Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory Group

[Chris Zielinski]

 On 11 September 2019 at 20:23 Chris Zielinski 
wrote:

Comment to Peter Murray-Rust:  The point of an Advisory Board is surely to
advise, not to rubber-stamp, and the wider the perspective of its members,
the better. It remains to be seen who is appointed.

For some reason, Open Access discourse often skirts or evades the question
of copyright (and the related issue of authors' moral rights is never
touched upon, although I had a skirmish with Stevan Harnad on the subject
many years ago, on the AmSci list ). Good to have esome attention paid to
this now. It would be welcome to all if a clear position could be developed.

Best,

Chris

Chris Zielinski
ch...@chriszielinski.com
Blogs: http://ziggytheblue.wordpress.com and http://ziggytheblue.tumblr.com
Research publications: http://www.researchgate.net

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 20:39, Rob Johnson <
rob.john...@research-consulting.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Thanks to Peter and Heather for taking the time to comment on this
> initiative by CCC. I am of course conflicted myself, as we’ve been
> contracted by them to help form this advisory group, so members of the list
> will need to make their own judgement on whether it’s an activity they wish
> to engage with, but I hope some of you will consider it.
>
>
>
> As a newcomer to this list, I should perhaps explain that my involvement
> in open access over the last decade (first as a university research
> manager, latterly as a consultant), was initially sparked by personal
> interest, and the sense that OA is self-evidently a worthy and desirable
> goal. My opinion on that front has not changed, but much of my work in
> recent years has meant engaging in the messy business of trying to
> translate that goal into reality, and working out how to navigate the many
> vested interests, collective action problems and, of course, skewed
> incentives that make up our current system of scholarly communication. One
> conclusion I came to fairly quickly, from simply looking at the data on
> where scholars publish, is that somehow bypassing the big commercial
> publishers, and related bodies like CCC, is not a viable pathway to OA at
> scale, simply because they publish so much of the (Western) world’s
> research.
>
>
>
> My thinking on this and related matters is set out in far more detail in
> this report we wrote for the European Commission on the OA market a couple
> of years ago: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/114081/. At the time I and
> my co-authors advocated for a greater level of regulation in the scholarly
> market, and this work informed some of the thinking behind Plan S, whose
> implications I explored in a more recent article:
> https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.453/. I do understand the
> appeal of price caps in principle, as Peter advocates, but I find it very
> hard to see how they might be implemented in practice without significant
> unintended consequences. I have tended to suggest the focus should instead
> be on changing incentives in the system, promoting transparency in the
> market, and enhancing monitoring and reporting mechanisms.
>
>
>
> Copyright is an important part of this picture, as Heather has outlined,
> and there would seem to be a clear need for dialogue between publishers,
> bodies like CCC, funders, librarians and the research community on how
> rights retention mechanisms might be more consistently implemented in
> practice, to take just one example. I do understand that initiating such a
> dialogue can look like ‘openwashing’ if it emerges from the publisher
> community. I can’t speak for CCC, and no doubt the marketing aspect is part
> of their thinking (what for-profit or quasi-for-profit doesn’t consider the
> bottom line?), but from my perspective this doesn’t cancel out the need for
> dialogue between stakeholders, and the potential benefits that can arise
> from this.
>
>
>
> I’m grateful to Richard for adding me to the list, and giving me the
> chance to pick up on the correspondence below, and look forward to
> contributing to future discussions.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> Rob Johnson
>
> *Director*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Follow us on Twitter @rschconsulting
> 
>
> T: +44(0)115 896 7567
>
> M: +44(0)779 511 7737
>
> E: rob.john...@research-consulting.com
>
> W: www.research-consulting.com
>
>
>
> Registered office: The Ingenuity Centre, University of Nottingham
> Innovation Park, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, United Kingdom
>
> Research Consulting Limited is a Company Registered in England and Wales,
> Reg No. 8376797
>
>
> ---
>
> This communication and the information contained in it are 

Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory Group

[Rob Johnson]

Dear all,
Thanks to Peter and Heather for taking the time to comment on this initiative 
by CCC. I am of course conflicted myself, as we've been contracted by them to 
help form this advisory group, so members of the list will need to make their 
own judgement on whether it's an activity they wish to engage with, but I hope 
some of you will consider it.

