[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

[Richard Poynder]

List members will doubtless correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that
the nub of this issue is that Peter Murray-Rust believes that when a research
library pays a subscription for a scholarly journal (or a collection of
journals) the subscription should give researchers at that institution the right
both to read the content with their eyeballs, and to mine it with their machines
-- and that this should be viewed as an automatic right.

Publishers appear to take the view that text mining is not an automatic right
for subscribers. Consequently, some publishers believe that machine access needs
to be separately negotiated, and on a case-by-case basis (preferably with the
institutional library rather than individual researchers), while others simply
will not contemplate allowing it (or will only allow it  on payment of an
additional fee -- again, on a case-by-case basis).

Publishers' position, I must assume, rests partly on copyright claims, but
mainly on what is written into the contract when the institutional library
negotiates the subscription with the publisher.

There is also the question of what researchers can do with the the data once
they have extracted it, which seems to me to be a more complex issue.

I wonder if any other publishers might like to comment on this?

On whether this is an OA issue, and so relevant to GOAL, I would suggest that it
is partly an OA issue, and partly not an OA issue. One might argue that it is
not an OA issue because it concerns access to subscription content, rather than
OA content. On the other hand, one could argue that it is an OA issue, since
both Stevan Harnad and Peter Murray-Rust are asking for access to subscription
content. Where Stevan is asking for eyeball access to this material, Peter is
asking for machine access.

I realise, of course, that Stevan is happy to have access to the version of a
paper as it exists prior to publication (the pre-print), but, nevertheless, he
is asking for access to papers that have been published in subscription
journals.

Either way, since this issue is inextricably bound up with discussion of gratis
vs. libre OA, I think it is relevant and appropriate to be discussed on GOAL. If
others disagrees, please say so.

Richard Poynder
GOAL Moderator

On 12/05/2012 09:23, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
      [Note that as this is a moderated list my replies may not appear
      immediately - this may give the impression that I am ignoring mails
      when I am not].

      On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)
      <a.w...@elsevier.com> wrote:

            Hi Peter,

             

            Thanks for this.  I’ve communicated that we are happy in
            principle for you to mine our content,


Good - that is agreed.
 

      and there are only some practical issues to resolve.  We have
      successfully concluded the technical discussion, and I believe
      you, your colleagues, and my technical colleagues are all
      happy with the proposed technical mechanism. 


I don' think this is true at all. Rather than allowing us to mine the
actual journal articles in siti you have pointed us at some zip files. We
have no idea how comprehensive these are or how up to date. We understand
publication of articles, we do not understand your zip files.

Getting content from the published journal articles is trivial and is the
same mechanism for all publishers. Fine the DOI, download it. Getting
articles from 100 publishers through 100 different arcane mechanisms is a
nightmare. If you want to make life easy for us, let us use the articles.

      Next, I’ld like to double-check that I have correctly
      understood what you and your colleagues will do and who will
      have access to which content/extracts. 


I will extract factual data and I shall publish them Openly to the whole
world. For your interest my first research is likely to be in the
phylogenetic trees of arthropods - whcih impacts on trillions of dollars
(sic) of human welfare. Polination allone is 150 billion dollars. I shall
not publish discursize text unless it is required. I shall not publish the
"publishers PDF". But I shall publish anything that represents facts, in
botha critical and uncritical manner.

And in the area below - just one project, I expect to use 10,000 articles
per year. So , in principle, I intend to mine millions per year.

I shall take silence as assent that this is agreed.
 

      Finally, we have an existing agreement with the U of Cambridge
      library and we need to ensure there is some language in that
      agreement – or a side letter - to enable content-mining.  We
      aren’t far off at all – and I suspect we could resolve this in
      1, possibly 2, quick conversations.  If you prefer not to
      interact with the Cambridge librarians, I can do this
      separately.


The librarian has indicated that it is important that I be allowed to
text-mine and believes that publishers should set out terms. I will ask
her permission whether I can reproduce her letter publicly. She does not
believe I should be wasting my research time negotiation with indivdiual
publishers and she sets out one publisher (not Elsevier) as having made
their terms clear. So the first thing is for you to say something in plain
language which says what I can do.

