[GOAL] Interesting Current Science opinion paper on Predatory Journals
*Predatory Journals and Indian Ichthyology* by R. Raghavan, N. Dahanukar, J.D.M. Knight, A. Bijukumar, U. Katwate, K. Krishnakumar, A. Ali and S. Philip *Current Science, 2014, 107(5), 740-742.* Although the 21st century began with a hope that information and communication technology will act as a boon for reinventing taxonomy, the advent and rise of electronic publications, especially predatory open-access journals, has resulted in an additional challenge (the others being gap, impediment and urgency) for taxonomy in the century of extinctions. Predatory publishing has damaged the very foundations of scholarly and academic publishing, and has led to unethical behaviour from scientists and researchers. The ‘journal publishing industry’ in India is a classical example of ‘predatory publishing’, supported by researchers who are in a race to publish. The urge to publish ‘quick and easy’ can be attributed to two manifestations, i.e.‘impactitis’ and ‘mihi itch’. While impactitis can be associated with the urge for greater impact factor (IF) and scientific merit, mihi itch (loosely) explains the behaviour of researchers, especially biologists publishing in predatory journals yearning to see their name/s associated with a new ‘species name’. Most predatory journals do not have an IF, and authors publishing in such journals are only seeking an ‘impact’ (read without factor), and popularity by seeing their names appear in print media. This practice has most often led to the publication of substandard papers in many fields, including ichthyology. Download Full-text Article: http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/107/05/0740.pdf ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on Predatory Journals
Quote: Predatory publishing has damaged the very foundations of scholarly and academic publishing, No it hasn’t. It’s a minor annoyance, at most. David On 23 Sep 2014, at 07:47, anup kumar das anupdas2...@gmail.commailto:anupdas2...@gmail.com wrote: Predatory Journals and Indian Ichthyology by R. Raghavan, N. Dahanukar, J.D.M. Knight, A. Bijukumar, U. Katwate, K. Krishnakumar, A. Ali and S. Philip Current Science, 2014, 107(5), 740-742. Although the 21st century began with a hope that information and communication technology will act as a boon for reinventing taxonomy, the advent and rise of electronic publications, especially predatory open-access journals, has resulted in an additional challenge (the others being gap, impediment and urgency) for taxonomy in the century of extinctions. Predatory publishing has damaged the very foundations of scholarly and academic publishing, and has led to unethical behaviour from scientists and researchers. The ‘journal publishing industry’ in India is a classical example of ‘predatory publishing’, supported by researchers who are in a race to publish. The urge to publish ‘quick and easy’ can be attributed to two manifestations, i.e.‘impactitis’ and ‘mihi itch’. While impactitis can be associated with the urge for greater impact factor (IF) and scientific merit, mihi itch (loosely) explains the behaviour of researchers, especially biologists publishing in predatory journals yearning to see their name/s associated with a new ‘species name’. Most predatory journals do not have an IF, and authors publishing in such journals are only seeking an ‘impact’ (read without factor), and popularity by seeing their names appear in print media. This practice has most often led to the publication of substandard papers in many fields, including ichthyology. Download Full-text Article: http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/107/05/0740.pdf ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.orgmailto: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] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex
Andrew Adams raises an important point from my perspective, and this problem is not limited to the UK. Even though I am a librarian and enthusiastic advocate of self-archiving myself, when my library has policies that don't let me upload my work and get my URL immediately, my inclination is to hop over to google docs. Hopefully I'll continue to remember to cross-deposit in the IR, but in the meantime the IR (and the library and the university) are losing out on the highest likely time of exposure, when things are current. A shift to immediate free access for the self-archiving author (unless checking specifically requested) could do a lot to facilitate self-archiving, and the resulting increase in use of the IR could increase the web metrics and perceived value of library, IR and university. A library service that gave me my URL to freely share my work immediately on deposit, with a thank-you note and update on metadata checking at a later date is a service that I'd really appreciate. Developing services that people really find valuable and enjoy using, in my opinion, would bode well for the future of libraries and IRs [speaking as a prof in an information studies program]. best, Heather Morrison On 2014-09-22, at 7:35 PM, Andrew A. Adams a...@meiji.ac.jpmailto:a...