As a newcomer to this list, I should perhaps explain that my involvement in 
open access over the last decade (first as a university research manager, 
latterly as a consultant), was initially sparked by personal interest, and the 
sense that OA is self-evidently a worthy and desirable goal. My opinion on that 
front has not changed, but much of my work in recent years has meant engaging 
in the messy business of trying to translate that goal into reality, and 
working out how to navigate the many vested interests, collective action 
problems and, of course, skewed incentives that make up our current system of 
scholarly communication. One conclusion I came to fairly quickly, from simply 
looking at the data on where scholars publish, is that somehow bypassing the 
big commercial publishers, and related bodies like CCC, is not a viable pathway 
to OA at scale, simply because they publish so much of the (Western) world's 
research.

My thinking on this and related matters is set out in far more detail in this 
report we wrote for the European Commission on the OA market a couple of years 
ago: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/114081/. At the time I and my co-authors 
advocated for a greater level of regulation in the scholarly market, and this 
work informed some of the thinking behind Plan S, whose implications I explored 
in a more recent article: https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.453/. 
I do understand the appeal of price caps in principle, as Peter advocates, but 
I find it very hard to see how they might be implemented in practice without 
significant unintended consequences. I have tended to suggest the focus should 
instead be on changing incentives in the system, promoting transparency in the 
market, and enhancing monitoring and reporting mechanisms.

Copyright is an important part of this picture, as Heather has outlined, and 
there would seem to be a clear need for dialogue between publishers, bodies 
like CCC, funders, librarians and the research community on how rights 
retention mechanisms might be more consistently implemented in practice, to 
take just one example. I do understand that initiating such a dialogue can look 
like 'openwashing' if it emerges from the publisher community. I can't speak 
for CCC, and no doubt the marketing aspect is part of their thinking (what 
for-profit or quasi-for-profit doesn't consider the bottom line?), but from my 
perspective this doesn't cancel out the need for dialogue between stakeholders, 
and the potential benefits that can arise from this.

I'm grateful to Richard for adding me to the list, and giving me the chance to 
pick up on the correspondence below, and look forward to contributing to future 
discussions.

Best wishes,

Rob

Rob Johnson
Director

 [cid:image001.png@01D568DC.CDEEC9D0]

Follow us on Twitter 
@rschconsulting
T: +44(0)115 896 7567
M: +44(0)779 511 7737
E: 
rob.john...@research-consulting.com
W: www.research-consulting.com

Registered office: The Ingenuity Centre, University of Nottingham Innovation 
Park, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, United Kingdom
Research Consulting Limited is a Company Registered in England and Wales, Reg 
No. 8376797
---
This communication and the information contained in it are confidential and may 
be legally privileged. The content is intended solely for the use of the 
individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorised to receive 
it. If you are not the intended recipient, it is hereby brought to your notice 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or dissemination, or alternatively 
the taking of any action in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may 
constitute grounds for action, either civil or criminal.



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org  On Behalf Of Heather 
Morrison
Sent: 11 September 2019 19:19
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory 
Group

Good point, thanks Peter.

The Copyright Clearance Center is only one of many such organizations around 
the world. They have their own international organization, the International 
Federation of Reproductive Rights Organizations - website 

Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory Group

[Heather Morrison]

Good point, thanks Peter.

The Copyright Clearance Center is only one of many such organizations around 
the world. They have their own international organization, the International 
Federation of Reproductive Rights Organizations - website here:
https://www.ifrro.org/

These organizations are a factor in the cost of scholarly communication 
(purchase of material and rights), and CCC is not the only organization to have 
sued universities. In Canada, local copyright collectives Access Copyright and 
Copibec are working to use legal means to require all educational institutions 
(including K-12 and universities) to be required to pay a blanket license for 
copying. Many universities and the K-12 sector strongly disagree with the 
approach and cost ask, in part because most materials are purchased for 
site-wide access or are available open access, so a model based on assumptions 
of print and photocopiers does not make sense and certainly does not justify 
higher prices. In this instance, CCC is helpful because they provide per-item 
licensing which is one of the options for universities to avoid blanket 
licenses. Two universities that refused blanket licenses have been sued. One 
case is settled, the other is in progress.

