On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) < A.Wise at elsevier.com> wrote:
> Hi Peter,**** > > ** > Thanks Alicia, It's a valuable and useful development to have a formal contact in a publisher that is able to speak authoritatively and responds. As you yourself note Elsevier have not had a professionally organised procedure to respond to reasonable constructive requests. (The only way I got any answer was through a personal contact with an Elsevier). I shan't tax the GOAL list with more mails but you may wish to note note that many of the reader community finds it impossible to have any meaningful formal contact with publishers. It would be a service if publishers recognized the existence of readers as distinct from customers (who are normally purchasing officers or librarians). ** > > For a description of what the Universal Access team does at Elsevier, > please could I direct you to a recent interview with Richard Poyndor at > http://poynder.blogspot.com/2012/02/elseviers-alicia-wise-on-rwa-west-wing.html > . > I have already read this in depth. > I can indeed help with content mining policy queries, and can get you > pointed in the right direction for other queries. I?ve picked up that you > are a bit (!!) cross with us about text mining, > That's accurate. I offered a constructive opportunity two years ago which could have significantly benefitted Elsevier as well as the Open world and Elsevier has probably destroyed that opportunity. and would be very happy to arrange a call for you and our relevant people. > It appears that in the past we have connected you with the app marketplace > team rather than the text mining teams. > I have no idea what the app marketplace team is but it sounds as if it wasn't a good decision. > Please email me directly at a.wise at elsevier.com if you would like for me > to set this up? Thanks. > I am always prepared to talk with anyone, if there is seen to be the chance of a productive outcome. At present my concerns are: * I believe that I have certain fundamental rights to carry out text-, data- and image-mining and that Elsevier contracts and practice deny me them. * I have been invited by the UK's Intellectual Property Office to submit a response to the Hargreaves review as to why IP restrictions on textmining shoul be removed and I shall be doing this in the context of the Open Knowledge Foundation - through the newly formed open-access list (which is copied in to this mail). It is useful if all discussions take place Openly as then (a) a wide range of people can take part and (b) there is a clear permanent record. Anyone working for Elsevier or any other organization is welcome to join the list and take part in our activities. We have no secret procedures and will be working to create a response to Hargreaves. Whatever the politics and legality of Open Access are, the actual practice of it is very poorly labelled and supported by modern informatics. This list is discussing the "Author Manuscript" but there is no standard labelling, no licences, no statement of who is the copyright holder. Given that the law allows copyright holders to pursue infringers the actual practice of Open Access supported by publishers (Green and Hybrid) needs serious improvement. The rest of this may be of continuing interest to GOAL Regarding the manuscript - you asked whether the language you cite > originated with Elsevier. We have various agreements with NIH, so either > the lawyers for NIH or the lawyers for Elsevier came up with this > language. This footnote looks like a standard bit of text that may appear > on all the manuscripts we deposit in PMC on behalf of authors ? I would > need to check. The intention of such a footnote would be to signal to the > reader that they are looking at something other than the final version of > the article. > So - for the record - the "unedited author manuscript" may contain material inserted by Elsevier (presumably without the explicit involvement of the author). It is a pity that possessive pronouns are used in an ambiguous or misleading sense. As an author I would be upset if such a phrase was inserted in a parer I had authored, but at present that is unlikely giving that I am currently unlikely to contribute to Elsevier journals. > **** > > ** ** > > With kind wishes,**** > > ** > We will spell out on the OKFN open-access list the areas that would lead to a potentially constructive discussion and possibly continue on it and on skype. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120217/9fb60935/attachment.html
