On 20 Dec 2013, at 18:12, Peter Murray-Rust <[email protected]> wrote:
> There are two separate issues here. > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Jan Velterop <[email protected]> wrote: > Elsevier's (or at least Tom Reller's) response is as expected, though it does > show an apparent – mistaken IMO – belief in the idea that a 'final' > manuscript is inferior to the published version of an article. Much inferior, > actually, given that the published version purports to justify the difference > in cost to the reader wishing to access the article. My experience – though > by definition limited, of course – is that the difference between final > manuscript and published article is mostly minor in terms of content, and > mainly one of appearance. If we look beyond content, there is often a > difference in findability, usability (e.g. for TDM) and functionality (e.g. > links and enhancements). For the professional end-user, my contention is that > those differences in usability and functionality are much more important than > any slight differences in content (which, if present at all, are mostly of a > linguistic nature, not a scientific one). > > > In many cases publishers seriously detract from the quality of a publication. > Reformatting can destroy readability - I have fought one major chemical > publisher who reformatted computer code as proportional font and refused to > change and even when we corrected the proofs they changed it back because it > wasn't house style. By coincidence I heard a tale at lunch where a publishers > had changed the units in a diagram "to make them consistent". The diagram now > has Resistance (Gigahertz). Even a non-scientist knows that Hertz is > frequency and Ohm is resistance but the technical editors didn't. Turning > vector diagrams (EPS) into bitmaps - very common - makes me cringe. Publishers who do these things should not be considered at all anymore, of course. If the published version is actively made worse than the manuscript, then paying by means of copyright transfer (or by any other means) for such a disservice is plainly absurd. > > So why don't subscription publishers use that distinction in their policies > and provide a simple, human-readable-only version freely, on their own web > sites (findability, transparency as regards usage), while keeping the fully > functional, machine-readable version for the professional scientist > (power-user) covered by subscription pay-walls? Not quite the same as true > open access, clearly. That is, not as good as 'gold' (be it supported by APCs > or subsidies). But neither is 'green' with its fragmented nature, often low > functionality (only simple PDFs, no TDM), often embargoed, etc. Making a > distinction with regard to access on the real basis of functionality > differences instead of the illusory basis of content differences may be a > compromise more meaningful for authors on the one hand (visibility) and > incidental readers outside of academia on the other ('ocular' access). > > > No, Jan, PLEASE NOT. > > Publishers would love to be able to offer an "enhanced version of XML" for > which they could charge more ("added value"). I have asserted "The Right to > Read is the Right to Mine" If "The Right to Read is the Right to Mine" is taken without any qualification, then you can forget subscription publishers cooperating with any form of free access to the published version. My proposal does provide an incentive to add value to what publishers get paid for via subscriptions. The slogan could be "Paying to read is paying to mine". > and a number of organizations (e.g. BL, JISC, Wellcome, OKFN, Ubiquity, etc. > ) have argued in Brussels for the right to carry out TDM on material they > have the right to read. That right to read doesn't exist as far as subscription content is concerned unless the subscription is paid for. If it is paid for, one should be able to read 'ocularly' as well as with machines, and TDM the content. I fully agree. But a free published version with just 'ocular' rights should exist simultaneously, instead of just relying on the fragmented, cumbersome access, and variable quality and functionality 'green' offers. > The TA publishers fought this, we walked out, and Neelie Kroes has declared > we should start afresh and have a different non-licence approach. I'd love to hear Neelie Kroes's views on my proposal. And for the avoidance of doubt: if one has paid for subscription content, one should have the right to TDM. J. > > P. > > > > -- > 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