A key concept is fair dealing, that is, the idea that copyright law should be 
balanced, with readers as well as authors having some re-use rights. For me as 
a scholar, fair dealing is and will always be essential to my work. For 
example, even publishers with strict CC-BY licenses for articles they publish 
typically have All Rights Reserved for material on their website. I need fair 
dealing in order to work with their price lists and copy wording from their 
websites when needed as evidence for my research.

In the U.S. an important case that I think is still in progress involves 3 
publishers that sued George State University for providing students with 
excerpts of material that they had paid for - 2018 brief update here:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/10/30/georgia-state-and-publishers-continue-legal-battle-over-fair-use-course-materials

In Canada in 2012 there were major gains in fair dealing for the educational 
sector through a series of Supreme Court lawsuits. Prior to this, fair dealing 
in Canada was far less generous than fair use in the U.S. This does not settle 
the matter - a statutory review of the Copyright Act last year resulted in 
close to 200 submissions, with reproductive rights organizations and some 
publishers pushing to reduce or eliminate fair and educational institutions, 
researchers and some other publishers pushing to retain or expand fair dealing. 
There are substantial stakes involved ($ and our ability to work and create), 
and so I do not think that either the discussion or the litigation will be over 
anytime soon. This is another reason why learning about copyright is a good 
career move for future academic librarians.

best,


Heather



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org  on behalf of Peter 
Murray-Rust 
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:41 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory 
Group

Attention : courriel externe | external email
I would direct readers to 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clearance_Center to get an overview if 
CCC, which is a for-profit company and has sued universities (and lost).
I would think that this new venture is a case of Openwashing of a business 
model that is directly opposed to GOAL and many of its readers.


On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:38 PM Heather Morrison 
mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>> wrote:
Peter Murray-Rust raises the important point that the Copyright Clearance 
Center (CCC)'s basic model fits with perpetual copyright, the antithesis of 
open access.

However, I argue that the open access movement needs to engage with the issues 
that will or might be raised by this group. Following is a bit of background, 
concluding with a recommendation that copyright for scholarly works should be 
led by the research community not industry groups, perhaps coordinated by 
bodies such as Canada's Tri-Council of national research funding agencies.

Many advocates of open access also advocate for the most liberal of open 
licenses. From my perspective, this is naive because some of the most liberal 
of open licenses, in particular immediate dedication to public domain and CC 
licenses granting downstream commercial use rights (CC-0, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA) 
grant to anyone the right to sell the works. This is already happening as open 
access works are included in toll access packages such as Elsevier's Scopus.

Creators are giving away their works using CC licenses thinking they are 
contributing to a commons. The problem with this is that lack of restrictions 
means, for example, that images in CC-BY licensed works can be included either 
in Wikimedia commons for free sharing or to 

Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory Group

[Peter Murray-Rust]

I would direct readers to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clearance_Center to get an overview
if CCC, which is a for-profit company and has sued universities (and lost).
I would think that this new venture is a case of Openwashing of a business
model that is directly opposed to GOAL and many of its readers.


On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:38 PM Heather Morrison <
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote:

