CAUTION: This e-mail originated outside the University of Southampton.
[please excuse cross-posting]
Dear all,
We are pleased to announce the completion of a study on open access diamond
journals: namely free to readers and authors. It is the first study of its
kind. It was commissioned by
Dear Victor, others,
indeed I have wondered about that as well. Of course, in Plan S the idea is to
require cost transparency. But the question is of course what is acceptable for
each of the services? If we can't have full diamond, some a APC could consist
of 50 USD/Euro each for:
-
Dear all,
these are indeed huge increases (https://www.mdpi.com/about/apc-2019-2), though
many have a 0 increase. Generally speaking this type of increases is part of
the model many publishers use when introducing new OA journals: start with a
very low introductory APC (or even a zero APC)
Dear Jan Erik,
The programme looks very promising, timely and important. Will this be live
streamed? Would be great (also in order to reduce the carbon footprint).
Kind reagrds,
Jeroen Bosman
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org On Behalf Of Jan Erik
Frantsvåg
Sent: vrijdag 4 augustus 2017 14:55
Dear Heather, all,
Just a few comments below in your post.
Jeroen Bosman
Original message
From: Heather Morrison
Date: 13/07/2018 17:54 (GMT+01:00)
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)"
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Why translating all scholarly knowledge for
Peter, Heather, Richard, Chris, others,
agree with Peter that we should not simply use the mantra that most OA journals
do not charge, as indeed those will mostly be the small ones. Would love to get
some data on business models used per article in DOAJ covered journals.
On the other hand,
Dear Serge,
Thanks for this. It is very interesting because there are similar developments
in the Netherlands. Problem is that in the Dutch law (with the new article 25fa
of the Auteurswet: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-33308-11) there
is no explicit period stated. It just says
Heather, others,
It would indeed be good to have better insight in real experienced unwelcome
downstream reuse. The first CC-licenses date from 2002. So we have over 15
years of experience.
Looking at data in BASE, I see these numbers of text publications with either a
CC-BY or CC-0 license
-50, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R6
Tel.: (613) 993 0288 Mobile: (613) 292 1789
stephen.dow...@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca<mailto:stephen.dow...@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> ~
http://www.downes.ca<http://www.downes.ca/>
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <goal-boun...@eprints.org> on b
r free and b) no
one downstream can legally include the work in a package of toll access
services?
2. "Public domain" means that no one can legally sell the work?
best,
Heather Morrison
---- Original message
From: "Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)" <j.bos...@uu.nl&
Heather,
Again, I think this argument creates much confusion.
Any publication shared with a CC-license is free of charges, as is any
publication in the public domain. Period.
(Just for reference, as I am sure that you know the license terms, this is what
the CC-BY license says: "a
Heather, others,
let's not mix things up. Copyright is not intended and useful to make
provenance chains in scholarly communication reliable, complete and efficient.
The norms of attribution in science and scholarship are separate from copyright
or public domain status. There are created,
Dear all,
over the past few weeks Bianca Kramer and I have been test driving the new
option in Web of Science to filter publications by OA-status. This option has
replaced the earlier filter that only determined OA status at the journal level
and thus only had papers from full gold OA journals
Dear Amy,
thanks for pointing us to this survey. I am interested in participating. Before
doing that I would like to know whether data and the report will be shared
openly. For me that is much more of an incentive than the chance to buy
something at Amazon.
Could you tell us how
Dear Heather,
Thanks for this and for your ongoing efforts in tracking OA developments. A
small correction: DOAJ foresees its 2.5 millionth article not 250 millionth). I
think it would be good if OA indexing and aggregating services, esp. the
non-commercial ones (SHARE, Base search, DOAJ
Apologies. Sorry the correct link in this mail should be:
https://www.utrechtsummerschool.nl/courses/science/open-science-and-scholarship-changing-your-research-workflow
Jeroen Bosman
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)
Sent
Dear all,
To include the contribution to knowledge by humanities people I always speak of
open science and scholarship. And to me there is certainly no hierarchical
relationsship between open science & scholarship and open education, open
source or the other opens. I can live with them being
Fully agree. Let's not employ newspeak. Elsevier is the single most important
obstacle to achieving and getting support for open access. Period. .
Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
Original message
From: Ross Mounce
Dear John,
this is interesting and good work. However, Ï'm a bit puzzled as the GRID is
still empty. Is it your intention to crowdsource the "answers" to fill the grid
with? Of course there are often no simple answers. They'll need to be generic
yet nuanced.
BTW As a discovery pathway I would
Dear all,
This might interest you. Today, the main Dutch research funder NWO issued a new
tighter Open Access mandate:
http://www.nwo.nl/en/news-and-events/news/2015/from-as-soon-as-possible-to-immediate-open-access.html
Best,
Jeroen
[101-innovations-icon-very-small]
scholarly
Dear all,
I would like to take this opportunity to point you to a survey that
investigates how research tool usage varies by field, country, position and
career length. It is part of our research project here at Utrecht University
that aims to chart the changing landscape of scholarly
Dear Eric,
Though I agree simply accepting one man’s list is not sustainable, I doubt
creating yet another list is the best way forward. There are already so many
lists out there. Every new initiative seems to dilute and weaken efforts.
Please let’s just try to tie the initiatives together
Heather,
these are useful data, but in the interpretation of these we will have to
reckon with journal size distributions. What would be helpful is having data on
the number of articles in these journals. It is very likely that smaller
journals are overrepresented in the non-APC OA group and
: Andrew A. Adams [mailto:a...@meiji.ac.jp]
Sent: vrijdag 22 mei 2015 2:43
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)
Subject: Re: [GOAL] International survey on scholarly communication - and its
relevance for open access
They have the Access Request Button listed
Dear all,
How do open (access) publication strategies fit into a research workflow? Do
researchers use Google Drive instead of Word? Papers instead of Endnote? Google
Scholar instead of Scopus? Megajournals instead of topical journals?
ResearchGate instead of repositories? We are engaged in
Heather,
You could perhaps cooperate with Walt Crawford who has recently reviewed all
DOAJ journals and collected APC info. Or connect with Wouter Gerritsma who
compiled a list late last year
http://wowter.net/2014/11/30/open-access-journal-article-processing-charges/.
Best,
Jeroen
Heather and others,
Although I acknowledge the differences between these publishers, it is perhaps
noteworthy that apparently Elsevier did find it (commercially, which includes
reputation) wise to release mathematics backfiles for free, as you probably
know:
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
evolution do...
Yves Gingras
De : goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org
[goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] de la part de
Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) [j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl]
Date d'envoi : 5 avril 2015 08:46
À
Heather your question is valid and his been raised and debated in many places.
But change does happen, albeit indeed at a very slow pace. Scholars are indeed
conservative in their work habit,s and maybe there's even a good side to that.
Without elaborating too much I think we may expect to see:
garbage from predatory journals in Brazil continues
to be ignored, it will Become much larger. And it will be very bad for the OA.
Maurício Tuffani
http://folha.com/mauriciotuffani
mauri...@tuffani.netmailto:mauri...@tuffani.net
2015-04-04 13:51 GMT-03:00 Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)
j.bos
from predatory journals in Brazil continues
to be ignored, it will Become much larger. And it will be very bad for the OA.
Maurício Tuffani
http://folha.com/mauriciotuffani
mauri...@tuffani.netmailto:mauri...@tuffani.net
2015-04-04 13:51 GMT-03:00 Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)
j.bos
Dear Mr. Tuffani and others,
I think you are doing good work in alerting the Brazilian science community to
the dangers of rogue publishers or would-be publishers going for easy money.
This is already complex, because there is no simple criterion, there are grey
zones between black and white.
Over last few days we witnessed Elsevier reaching a new 5-year deal with French
Universities, for 33,4 M euro's per year: http://scoms.hypotheses.org/293. The
deal is also said to have a data mining paragraph. Almost at the same time news
broke that Dutch universities did not accept Elsevier's
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
Marcin,
This is a great initiative. I had been hoping BASEsearch would take on this
task, but it is good to see others are stepping in.