I do not regard this as a negotiation. I believe I have rights and will -
with otherrs such as RichardP be putting out those rights shortly. If
libraries wish to agree on a more limited use I shall be unhappy with
them.
 

       

      Perhaps it would be helpful for me to clarify the important
      role that I believe the Cambridge library has to play.  This
      role is not to vet your research to see if you can carry it
      out, but to ensure that the language necessary to enable this
      to happen is included in their various agreements with
      publishers.


And to take out the restrictions that you have added.
 

       This is the way that libraries have been able to create the
      existing information environment on campus where you, and your
      colleagues, can access e-journals from home or your office or
      out in the field.  All the agreements/arrangements/technology
      that the library has put in place to create this environment,
      and to ensure that it is easy to access and use, are generally
      invisible to researchers - even those who use this information
      environment on a daily basis. 


And we pay enormous amounts for it. My grant income is paying Elsevier,
including you. IMO it is one fo the most inefficient uses of public
money. 

       

      This is the sort of environment/experience needed for
      researchers who wish to text mine as well.  As an early
      adopter – indeed a pioneer in text mining – you are forging a
      trail.  Librarians will help to maintain that trail so that
      many, many others can follow easily in your footsteps.


Let me be  clear. This discussion is wasting my time - I could be doing
research. If I have to do this with every publisher it will destroy this
research.

If I leave it to my librarians, then they may well agree to the awful and
restrictive deal that Elsevier forced on Heather Piwowar at UBC where one
researcher was given permission for one project. She is not allowed to
publish the full research openly so it's of no use to me.

So I reiterate:
* a public statement that I can mine Elsevier journals in any amount for
whatever purpose and in whatever form.
* that I can publish the factual information extracted without
restriction.

I have no details of the negotiations you are transacting with my library
- I am a scientist not a contract negotiator. I have made my wishes very
clear to the library.

P.

       

      With kind wishes,

       

      Alicia

       

      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:
      a.w...@elsevier.com I

      Twitter: @wisealic

       

       

      From: goal-boun...@eprints.org
      [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Peter
      Murray-Rust
      Sent: 11 May 2012 23:47


      To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
      Subject: [GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

 

 

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Richard Poynder
<ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk> wrote:

Many thanks to Alicia Wise for starting a new conversation thread.

 

Let’s recall that Alicia’s question was, “what 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?”


Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from
me. The publishers show withdraw contractual restrictions on
content-mining. That's all they need to do.

My university has paid Elsevier for subscription to the content in
Elsevier journals. I believe I have the right to mine the content.
Elsevier has written a contract which forbids me to use this in any
way other than reading with human eyeballs - I cannot crawl it,
index it, extract content for whatever purpose. I have spent THREE
years trying to deal with Elsevier and get a straight answer.

Seehttp://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/11/27/textmining-my-years-negotiating-with-e
lsevier/

The most recent "discussions" ended with Alicia Wise suggesting that
she and Cambridge librarians discuss my proposed research and see if
they could agree to my carrying it out. I let the list decide
whether this is a constructive offer or a delaying tactic. It
certainly does not scale if all researchers have to get the
permission of their librarians and every publisher before they can
mine the content in the literature. And why should a publisher
decide what research I may or may not do?

All of this is blogged on http://blogs.cam.ac.uk/pmr

Yes - I asked 6 toll-access publishers for permission to mine their
content before I submitted my opinion to the Hargreaves enquiry.  Of
the 6 publishers (which we in the process of summarising - this is
hard because of the wooliness of the language) the approximate
answers were:
1 possibly
4 mumble (e.g. "let's discuss it with your librarians")
1 no (good old ACS pulls no punches - I'd rather have a straight
"no" than "mumble")
 
In no other market would vendors be allowed to get away with such
awful customer service. A straight question deserves a straight
answer, but not in scholarly publishing.

Just in case anyone doesn't understand content mining, the
technology is straightforward. The only reason it's not done is
because Universities are afraid of publishers. I estimate that tens
of billions of dollars worth of value is lost through being
forbidden to mine the scholarly literature.

If Alicia Wise can say "yes" to me unreservedly, I'll be happy.

P.







--






    [ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]

_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal