[GOAL] {Disarmed} Open Access at Cambridge - Thursday

[Danny Kingsley]

Hello all,

Today's missive from the Open Access Week celebrations at Cambridge.

*Unlocking Theses project*
The Office of Scholarly Communications is making a concerted effort to 
build on the 860+ open access theses we already hold in the Apollo 
repository. The Library holds over 1200 scanned theses that have been 
redigitised from the printed copy in the Library as a result of a 
research request for a copy. Earlier this year we embarked on a project 
to 'unlock' these theses. We have run OCR across all of the scans and 
uploaded the theses into a restricted thesis collection. We also spent 
some time negotiating the intricate issues related to obtaining contact 
information for our alumni. Last month we began contacting the authors 
to ask permission to make the theses openly available. Our initial 
pilots are indicating we will have a very positive response to this 
project, with over 50% of the first group contacted giving us permission 
within a fortnight. The project should run through the Christmas break 
and we hope to be able to provide final numbers about this initiative 
early in 2016.


*Blog**- Where to from here? Open Access in Five Years*
Today's blog is a peice by Dr Arthu Smith looking to the future.


Academic publishing is not what it used to be. Open access has exploded 
on the scene and challenged the established publishing model that has 
remained largely unchanged for 350 years. However, for those of us 
working in scholarly communications, the pace of change feels at times 
frustratingly slow, with constant roadblocks along the way. Navigating 
the policy landscape provided by universities, funders and publishers 
can be maddening, yet we need to remain mindful of how far we have come 
in a relatively short time. There is no sign that open access is losing 
momentum, so it's perhaps instructive to consider the direction we want 
open access to take over the next five years, based upon the experiences 
of the past. 


https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=366

*Campaign*
The League of European Universities (LERU) has launched the 
#Christmasisover campaign 
 
(http://www.leru.org/index.php/public/news/christmas-is-over-research-funding-should-go-to-research-not-to-publishers/) 
with an online petition to sign the *LERU Statement on OA 
(http://www.leru.org/index.php/public/extra/signtheLERUstatement/) 
. 
*Individuals and organisations are encouraged to sign the statement. 
Make this your action for Open Access Week!*

*
Enjoy!

Danny

--
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head of Scholarly Communications
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: da...@cam.ac.uk
T: @dannykay68
ORCID iD: -0002-3636-5939

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Changes in top ten DOAJ publishers 2014 to 2015

[Heather Morrison]

The Sustaining the Knowledge Commons team would like to share just a little 
preliminary information from our 2015 survey of DOAJ journals using OA APCs. In 
brief, there have been some interesting changes in the mix of publishers listed 
in DOAJ.

For example, traditional publisher De Gruyter has gone from no DOAJ titles in 
2014 to third largest DOAJ publisher with 212 titles in 2015. Elsevier is now 
the 7th largest DOAJ publisher.

Hindawi and BioMedCentral remain the two largest publishers by number of titles 
offered (different from number of articles published, perhaps a more 
significant metric but outside the scope of our study).

More details:
http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/10/22/top-10-publishers-in-doaj-by-number-of-titles-2014-to-2015/

Data:
http://dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dvn/dv/oaapc

Jihane, Guinsly & I wish everyone a happy Open Access Week!

--
Dr. Heather Morrison
Assistant Professor
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
University of Ottawa
Desmarais 111-02
613-562-5800 ext. 7634
Sustaining the Knowledge Commons: Open Access Scholarship
http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: ?spam? Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'

[BAUIN Serge]

One might even wonder if permitting researchers to make a copy of their work 
available in a repository could entail an uplift of downloads at the 
publisher’s web site, thus leading librarians to subscribe:
http://www.peerproject.eu/fileadmin/media/reports/20120618_D5_3_PEER_Usage_Study_RCT.pdf

Serge



Le 22/10/2015 11:59, « David Prosser » 
> a écrit :

If the question is ‘Is there any evidence showing a correlation between embargo 
length and subscription cancellations?’ then the answer is clearly ‘no’.

If the question is ‘Is there a disconnect between library behaviour and survey 
results?’ then the answer is clearly ‘yes’.

Yes different journals have different usage half-lives and yes journal usage is 
a factor in libraries’ purchasing decisions but nobody has shown any evidence 
that links usage, half-lives, and cancellations.  This despite the ten years of 
experience of setting embargoes that Alicia tells us about - if they evidence 
exists then show it to us.

