Can you clarify regarding instances of CCC RightsLink demanding payments for OA reuse? I'd really like to know details.
---------------------------------- Laura Markstein Quilter / [email protected] *Attorney, Geek, Militant Librarian, Teacher* Copyright and Information Policy Librarian University of Massachusetts, Amherst [email protected] Lecturer, Simmons College, GSLIS [email protected] On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <[email protected]> wrote: > Moving the discussion to a new title... > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 9:16 AM, David Prosser > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> What my paper missed and what may have been obvious at the time, but >> which I only saw with hindsight, were the biggest problems with the model: >> >> 1. There is little incentive for the publisher to set a competitive APC. >> It is clear that in most cases APCs for hybrids are higher than APCs for >> born-OA journals. But as the hybrid is gaining the majority of its revenue >> from subscriptions why set a lower APC - if any author wants to pay it then >> it is just a bonus. Of course, this helps explains the low take-up rate >> for OA in most hybrid journals - why pay a hight fee when you can get >> published in that journal for free? And if you really want OA then best go >> to a born-OA journal which is cheaper and may well be of comparable quality. >> >> 2. There is little pressure on the publisher to reduce subscription >> prices. Of course, everybody says 'we don't double dip', but this is >> almost impossible to verify and from a subscriber's point of view very >> difficult to police. I don't know of any institution, for example, in a >> multi-year big deal who has received a rebate based on OA hybrid content. >> >> >> There are several other concerns about "hybrid": > > * the unacceptable labelling and licensing of many TA publishers. Many > hybrid papers are not identified as OA of any sort, others are labelled > with confusing words "Free content". Many do not have licences, some have > incompatible rights. > * many are linked to RightsLink which demand payment (often huge) for Open > Access reuse > * many deliberately use Non-BOAI compliant licences. One editor mailed me > today and said the the publisher was urging them to use NC-ND as it > protected authors from exploitation. > * they are not easily discoverable. I mailed the Director of Universal > Access at Elsevier asking for a complete list of OA articles and she > couldn't give it to me. I had to use some complex database query - I have > no idea how reliable that was. > > Leaving aside the costing of hybrid, if someone has paid for Open Access > then it should be: > > * clearly licensed on splash page, HTML, and PDFs. > * the XML should be available > * there should be a complete list of all OA articles from that publisher. > > Currently I am indexing and extracting facts from PLoSONE and BMC on a > daily basis. Each of these does exactly what I need: > * lists all new articles every day > * has a complete list of all articles ever published > * collaborates with scientists like me to make it easy to iterate over all > the content. > > It is easy to get the impression that TA publishers don't care about these > issues. BMC and PLoS (and the OASPAs) do it properly - an honest product. > > Any publisher who wishes to be respected for their OA offerings has to do > the minimum of what I list here: > * CC-BY > * list of all articles > * easy machine iteration and retrieval. > > Anything else is holding back progress > > -- > Peter Murray-Rust > Reader in Molecular Informatics > Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry > University of Cambridge > CB2 1EW, UK > +44-1223-763069 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
