[GOAL] Re: Happy 20th Birthday World Wide Web! You made open access possible
Of course you are correct Stevan. I note that Berners-Lee created the code in 1989 in my post. But I probably should have titled this the 20th birthday of the OPEN or PUBLIC WWW. Gary F. Daught Omega Alpha | Open Access http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com Advocate for open access academic publishing in religion and theology oa.openaccess at gmail dot com | @OAopenaccess On May 1, 2013, at 7:00 AM, goal-requ...@eprints.org wrote: …snip… Message: 2 Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 01:40:02 -0400 From: Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com Subject: [GOAL] Re: Happy 20th Birthday World Wide Web! You made open access possible To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) goal@eprints.org Umm, the WWW was not born in 1994. It was born in 1990 and became part of the Internet in 1991... (This year might be the 15th birthday of when Tim B-L wrote the code, though...) On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Omega Alpha | Open Access oa.openacc...@gmail.com wrote: Happy 20th Birthday World Wide Web! You made open access possible http://wp.me/p20y83-Kt …snip… Message: 3 Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 01:41:37 -0400 From: Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com Subject: [GOAL] Re: Happy 20th Birthday World Wide Web! You made open access possible To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) goal@eprints.org Correction: *25th* anniversary of when Tim B-L wrote the WWW code... ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Green OA Compliance Monitoring Mechanism for UK Institutions
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Neil JACOBS n.jac...@jisc.ac.uk wrote: I realise I am stretching the scope of this repositories list perhaps, but some might be interested in the technical infrastructure needed to implement Gold OA. A series of invited blog posts has begun here: http://www.goldoa.org.uk/ These are intended to prompt discussion specifically about technical infrastructure (systems, metadata, services, workflows). I realise, of course, that some might see this as a distraction. Nevertheless, many universities and others, certainly in the UK, are interested in solutions for Gold OA. Please do join the debate. The discussion will inform Jisc, libraries, publishers, CrossRef and others as we try to improve things. What UK institutions (and RCUK) need far more urgently than an RCUK compliance mechanism to collect, monitor and disburse the UK funds for Gold double-payments (sic) is an RCUK compliance monitoring mechanism through cost-free Green OA -- and HEFCE/REFhttp://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/rsrch/rinfrastruct/openaccess/have proposed a natural way to accomplish this: 1. HEFCE proposes to make immediate deposit of the final draft of peer reviewed articles in the institutional repository, immediately upon acceptance for publication, a requirement for eligibility for submission to REF 2020. 2. Immediate deposit is required (a) irrespective of whether the deposited draft is made immediately OA or embargoed for an allowable interval, (b) irespective of whether it is published in a subscription journal or a Gold OA journal, (c) irrespective of whether further re-use rights are licensed (e.g., CC-BY). 3. The immediate-deposit would apply immediately, since researchers cannot foresee which 4 articles will prove to be their best (and hence submitted to REF) 6 years hence, and delayed deposit would make the articles ineligible. 4. Hence the natural procedure for each institution is to systematically collect and store the calendar date of the acceptance letter as well as the date of deposit for all articles published. (The former can be made a repository meta-data field; the latter already is.) That done, institutions can go back to counting the gold chicks allotted them by RCUK's golden hen, knowing that their RCUK mandate requirements are already fulfilled via Green. No worries about running out of money to pay for publication. And the added bonus is that if the Gold is not spent on paying publishers even more money than is being spent already for subscriptions, any leftover can now be spent on facilitating and implementing Green OA and monitoring compliance (see replies of Doug Kell to the BIS Parliamentary Select Committeehttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmbis/uc1086-i/uc108601.htmabout what can be done with the RCUK Gold OA funds if there is no need to spend them on Gold OA). The natural next step toward global OA will be to integrate institutional and funder mandates worldwide to make them convergent and mutually reinforcing. HEFCE/REF have shown the way to do so. This will also put the UK back into the worldwide OA leadership role it had from 2004-2012 and then lost with the Finch Committee's egregious proposal to mandate paid Gold (by restricting UK authors' right to choose their journals for their quality standards alone, rather than their cost-recovery model, and by redirecting scarce research funds to double-pay publishers for Gold OA instead of just providing cost-free Green OA). ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Complete our survey on facilitating access to free content to win a Kindle Fire
Taylor Francis invite you to share your views on the library's role in facilitating access to freely available content Taylor Francis would like to invite all librarians to participate in their online survey. Among the many challenges librarians face today is the question of how to help users understand the value of the increasing quantity of free content that is available to read, including open access journals, repositories, blogs and wikis. Without measures such as usage statistics or Impact Factors, which factors influence decisions about the value and relevance of free online content? What is the library’s ongoing role in helping users discover, evaluate and use it? Taylor Francis is investigating how librarians facilitate access to free online content and the associated challenges that they face when doing so. We invite you to participate in an online survey, from which Taylor and Francis will develop a White Paper to help share experiences and practices related to non-purchased content. All entrants will be included in a prize draw to win a Kindle Fire. Terms and Conditions apply (http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pdf/tandc/Kindle-May2013.pdf). You can find the survey here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Free-online-content The white paper will be made available on the Taylor Francis website later this year and key findings will be presented at NASIG 2013. Thank you in advance for sharing your experiences and helping to shape recommendations for future best practice. _ Rosie Palmer Marketing Executive On behalf of Taylor Francis TBI Communications Limited, Oxford, OX33 1LZ, UK http://www.tbicommunications.com Specializing in communications for the learned publishing sector. See our website for the full range of communication, marketing, design and exhibition services we can offer. TBI Communications Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 5375015. Registered office: 62a Church Road, Wheatley, Oxford. Oxfordshire. OX33 1LZ, UK___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Open call for new collaborators - e-LIS, open repository for library and information science