Let’s remind ourselves of how this discussion started - Danny wrote 'There is 
no evidence that permitting researchers to make a copy of their work available 
in a repository results in journal subscriptions being cancelled. None.’  
Despite Alicia’s intervention that statement still stands.

David



On 21 Oct 2015, at 16:05, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) 
> wrote:

Hi there -
Great to see engagement on this topic which is of shared strategic interest for 
librarians and publishers!  My original posting was to push back on the idea 
that there is 'no evidence', and I'm pleased to see acknowledgment that there 
is evidence and some discussion about whether or not it is sufficient or if 
more is needed.
Publishers, including Elsevier, have c. 20 years of usage data and c. 10 years 
of experience of setting embargos and looking at the impact of various sharing 
behaviors.  We're not guessing or crying wolf or 'ignoring reality' when we set 
embargo periods.  Some impacts of short embargos can take time to be felt. An 
interesting perspective on why that might be the cases is implicit in a study 
the AAP commissioned from Phil Davis.  You can see the full study for yourself 
at 
http://publishers.org/sites/default/files/uploads/PSP/journalusagehalflife.pdf 
but let me quote the first two sentences of the abstract for everyone here:  
"An analysis of article downloads from 2,812 academic and professional journals 
published by 13 presses in the sciences, social sciences, and the humanities 
reveals extensive usage of articles years after publication. Measuring usage 
half-life - the median age of articles downloaded from a publisher's website - 
just 3% of journals had a half-lives shorter than 12-months".
It is also a fact that libraries look at usage figures, and this is one factor 
in their purchasing decisions.  Why else would services such as COUNTER exist?  
See http://www.projectcounter.org/  Again, to quote from the COUNTER website: 
"Launched in March 2002, COUNTER (Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic 
Resources) is an international initiative serving librarians, publishers and 
intermediaries by setting standards that facilitate the recording and reporting 
of online usage statistics in a consistent, credible and compatible way.  Later 
on that page the benefits of COUNTER to librarians and publishers are explained 
in this way:
"Librarians are able to compare usage statistics from different vendors; derive 
useful metrics such as cost-per-use; make better-informed purchasing decisions; 
plan infrastructure more effectively.
Publishers and intermediaries are able to: provide data to customers in a 
format they want; compare the relative usage of different delivery channels; 
aggregate data for customers using multiple delivery channels; learn more about 
genuine usage patterns."
Might these data on usage be leveraged in some way to shed light?  I don't know 
if someone from COUNTER is on this listserv, but if so would be interested to 
hear their perspective.
Anyway, green OA is important for us all and good to see more discussion.  
There is not a simple interplay between usage and embargo setting and 
subscription decisions.  A publisher who sets a 6 month embargo period will not 
necessarily lose subscriptions, or at least not lose them quickly.  There are 
at least a couple of reasons for this.  First, for exceptional (not typical!) 
journals a six month embargo can be made to work.  We have around 10 titles 
with 6 month embargo periods, in really fast moving areas of science where 
there is a lot of news-breaking content, and we believe these are sustainable 
(but of course we will continue to monitor and review).  Second, the impact on 
subscriptions can be rather slow - some of the specific examples cited in my 
original posts are titles that lost their subscriptions over 5 or 10 years and 
where the publishers with 

[GOAL] Re: ?spam? Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'

[David Prosser]

If the question is ‘Is there any evidence showing a correlation between embargo 
length and subscription cancellations?’ then the answer is clearly ‘no’.

If the question is ‘Is there a disconnect between library behaviour and survey 
results?’ then the answer is clearly ‘yes’.

Yes different journals have different usage half-lives and yes journal usage is 
a factor in libraries’ purchasing decisions but nobody has shown any evidence 
that links usage, half-lives, and cancellations.  This despite the ten years of 
experience of setting embargoes that Alicia tells us about - if they evidence 
exists then show it to us.

Let’s remind ourselves of how this discussion started - Danny wrote 'There is 
no evidence that permitting researchers to make a copy of their work available 
in a repository results in journal subscriptions being cancelled. None.’  
Despite Alicia’s intervention that statement still stands.

