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...Â
(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? Â Â
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 843317Â IÂ M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I
E:Â [email protected]Â I
Twitter: @wisealic
On 2012-05-11, at 6:13 AM, Reme Melero wrote:
I would recommend the following change in one clause of theÂ
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,Â
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)Â 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 theÂ
institutional repositories by institution-externalÂ
repositories or search services, and the shameful,
cynical, self-serving and incoherent clause aboutÂ
"mandates  for systematic postings"  ("you mayÂ
post if you wish but not if you must"), which attemptsÂ
to take it all back, is dropped.
That clause -- added when Elsevier realized that
Green Gratis OA mandates were catching on --Â is aÂ
paradigmatic example of the publisher FUD andÂ
double-talk that Andrew Adams and others wereÂ
referring to on GOAL.
Dropping it would be a great cause for encouragement,Â
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
[ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