@meiji.ac.jp wrote: The challenge now for UK Universities will be to keep librarians out of the way of reserachers, or their assistants, depositing the basic meta-data and full text in the repository. At the University of Reading, where I was involved in early developments around the IR but left the University before the final deposit mandate (*) was adopted and the process decided on, they have librarians acting as a roadblock in getting material uploaded.Thisistotheextentthat a paper published in an electronic proceedings at a conference was refused permission to be placed in the repository, for example, while there is a significant delay in deposited materials becoming visible, while librarians do a host of (mostly useful but just added value and not necessary) checking. Sigh, empire building and other bureaucratic nonsense getting in the way of the primary mission - scholarly communications. (*) They have a deposit mandate but refuse to call it that. I'm not sure why, butthey insist on calling it a policy. If one reads this policy, it's a mandate (albeit not an ideal one). For a University with an overly strong management team and a mangerialist approach, this unwillingness to call a spade a spade and a mandate a mandate, seems odd. Perhaps it's that this policy came from a bottom up development and not a senior management idea so they're unwilling to give it a strong name. -- Professor Andrew A Adams a...@meiji.ac.jpmailto:a...@meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.orgmailto: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] Library Vetting of Repository Deposits
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk wrote: I suspect that Andrew Adams and Stevan Harnad may be asking for two contradictory things here. If I understand correctly, they want 1) as near 100% OA as soon as possible and 2) for librarians to get out of the way so that researchers can get on and self-archive. Given that many researchers have shown themselves to be generally uninterested in open access and, in some cases, directly antagonistic towards it, and given that over half of UK researchers appear to be unware of whether or not their future articles will need to be published in accordance with the RCUK policy or not ( http://goo.gl/Y3Lyua) I cannot see how keeping librarians (who have done so much to fill repositories and to educate researchers about OA) out of the way (wish 2) is going to help achieve wish 1. Not contradictory at all: Librarians are invaluable in (1) advocating OA, (2) encouraging authors to deposit, and in (3) mediating deposit for those who won't deposit on their own. We are talking here about a 4th contingency: Authors deposit on their own, *but their deposit is not made OA until it has been vetted by a librarian. * This is the contingency both Andrew and I are suggesting to scrap. Librarians can vet after the deposit has already been made, and been made immediately OA (if the author so chooses), but not in between the two, But John Salter at Leeds has just made an even better proposal on JISC-REPOSITORIES: On Sep 23, 2014, at 10:13 AM, John Salter wrote: ... For a while I’ve been pondering our process: Deposit - Review - Live. I want to change it to: Deposit (direct to live) with mediated access to full text (request button). In parallel: - Process full texts (whilst MD record is live) – opening up any that we can. - Metadata validation/enrichment Does that sound like a better model than we currently use? Cheers, John, Repository developer, based in a Library Direct live deposit by the author with the default set to immediate Button-mediated Restricted Access (RA) (till the library vetting clears it to Open Acess (OA)) would be *absolutely splendid!* (It would be even better if authors who wished to do so could over-ride the RA default and set access to immediate OA. The result of the library vetting could then be communicated to the author directly once it’s done.) Best wishes, Stevan Harnad *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad *Sent:* 23 September 2014 14:33 *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex Andrew is so right. We did the rounds of this at Southampton, where the library (for obscure reasons of its own) wanted to do time-consuming and frustrating (for the author) checks on the deposit (is it suitable? is it legal? are the metadata in order?). In ECS we bagged that right away. And now ECS has fast lane exception in the university repository (but alas other departments do not). Similar needless roadblocks (unresolved) at UQAM. *Librarians*: I know your hearts are in the right place. But please, please trust those who understand OA far, far better than you do, that this library vetting -- if it needs to be done at all -- should be done *after* the deposit has already been made (by the author) and has already been made *immediately* OA (by the software). Please don't add to publishers' embargoes and other roadblocks to OA by adding gratuitous ones of your own. Let institutional authors deposit and make their deposits OA directly, without intervention, mediation or interference. Then if you want to vet their deposits, do so and communicate with them directly afterward. P.S. This is all *old*. We've been through this countless times before. Dixit Weary Archivangelist, still fighting the same needless, age-old battles, on all sides... On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Andrew A. Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp wrote: The challenge now for UK Universities will be to keep librarians out of the way of reserachers, or their assistants, depositing the basic meta-data and full text in the repository. At the University of Reading, where I was involved in early developments around the IR but left the University before the final deposit mandate (*) was adopted and the process decided on, they have librarians acting as a roadblock in getting material uploaded.Thisistotheextentthat a paper published in an electronic proceedings at a conference was refused permission to be placed in the repository, for example, while there is a significant delay in deposited materials becoming visible, while librarians do a host of (mostly useful but just added value and not necessary) checking. Sigh, empire building and other bureaucratic nonsense getting in the way of the
[GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex
I do not believe they are asking for anything contradictory. We all agree on (1), but when (2) is asking (some) librarians to get out of the way, it means just that they should not interfere with the process of self archiving on the basis of such considerations as scientific quality or any kind of personal judgement. They are welcome to help making the deposit which should be done as fast as possible, in restricted access if required. Le 23 sept. 2014 à 16:27, Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk a écrit : I suspect that Andrew Adams and Stevan Harnad may be asking for two contradictory things here. If I understand correctly, they want 1) as near 100% OA as soon as possible and 2) for librarians to get out of the way so that researchers can get on and self-archive. Given that many researchers have shown themselves to be generally uninterested in open access and, in some cases, directly antagonistic towards it, and given that over half of UK researchers appear to be unware of whether or not their future articles will need to be published in accordance with the RCUK policy or not (http://goo.gl/Y3Lyua) I cannot see how keeping librarians (who have done so much to fill repositories and to educate researchers about OA) out of the way (wish 2) is going to help achieve wish 1. From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 23 September 2014 14:33 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex Andrew is so right. We did the rounds of this at Southampton, where the library (for obscure reasons of its own) wanted to do time-consuming and frustrating (for the author) checks on the deposit (is it suitable? is it legal? are the metadata in order?). In ECS we bagged that right away. And now ECS has fast lane exception in the university repository (but alas other departments do not). Similar needless roadblocks (unresolved) at UQAM. Librarians: I know your hearts are in the right place. But please, please trust those who understand OA far, far better than you do, that this library vetting -- if it needs to be done at all -- should be done after the deposit has already been made (by the author) and has already been made immediately OA (by the software). Please don't add to publishers' embargoes and other roadblocks to OA by adding gratuitous ones of your own. Let institutional authors deposit and make their deposits OA directly, without intervention, mediation or interference. Then if you want to vet their deposits, do so and communicate with them directly afterward. P.S. This is all old. We've been through this countless times before. Dixit Weary Archivangelist, still fighting the same needless, age-old battles, on all sides... On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Andrew A. Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp wrote: The challenge now for UK Universities will be to keep librarians out of the way of reserachers, or their assistants, depositing the basic meta-data and full text in the repository. At the University of Reading, where I was involved in early developments around the IR but left the University before the final deposit mandate (*) was adopted and the process decided on, they have librarians acting as a roadblock in getting material uploaded.Thisistotheextentthat a paper published in an electronic proceedings at a conference was refused permission to be placed in the repository, for example, while there is a significant delay in deposited materials becoming visible, while librarians do a host of (mostly useful but just added value and not necessary) checking. Sigh, empire building and other bureaucratic nonsense getting in the way of the primary mission - scholarly communications. (*) They have a deposit mandate but refuse to call it that. I'm not sure why, butthey insist on calling it a policy. If one reads this policy, it's a mandate (albeit not an ideal one). For a University with an overly strong management team and a mangerialist approach, this unwillingness to call a spade a spade and a mandate a mandate, seems odd. Perhaps it's that this policy came from a bottom up development and not a senior management idea so they're unwilling to give it a strong name. -- Professor Andrew A Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ ___ 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] Re: Library Vetting of Repository Deposits
