I have written several articles round about this date. click forward or back...
http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2013/07/31/elsevier-charge-for-re-use-of-author-paid-open-access-article-in-teaching/ On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Laura Quilter <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 > > -- 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