** I apologize if you receive this message more than once ** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OPEN CALL FOR NEW MEMBERS - EDITORIAL BOARD e-LIS, OPEN REPOSITORY for LIBRARY and INFORMATION SCIENCE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - e-LIS http://eprints.rclis.org/ , international open repository for Library and Information Science (LIS), is looking for new volunteers to collaborate in the editorial team during mid-2013 and for a two-year period. Established in 2003, e-LIS is as the largest international open repository in the field of library and information science. e-LIS is looking for new team members with the academic strength and institutional support. The new collaborators will be part of the editorial board which makes possible the ingestion of new documents according to the e-LIS policies and widely used standards. Members of the Library and Information Science community are invited to submit applications to join the current team composed of 60 volunteers from 30 countries. Applications should include (1) a cover letter with a statement describing the editors’ goals for participating in e-LIS; (2) a current curriculum vitae; and, if possible (3) a confirmation of institutional support from the appropriate authority. Enquiries can be made to e-LIS Founder Chief Executive, Imma Subirats at imma.subir...@gmail.com. The closing date for applications is June 15, 2013. Decisions will be made by the e-LIS administrative board and notified before August 1, 2013. All the best, Imma Subirats-Coll On behalf of the e-LIS administrative, executive and editorial boards *** Imma Subirats-Coll e-LIS Founder Chief Executive http://eprints.rclis.org/ http://openlib.org/home/subirats/ imma.subir...@gmail.com *** ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier Still Onside of Angels on Immediate, Unembargoed Green OA Self-Archiving By Its Authors
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:10 PM, BISSET J. james.bis...@durham.ac.uk wrote: From our understanding of Elsevier policy this is not the case in two instances: 1) if the institution requires deposit in their institutional repository 2) if the funder requires open access. Dear James, Elsevier rights agreements state that authors retains the right to make their final drafts OA immediately upon publication: no embargo. I will answer your more detailed questions below, but let me already give you a simple general answer from which all the specific ones can be deduced. If a contract says *you have the right to do X*, then it cannot go on to stipulate that you only have the *right to exercise* your right to do X if you are not required to exercise it. That is empty double-talk,http://www.google.ca/search?hl=enlr=q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/ie=UTF-8tbm=blgtbs=qdr:mnum=100c2coff=1safe=active#q=elsevier+double-talk+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/lr=c2coff=1safe=activehl=entbm=blgtbas=0source=lntsa=Xei=VpiBUeBI08fSAc-pgaAMved=0CBsQpwUoAAbav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.bvm=bv.45921128,d.dmQfp=1dc003e2610cd254biw=1181bih=708and can and should be completely ignored as empty. A right is a right; you either have it or you don't. Moreover, Elsevier authors do not need Elsevier's permission to *deposit*in their IRs any more than they need Elsevier's permission to go to the WC! The only thing at issue is *the right to make the deposit immediately OA (i.e., free online)*. And Elsevier (like Springer, and about 60% of all publishers) state that the author retains the right to make the final draft OA immediately upon publication: no OA embargo. So all authors with any sense should go ahead and exercise that formally endorsed right that they retain! I have an email from Elsevier today confirming that in either of the two cases above, immediate deposit is permitted but open access is not permitted until [after] an embargo period... Elsevier is just playing on words here. As I said, the right to *deposit*is not at issue. Elsevier does not have any say over where I put my final draft. The only right at issue is *the right to make the deposit immediately OA (i.e., free online)*. Additionally, Durham has reissued its mandate for self-archiving, including a requirement that only those deposited (not necessarily open access) can be used for consideration in promotion or probation (the 'how' this will work us still being looked at - So this has not yet been registered anywhere). Bravo on adopting the optimal institutional OA mandate. Soon we can hope that the Durham mandate will be reinforced by the very same mandate from HEFCE/REF http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/rsrch/rinfrastruct/openaccess/: only articles whose final drafts were deposited in the author's institutional repository immediately upon acceptance for publication will be eligible for submission to the next REF (2020). Institutional and HEFCE immediate-deposit mandates can then mutually reinforce one another, and institutions will be able to devise a simple mechanism for monitoring and verifying compliancehttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1004-Harnad-Follow-Up-Comments-to-BIS-Select-Committee-on-Open-Access.html . Because we now mandate deposit, Elsevier have indicated we cannot make any publications open access until we sign an agreement with them - which includes restricting access from immediate upon publication (as it was without a mandate) to the embargo periods mentioned above. This is very interesting: Have you asked yourself *why* Elsevier is asking for a second agreement? Isn't the author's signed agreement enough, if it is really sufficient to accord him a right yet prevent him from exercising that right? Well obviously not, because of the double-talk I just mentioned. In an agreement with the clause *Clause C1:* *You retain the right to do X* followed by the clause *Clause C2: **but you may not exercise your right to do X if you are required to do X* you are sanctioning a contradiction. Logically speaking (and contracts must obey logic as surely as they must obey the law), this is pretty much the same as simply saying: *Clause C1:* *You may do X* and *Clause C2: **You may not do X*. With a logical contradiction, you can pretty much take your choice and do whatever you like, because anything (and the opposite of anything) follows from a contradiction. A good choice would be to read sequentially, follow Clause 1, and simply ignore Clause 2, which just says the opposite. If challenged, cite clause 1. And this is the real reason that Elsevier is not comfortable with relying on its signed author rights agreement with its authors as grounds for restraining them form doing what the retain the right to do if they are required to do it. So they instead try to get a signature to yet another agreement, from yet another party -- the university -- a further
