On 2012-05-11, at 6:47 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: > Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from me. The > publishers should withdraw contractual restrictions on content-mining. That's > all they need to do. > > If Alicia Wise can say "yes" to me unreservedly, I'll be happy.
So let's all forget about OA... (If I were a subscription publisher, eager to sustain my income streams, I would certainly be more than happy to accommodate this "low bar" in order to put paid to the clamour for OA. It would even help draw users to my paid content, the way Google's book content-mining does!) Human cognition is endlessly puzzling. I'm good on OA but hopeless on human cognition (even though that's my research specialty, not OA!). Social historians will do a better job making sense of it all (but only after the present generation is gone and the web generation has become the senior one). For my part I will continue my narrow focus on the goal of getting OA (sic) universally provided. It had been my (foolish) fancy that that was GOAL's goal too! Back to discussing defamation... Stevan Harnad PS For the terminologically tipsy: Unrestricted article content-mining, like Google's book content-mining, would allow the extraction and republication of "factual data" from journal articles by licensees, but it would not provide unlicensed users with access to the full-text. (Asking for that too would not just be raising the bar, but asking to take over the whole store.) On 2012-05-11, at 8:11 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote: > **Cross-Posted** > >> El 11/05/2012 11:19, Wise, Alicia (Elsevier) asked: > >>> [W]hat positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to >>> facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly >>> communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized? >>> Dr Alicia Wise >>> Director of Universal Access >>> Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB >>> P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: [email protected] I >>> Twitter: @wisealic > > > On 2012-05-11, at 6:13 AM, Reme Melero wrote: > >> I would recommend the following change in one clause of the What rights do >> I retain as a journal author*? stated in Elsevier's portal, which says >> >> "the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final >> journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your >> personal or institutional website or server for scholarly purposes*, >> incorporating the complete citation and with a link to the Digital Object >> Identifier (DOI) of the article (but not in subject-oriented or centralized >> repositories or institutional repositories with mandates for systematic >> postings unless there is a specific agreement with the publisher. >> <externalLink_3.gif>Click here for further information);" >> >> By this one: >> >> "the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final >> journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your >> personal, institutional website, subject-oriented or centralized >> repositories or institutional repositories or server for scholarly purposes, >> incorporating the complete citation and with a link to the Digital Object >> Identifier (DOI) of the article " >> >> I think this could be something to be encouraged, celebrated and recognized! > > That would be fine. Or even this simpler one would be fine: > > "the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final > journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your > personal, institutional website or institutional repositories or server for > scholarly purposes, incorporating the complete citation and with a link to > the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the article " > > The metadata and link can be harvested from the > institutional repositories by institution-external > repositories or search services, and the shameful, > cynical, self-serving and incoherent clause about > "mandates for systematic postings" ("you may > post if you wish but not if you must"), which attempts > to take it all back, is dropped. > > That clause -- added when Elsevier realized that > Green Gratis OA mandates were catching on -- is a > paradigmatic example of the publisher FUD and > double-talk that Andrew Adams and others were > referring to on GOAL. > > Dropping it would be a great cause for encouragement, > celebration and recognition, and would put Elsevier > irreversibly on the side of the angels. > > Stevan Harnad > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