As a librarian knowing OA far far worse than you do I completely agree that we can speed up the process. To me publishing is pushing a button as soon as you're ready. All else comes afterwards. Ideally that includes peer review by the way (the ArXiv/preprint model), but that's not the point here. I would advise against making the FT-request-button default. Instead make immediate FT OA default and the button an option for researchers having serious concerns about possible copyright infringement. When new deposits have the button activated that could function as a flag for librarians to give those deposits priority treatment. Best, Jeroen Bosman Op 23 sep. 2014 om 17:09 heeft Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.commailto:amscifo...@gmail.com het volgende geschreven: On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.ukmailto:ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk wrote: I suspect that Andrew Adams and Stevan Harnad may be asking for two contradictory things here. If I understand correctly, they want 1) as near 100% OA as soon as possible and 2) for librarians to get out of the way so that researchers can get on and self-archive. Given that many researchers have shown themselves to be generally uninterested in open access and, in some cases, directly antagonistic towards it, and given that over half of UK researchers appear to be unware of whether or not their future articles will need to be published in accordance with the RCUK policy or not (http://goo.gl/Y3Lyua) I cannot see how keeping librarians (who have done so much to fill repositories and to educate researchers about OA) out of the way (wish 2) is going to help achieve wish 1. Not contradictory at all: Librarians are invaluable in (1) advocating OA, (2) encouraging authors to deposit, and in (3) mediating deposit for those who won't deposit on their own. We are talking here about a 4th contingency: Authors deposit on their own, but their deposit is not made OA until it has been vetted by a librarian. This is the contingency both Andrew and I are suggesting to scrap. Librarians can vet after the deposit has already been made, and been made immediately OA (if the author so chooses), but not in between the two, But John Salter at Leeds has just made an even better proposal on JISC-REPOSITORIES: On Sep 23, 2014, at 10:13 AM, John Salter wrote: ... For a while I’ve been pondering our process: Deposit - Review - Live. I want to change it to: Deposit (direct to live) with mediated access to full text (request button). In parallel: - Process full texts (whilst MD record is live) – opening up any that we can. - Metadata validation/enrichment Does that sound like a better model than we currently use? Cheers, John, Repository developer, based in a Library Direct live deposit by the author with the default set to immediate Button-mediated Restricted Access (RA) (till the library vetting clears it to Open Acess (OA)) would be absolutely splendid! (It would be even better if authors who wished to do so could over-ride the RA default and set access to immediate OA. The result of the library vetting could then be communicated to the author directly once it’s done.) Best wishes, Stevan Harnad From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 23 September 2014 14:33 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex Andrew is so right. We did the rounds of this at Southampton, where the library (for obscure reasons of its own) wanted to do time-consuming and frustrating (for the author) checks on the deposit (is it suitable? is it legal? are the metadata in order?). In ECS we bagged that right away. And now ECS has fast lane exception in the university repository (but alas other departments do not). Similar needless roadblocks (unresolved) at UQAM. Librarians: I know your hearts are in the right place. But please, please trust those who understand OA far, far better than you do, that this library vetting -- if it needs to be done at all -- should be done after the deposit has already been made (by the author) and has already been made immediately OA (by the software). Please don't add to publishers' embargoes and other roadblocks to OA by adding gratuitous ones of your own. Let institutional authors deposit and make their deposits OA directly, without intervention, mediation or interference. Then if you want to vet their deposits, do so and communicate with them directly afterward. P.S. This is all old. We've been through this countless times before. Dixit Weary Archivangelist, still fighting the same needless, age-old battles, on all sides... On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Andrew A. Adams a...@meiji.ac.jpmailto:a...@meiji.ac.jp wrote: The challenge
[GOAL] Re: Library Vetting of Repository Deposits
Thanks for clarifying this Stevan. I am thinking that OA advocates really don’t want to alienate their main allies. From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 23 September 2014 15:44 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Library Vetting of Repository Deposits On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk mailto:ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk wrote: I suspect that Andrew Adams and Stevan Harnad may be asking for two contradictory things here. If I understand correctly, they want 1) as near 100% OA as soon as possible and 2) for librarians to get out of the way so that researchers can get on and self-archive. Given that many researchers have shown themselves to be generally uninterested in open access and, in some cases, directly antagonistic towards it, and given that over half of UK researchers appear to be unware of whether or not their future articles will need to be published in accordance with the RCUK policy or not (http://goo.gl/Y3Lyua) I cannot see how keeping librarians (who have done so much to fill repositories and to educate researchers about OA) out of the way (wish 2) is going to help achieve wish 1. Not contradictory at all: Librarians are invaluable in (1) advocating OA, (2) encouraging authors to deposit, and in (3) mediating deposit for those who won't deposit on their own. We are talking here about a 4th contingency: Authors deposit on their own, but their deposit is not made OA until it has been vetted by a