Or you could ask your friendly local librarian if it is available on inter-library loan - there are at least two copies of the print version in UK libraries, plus there should be a copy in the BL.
David On 9 Oct 2012, at 17:38, Pippa Smart wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