Congrats on the initiative. Still, a long way to go
Could you elaborate on how your technology is able to recognize “true peer
reviewed papers” and what you
Dana,
It would be so sad if you accept that there is a sizeable body of literature
that might be directly related to your research but that you decide not to read
it because you can't read it all *and* base your selection of what to read on
crude criteria not relating to the merits of the
As a librarian knowing OA far far worse than you do I completely agree that we
can speed up the process. To me publishing is pushing a button as soon as
you're ready. All else comes afterwards. Ideally that includes peer review by
the way (the ArXiv/preprint model), but that's not the point
Gary,
Not wanting to defend high price increases I do think that you should take into
account the number of papers published in the average journal in the various
fields and how this number develops over time. The typical humanities journal
may have 4-6 issues with 4-8 papers, so 16-48 papers
at
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: Question why journals in DOAJ are being listedas
'Australian' (Bosman, J.M
Hi Denny,
To me nationality of a journal is unimportant, not to say a useless concept (at
least in assessing or using an online journal) . Ivyspring is a company
registered in Australia and apparently has some sort of office in 1 market
Street Sydney. Some of its OA journals are included in
Dear Wouter,
There is a lot to say in support of more tranparency. For any system to succeed
it will need wide adoption. So perhaps Elsevier and Thomson Reuters could join
forces here and decide on a commonly used system to be comprehensively
available in Scopus as well as WoS and preferably
Wouter,
Scirev, though having been live for a only a few weeks now, already has
hundreds of crowdsourced journal reviews with information on peer review turn
around times: http://scirev.sc/
But it would be nice indeed if we had more comprehensive data on this.
Best,
Jeroen
Op 21 dec. 2013
Dear Jean Claude,
As you mention putting Beall's list into responsible hands you might be
interested in this this Dutch initiative, now on trial in The Netherlands and
Austria: http://www.quom.eu . It aims at crowdsourcing OA journal quality
assessment. It uses (multiple) scorecards to assess
Dear list readers,
Please excuse me: the link in my previous post should read: http://www.qoam.eu
Jeroen
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
Bosman, J.M.
Sent: dinsdag 10 december 2013 10:23
To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
Subject
Stevan,
I think it is perfectly possible to discuss and promote experiments with more
effective and useful review whilst keeping full force in switching to 100% OA.
They are not prerequisites for one another. We cannot stop thinking and
hypothesizing about innovation in scholarly
After thoroughly reading Beall's paper I can find three reasonable points
raised.
- Speculation on the effect of the price mechanism introduced between
author and publisher through Gold OA journals with APC's. This is something
that deserves close attention. It should be interesting to
license to publish) does not resolve
this problem. This is one of the reasons I am participating in the Elsevier
boycott and encourage all scholars to join me (google The Cost of Knowledge).
My two bits,
Heather Morrison
On Dec 7, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Bosman, J.M.
j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl
:%2B44%20%280%29%207823%20536%20826 I E:
a.w...@elsevier.commailto:a.w...@elsevier.com
Twitter: @wisealic
From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
Bosman, J.M.
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 9:56
Peter,
This is not about where authors may self archive their papers, but about the
version they archive. Academia (and Researchgate, and personal sites) have
thousands of published versions archived by the authors. That is against most
publishers' policies. Cambridge University Press is a
This thread is no longer about monographs, but I would like to correct Larry
Hurtado here. Yes, RCUK prefers gold but that does not equate author pays.
There are thousands of free to read *and* free to publish journals, and also
journals with APCs, like PLoS, that will waive the fee if you ask
Dear Tom,
I expect San Dekker will have a very hard job to persuade publishers to
substantially lower subscription prices.
First: publishers see Gold OA in hybrid journals as a separate product/service
having nothing to do with subscription. Please read what Wiley's Bob Campbell
says about
Stevan,
The threat of Sander Dekker in The Netherlands is not to mandate fools gold per
se but to put the obligation to publish open access into the law:
Indien de betrokken partijen zich onvoldoende inzetten, of de ontwikkelingen
in onvoldoende mate vorderen, zullen de minister en ik
As posted by Stevan Harnad, Sander Dekker, the Dutch secretary of education
favours Gold OA. The news came this morning in the newspaper De Volkskrant. If
universities do not show enough commitment he says he will start mandating
through a law in 2016. Of course there are few details yet, as
There is a reaction from an Elsevier spokesman/woman quoted in the Dutch
newspaper De Volkskrant today:
http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2844/Archief/archief/article/detail/3545786/2013/11/16/Prima-maar-dan-wel-wereldwijd-die-eis-stellen.dhtml
(paywalled)
Elsevier, uitgever van toptijdschriften
55 matches
Mail list logo