librarian. This is the contingency both Andrew and I are suggesting to scrap. Librarians can vet after the deposit has already been made, and been made immediately OA (if the author so chooses), but not in between the two, But John Salter at Leeds has just made an even better proposal on JISC-REPOSITORIES: On Sep 23, 2014, at 10:13 AM, John Salter wrote: ... For a while I’ve been pondering our process: Deposit - Review - Live. I want to change it to: Deposit (direct to live) with mediated access to full text (request button). In parallel: - Process full texts (whilst MD record is live) – opening up any that we can. - Metadata validation/enrichment Does that sound like a better model than we currently use? Cheers, John, Repository developer, based in a Library Direct live deposit by the author with the default set to immediate Button-mediated Restricted Access (RA) (till the library vetting clears it to Open Acess (OA)) would be absolutely splendid! (It would be even better if authors who wished to do so could over-ride the RA default and set access to immediate OA. The result of the library vetting could then be communicated to the author directly once it’s done.) Best wishes, Stevan Harnad From: goal-boun...@eprints.org mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org ] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 23 September 2014 14:33 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex Andrew is so right. We did the rounds of this at Southampton, where the library (for obscure reasons of its own) wanted to do time-consuming and frustrating (for the author) checks on the deposit (is it suitable? is it legal? are the metadata in order?). In ECS we bagged that right away. And now ECS has fast lane exception in the university repository (but alas other departments do not). Similar needless roadblocks (unresolved) at UQAM. Librarians: I know your hearts are in the right place. But please, please trust those who understand OA far, far better than you do, that this library vetting -- if it needs to be done at all -- should be done after the deposit has already been made (by the author) and has already been made immediately OA (by the software). Please don't add to publishers' embargoes and other roadblocks to OA by adding gratuitous ones of your own. Let institutional authors deposit and make their deposits OA directly, without intervention, mediation or interference. Then if you want to vet their deposits, do so and communicate with them directly afterward. P.S. This is all old. We've been through this countless times before. Dixit Weary Archivangelist, still fighting the same needless, age-old battles, on all sides... On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Andrew A. Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp mailto:a...@meiji.ac.jp wrote: The challenge now for UK Universities will be to keep librarians out of the way of reserachers, or their assistants, depositing the basic meta-data and full text in the repository. At the University of Reading, where I was involved in early developments around the IR but left the University before the final deposit mandate (*) was adopted and the process decided
[GOAL] Re: Library Vetting of Repository Deposits
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) j.bos...@uu.nl wrote: As a librarian knowing OA far far worse than you do I completely agree that we can speed up the process. To me publishing is pushing a button as soon as you're ready. All else comes afterwards. Ideally that includes peer review by the way (the ArXiv/preprint model), but that's not the point here. Dear Jeroen, Many thanks for the support. But if what were mandated for deposit were the unrefereed draft rather than the refereed, accepted draft, the effect would be just dreadful! (1) OA's target is the refereed draft (2) Many (perhaps most) authors do not want to make their unrefereed drafts public (3) Peer-review reform is a completely independent issue that has nothing (nothing whatsoever) to do with OA (despite rampant intuitions and speculations) and requires objective, empirical testing, not pre-emptive conflation with OA! Grateful that you added that's not the point here! I would advise against making the FT-request-button default. Instead make immediate FT OA default and the button an option for researchers having serious concerns about possible copyright infringement. When new deposits have the button activated that could function as a flag for librarians to give those deposits priority treatment. I agree that that would be better. I just meant that immediate default RA (with the option to make it immediately OA) was already far, far better than authors depositing and then having to wait for the library to decide whether or not to accept, and whether to make access RA or OA. Best, Stevan Harnad Best, Jeroen Bosman Op 23 sep. 2014 om 17:09 heeft Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com het volgende geschreven: On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk wrote: I suspect that Andrew Adams and Stevan Harnad may be asking for two contradictory things here. If I understand correctly, they want 1) as near 100% OA as soon as possible and 2) for librarians to get out of the way so that researchers can get on and self-archive. Given that many researchers have shown themselves to be generally uninterested in open access and, in some cases, directly antagonistic towards it, and given that over half of UK researchers appear to be unware of whether or not their future articles will need to be published in accordance with the RCUK policy or not ( http://goo.gl/Y3Lyua) I cannot see how keeping librarians (who have done so much to fill repositories and to educate researchers about OA) out of the way (wish 2) is going to help achieve wish 1. Not contradictory at all: Librarians are invaluable in (1) advocating OA, (2) encouraging authors to deposit, and in (3) mediating deposit for those who won't deposit on their own. We are talking here about a 4th contingency: Authors deposit on their own, * but their deposit is not made OA until it has been vetted by a librarian. * This is the contingency both Andrew and I are suggesting to scrap. Librarians can vet after the deposit has already been made, and been made immediately OA (if the author so chooses), but not in between the two, But John Salter at Leeds has just made an even better proposal on JISC-REPOSITORIES: On Sep 23, 2014, at 10:13 AM, John Salter wrote: ... For a while I’ve been pondering our process: Deposit - Review - Live. I want to change it to: Deposit (direct to live) with mediated access to full text (request button). In parallel: - Process full texts (whilst MD record is live) – opening up any that we can. - Metadata validation/enrichment Does that sound like a better model than we currently use? Cheers, John, Repository developer, based in a Library Direct live deposit by the author with the default set to immediate Button-mediated Restricted Access (RA) (till the library vetting clears it to Open Acess (OA)) would be *absolutely splendid!* (It would be even better if authors who wished to do so could over-ride the RA default and set access to immediate OA. The result of the library vetting could then be communicated to the author directly once it’s done.) Best wishes, Stevan Harnad *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad *Sent:* 23 September 2014 14:33 *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex Andrew is so right. We did the rounds of this at Southampton, where the library (for obscure reasons of its own) wanted to do time-consuming and frustrating (for the author) checks on the deposit (is it suitable? is it legal? are the metadata in order?). In ECS we bagged that right away. And now ECS has fast lane exception in the university repository (but alas other departments do not). Similar needless roadblocks (unresolved) at
[GOAL] Re: Library Vetting of Repository Deposits
Thanks to Stevan for reminding the list that working with librarians will, in the long run, be much more productive than denigrating their efforts. Dana L. Roth Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540 dzr...@library.caltech.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) [j.bos...@uu.nl] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 8:44 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Library Vetting of Repository Deposits As a librarian knowing OA far far worse than you do I completely agree that we can speed up the process. To me publishing is pushing a button as soon as you're ready. All else comes afterwards. Ideally that includes peer review by the way (the ArXiv/preprint model), but that's not the point here. I would advise against making the FT-request-button default. Instead make immediate FT OA default and the button an option for researchers having serious concerns about possible copyright infringement. When new deposits have the button activated that could function as a flag for librarians to give those deposits priority treatment. Best, Jeroen Bosman Op 23 sep. 2014 om 17:09 heeft Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.commailto:amscifo...@gmail.com het volgende geschreven: On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.ukmailto:ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk wrote: I suspect that Andrew Adams and Stevan Harnad may be asking for two contradictory things here. If I understand correctly, they want 1) as near 100% OA as soon as possible and 2) for librarians to get out of the way so that researchers can get on and self-archive. Given that many researchers have shown themselves to be generally uninterested in open access and, in some cases, directly antagonistic towards it, and given that over half of UK researchers appear to be unware of whether or not their future articles will need to be published in accordance with the RCUK policy or not (http://goo.gl/Y3Lyua) I cannot see how keeping librarians (who have done so much to fill repositories and to educate researchers about OA) out of the way (wish 2) is going to help achieve wish 1. Not contradictory at all: Librarians are invaluable in (1) advocating OA, (2) encouraging authors to deposit, and in (3) mediating deposit for those who won't deposit on their own. We are talking here about a 4th contingency: Authors deposit on their own, but their deposit is not made OA until it has been vetted by a librarian. This is the contingency both Andrew and I are suggesting to scrap. Librarians can vet after the deposit has already been made, and been made immediately OA (if the author so chooses), but not in between the two, But John Salter at Leeds has just made an even better proposal on JISC-REPOSITORIES: On Sep 23, 2014, at 10:13 AM, John Salter wrote: ... For a while I’ve been pondering our process: Deposit - Review - Live. I want to change it to: Deposit (direct to live) with mediated access to full text (request button). In parallel: - Process full texts (whilst MD record is live) – opening up any that we can. - Metadata validation/enrichment Does that sound like a better model than we currently use? Cheers, John, Repository developer, based in a Library Direct live deposit by the author with the default set to immediate Button-mediated Restricted Access (RA) (till the library vetting clears it to Open Acess (OA)) would be absolutely splendid! (It would be even better if authors who wished to do so could over-ride the RA default and set access to immediate OA. The result of the library vetting could then be communicated to the author directly once it’s done.) Best wishes, Stevan Harnad From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 23 September 2014 14:33 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex Andrew is so right. We did the rounds of this at Southampton, where the library (for obscure reasons of its own) wanted to do time-consuming and frustrating (for the author) checks on the deposit (is it suitable? is it legal? are the metadata in order?). In ECS we bagged that right away. And now ECS has fast lane exception in the university repository (but alas other departments do not). Similar needless roadblocks (unresolved) at UQAM. Librarians: I know your hearts are in the right place. But please, please trust those who understand OA far, far better than you do, that this library vetting -- if it needs to be done at all -- should be done after the deposit has already been made (by the
[GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex
+100 to what Richard said. they should not interfere with the process of self archiving on the basis of such considerations as scientific quality or any kind of personal judgement. Ah, but what about when the review step is put into place to ensure that copyright is not violated? IR Librarians have, unfortunately, become the enforcers of copyright restrictions at many universities. Somehow, we ended up with the responsibility of ensuring that we're not opening our uni's up to liabilities when paywall publishers come a-threatening with their pack of lawyers because a researcher has made the publisher's version of a paper available on the IR. Contrast that with the Terms of Service of websites like ResearchGate and Academia.edu, who put the onus on the researcher to understand and comply with copyrights for the papers they upload--and *trust* the researchers to do so. No wonder we're getting beat at our own game! But I digress. I agree that library-based IR workflows need a lot of improvement. Librarians need to start pushing back against legal counsels and administrators who make us into the gatekeepers/copyright enforcers. But I take exception to the assertion that we librarians need to step back and let the grownups figure out OA workflows. We often know just as much as researchers at our institutions about copyright, OA, IP, etc. What we need is a partnership to eradicate the barriers to OA that exist at the institutional/library policy and workflow levels. Oftentimes, library administrators take what groups of informed researchers have to say much more seriously than what their rank and file librarians say about things like OA. We could use your support in tearing down these barriers and getting rid of awful legacy workflows that restrict access, rather than this sort of divisive language that suggests we're just dopes who don't get OA and are making things harder for researchers. Respectfully, Stacy Konkiel Stacy Konkiel Director of Marketing Research at Impactstory http://impactstory.org/: share the full story of your research impact. working from beautiful Albuquerque, NM, USA @skonkiel http://www.twitter.com/skonkiel and @Impactstory https://twitter.com/ImpactStory On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:09 AM, brent...@ulg.ac.be wrote: I do not believe they are asking for anything contradictory. We all agree on (1), but when (2) is asking (some) librarians to get out of the way, it means just that they should not interfere with the process of self archiving on the basis of such considerations as scientific quality or any kind of personal judgement. They are welcome to help making the deposit which should be done as fast as possible, in restricted access if required. Le 23 sept. 2014 à 16:27, Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk a écrit : I suspect that Andrew Adams and Stevan Harnad may be asking for two contradictory things here. If I understand correctly, they want 1) as near 100% OA as soon as possible and 2) for librarians to get out of the way so that researchers can get on and self-archive. Given that many researchers have shown themselves to be generally uninterested in open access and, in some cases, directly antagonistic towards it, and given that over half of UK researchers appear to be unware of whether or not their future articles will need to be published in accordance with the RCUK policy or not ( http://goo.gl/Y3Lyua) I cannot see how keeping librarians (who have done so much to fill repositories and to educate researchers about OA) out of the way (wish 2) is going to help achieve wish 1. *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad *Sent:* 23 September 2014 14:33 *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex Andrew is so right. We did the rounds of this at Southampton, where the library (for obscure reasons of its own) wanted to do time-consuming and frustrating (for the author) checks on the deposit (is it suitable? is it legal? are the metadata in order?). In ECS we bagged that right away. And now ECS has fast lane exception in the university repository (but alas other departments do not). Similar needless roadblocks (unresolved) at UQAM. *Librarians*: I know your hearts are in the right place. But please, please trust those who understand OA far, far better than you do, that this library vetting -- if it needs to be done at all -- should be done *after* the deposit has already been made (by the author) and has already been made *immediately* OA (by the software). Please don't add to publishers' embargoes and other roadblocks to OA by adding gratuitous ones of your own. Let institutional authors deposit and make their deposits OA directly, without intervention, mediation or interference. Then if you
[GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex
Universities do not, and should not, assume liability for what others may do on their premises, whether physical or virtual. If someone commits a crime on campus such as stealing personal property, it is the fault of the thief, not the university. Responsibility for copyright should rest with the person copying. One reason I think this is especially important with scholarly communication is because if publishers wish to pursue their copyright it will be more effective to achieve change if the push is direct from publisher to author, not with library or university as intermediary. Publishers may be more reluctant to threaten authors than universities. However if they choose vigorous pursuit of their copyright directly with authors I expect that this will help authors to understand the system and channel their frustration where it belongs, to transform the system instead of shooting the messenger (library / university). best, Heather Morrison On Sep 23, 2014, at 3:43 PM, Stacy Konkiel st...@impactstory.orgmailto:st...@impactstory.org wrote: +100 to what Richard said. they should not interfere with the process of self archiving on the basis of such considerations as scientific quality or any kind of personal judgement. Ah, but what about when the review step is put into place to ensure that copyright is not violated? IR Librarians have, unfortunately, become the enforcers of copyright restrictions at many universities. Somehow, we ended up with the responsibility of ensuring that we're not opening our uni's up to liabilities when paywall publishers come a-threatening with their pack of lawyers because a researcher has made the publisher's version of a paper available on the IR. Contrast that with the Terms of Service of websites like ResearchGate and Academia.eduhttp://Academia.edu, who put the onus on the researcher to understand and comply with copyrights for the papers they upload--and *trust* the researchers to do so. No wonder we're getting beat at our own game! But I digress. I agree that library-based IR workflows need a lot of improvement. Librarians need to start pushing back against legal counsels and administrators who make us into the gatekeepers/copyright enforcers. But I take exception to the assertion that we librarians need to step back and let the grownups figure out OA workflows. We often know just as much as researchers at our institutions about copyright, OA, IP, etc. What we need is a partnership to eradicate the barriers to OA that exist at the institutional/library policy and workflow levels. Oftentimes, library administrators take what groups of informed researchers have to say much more seriously than what their rank and file librarians say about things like OA. We could use your support in tearing down these barriers and getting rid of awful legacy workflows that restrict access, rather than this sort of divisive language that suggests we're just dopes who don't get OA and are making things harder for researchers. Respectfully, Stacy Konkiel Stacy Konkiel Director of Marketing Research at Impactstoryhttp://impactstory.org/: share the full story of your research impact. working from beautiful Albuquerque, NM, USA @skonkielhttp://www.twitter.com/skonkiel and @Impactstoryhttps://twitter.com/ImpactStory On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:09 AM, brent...@ulg.ac.bemailto:brent...@ulg.ac.be wrote: I do not believe they are asking for anything contradictory. We all agree on (1), but when (2) is asking (some) librarians to get out of the way, it means just that they should not interfere with the process of self archiving on the basis of such considerations as scientific quality or any kind of personal judgement. They are welcome to help making the deposit which should be done as fast as possible, in restricted access if required. Le 23 sept. 2014 à 16:27, Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.ukmailto:ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk a écrit : I suspect that Andrew Adams and Stevan Harnad may be asking for two contradictory things here. If I understand correctly, they want 1) as near 100% OA as soon as possible and 2) for librarians to get out of the way so that researchers can get on and self-archive. Given that many researchers have shown themselves to be generally uninterested in open access and, in some cases, directly antagonistic towards it, and given that over half of UK researchers appear to be unware of whether or not their future articles will need to be published in accordance with the RCUK policy or not (http://goo.gl/Y3Lyua) I cannot see how keeping librarians (who have done so much to fill repositories and to educate researchers about OA) out of the way (wish 2) is going to help achieve wish 1. From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 23 September 2014 14:33 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL]
