,
Elsevier has an agreement with one funding body that results in the posting of
100% of the articles flowing from its grant funding. There's no merit to
working with publishers on sustainable approaches to green open access?
Really??
And with that, I'm going to duck back down
What I really, and I mean *really* like about this exchange is that
priorities are finally being set up right. The business of research is
between researchers and the institutions supporting research.
Researchers ought to communicate among themselves as they choose, and
not as external players
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.ukwrote:
On
(And advise institutional researchers to ignore incoherent clauses
in their copyright agreements: Anything of the form P but not-P -- e.g.
you retain the right to self-archive, but not if you are required to
Alicia,
What on earth business is it of Elsevier what the arrangements I have with my
funding body or university? You are seriously overreaching in your arrogance
to presume to interfere. You either give me (i.e. all authors) the right to
make a green deposit or you don't. This overweening
Does exploring the possibilities to work with publishers mean the pleasure
for some institutions to receive individual visits from publishers in order to
control of the way the archive is filled?
I have been informed that last year, Elsevier has solicited an appointment with
the French
I find it very sad that the response on this list has been to denigrate both
the Finch report's authors and publishers in general. It would seem that
the (relatively small number of) primary contributors to this list take it
as an article of faith that publishers are to be hated and destroyed;
The mistake authors make is to 'pay' publishers for their services by
transferring copyright. They should pay with money and get open access. Full
open access, CC-BY.
The reason why they pay is that they want services. Let's call those services
'formal publishing'. They don't need those
Stevan:
Thomas's humbug advice is not incompatible with green open access or with
mandates. In fact, it would accelerate the evolution of open access.
You equate access to the pay-walled literature with institutional site
licenses. There are other ways to gain access:
1. Obtain a personal
On 2012-06-20, at 10:22 AM, Sally Morris wrote:
I find it very sad that the response on this list has been to denigrate both
the Finch report's authors and publishers in general. It would seem that the
(relatively small number of) primary contributors to this list take it as an
article of
There is significant publisher investment often overlooked when publishing
costs are mentioned in wooing individuals in academia and other research arenas
to participate in publisher endeavors. What publishers' primary
constituents--authors and editors and researchers (and yes readers) ---want
On 2012-06-20, at 10:30 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:
The mistake authors make is to 'pay' publishers for their services
by transferring copyright.
Publishers are paid, in full, by institutional subscriptions.
They should pay with money and get open access.
Publication is being paid for already.
Would it be useful to have a listing available to let working scientists know
which publications they should avoid using,
based on field and, more important, on the publishing policies of the publisher?
Steve Berry
___
GOAL mailing list
It is not a question of hating publishers; it is a question of placing
them in their rightful place. David Prosser, very aptly, defined
publishers as a service industry. This is excellent. Let publishers
behave like a service industry, while recognizing that other kinds of
actors and financial
Preston McAfee and I maintain a website http://www.journalprices.com/
that attempts to do something along these lines. We classify journals
in each field as
good values , intermediate values and bad values by comparing an
index based on price per article and price per citation with the median
Publications to avoid ... one could use http://www.journalprices.com
Journal Cost-Effectiveness 2011
Select a subject area and sort by price per article ... with descending
results ...
And quickly see the most outrageously priced journals.
The problem, however, is that the list could use
On 20 Jun 2012, at 16:21, Stevan Harnad wrote:
On 2012-06-20, at 10:30 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:
The mistake authors make is to 'pay' publishers for their services
by transferring copyright.
Publishers are paid, in full, by institutional subscriptions.
What does 'in full' mean here?
-- Forwarded message --
From: Frederick Friend ucyl...@ucl.ac.uk
Date: Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 3:27 PM
Subject: A critique of the Finch Report
To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
*The Finch Report: a flawed and costly route to open access*
The Finch Report on access to UK
Gentle reader, please skip this if you have heard the same things
said by me and Jan over and over. If Jan posts again, I won't
reply. Please do not construe my silence as assent!
On 2012-06-20, at 2:54 PM, Jan Velterop wrote:
On 20 Jun 2012, at 16:21, Stevan Harnad wrote:
On 2012-06-20, at
26 matches
Mail list logo
