Hi to all again,
Many thanks, Heather, for your clear example. I think I have understood. Therefore, my previous mail with the many questions is no longer useful. Kind regards Didier Envoyé de mon iPhone > Le 8 avr. 2015 à 17:41, Heather Morrison <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> a > écrit : > > David, > > Thank you for your contribution. To summarize your argument, you are saying > that CC-BY works cannot be enclosed because anyone can buy a copy and make it > open access. Some flaws with this argument: > > Practical: let's imagine that every article in every journal listed in > PubMedCentral were licensed CC-BY. A company with a desire for profit-making > copies the lot, develops a cool value-added service at an attractive price > point, sells the package - and advertising, too. This is a success; people > use and advertise in this service, which erodes support for PMC and the > journals listed there. The company becomes annoyed with PMC - a free public > service competing with the private sector - and lobbies, successfully, for > the removal of funding for PMC. Assuming all the articles remain CC-BY, yes, > anyone could buy them up and make the works open access again - but the > company can set the price. One could find other means to gather the articles; > my advice is not to underestimate the work or cost. > > CC-BY does not include any obligation for downstream users to use the same > license. There is nothing to stop this company from changing the works to a > more restrictive license. CC-BY-SA, in this sense, is a less dangerous > license. This is not intended as an endorsement of CC-BY-SA for open access. > > The danger is greater when the CC-BY license is in the hands of a company > that holds some or all of the rights under copyright. For example, if a fee > is paid to Elsevier, Wiley, etc. to publish a work as CC-BY, there is nothing > in the CC-BY license per se that would prevent the companies from reverting > to All Rights Reserved or other more restrictive licenses. This could happen > even if the author retains copyright, because author copyright retention can > co-exist with transfer of virtually all rights to a publisher (some > license-to-publish approaches are very much like this). Authors could in > theory negotiate publishing contracts to prevent this; but don't expect the > industry to develop this. > > Thanks again for your contribution and another example that we in the OA > movement are not fully in agreement on all of the details. I hope this > discussion is useful for those interested in developing best practices for OA > implementation. > > best, > > Heather Morrison > > On Apr 8, 2015, at 9:14 AM, "David Prosser" <david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk> wrote: > >>> Jeroen - CC-BY license >>> >>> Heather - NO!!! the CC-BY license is a major strategic error of the open >>> access movement. Allowing downstream commercial use to anyone opens up the >>> possibility of re-enclosure. The temptation towards perpetual copyright for >>> profit-taking should not be underestimated. Scholarly publishing is a >>> multi-billion dollar industry (as well as a community effort relying >>> largely on a gift economy), with some players earning profits in the >>> millions (a billion for Elsevier), in the 40% profit range. There are other >>> reasons to hesitate to use this license, but this is the one that OA >>> advocates need to wake up and pay attention to. >> >> >> I continue to be unable to grasp Heather’s argument. If, for whatever >> reason, I purchase from you a CC-BY article I can, as it is CC-BY, make the >> article freely available. I don’t see how CC-BY allows for re-enclosure >> when it contains within itself the ultimate enclosure-busting feature of >> allowing unlimited distribution provided there is attribution. >> >> David >> >> David C Prosser PhD >> Executive Director, RLUK >> >> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7862 8436 >> Mob: +44 (0) 7825 454586 >> www.rluk.ac.uk >> >> RLUK Twitter feed: RL_UK >> Director's Twitter feed: RLUK_David >> >> Registered Office: Senate House Library, Senate House, Malet Street, London >> WC1E 7HU >> Registered Company no: 2733294 >> Registered Charity no: 1026543 >> >>> On 8 Apr 2015, at 02:08, Heather Morrison <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Surely everyone on this list is aiming for the goal of global open access! >>> But what do we think this means? Thanks to Jeroen for posting recently his >>> wish list. In this post, I will point out how very different my perspective >>> on open access is from Jeroen's, even though I think Jeroen and I are both >>> fully in favour of global open access and transformative rather than >>> traditional approaches. The purpose of this post is to suggest that the >>> open access movement has now reached a point where it is useful to have >>> such discussions about the specifics of where we think we should be >>> heading. In addition to differences in individuals' perspectives, it seems >>> quite likely that there will be disciplinary differences as well. >>> >>> Jeroen's post can be found here: >>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2015-April/003154.html >>> >>> Following is Jeroen's wish list items followed by my perspectives. >>> >>> Jeroen - fully Open Access >>> Heather: yes, of course! >>> >>> Jeroen - online only >>> Heather - OA works can be online only, but should not be restricted in this >>> manner >>> >>> Jeroen - CC-BY license >>> Heather - NO!!! the CC-BY license is a major strategic error of the open >>> access movement. Allowing downstream commercial use to anyone opens up the >>> possibility of re-enclosure. The temptation towards perpetual copyright for >>> profit-taking should not be underestimated. Scholarly publishing is a >>> multi-billion dollar industry (as well as a community effort relying >>> largely on a gift economy), with some players earning profits in the >>> millions (a billion for Elsevier), in the 40% profit range. There are other >>> reasons to hesitate to use this license, but this is the one that OA >>> advocates need to wake up and pay attention to. >>> >>> I have written about this in my Creative Commons and Open Access Critique >>> series: >>> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/10/critique-of-cc-by-series.html >>> and I will be speaking on this topic next week in Washington at the Allen >>> Press' Emerging Trends in Scholarly Publishing Seminar: >>> http://allenpress.com/events/2015seminar >>> >>> Jeroen - authors retain copyright >>> Heather - this doesn't really mean very much. With the subscription >>> publishers' trend towards license-to-publish, author copyright retention is >>> the norm, but the licenses themselves can be virtually identical to full >>> copyright transfer. >>> >>> Jeroen - maximum APC of 500 USD (or perhaps a lifetime membership model >>> like that at PeerJ) >>> - APC waivers for those who apply (e.g. from LMI countries) >>> Heather - robust system of OA publishing that does not rely on APCs. Firmly >>> opposed to using research funds for APCs. Cancel the high-priced bundles of >>> the big commercial scholarly publishers first, then use the savings to pay >>> for OA. >>> >>> Jeroen - really international profile of editors/board (far beyond >>> US/UK/CA/AU/NL/DE/CH/NZ/FR) >>> Heather - this makes more sense in some areas than others. There is >>> universal knowledge (think physics principles) and local knowledge >>> (consider Québec politics). There are advantages to regionally based >>> publishing. These include the financial advantages of paying local rates in >>> one's own currency and generating local jobs, and the community advantages >>> of working with people you have a reasonable expectation of getting to >>> know, who are based at institutions you know something about. I think that >>> journal "white lists" are best handled locally. There is Qualis in Brazil >>> (I gather), although this might need some cleaning up. In Canada we have a >>> scholarly journal publishing subsidy program which involves peer review at >>> the journal level. >>> >>> Jeroen - no issues: continuous publishing >>> - in principle no size restrictions >>> Heather: agreed. >>> >>> Jeroen- using ORCID and DOI of course >>> Heather: NOT signing up for an ORCID. On purpose!! ORCID and DOI may have >>> their usefulness, but neither is essential to open access. >>> >>> Jeroen- peer review along PLOS One idea: only check for (methodological) >>> soundness (and whether it is no obvious garbage or plagiarism), avoiding >>> costly system of multiple cascading submissions/rejections >>> Heather: this is most attractive for larger publishers with multiple >>> journals, i.e. authors should submit once and then the filter of top >>> journal can be applied or not. Another approach is transferring reviews. >>> >>> Jeroen - post pub open non anonymous peer review, so the community decides >>> what is the worth of published papers >>> Heather - an interesting experiment, this may work better for some >>> communities than others >>> >>> Jeroen - peer review reports themselves are citable and have DOIs >>> Heather - possibly interesting, but it is not clear whether all peer >>> reviewers will be honest without blind peer review. The author of an >>> article you are reviewing could show up someday on a hiring committee, >>> tenure and promotion committee, or fund proposal review committee. >>> >>> Jeroen- making (small) updates to articles possible (i.e. creating an >>> updated version) >>> - making it easy to link to additional material (data, video, code etc.) >>> shared via external platforms like Zenodo or Figshare >>> Heather - agreed, but preferred additional platforms are institutional and >>> disciplinary archives. >>> >>> Jeroen - no IF advertising >>> - open for text mining >>> Heather - sort of agreed, although changing reliance on IF needs to happen >>> at tenure and promotion committees. There is no point is asking journals >>> not to advertise something that makes them look good. >>> >>> Jeroen - providing a suite of article level metrics >>> Heather - a) optional and b) dead set against article level metrics being >>> used for evaluation purposes. Why? Most importantly, metrics are the wrong >>> approach altogether. Truly pioneering work (e.g. Mendel on genetics) is >>> often not appreciated when it is first published. Then, too, altmetrics >>> have not been tested. It seems reasonable to hypothesize that altmetrics >>> based on social media will tend to reflect and amplify social biases (e.g. >>> the works of articles that seem to be written by men would be more likely >>> to be tweeted than those that seem to be written by women), effects of >>> popularity (unless we all agree that the most important research topic of >>> the future is internet cats?), and subject to deliberate manipulation. For >>> example, consider how companies that prefer to deny climate change science >>> could hire people to distort social media to increase the "alt-merit" of >>> their preferred research and researchers. >>> >>> Jeroen - using e.g. LOCKSS or Portico for digital preservation >>> Heather - preservation is the responsibility of archives and libraries; >>> pushing this to journals unnecessarily increases the costs of publication. >>> I am opposed for this reason. >>> >>> Jeroen - indexing at least by Google Scholar and DOAJ, at a later stage >>> also Scopus, Web of Science and others >>> Heather - where indexing is important will depend on the discipline. NOT >>> Scopus, because they are owned by Elsevier and I am boycotting Elsevier. >>> Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science are all indexes owned and >>> controlled by large corporations. I argue that we need public indexes >>> controlled by scholars. >>> >>> Jeroen - optionally a pre-print archive (but could rely on SSRN as well) >>> Heather - open access archiving is primary, should be mandatory, and should >>> be the sole focus of almost all open access policies (the only exception >>> being internal policies of publishers, which will naturally focus on >>> publishing). Pre-prints, post-prints and research data should all be in >>> institutional repositories and copied (easily and seamlessly) to >>> disciplinary repositories wherever this makes sense (or vice versa; the >>> point is the more copies the better to ensure ongoing open access and >>> preservation. >>> >>> Finally, there are somewhere around a million scholars around the world, >>> and others besides scholars who should be part of this discussion. I don't >>> think it is up to either Jeroen or I, or both of us together, to decide on >>> the future of open access and/or scholarly communication. This should be a >>> broader conversation. >>> >>> best, >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Heather Morrison >>> Assistant Professor >>> École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies >>> University of Ottawa >>> http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html >>> Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/ >>> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> GOAL mailing list >>> GOAL@eprints.org >>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> GOAL@eprints.org >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