David



On 21 Oct 2015, at 16:05, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)  wrote:

> Hi there -
> 
> Great to see engagement on this topic which is of shared strategic interest 
> for librarians and publishers!  My original posting was to push back on the 
> idea that there is 'no evidence', and I'm pleased to see acknowledgment that 
> there is evidence and some discussion about whether or not it is sufficient 
> or if more is needed.
> 
> Publishers, including Elsevier, have c. 20 years of usage data and c. 10 
> years of experience of setting embargos and looking at the impact of various 
> sharing behaviors.  We're not guessing or crying wolf or 'ignoring reality' 
> when we set embargo periods.  Some impacts of short embargos can take time to 
> be felt. An interesting perspective on why that might be the cases is 
> implicit in a study the AAP commissioned from Phil Davis.  You can see the 
> full study for yourself at 
> http://publishers.org/sites/default/files/uploads/PSP/journalusagehalflife.pdf
>  but let me quote the first two sentences of the abstract for everyone here:  
> "An analysis of article downloads from 2,812 academic and professional 
> journals published by 13 presses in the sciences, social sciences, and the 
> humanities reveals extensive usage of articles years after publication. 
> Measuring usage half-life - the median age of articles downloaded from a 
> publisher's website - just 3% of journals had a half-lives shorter than 
> 12-months".
> 
> It is also a fact that libraries look at usage figures, and this is one 
> factor in their purchasing decisions.  Why else would services such as 
> COUNTER exist?  See http://www.projectcounter.org/  Again, to quote from the 
> COUNTER website: "Launched in March 2002, COUNTER (Counting Online Usage of 
> Networked Electronic Resources) is an international initiative serving 
> librarians, publishers and intermediaries by setting standards that 
> facilitate the recording and reporting of online usage statistics in a 
> consistent, credible and compatible way.  Later on that page the benefits of 
> COUNTER to librarians and publishers are explained in this way:
> 
> "Librarians are able to compare usage statistics from different vendors; 
> derive useful metrics such as cost-per-use; make better-informed purchasing 
> decisions; plan infrastructure more effectively.
> 
> Publishers and intermediaries are able to: provide data to customers in a 
> format they want; compare the relative usage of different delivery channels; 
> aggregate data for customers using multiple delivery channels; learn more 
> about genuine usage patterns."
> 
> Might these data on usage be leveraged in some way to shed light?  I don't 
> know if someone from COUNTER is on this listserv, but if so would be 
> interested to hear their perspective.
> 
> Anyway, green OA is important for us all and good to see more discussion.  
> There is not a simple interplay between usage and embargo setting and 
> subscription decisions.  A publisher who sets a 6 month embargo period will 
> not necessarily lose subscriptions, or at least not lose them quickly.  There 
> are at least a couple of reasons for this.  First, for exceptional (not 
> typical!) journals a six month embargo can be made to work.  We have around 
> 10 titles with 6 month embargo periods, in really fast moving areas of 
> science where there is a lot of news-breaking content, and we believe these 
> are sustainable (but of course we will continue to monitor and review).  
> Second, the impact on subscriptions can be rather slow - some of the specific 
> examples cited in my original posts are titles that lost their subscriptions 
> over 5 or 10 years and where the publishers with hindsight understood the 
> long term impact of their embargo decisions.
> 
> With kind wishes,
> Alicia
> 
> P.S.  I am struck by how little discussion there has been (at least so far!) 
> on this list about the review of the UK national OA policy implementation 
> which was commissioned by Universities UK on behalf 

[GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'

[Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)]

Because the journals in the PEER study used publisher-set embargo periods...


-  Alicia

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
David Prosser
Sent: 22 October 2015 14:42
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'


Marc's post reminds me that there was the EC-funded, STM-run PEER project that 
attempted to do exactly this comparison:

http://www.stm-assoc.org/public-affairs/resources/peer/

One of the aims of PEER was to discover the effect of Green OA on journal 
viability - for the journals that took part there were no negative effects on 
their viability.

David

On 22 Oct 2015, at 13:50, Couture Marc 
> wrote:


Hi all,

What we would like to see here as evidence is something like what is being done 
about open access to scholarly monographs: rigorous studies, involving control 
groups and close monitoring, testing the effect of making a toll-free copy 
available.

