Alternatively it might be an incentive to join ALPSP: membership for an individual is very little more than the cost of the report, and there are other benefits, including other publications and a monthly newsletter about what is happening in academic publishing (disclosure: I am the newsletter editor). Pippa
***** Pippa Smart Research Communication and Publishing Consultant PSP Consulting 3 Park Lane, Appleton, Oxon OX13 5JT, UK Tel: +44 7775 627688 or +44 1865 864255 email: [email protected] Web: www.pspconsulting.org **** Editor of the ALPSP-Alert, Reviews editor of Learned Publishing **** On 9 October 2012 17:23, Sally Morris <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't see why ALPSP's ability to recoup the cost of this research should > be undermined by open distribution of pirate copies - shame on you! > However, I did summarise their findings, and combine them with other data, > in a paper for the Publishing Research Consortium > (http://www.publishingresearch.net/author_rights.htm) > > Sally > > > Sally Morris > South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU > Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 > Email: [email protected] > > > ________________________________ > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Ross Mounce > Sent: 09 October 2012 16:59 > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Europe PubMed as a home for all RCUK research outputs? > > Thank you Sally. > > These are exactly the kind of evidence-based contributions we should be > striving for in our discussions, in my opinion. > > I found Cox & Cox 2008 here: > http://test.alpsp.org/ngen_public/article.asp?id=200&did=47&aid=24781&st=&oaid=-1 > > but regrettably it is only available for 'free' to ALPSP Members. > > It would seem that I would have to pay £250/$480/€330 as a non-member to > read this report! If anyone could furnish me with a PDF copy I'd be much > obliged. > > Best, > > Ross > > On 9 October 2012 16:39, Sally Morris <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On one point - publishers' insistence on (c) transfer - there certainly >> are facts available. The most recent study of which I am aware is Cox & >> Cox, Scholarly Publishing Practice 3 (2008). They surveyed 400 publishers >> including most leading journal publishers, and received 203 usable >> responses. According to further analysis by Laura Cox, 181 of these >> publishers represented 753,037 articles (74.7% of ISI's world total for that >> year). >> >> In their 2008 study, they found just over 50% of publishers asking for >> copyright transfer in the first instance (this had declined steadily from >> over 80% in 2003 and over 60% in 2005); of these, a further 20% would >> provide a 'licence to publish' as an alternative if requested by the author. >> At the same time, the number offering a licence in the first instance had >> grown to around 20% by 2008. So that's nearly 90%, by my reckoning, who >> either don't ask for (c) in the first place, or will provide a licence >> instead on request. >> >> They also found that over 40% (by number of articles) made the finally >> published version open to text mining. In addition, 80% or more allowed >> self-archiving to a personal or departmental website, 60% to an >> institutional website and over 40% to a subject repository (though authors >> often don't know that they are allowed to do this). In most cases this >> applied to the submitted and/or accepted version; self-archiving of the >> final published version was much less likely to be permitted (though it >> appears to be what authors really want). >> >> I understand ALPSP are currently repeating the study, so we may soon know >> if these trends have continued - I'd be amazed if they have not. >> >> Sally >> >> >> Sally Morris >> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU >> Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 >> Email: [email protected] >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >> Of Ross Mounce >> Sent: 09 October 2012 15:51 >> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Europe PubMed as a home for all RCUK research outputs? >> >> Dear Stevan, >> >> I'm disappointed that you continue to make wild assertions without backing >> them up with good evidence. I, like many readers of this list (perhaps?) >> suggest you're not doing your credibility any favours here... >> >> A grating example: >> >>> Moreover, most fields don't need CC-BY (and certainly not as urgently as >>> they need access). >> >> >> [citation needed!!!] >> >> Who (aside from you) says that most fields "don't need CC-BY"? >> You're the only person I know saying this. >> >> *I* argue that we clearly would benefit greatly from CC-BY research as >> this explicitly enables content mining approaches such as textmining that >> may otherwise be impeded by less open licences. >> >> It has been estimated that over 50 million academic articles have been >> published (Jinha, 2010) and the volume of publications is increasing rapidly >> year on year. The only rational way we’ll be able to make full use of all >> this research both NOW and in the future, is if we are allowed to use >> machines to help us make sense of this vast and growing literature. I should >> add that it's not just scientific fields that would benefit from these >> approaches. Humanities research could greatly benefit too from techniques >> such as sentiment analysis of in-text citations across thousands of papers >> and other such analyses as applied to a whole variety of hypotheses to be >> tested. These techniques (and CC-BY) aren't a Panacea but they would have >> some strong benefits for a wide variety of research, if only people in those >> fields a) knew how to use those techniques and b) were allowed to use the >> techniques. (see McDonald & Kelly, 2012 JISC report on 'The Value and >> Benefits of Text Mining' for more detail) >> >> For an example of the kind of papers we *could* write if we actually used >> all the literature in this manner see Kell (2009) and its impressive >> reference list making use of 2469 previously published papers. CC-BY enables >> this kind of scope and ambition without the need for commercially provided >> information retrieval systems that are often of dubious data quality. >> >> >>> Repositories cannot attach CC-BY licenses because most publishers still >>> insist on copyright transfer. (Global Green OA will put an end to this, but >>> not if it waits for CC-BY first.) >> >> >> I agree with the first half of the sentence BUT the second half your >> assertion: "most publishers still insist on copyright transfer" - where's >> the evidence for this? I want hard numbers. If there are ~25 or ~28 thousand >> active peer-reviewed journals (figures regularly touted, I won't vouch for >> their accuracy it'll do) and vastly fewer publishers of these, data can be >> sought to test this claim. For now I'm very unconvinced. I know of many many >> publishers that allow the author to retain copyright. It is unclear to me >> what the predominate system is with respect to this contra your assertion. >> >> >> Finally: >> >>> >>> Green mandates don't exclude Gold: they simply allow but do not require >>> Gold, nor paying for Gold. >> >> >> Likewise RCUK policy as I understand it does not exclude Green, nor paying >> for the associated costs of Green OA like institutional repositories, staff, >> repo development and maintenance costs. Gold is preferred but Green is >> allowed. Glad we've made that clear... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jinha, A. E. 2010. Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of >> scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing 23:258-263. >> http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20100308 >> >> Kell, D. 2009. Iron behaving badly: inappropriate iron chelation as a >> major contributor to the aetiology of vascular and other progressive >> inflammatory and degenerative diseases. BMC Medical Genomics 2:2+. >> http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1755-8794-2-2 >> >> McDonald, D & Kelly, U 2012. The Value and Benefits of Text Mining. JISC >> Report >> http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2012/value-and-benefits-of-text-mining.aspx >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/- >> Ross Mounce >> PhD Student & Panton Fellow >> Fossils, Phylogeny and Macroevolution Research Group >> University of Bath, 4 South Building, Lab 1.07 >> http://about.me/rossmounce >> -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >> > > > > -- > -- > -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/- > Ross Mounce > PhD Student & Open Knowledge Foundation Panton Fellow > Fossils, Phylogeny and Macroevolution Research Group > University of Bath, 4 South Building, Lab 1.07 > http://about.me/rossmounce > -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/- > > _______________________________________________ > 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