> Peter Murray-Rust raises the important point that the Copyright Clearance
> Center (CCC)'s basic model fits with perpetual copyright, the antithesis of
> open access.
>
> However, I argue that the open access movement needs to engage with the
> issues that will or might be raised by this group. Following is a bit of
> background, concluding with a recommendation that copyright for scholarly
> works should be led by the research community not industry groups, perhaps
> coordinated by bodies such as Canada's Tri-Council of national research
> funding agencies.
>
> Many advocates of open access also advocate for the most liberal of open
> licenses. From my perspective, this is naive because some of the most
> liberal of open licenses, in particular immediate dedication to public
> domain and CC licenses granting downstream commercial use rights (CC-0,
> CC-BY, CC-BY-SA) grant to anyone the right to sell the works. This is
> already happening as open access works are included in toll access packages
> such as Elsevier's Scopus.
>
> Creators are giving away their works using CC licenses thinking they are
> contributing to a commons. The problem with this is that lack of
> restrictions means, for example, that images in CC-BY licensed works can be
> included either in Wikimedia commons for free sharing or to create a
> for-pay image databank.
>
> If OA venues are lost in future, the toll access versions may be the only
> ones available. As I noted recently, the attrition rate at SpringerOpen is
> 16%, with most ceased journals de-listed by both SpringerOpen and DOAJ and
> content available through Springer's subscriptions site:
>
> https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/07/22/springer-open-ceased-now-hybrid-oa-identification-challenges/
>
> The trend towards market concentration that was evident for subscription
> based publishers is beginning to be seen with open access publishers as
> well. Examples: Versita was bought by De Gruyter; Medknow was bought by
> Wolters Kluwer; Co-Action was bought by Taylor & Francis; Libertas Academic
> was bought by Sage; BMC was bought by Springer; as we report regularly,
> many of the OA journals by commercial publishers have no APC due to
> partnerships with universities and societies, indicating that traditional
> publishers are pursuing such partnerships on a global basis. Plus many
> commercial initiatives once thought of as OA friendly (Mendeley, SSRN,
> Bepress) have been bought by Elsevier.
>
> Both perpetual copyright and the most liberal forms of open licensing are
> problematic for scholarly works. Members of CCC, OASPA, and other industry
> groups (e.g. STM, ALPSP) are in a conflict of interest position when
> advocating for particular approaches to copyright / licensing, that is,
> members stand to benefit or lose financially.
>
> It is problematic for any of these groups to lead research and
> decision-making on matters of copyright. Leadership should come from the
> research community. Researchers need time to devote to such activity and in
> particular to coordinate. In Canada, coordination of consultation on this
> topic might best be led by Canada's Tri-Council of national research
> funders, perhaps in cooperation with similar groups in other countries.
>
> Dr. Heather Morrison
>
> Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa
>
> Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa
>
> Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight
> Project
>
> sustainingknowledgecommons.org
>
> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca
>
> https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706
>
> [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]
> --
> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org  on behalf of
> Peter Murray-Rust 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 11, 2019 7:32 AM
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
> *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access
> Advisory Group
>
> *Attention : courriel externe | external email*
>
> What is the relation of this group to the actual activities of CCC? Does
> it have the power to advise that it extends copyright and licensing to
> areas what those practices do great harm, and that the prices for re-use
> are often extortionate (one article in NEJM apparently generated over 1
> million USD for re-use of a scholarly article).
>
> If the advisory group were to recommend that CCC's activities be
> transparently regulated with price caps I might have some sympathy. As it
> is CCC will have to convince me 

Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts

[Heather Morrison]

Thank you for your comments, Dirk, but I disagree with your main point and 
implicit valuation of journal venues.

Our ability to choose which venues to publish in is dependent on both the 
market and our means, whether we are discussing cars, houses, or academic 
publishing.

When funding agencies across countries meet to discuss open access policy, it 
is important to note that some countries (e.g. Germany, and the UK) are in 
conflict of interest position because for these countries the high profit 
publishing industry is a positive balance-of-trade. Germany is the home of 
SpringerNature/Macmillan while Relyx, the parent company of Reed Elsevier is 
under the UK Corporate Governance Code (from Relyx Corporate Governance)
https://www.relx.com/investors/corporate-governance/corporate-governance-and-structure

It is in their financial interest of these countries to maintain the high 
profits while transitioning the industry. These are the countries that benefit 
from high-paying jobs and taxes. For most countries, including Canada, the 
opposite is true: it's a negative balance of trade, a net cost for taxpayers.

If the APC model prevails and prices are high due to successful lobbying by the 
countries benefiting from the profits, this has a negative impact on other 
countries and their funders and individual scholars in the form of high costs 
and/or loss of publishing opportunities.

With respect to your list of publications, I suggest that this reveals a bias 
that does not reflect either publishing quality or the most likely choices most 
authors would make. For example, while Nature and Science per se are coveted 
publication venues, it is not clear that Nature Communications has the same 
status; this journal likely benefits from the cachet of Nature. Most authors' 
first choice is likely to be based on academic discipline.

OJS is a publishing system that is used by about half the open access journals 
in DOAJ; as of Jan. 2019, about 5,000 listed OJS as their publishing platform 
(others use the software but may have a different platform). Many OJS journals 
are published by independent researchers, scholarly societies and universities. 
These are the kind of journals that I would recommend as most likely to 
prioritize scholarly quality.

In my field, many of the top journals that I recommend as publication venues or 
reading for students use OJS: the International Journal of Communication, 
published by University of California - Annenberg School; TripleC; and the 
Democratic Communiqué, published by Florida Online Journals (supported by 
Florida libraries). To repeat, these journals are not just okay if one cannot 
get into the good journals; they are the best.

