Fred Friend has once again incisively said it all.
The following data support the point Fred makes. The figure illustrates
that Green OA mandates can do at least as well as Wellcome's 60% OA deposit
rate, without any extra payment whatsoever to publishers for Gold OA (and
hence without using 1.5%
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:
Fred,
... It is a matter of interpretation, of course, but I don't think the
Finch Report (HM Gov't) blocks the use of institutional repositories. I
don't read that in the report, and it is an interpretation I fail to see
Dear Stevan,
I'm disappointed that you continue to make wild assertions without backing
them up with good evidence. I, like many readers of this list (perhaps?)
suggest you're not doing your credibility any favours here...
A grating example:
Moreover, most fields don't need CC-BY (and certainly
On one point - publishers' insistence on (c) transfer - there certainly are
facts available. The most recent study of which I am aware is Cox Cox,
Scholarly Publishing Practice 3 (2008). They surveyed 400 publishers
including most leading journal publishers, and received 203 usable
responses.
Thank you Sally.
These are exactly the kind of evidence-based contributions we should be
striving for in our discussions, in my opinion.
I found Cox Cox 2008 here:
http://test.alpsp.org/ngen_public/article.asp?id=200did=47aid=24781st=oaid=-1
but regrettably it is only available for 'free' to
I don't see why ALPSP's ability to recoup the cost of this research should be
undermined by open distribution of pirate copies - shame on you! However, I
did summarise their findings, and combine them with other data, in a paper for
the Publishing Research Consortium
Alternatively it might be an incentive to join ALPSP: membership for
an individual is very little more than the cost of the report, and
there are other benefits, including other publications and a monthly
newsletter about what is happening in academic publishing (disclosure:
I am the newsletter
An argument that I see as important but missing: is CC-BY even an appropriate
goal for open access at all? This is a separate question from whether it should
be a short or long-term priority.
I argue that CC-BY is NOT an appropriate goal for open access. There are many
reasons for this
Or you could ask your friendly local librarian if it is available on
inter-library loan - there are at least two copies of the print version in UK
libraries, plus there should be a copy in the BL.
David
On 9 Oct 2012, at 17:38, Pippa Smart wrote:
Alternatively it might be an incentive to
'Pirate copies'... now there's an interesting topic for the list.
I am a member of several social networking sites used by academics e.g.
Facebook, Twitter, FriendFeed etc... and more traditional academic mailing
lists (GOAL itself is one!) like TAXACOM (Taxonomy), DML (Dinosaur Mailing
List),
Sally Morris wrote :
In their 2008 study, [Cox Cox] found just over 50% of publishers asking
for copyright transfer in the first instance [...]; of these, a further
20% would provide a 'licence to publish' as an alternative if requested by
the author. At the same time, the number
1. CC-BY is not necessary for data and text-mining.
In some sense true, it is not *strictly* necessary - but it sure does
alleviate concerns over being sued! Google can 'get away with it' because
they don't need to document the in-between steps - transparency.
Researchers and academics
Ross Mounce writes that he is disappointed with Stevan Harnad's wild
assertions not backed by good evidence.
As an occasional contributor to this list, I had my own idea of what level of
proof (or evidence) one has to reach when one posts something.
First, a post isn't a journal article, so
hi Ross,
As you point out, this study is not funded by taxpayers. Do you have any
solutions to offer to ALPSPs and similar groups so that they can have the
revenue to fund their work and reports such as this for open access? I think
that we would agree that open access is an unprecedented
I was CEO of ALPSP at the time, and the Association did indeed pay for the
research - and it was (for us) a substantial outlay
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
_
On 9 Oct 2012, at 15:50, Ross Mounce wrote:
[snip]
Repositories cannot attach CC-BY licenses because most publishers still
insist on copyright transfer. (Global Green OA will put an end to this, but
not if it waits for CC-BY first.)
I agree with the first half of the sentence BUT the
Jan Velterop wrote:
We've always heard, from Stevan Harnad, that the author was the one who
intrinsically had copyright
on the manuscript version, so could deposit it, as an open access article, in
an open repository
irrespective of the publisher's views. If that is correct, then the
Hi Heather,
I'm aware we disagree on the licensing of Open Access from previous
encounters and I don't want this devolve into a personal point scoring
affair but I do have to take issue with your assertion that:
just minutes ago you were proudly asserting that you and other researchers
are
[Continuing the cross-posting as I think this is very impotrtant.]
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:
There is an inconsistency here, either way. We've always heard, from
Stevan Harnad, that the author was the one who intrinsically had copyright
on the
There is an error in the phrase Marc identifies in the Introduction to my
article (p 5). The figure 26% should read 47%; I apologise that this error
slipped through.
However, Fig 12 in the same article (p14) clearly shows the trend as
described in my previous posting.
The actual figures from
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:
There is an inconsistency here, either way. We've always heard, from
Stevan Harnad, that the author was the one who intrinsically had copyright
on the manuscript version, so could deposit it, as an open access article,
in
On 2012-10-09, at 1:13 PM, Couture Marc wrote in response to this comment of
mine:
... are researchers telling human research subjects that their contributions
may be given
on a blanket basis for third parties to sell? I would argue that CC-BY, where
human
subjects are involved, will
22 matches
Mail list logo
