Re: [GOAL] BLOG: Press embargoes ? a threat from the shadows, (William Gunn)
OK let's talk about news. I used to be a science journalist. The fact that a bunch of scientists found something out some indistinct time period ago is not news. The 'hook' is that the research was published in the Journal of X today. It would not be much of a news story if it was 'Scientists at the University of Cambridge have found something out, but we don't know much about it because the paper is not available and they won't talk to us but it will be published sometime in the future in Journal of X'. What we are talking about here is quibbling over whether the basic metadata about an article - author name, article title (which often changes), journal and abstract - and NOTHING ELSE is available before publication. Believe me, I totally get the news thing. But again - repository managers are being forced to jump through ridiculous hoops to try and placate funders', publishers' and authors' needs. Quite often these percieved needs are based on possibilities or things that 'might' happen. Meanwhile my staff groan under the weight of their compliance load. It is beyond a joke. Danny On 20/05/2016 14:16, goal-requ...@eprints.org wrote: > Send GOAL mailing list submissions to > 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 > > You can reach the person managing the list 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: BLOG: Press embargoes ? a threat from the shadows >(William Gunn) > 2. Re: Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation (Stevan Harnad) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 06:11:25 -0700 > From: William Gunn <william.g...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [GOAL] BLOG: Press embargoes ? a threat from the shadows > To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org> > Message-ID: > <caay7fqfq3c89e1gtf+pe8efiquu8-qonmvjd2jinkw_kznj...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > The issue, as I understand it, is that publishers want to be the ones who > announce the publications of articles in their journals. That part makes > sense, right? I mean, if someone else is publishing the news before you, > it's not news. Is there something else beyond this that's of concern? > > > William Gunn > +1 (650) 614-1749 > http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/ > > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Florence Piron < > florence.pi...@scienceetbiencommun.org> wrote: > >> You could tell these researchers : >> >> - That ambition and competition are not the only values in life >> >> - That being terrified of displeasing abusive commercial journals is very >> dangerous for their (mental) health - they could look at what happens >> elsewhere in the world they share with other human beings - it would surely >> appease their terror >> >> - to have a good read of Discourse on Voluntary Servitude (1549), in >> which the 18 year-old author explains that a tyran lives only because >> subalterns recognize him as tyrant : >> >> Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for >> he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own >> enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to >> give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do >> anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is >> therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, >> their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to >> their servitude. >> >> http://www.constitution.org/la_boetie/serv_vol.htm >> >> - To re-read what Merton wrote in 1942 about communism in science : ? The >> substantive findings of science are a product of social collaboration and >> are assigned to the community. They are a common heritage in which the >> equity of the individual producer is severely limited... rather than >> exclusive ownership of the discoverer and their heirs. ? and ponder over >> the priority between CVs and knowledge sharing >> >> - To re-read article 27 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights : ? >> (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of >> the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and &
Re: [GOAL] BLOG: Press embargoes – a threat from the shadows
The issue, as I understand it, is that publishers want to be the ones who announce the publications of articles in their journals. That part makes sense, right? I mean, if someone else is publishing the news before you, it's not news. Is there something else beyond this that's of concern? William Gunn +1 (650) 614-1749 http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/ On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Florence Piron < florence.pi...@scienceetbiencommun.org> wrote: > You could tell these researchers : > > - That ambition and competition are not the only values in life > > - That being terrified of displeasing abusive commercial journals is very > dangerous for their (mental) health - they could look at what happens > elsewhere in the world they share with other human beings - it would surely > appease their terror > > - to have a good read of Discourse on Voluntary Servitude (1549), in > which the 18 year-old author explains that a tyran lives only because > subalterns recognize him as tyrant : > > Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for > he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own > enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to > give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do > anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is > therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, > their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to > their servitude. > > http://www.constitution.org/la_boetie/serv_vol.htm > > - To re-read what Merton wrote in 1942 about communism in science : « The > substantive findings of science are a product of social collaboration and > are assigned to the community. They are a common heritage in which the > equity of the individual producer is severely limited... rather than > exclusive ownership of the discoverer and their heirs. » and ponder over > the priority between CVs and knowledge sharing > > - To re-read article 27 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights : « > (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of > the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and > its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and > material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic > production of which he is the author. » > and try to imagine what it means: > > - that our world has decided there is a collective right to science in > which scientists have a big role to play in it (by freely sharing their > work) > > - that researchers have a right to be protected against publishers > that terrify them. > > > Florence Piron (Université Laval), totally fed-up > > > > Le 2016-05-20 à 06:54, Danny Kingsley a écrit : > > > > Hello all, > > Our latest blog on Unlocking Research is looking at the issue of press > embargoes. > > Below is a teaser from "Press embargoes – a threat from the shadows" - > https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=653 > > > Something has been rumbling under the surface in the repository world > recently, at least in the UK. Over the past six months or so, the Office of > Scholarly Communication has had some fraught conversations with researchers > who are terrified that their papers will be 'pulled' from publication by > the journal. The reason is because some information about the upcoming > paper is publicly available. > > > > Our researchers are concerned that having the metadata about an article > available means that publishers will consider this a breach of embargo and > will pull the publication. Note that the Author’s Accepted Manuscript of > the article itself (or the data files, in case of datasets) is locked down > and the information about the volume, issue and pages are missing as the > work is not yet published. > > The researchers are worried because there is a need for publication in > high profile journals such as *Nature* for their careers and if a work > was to be pulled from publication this would have huge implications for > them. This has caused a challenge for us – clearly we do not wish to > threaten our researchers’ publication prospects, but we are also bound by > the requirements of the HEFCE policy. > > * > > Comments welcomed. > > Danny > > -- > Dr Danny Kingsley > Head, Office of Scholarly Communication > Cambridge University Library > West Road, Cambridge CB39DR > P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437 > M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564 > E: 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 > > > > ___ > GOAL mailing > listGOAL@eprints.orghttp://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > > ___ > GOAL mailing list >
Re: [GOAL] BLOG: Press embargoes – a threat from the shadows
You could tell these researchers : - That ambition and competition are not the only values in life - That being terrified of displeasing abusive commercial journals is very dangerous for their (mental) health - they could look at what happens elsewhere in the world they share with other human beings - it would surely appease their terror - to have a good read of Discourse on Voluntary Servitude (1549), in which the 18 year-old author explains that a tyran lives only because subalterns recognize him as tyrant : Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude. http://www.constitution.org/la_boetie/serv_vol.htm - To re-read what Merton wrote in 1942 about communism in science : « The substantive findings of science are a product of social collaboration and are assigned to the community. They are a common heritage in which the equity of the individual producer is severely limited... rather than exclusive ownership of the discoverer and their heirs. » and ponder over the priority between CVs and knowledge sharing - To re-read article 27 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights : « (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. » and try to imagine what it means: - that our world has decided there is a collective right to science in which scientists have a big role to play in it (by freely sharing their work) - that researchers have a right to be protected against publishers that terrify them. Florence Piron (Université Laval), totally fed-up Le 2016-05-20 à 06:54, Danny Kingsley a écrit : Hello all, Our latest blog on Unlocking Research is looking at the issue of press embargoes. Below is a teaser from "Press embargoes – a threat from the shadows" - https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=653 Something has been rumbling under the surface in the repository world recently, at least in the UK. Over the past six months or so, the Office of Scholarly Communication has had some fraught conversations with researchers who are terrified that their papers will be 'pulled' from publication by the journal. The reason is because some information about the upcoming paper is publicly available. Our researchers are concerned that having the metadata about an article available means that publishers will consider this a breach of embargo and will pull the publication. Note that the Author’s Accepted Manuscript of the article itself (or the data files, in case of datasets) is locked down and the information about the volume, issue and pages are missing as the work is not yet published. The researchers are worried because there is a need for publication in high profile journals such as/Nature/for their careers and if a work was to be pulled from publication this would have huge implications for them. This has caused a challenge for us – clearly we do not wish to threaten our researchers’ publication prospects, but we are also bound by the requirements of the HEFCE policy. * Comments welcomed. Danny -- Dr Danny Kingsley Head, Office of Scholarly Communication Cambridge University Library West Road, Cambridge CB39DR P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437 M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564 E: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 ___ 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