PLOS and PLOS One have made some important contributions to open access 
publishing. However, I would not consider PLOS ONE as a publishing venue for my 
own work based on my experiences with their peer review system, which I would 
describe as an interesting but unfortunate experiment with attempting to fully 
automate peer review coordination that reduces review to a forced checklist 
(that I consider inappropriate from an academic standpoint) and treats human 
reviewers as appendages to PLOS algorithms.

best,



Dr. Heather Morrison

Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa

Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa

Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight 
Project

sustainingknowledgecommons.org

heather.morri...@uottawa.ca

https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706

[On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org  on behalf of Pieper, 
Dirk 
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 10:25 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts

Attention : courriel externe | external email

Dear all,



thank you for bringing this up again. I´m not sure if you could compare the 
market behaviour of demanders and suppliers on the market for houses or cars 
with the market for academic publications. There are some similarities, but 
there are some differences in the market structures as well. And in the end, 
the prices, which are paid by the consumers, are a result of demand and supply 
and the choices and decisions, the players on a market are making.



If I would buy a car, a house or if I want to publish an academic article I 
would check my preferences, my budget and the prices. Comparing prices and 
services of publishers is helpful for my decision. If I would have the choice 
to pay 4,500 EUROs for my article in  e.g. Nature Communications or in a 
journal of a predatory publisher, I would choose the first option like most of 
us.



But pretty sure my article would not be accepted by Nature Communications, what 
would be my next decision? Maybe I would choose a mega journal like PLOS One, a 
OA 

Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts

[Pieper, Dirk]

Dear all,

thank you for bringing this up again. I´m not sure if you could compare the 
market behaviour of demanders and suppliers on the market for houses or cars 
with the market for academic publications. There are some similarities, but 
there are some differences in the market structures as well. And in the end, 
the prices, which are paid by the consumers, are a result of demand and supply 
and the choices and decisions, the players on a market are making.

If I would buy a car, a house or if I want to publish an academic article I 
would check my preferences, my budget and the prices. Comparing prices and 
services of publishers is helpful for my decision. If I would have the choice 
to pay 4,500 EUROs for my article in  e.g. Nature Communications or in a 
journal of a predatory publisher, I would choose the first option like most of 
us.

But pretty sure my article would not be accepted by Nature Communications, what 
would be my next decision? Maybe I would choose a mega journal like PLOS One, a 
OA journal in my discipline, or maybe I will choose a for me cost free OJS 
journal or a repository, my academic institution is providing for me? Or maybe 
my academic community, which I´m in, is providing me options to publish my 
article? Or maybe a funder is taking over the APC for me, if I will publish in 
his journals?

It does not really matter what my decisions are, but what I want to say with 
this is, that academic authors, funders and libraries, which are taking over 
the costs for their institutions, have options and can make decisions. And the 
more they can do so, the better ...

Best,
Dirk





Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] Im Auftrag von 
Heather Morrison
Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. September 2019 16:53
An: Ulrich Herb ; Global Open Access List (Successor of 
AmSci) 
Betreff: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts

Ulrich raises an important point. Those of us who assumed transparency in 
pricing would inspire lower pricing may have been mistaken.

Another example:

When homes are for sale here, the list price is publicly available, and some 
brokers advertise their percentages. Housing crises in cities like Toronto and 
Vancouver (rapid inflation due largely to speculation leading to unaffordable 
housing) have emerged in a context of transparent pricing.

best,

Dr. Heather Morrison
Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa
Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa
Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight 
Project
sustainingknowledgecommons.org
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca
https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706
[On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]

From: Ulrich Herb mailto:u.h...@scidecode.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 6:12:27 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Cc: Heather Morrison 
mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts

Attention : courriel externe | external email

Dear Heather,

even though I share your thoughts on APCs, I doubt that transparent
pricing will always lower prices. Conversely, it can also lead to higher
prices, e.g. by better market analysis. If I remember right, Australia's
FuelWatch (an open-access database for fuel prices) did not cause prices
to fall. But maybe someone here knows more.

Best regards,

Ulrich Herb

Am 2019-09-04 19:41, schrieb Heather Morrison:
> Exactly, Lisa. Scholarly communication does not have to be a market,
> and I argue it is better if it is not.
>
> Dr. Heather Morrison
> Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of
> Ottawa
> Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université
> d'Ottawa
> Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC
> Insight Project
> sustainingknowledgecommons.org
> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca
> https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706
> [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]
>
> -
>
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
> mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>> on behalf of
> Lisa Hinchliffe mailto:lisalibrar...@gmail.com>>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 1:28:40 PM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
> mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
> Subject: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts
>
> Attention : courriel externe | external email
>
> I agree these are interesting projects/products/goods. However, as
> examples they aren't examples of a market are they?
>
> ___
>
> Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
> lisalibrar...@gmail.com
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 12:22 PM Heather Morrison
> mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>> wrote:
>
>> Two examples of transparent pricing:
>>
>> 

Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory Group

[Heather Morrison]

Peter Murray-Rust raises the important point that the Copyright Clearance 
Center (CCC)'s basic model fits with perpetual copyright, the antithesis of 
open access.

However, I argue that the open access movement needs to engage with the issues 
that will or might be raised by this group. Following is a bit of background, 
concluding with a recommendation that copyright for scholarly works should be 
led by the research community not industry groups, perhaps coordinated by 
bodies such as Canada's Tri-Council of national research funding agencies.

Many advocates of open access also advocate for the most liberal of open 
licenses. From my perspective, this is naive because some of the most liberal 
of open licenses, in particular immediate dedication to public domain and CC 
licenses granting downstream commercial use rights (CC-0, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA) 
grant to anyone the right to sell the works. This is already happening as open 
access works are included in toll access packages such as Elsevier's Scopus.

Creators are giving away their works using CC licenses thinking they are 
contributing to a commons. The problem with this is that lack of restrictions 
means, for example, that images in CC-BY licensed works can be included either 
in Wikimedia commons for free sharing or to create a for-pay image databank.

If OA venues are lost in future, the toll access versions may be the only ones 
available. As I noted recently, the attrition rate at SpringerOpen is 16%, with 
most ceased journals de-listed by both SpringerOpen and DOAJ and content 
available through Springer's subscriptions site:
https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/07/22/springer-open-ceased-now-hybrid-oa-identification-challenges/

The trend towards market concentration that was evident for subscription based 
publishers is beginning to be seen with open access publishers as well. 
Examples: Versita was bought by De Gruyter; Medknow was bought by Wolters 
Kluwer; Co-Action was bought by Taylor & Francis; Libertas Academic was bought 
by Sage; BMC was bought by Springer; as we report regularly, many of the OA 
journals by commercial publishers have no APC due to partnerships with 
universities and societies, indicating that traditional publishers are pursuing 
such partnerships on a global basis. Plus many commercial initiatives once 
thought of as OA friendly (Mendeley, SSRN, Bepress) have been bought by 
Elsevier.

Both perpetual copyright and the most liberal forms of open licensing are 
problematic for scholarly works. Members of CCC, OASPA, and other industry 
groups (e.g. STM, ALPSP) are in a conflict of interest position when advocating 
for particular approaches to copyright / licensing, that is, members stand to 
benefit or lose financially.

It is problematic for any of these groups to lead research and decision-making 
on matters of copyright. Leadership should come from the research community. 
Researchers need time to devote to such activity and in particular to 
coordinate. In Canada, coordination of consultation on this topic might best be 
led by Canada's Tri-Council of national research funders, perhaps in 
cooperation with similar groups in other countries.


Dr. Heather Morrison

Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa

Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa

Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight 
Project

sustainingknowledgecommons.org

heather.morri...@uottawa.ca

https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706

[On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org  on behalf of Peter 
Murray-Rust 
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 7:32 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory 
Group

Attention : courriel externe | external email

What is the relation of this group to the actual activities of CCC? Does it 
have the power to advise that it extends copyright and licensing to areas what 
those practices do great harm, and that the prices for re-use are often 
extortionate (one article in NEJM apparently generated over 1 million USD for 
re-use of a scholarly article).

If the advisory group were to recommend that CCC's activities be transparently 
regulated with price caps I might have some sympathy. As it is CCC will have to 
convince me that it is more than an unregulated rent-seeker.

(It's also the antithesis of Open Access - the theme of this list)

--
"I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign 
with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same".

Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org

[GOAL] Boston program confirmed for researcher event (Explore Open Access Books)

[Christina Emery]

** apologies for cross posting **

Dear GOAL members,

We are happy to be able to give you more information about the program for 
Explore Open Access Books, a free event for researchers and academic book 
authors in Boston next week, co-hosted by Digital Science and Springer Nature.


I'd be grateful if you could help share the invite with your researcher 
networks.

Sessions include:
* Author Q with Eric Haines, lead editor of open access book 'Ray Tracing 
Gems' and Distinguished Engineer (Nvidia)
* About MIT Knowledge Futures Group, a new joint venture of the  MIT Media Lab 
and the MIT Press
* Why publish an OA book? - Ros Pyne, Director OA Books, Springer Nature
* Understanding the value and impact of open books - Mike Taylor, Head of 
Metrics Development, Digital Science


Details: Thursday, September 19 1.30pm - 5pm followed by networking drinks.

Register: http://bit.ly/2keCfsj

The event will also be livestreamed via the Springer Nature Facebook 
account and you can follow the 
conversation on Twitter through 
#exploreOAbooks
 and @SN_OAbooks.


Thanks for your help in spreading the word,
Christina Emery

Open access books - marketing manager at Springer Nature
christina.em...@springernature.com


PS A similar event will take place on Monday 16 September in New York. We are 
almost at capacity but further details can be found here: http://bit.ly/2P5C1SX






DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is 
not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error 
please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage 
mechanism. Springer Nature Limited does not accept liability for any statements 
made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of 
Springer Nature Ltd or one of their agents.
Please note that Springer Nature Limited and their agents and affiliates do not 
accept any responsibility for viruses or malware that may be contained in this 
e-mail or its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and 
attachments (if any).
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory Group

[Peter Murray-Rust]

What is the relation of this group to the actual activities of CCC? Does it
have the power to advise that it extends copyright and licensing to areas
what those practices do great harm, and that the prices for re-use are
often extortionate (one article in NEJM apparently generated over 1 million
USD for re-use of a scholarly article).

If the advisory group were to recommend that CCC's activities be
transparently regulated with price caps I might have some sympathy. As it
is CCC will have to convince me that it is more than an unregulated
rent-seeker.

(It's also the antithesis of Open Access - the theme of this list)

-- 
"I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign
with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same".

Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory Group

[Rob Johnson]

Dear all (with apologies for cross-posting),

Copyright Clearance Centre (CCC) is seeking research 
professionals, including researchers, librarians and research funders, with 
experience in defining, using or implementing OA publication and science policy 
to participate in a new, volunteer international Advisory Group that will work 
with CCC staff to identify pragmatic solutions to the pressing and evolving 
issues facing the research community today. This Advisory Group is one of the 
many ways CCC is looking to gain input from different stakeholders in the 
scholarly communications ecosystem.

Advisory Group participants will advise on themes and concepts central to the 
open scholarly communication debates. The Group's work will give participants 
an opportunity to establish and grow their network and engage in regular 
discussion with emerging leaders in the research and publishing communities. 
Participation in this Advisory Group will offer participants the opportunity to 
demonstrate thought leadership within their respective institution or 
organization. For further information please see the press release at: 
http://www.copyright.com/publishers/international-open-access-research-advisory-group/.

We're working with CCC to put the group together and ensure it represents a 
diverse mix of viewpoints from across the research community. Please do 
consider applying, and feel free to drop me a line with any questions you may 
have.

The deadline for applications is Monday 30th September 2019, and the 
application form can be found here: 
https://www.surveygizmo.eu/s3/90158934/OA-Advisory-Panel.

Best wishes,

Rob

Rob Johnson
Director

 [cid:image001.png@01D5686D.8CC6F230]

Follow us on Twitter 
@rschconsulting
T: +44(0)115 896 7567
M: +44(0)779 511 7737
E: 
rob.john...@research-consulting.com
W: www.research-consulting.com

Registered office: The Ingenuity Centre, University of Nottingham Innovation 
Park, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, United Kingdom
Research Consulting Limited is a Company Registered in England and Wales, Reg 
No. 8376797
---
This communication and the information contained in it are confidential and may 
be legally privileged. The content is intended solely for the use of the 
individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorised to receive 
it. If you are not the intended recipient, it is hereby brought to your notice 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or dissemination, or alternatively 
the taking of any action in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may 
constitute grounds for action, either civil or criminal.

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