I'm aware of two such studies, both made as part of the OAPEN initiative: one 
in the Netherlands and one in the UK (still ongoing, but preliminary results 
have been released).

Interestingly, both found no measurable effect of toll-free availability on the 
sales. The only "effect" of toll-free access is a tremendous increase of use, 
as measured by summing the sales and the (much more numerous) downloads.

Here also, fears that scholarly publishing is incompatible, or endangered by OA 
were, and still are, regularly aired.

It's possible that things are not the same for journal publishing. But, pending 
reliable results, we simply don't know, and predictions as to a loss of 
subscriptions are nothing but speculation (or hypotheses).

For details: 
http://www.oapen.nl/images/attachments/article/58/OAPEN-NL-final-report.pdf  
and 
http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/wp-uploads/2014/07/JACKSON-Oxford-OA-Monographs-June-2014.pdf

Marc Couture


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal




Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, 
Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, Registered in 
England and Wales.
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: GOAL Digest, Vol 47, Issue 34

[Danny Kingsley]

Alicia,

Repeatedly saying something does not make it true. Davis's half life 
study is interesting but it does not tell us anything about cancellation 
behaviours. There is no causal arrow between half lives of articles and 
journal cancellation.  The evidence we are asking for is not conjecture 
based on some old study, or an assumption there must be some sort of 
relationship between two separate sets of information.


Please provide an actual example with actual data of a situation where a 
journal has lost subscriptions because it has permitted researchers to 
upload a pdf of a non formatted version of the article into an 
institutional repository.


I am not even beginning to get into the question of what value add 
publishers provide if they are so clearly threatened by *potential 
*availability of a*small proportion* of articles in a given issue of a 
journal that are uploaded in the form of *static unformatted pdf*s into 
*unconnected repositories *across the globe.


Danny

On 22/10/2015 11:02, goal-requ...@eprints.org wrote:

Send GOAL mailing list submissions to
goal@eprints.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
goal-requ...@eprints.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
goal-ow...@eprints.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of GOAL digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'
   (Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF))
2.  Open Access Week at Cambridge - Wednesday (Danny Kingsley)
3. Re: ?spam? Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half
   the story' (David Prosser)


--

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:05:40 +
From: "Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)" 
Subject: [GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the
story'
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" 
Message-ID:



Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi there -

Great to see engagement on this topic which is of shared strategic interest for 
librarians and publishers!  My original posting was to push back on the idea 
that there is 'no evidence', and I'm pleased to see acknowledgment that there 
is evidence and some discussion about whether or not it is sufficient or if 
more is needed.

Publishers, including Elsevier, have c. 20 years of usage data and c. 10 years of 
experience of setting embargos and looking at the impact of various sharing 
behaviors.  We're not guessing or crying wolf or 'ignoring reality' when we set 
embargo periods.  Some impacts of short embargos can take time to be felt. An 
interesting perspective on why that might be the cases is implicit in a study the 
AAP commissioned from Phil Davis.  You can see the full study for yourself at 
http://publishers.org/sites/default/files/uploads/PSP/journalusagehalflife.pdf but 
let me quote the first two sentences of the abstract for everyone here:  "An 
analysis of article downloads from 2,812 academic and professional journals 
published by 13 presses in the sciences, social sciences, and the humanities reveals 
extensive usage of articles years after publication. Measuring usage half-life - the 
median age of articles downloaded from a publisher's website - just 3% of journals 
had a half-lives shorter!
   than 12-months".

It is also a fact that libraries look at usage figures, and this is one factor in 
their purchasing decisions.  Why else would services such as COUNTER exist?  See 
http://www.projectcounter.org/  Again, to quote from the COUNTER website: 
"Launched in March 2002, COUNTER (Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic 
Resources) is an international initiative serving librarians, publishers and 
intermediaries by setting standards that facilitate the recording and reporting of 
online usage statistics in a consistent, credible and compatible way.  Later on that 
page the benefits of COUNTER to librarians and publishers are explained in this way:

"Librarians are able to compare usage statistics from different vendors; derive 
useful metrics such as cost-per-use; make better-informed purchasing decisions; plan 
infrastructure more effectively.

Publishers and intermediaries are able to: provide data to customers in a format 
they want; compare the relative usage of different delivery channels; aggregate data 
for customers using multiple delivery channels; learn more about genuine usage 
patterns."

Might these data on usage be leveraged in some way to shed light?  I don't know 
if someone from COUNTER is on this listserv, but if so would be interested to 
hear their perspective.

Anyway, green OA is important for us all 

[GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'

[Laurent Romary]

Indeed. And if you look at the randomized usage report: 
http://www.peerproject.eu/fileadmin/media/reports/20120618_D5_3_PEER_Usage_Study_RCT.pdf
 

you can read an interesting conclusion:

The key finding of the trial is that the exposure of articles in PEER 
repositories is associated with an uplift in downloads at the publishers’ web 
sites. This is likely to be the result of high quality PEER metadata, a liberal 
attitude towards allowing search engine robots to index the material, and the 
consequently higher digital visibility that PEER creates for scholarly content. 
Overall, the publisher uplift was 11.4% (95% confidence intervals (CI95), 7.5% 
to 15.5%) and was highly significant (p < 0.01). This finding is consistent 
with the only other experimental study that CIBER is aware of that used an RCT 
design to investigate the impact of institutional repository exposure on 
publisher downloads, albeit for a single journal (Sho and others 2011).

Food for thought.

Laurent

> Le 22 oct. 2015 à 15:42, David Prosser  a écrit :
> 
> 
> Marc’s post reminds me that there was the EC-funded, STM-run PEER project 
> that attempted to do exactly this comparison:
> 
> http://www.stm-assoc.org/public-affairs/resources/peer/ 
> 
> 
> One of the aims of PEER was to discover the effect of Green OA on journal 
> viability - for the journals that took part there were no negative effects on 
> their viability. 
> 
> David
> 
> On 22 Oct 2015, at 13:50, Couture Marc  > wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>>  
>> What we would like to see here as evidence is something like what is being 
>> done about open access to scholarly monographs: rigorous studies, involving 
>> control groups and close monitoring, testing the effect of making a 
>> toll-free copy available.
>>  
>> I’m aware of two such studies, both made as part of the OAPEN initiative: 
>> one in the Netherlands and one in the UK (still ongoing, but preliminary 
>> results have been released).
>>  
>> Interestingly, both found no measurable effect of toll-free availability on 
>> the sales. The only “effect” of toll-free access is a tremendous increase of 
>> use, as measured by summing the sales and the (much more numerous) downloads.
>>  
>> Here also, fears that scholarly publishing is incompatible, or endangered by 
>> OA were, and still are, regularly aired.
>>  
>> It’s possible that things are not the same for journal publishing. But, 
>> pending reliable results, we simply don’t know, and predictions as to a loss 
>> of subscriptions are nothing but speculation (or hypotheses).
>>  
>> For details: 
>> http://www.oapen.nl/images/attachments/article/58/OAPEN-NL-final-report.pdf 
>> 
>>   and 
>> http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/wp-uploads/2014/07/JACKSON-Oxford-OA-Monographs-June-2014.pdf
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> Marc Couture
>>  
>>  
>> ___
>> 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

Laurent Romary
INRIA
laurent.rom...@inria.fr




___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'

[Laurent Romary]

This does not explain why, when the papers where freely available online, we 
observed an increase in usage for Publishers’ web sites…
Laurent


> Le 22 oct. 2015 à 15:57, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)  a écrit 
> :
> 
> Because the journals in the PEER study used publisher-set embargo periods…
>  
> -  Alicia
>  
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
> David Prosser
> Sent: 22 October 2015 14:42
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'
>  
>  
> Marc’s post reminds me that there was the EC-funded, STM-run PEER project 
> that attempted to do exactly this comparison:
>  
> http://www.stm-assoc.org/public-affairs/resources/peer/ 
> 
>  
> One of the aims of PEER was to discover the effect of Green OA on journal 
> viability - for the journals that took part there were no negative effects on 
> their viability. 
>  
> David
>  
> On 22 Oct 2015, at 13:50, Couture Marc  > wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all,
>  
> What we would like to see here as evidence is something like what is being 
> done about open access to scholarly monographs: rigorous studies, involving 
> control groups and close monitoring, testing the effect of making a toll-free 
> copy available.
>  
> I’m aware of two such studies, both made as part of the OAPEN initiative: one 
> in the Netherlands and one in the UK (still ongoing, but preliminary results 
> have been released).
>  
> Interestingly, both found no measurable effect of toll-free availability on 
> the sales. The only “effect” of toll-free access is a tremendous increase of 
> use, as measured by summing the sales and the (much more numerous) downloads.
>  
> Here also, fears that scholarly publishing is incompatible, or endangered by 
> OA were, and still are, regularly aired.
>  
> It’s possible that things are not the same for journal publishing. But, 
> pending reliable results, we simply don’t know, and predictions as to a loss 
> of subscriptions are nothing but speculation (or hypotheses).
>  
> For details: 
> http://www.oapen.nl/images/attachments/article/58/OAPEN-NL-final-report.pdf 
>  
>  and 
> http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/wp-uploads/2014/07/JACKSON-Oxford-OA-Monographs-June-2014.pdf
>  
> 
>  
> Marc Couture
>  
>  
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org 
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal 
> 
>  
> 
> Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, 
> Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, 
> Registered in England and Wales. 
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Laurent Romary
INRIA
laurent.rom...@inria.fr




___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Open Access Week at Cambridge - Wednesday

[Danny Kingsley]

Good point Serge,

I should have put these links in yesterday (I am blaming a headcold for 
fuzzy thinking). You might find the information on the Office of 
Scholarly Communication webpages useful.


 * Modern Monographs overview - http://osc.cam.ac.uk/modern-monographs
 * Open access and monographs -
   http://osc.cam.ac.uk/modern-monographs/open-access-and-monographs
 * OA monograph costs -
   
http://osc.cam.ac.uk/modern-monographs/open-access-and-monographs/oa-monograph-costs
 * OA monograph publishing options -
   
http://osc.cam.ac.uk/modern-monographs/open-access-and-monographs/open-access-monograph-publishing-options
 * Book chapters in repositories -
   
http://osc.cam.ac.uk/modern-monographs/open-access-and-monographs/making-book-chapters-available-repositories
 * New monograph business models -
   http://osc.cam.ac.uk/modern-monographs/open-monograph-business-models
 * Research and reports on OA in HASS -
   http://osc.cam.ac.uk/modern-monographs/research-reports-oa-hass
 * Resources and support -
   http://osc.cam.ac.uk/modern-monographs/resources-and-support

Regards,

Danny

On 21/10/2015 21:12, BAUIN Serge wrote:

Very nice, indeed Danny,
But is there something anywhere on the web we could use as a reference?
Cheers
Serge Bauin
(see red boldface below)

De : Danny Kingsley >
Répondre à : Global List >
Date : Wed, 21 Oct 2015 20:49:29 +0200
À : Global List >
Objet : [GOAL] Open Access Week at Cambridge - Wednesday

*Discussion: 'How open access can help you'*
Today Dr Danny Kingsley accepted an invitation from Dr Rupert Gatti, 
one of the Directors of the Open Book Publishers 
http://www.openbookpublishers.com/section/14/1/about to attend a 
discussion hosted by Professor Steve Connor, the Head of English about 
open access and the future of academic publishing. Some very powerful 
statements were addressed including 'The world of academic publishing 
is over’ and '*The monograph as an entity is very powerful thing – for 
the author not for the reader*’.  Issues around the readership of the 
legacy publishing model compared to those of open publishing models 
*were explored in the context of the current reward system*. These are 
profound questions for the Arts and Humanities in a time of drastic 
funding cuts. New ‘publishing’ models were discussed in light of the 
types of online and digital research now being conducted in the 
Humanities, and the challenges associated with maintaining the 
integrity of the links into the long term. This is likely to be the 
first of a series of discussions about this important topic.


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'

[Couture Marc]

Hi all,

What we would like to see here as evidence is something like what is being done 
about open access to scholarly monographs: rigorous studies, involving control 
groups and close monitoring, testing the effect of making a toll-free copy 
available.

I'm aware of two such studies, both made as part of the OAPEN initiative: one 
in the Netherlands and one in the UK (still ongoing, but preliminary results 
have been released).

Interestingly, both found no measurable effect of toll-free availability on the 
sales. The only "effect" of toll-free access is a tremendous increase of use, 
as measured by summing the sales and the (much more numerous) downloads.

Here also, fears that scholarly publishing is incompatible, or endangered by OA 
were, and still are, regularly aired.

It's possible that things are not the same for journal publishing. But, pending 
reliable results, we simply don't know, and predictions as to a loss of 
subscriptions are nothing but speculation (or hypotheses).

For details: 
http://www.oapen.nl/images/attachments/article/58/OAPEN-NL-final-report.pdf  
and 
http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/wp-uploads/2014/07/JACKSON-Oxford-OA-Monographs-June-2014.pdf

Marc Couture


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'

[David Prosser]

Marc’s post reminds me that there was the EC-funded, STM-run PEER project that 
attempted to do exactly this comparison:

http://www.stm-assoc.org/public-affairs/resources/peer/

One of the aims of PEER was to discover the effect of Green OA on journal 
viability - for the journals that took part there were no negative effects on 
their viability.

David

On 22 Oct 2015, at 13:50, Couture Marc 
> wrote:

Hi all,

What we would like to see here as evidence is something like what is being done 
about open access to scholarly monographs: rigorous studies, involving control 
groups and close monitoring, testing the effect of making a toll-free copy 
available.

I’m aware of two such studies, both made as part of the OAPEN initiative: one 
in the Netherlands and one in the UK (still ongoing, but preliminary results 
have been released).

Interestingly, both found no measurable effect of toll-free availability on the 
sales. The only “effect” of toll-free access is a tremendous increase of use, 
as measured by summing the sales and the (much more numerous) downloads.

Here also, fears that scholarly publishing is incompatible, or endangered by OA 
were, and still are, regularly aired.

It’s possible that things are not the same for journal publishing. But, pending 
reliable results, we simply don’t know, and predictions as to a loss of 
subscriptions are nothing but speculation (or hypotheses).

For details: 
http://www.oapen.nl/images/attachments/article/58/OAPEN-NL-final-report.pdf  
and 
http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/wp-uploads/2014/07/JACKSON-Oxford-OA-Monographs-June-2014.pdf

Marc Couture


___
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: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'

[Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)]

Sorry, Laurent – my message wasn’t a reply to your post, but rather to David’s 
concluding that there were no negative impacts on journals participating in 
PEER.  That is correct, and my point is that publisher-set embargo periods 
(based on all the information and evidence we bring to bear in embargo setting) 
was essential to that outcome.

With kind wishes,
Alicia

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Laurent Romary
Sent: 22 October 2015 15:27
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'

This does not explain why, when the papers where freely available online, we 
observed an increase in usage for Publishers’ web sites…
Laurent


Le 22 oct. 2015 à 15:57, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) 
> a écrit :

Because the journals in the PEER study used publisher-set embargo periods…


-  Alicia

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of David Prosser
Sent: 22 October 2015 14:42
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'


Marc’s post reminds me that there was the EC-funded, STM-run PEER project that 
attempted to do exactly this comparison:

http://www.stm-assoc.org/public-affairs/resources/peer/

One of the aims of PEER was to discover the effect of Green OA on journal 
viability - for the journals that took part there were no negative effects on 
their viability.

David

On 22 Oct 2015, at 13:50, Couture Marc 
> wrote:



Hi all,

What we would like to see here as evidence is something like what is being done 
about open access to scholarly monographs: rigorous studies, involving control 
groups and close monitoring, testing the effect of making a toll-free copy 
available.

I’m aware of two such studies, both made as part of the OAPEN initiative: one 
in the Netherlands and one in the UK (still ongoing, but preliminary results 
have been released).

Interestingly, both found no measurable effect of toll-free availability on the 
sales. The only “effect” of toll-free access is a tremendous increase of use, 
as measured by summing the sales and the (much more numerous) downloads.

Here also, fears that scholarly publishing is incompatible, or endangered by OA 
were, and still are, regularly aired.

It’s possible that things are not the same for journal publishing. But, pending 
reliable results, we simply don’t know, and predictions as to a loss of 
subscriptions are nothing but speculation (or hypotheses).

For details: 
http://www.oapen.nl/images/attachments/article/58/OAPEN-NL-final-report.pdf  
and 
http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/wp-uploads/2014/07/JACKSON-Oxford-OA-Monographs-June-2014.pdf

Marc Couture


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal



Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, 
Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, Registered in 
England and Wales.
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Laurent Romary
INRIA
laurent.rom...@inria.fr






Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, 
Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, Registered in 
England and Wales.
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal