Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge

[Éric Archambault]

Peter, Stevan, and Jean-Claude,

Sorry if my life's circumstances led me to become a greedy devil instead of a 
tenured saint.

That said, I don't think it's right to assume that we are working out of 
self-interest to build the Coronavirus Research Hub - as early as January 
individuals at Elsevier and people here in my team sought to do our bit to make 
information discoverable. These people are like me, we live outside a Manichean 
world and as we decided to do our part with the tools at our disposal even if 
that didn't solve all the issues in the world we live in. There are people in 
these organizations and insulting us at the personal level doesn't help 
creating the sense of community we all need to fight this bug. There is time 
for theory, other for actions.

Cordially

Éric


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org  on behalf of 
Jean-Claude Guédon 
Sent: March 31, 2020 11:17 AM
To: goal@eprints.org 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge

I also strongly agree with Peter. As for Éric Archambault, it is simply a pity 
to see greed trump principles.

One last note: OA will succeed, despite what Stevan says. Let us shape OA the 
right way, and certainly not in the way supported by Elsevier: in their view, 
OA is a "charitable" gesture that is applied only in extreme cases. The reality 
is that the Great Conversation of science constantly needs it.

The right way to go is OA free for authors and for readers, which means that it 
must be subsidized. But that is all right because scientific research is 
subsidized and scientific communication is an integral part of scientific 
research (and it costs only 1% of the rest of research).

Jean-Claude Guédon

Le 31/03/2020 à 08:28, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
I agree with Peter.

Eric has gone over to the devil.

This is a shameful time for token measures.

Covid-19 is a litmus test for disclosing who are going all out for the public 
good and who are in it for themselves.

OA used to be for the sake of scientific and scholarly research -- an 
abstraction, and it did not succeed.

Here it’s about survival.

Stevan Harnad
Editor, Animal 
Sentience<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fanimalstudiesrepository.org%2Fanimsent%2F=01%7C01%7C%7Cd547a0da71564c7fb48108d7d56f0886%7C4a5378f929f44d3ebe89669d03ada9d8%7C0=u4SeHgBD0Upyemmp4Nf0%2Be9a3nOcKNimsGZ3BY2YhGA%3D=0>
Professor of Psychology, Université du Québec à 
Montréal<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcrcsc.uqam.ca%2F=01%7C01%7C%7Cd547a0da71564c7fb48108d7d56f0886%7C4a5378f929f44d3ebe89669d03ada9d8%7C0=cXNp0TpmsXPsLTCN5AYm8hfmpZmgij7X2Up3%2FNnGjvo%3D=0>
Adjunct Professor of Cognitive Science, McGill 
University<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mcgill.ca%2Fpsychology%2Fabout%2Ffaculty-0%2Faffiliate-and-adjunct=01%7C01%7C%7Cd547a0da71564c7fb48108d7d56f0886%7C4a5378f929f44d3ebe89669d03ada9d8%7C0=FirEAYdQS9zIJvZwZOu3TyqInl7b71VCYxIDnoAQ6O4%3D=0>
Emeritus Professor of Cognitive Science, University of 
Southampton<http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/people/harnad>

On Mar 30, 2020, at 6:14 PM, Peter Murray-Rust 
mailto:pm...@cam.ac.uk>> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:48 PM Éric Archambault 
mailto:eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com>>
 wrote:

Peter,

Two months ago, that is, on January 27, we started work at Elsevier to make 
available as much as possible of the scholarly literature on coronavirus 
research easily discoverable and freely accessible.

At 1science, we created the Coronavirus Research Hub:

Why does Elsevier not simply open all its content and let the scientific , 
medical and citizen community decide what they want? Elsevier can't guess what 
we want.

The Royal Society has done this. Elsevier can afford to do it.

If we can help further, please let us know, we have been on it for two months 
and we continue to evaluate options to help the research community.

My colleague, a software developer, working for free on openVirus software,  is 
spending most of his time working making masks in Cambridge Makespace to ship 
to Addenbrooke's hospital. When he goes to the literature to find literature on 
masks, their efficacy and use and construction he finds paywall after paywall 
after paywall after paywall  Some are 1-page notes behind a 36 USD Elsevier 
paywall.

Do not tell us what we want. let us choose freely.

Peter Murray-Rust

Volunteer fighting for free scientific knowledge in a world crisis.

--
"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<mailto:GOAL@eprint

Re: [GOAL] Predatory Publishing

[Éric Archambault]

My five cent here. At 1science, we used the Beall’s list as a source of 
inspiration to built 1journal which is a white list of academic/scientific 
journal we use in building 1findr - we currently have a tad more than 87,000 
journals in there, and about 80,000 journals of which have articles indexed in 
1 journal.

While using the Beall’s list, we truly saw horror stories such as journals 
which claimed articles published in other journals. Most of the journals and 
publishers had very little activity though. Then, at the other end of the 
spectrum we had large, growing publishers. MDPI and Frontiers appeared on the 
list at one point or another. We found it a very difficult proposition to 
completely omit all the journals for publishers such as these. Some 
journals/publishers obviously had annoying behaviour such as spamming authors. 
Though that’s naughty, it isn’t predatory. At 1science, we aim to be exhaustive 
so if a company is naughty in marketing but clean in controlling articles’ 
quality, we’re willing to include it in 1findr and let the “market” punish them 
if it deems deplorable the spamming and other types of behaviour not linked 
with quality control and publisher good scholarly work.

Having produced bibliometric analyses with Scopus and WoS for years and having 
built 1findr, I see absolutely no reason to panic, though I see some real cause 
for concern. We need research funding bodies to fund a serious study of the 
issue of malpractices in publishing and it has to be neutral to business models 
- malpractices can be found at traditional subscription journals and at open 
access journals, though the APC model certainly contributed to having 
unscrupulous individuals exploit the obvious weak point of this model. Without 
a serious study, we’ll continue to be distracted by sensational journalism at a 
time when robust data is needed.

Eric Archambault
1science.com
Science-Metrix.com
+1-514-495-6505 x111

On Jul 25, 2018, at 16:14, Reckling, Falk 
mailto:falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at>> wrote:

Hi Richard,

1) A number of actions are mentioned in the response, the most important one is 
to support DOAJ, to publish publication costs via Open APC and make publishing 
contracts openly in the future.

2) There is no reliable empirical evidence that the phenomenon of predatory 
publishing has increased massively over time.

3) There is still a problem of definition: Currently all sorts of things are 
subsumed under predatory publishing. This ranges from naive, under-funded, 
unprofessional, joke to profit-seeking and fake. That was one reason why 
Beall's black list was useless, not to mention Crusaderism and missing checks 
and balances.

In short, we should observe and scientifically analyse the phenomenon, but also 
not overestimate and panic.

Best

Falk



Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>> Im Auftrag von 
Richard Poynder
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2018 15:22
An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Betreff: Re: [GOAL] Predatory Publishing

Thanks for posting this Falk. I have yet to see concerted action taken anywhere 
to support researchers who become victims of predatory publishers.

I also do not think I see any recognition of their plight, or details of what 
is being planned to help them, in your document. Perhaps I missed it.

Anyway, I have blogged about the topic here:

https://poynder.blogspot.com/2018/07/falling-prey-to-predatory-oa-publisher.html

Richard Poynder

On Wed, 25 Jul 2018, 13:51 Reckling, Falk, 
mailto:falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at>> wrote:
The Austrian Science Board and the FWF Respond to the Recent Media Reports on 
the Questionable Practices of Several Scholarly Publishers
https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/news-and-media-relations/news/detail/nid/20180724-2314/

___
Falk Reckling, PhD
Head of Department
Strategy - Policy, Evaluation, Analysis

FWF Austrian Science Fund
1090 Vienna, Sensengasse 1, Austria
T: +43 1 505 67 40 8861
M: +43 664 530 73 68
falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at
CV via ORCID https://orcid.org/-0002-1326-1766



BE OPEN - Science & Society Festival
50 years of top research funded by FWF
Sep 8 to 12, 2018 | Vienna | www.fwf.ac.at/beopen

[https://www.fwf.ac.at/fileadmin/files/Images/fwf-Logos/beopen_signatur.png]

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

BE OPEN - Science & Society Festival
50 years of top research funded by FWF
Sep 8 to 12, 2018 | Vienna | www.fwf.ac.at/beopen 

[https://www.fwf.ac.at/fileadmin/files/Images/fwf-Logos/beopen_signatur.png]
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org

Re: [GOAL] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform

[Éric Archambault]

Hi Peter

We have opened access to our search platform for free.
I the search platform there is a filter to easily identify open access papers.
When you find open access papers you can download them for free.

I think this is relevant for GOAL.

Éric

Eric Archambault, PhD
CEO  |  Chef de la direction
C. 1.514.518.0823
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com
science-metrix.com  &  
1science.com

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org  On Behalf Of Peter 
Murray-Rust
Sent: April-24-18 12:41 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform

I don't want to start a big discussion here, but having briefly browsed the 
site I assume that the software is closed, and that the process of indexing is 
not transparent (i.e. similar to GoogleScholar or WoS or TR, etc.). I can't see 
whether the system indexes fulltext, for example or whether it is titles and 
abstract if there are some.
The FAQ says:
1findr is the first database to proudly and obstinately aim to index *all 
articles published in peer-reviewed journals in the world*. 1findr is a 
comprehensive database that covers the arts, humanities, applied sciences, 
engineering and technology, behavioral sciences, health sciences, natural 
sciences, and social sciences. We are the world.
** my emphasis
I am not clear how this applies to Open Access (this is the GOAL list) . This 
implies that if you are doing this legally (which I assume) then it;s actually 
not consistent with the aims of this list and community.

P.

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Grégoire Côté 
> 
wrote:
Greetings everyone,

Today, 1science announced the official launch of 1findr, its platform for 
research discovery and analytics. Indexing 90 million articles—of which 27 
million are available in OA—it represents the largest curated collection 
worldwide of scholarly research. The platform aims to include all articles 
published in peer-reviewed journals, in all fields of research, in all 
languages and from every country.

Here are a few resources if you’re interested in learning more:

• Access 1findr platform: www.1findr.com
• Visit the 1findr website: 
www.1science.com/1findr
• Send in your questions: 
1fi...@1science.com
• See the press release: 
www.1science.com/1findr-public-launch

Sincerely,

Grégoire

Grégoire Côté
President | Président
Science-Metrix
1335, Mont-Royal E
Montréal, QC  H2J 1Y6
Canada

[cid:image001.png@01D2DAC6.B5A0CDC0][cid:image002.png@01D2DAC6.B5A0CDC0]
T. 1.514.495.6505 x115
T. 1.800.994.4761
F. 1.514.495.6523
gregoire.c...@science-metrix.com
www.science-metrix.com





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



--
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

Re: [GOAL] Dramatic Growth of Open Access September 30, 2017

[Éric Archambault]

Heather,

How do you derive this percentage? Also, are you using the same definition of 
document than BASE is using. It seems to me that BASE equates documents to 
metadata records, one for one. A metadata record could however refers to a 
photograph. So this estimate of 60% of "documents" means what? I'm sure there 
are more than 70 million free pictures on the internet. 

I think it's important to have definitions that are precise otherwise we can't 
know if a number is high or not, and we can't know if OA is experiencing a 
dramatic growth or a set back. I could say a document is a web page in which 
case there are several billion documents freely accessible on the Web. That 
said, this number is not highly useful as we have no idea what is being counted.

SO it's usually useful to consider a particular type of document, a scholarly 
article for example, or a scholarly book (which is not so easy to define in 
itself as the boundaries are extremely porous).

Our research at 1science and Science-Metrix indicates that there are more than 
29 million articles published in peer-reviewed journals which can be downloaded 
for free on the public web (including part of ResearchGate, excluding all of 
Academia.edu and omitting SciHub). We have evidence there are more than 4 
million papers published in peer-reviewed journals every year now (more than 
twice as many than currently indexed in the Web of Science), and 50% of these 
are freely downloadable after about 12 months.



Eric Archambault
C. 1.514.518.0823
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com
science-metrix.com  &  1science.com

-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Heather Morrison
Sent: October 23, 2017 7:55 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
Subject: [GOAL] Dramatic Growth of Open Access September 30, 2017

In brief:  best guesstimate - there are approximately 70 million OA documents 
today (subset of BASE's 115 million, about 60% OA), with OA documents at BASE 
growing at a rate of about 1,800 OA documents per day. Where do these come 
from? Thousands of OA archives - with PubMedCentral the largest by far at 4.5 
million articles and active participation by thousands of journals. This 
quarter by the numbers the DOAJ team set a new record with a net growth of 689 
journals of 7.7 titles per day. However, percentage wise the most remarkable 
quarterly growth was all about archives, with BioRxiv and SocRXiv topping the 
growth list by percentage, and as usual several sections of Internet Archive 
well up on the growth list. On an annual basis, Directory of Open Access Books 
was the fastest growing in terms of both # of books and # of publishers.

Details:
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2017/10/dramatic-growth-of-open-access.htm

To download data:
https://dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dataverse/dgoa

Happy Open Access Week!

--
Dr. Heather Morrison
Associate Professor | Professeure agrégé École des sciences de l'information / 
School of Information Studies University of Ottawa 
http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca



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

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

[GOAL] Max Planck and 1science partner to improve access to OA and to journals left aside from main A databases

[Éric Archambault]

Apologies for cross posting – Here is a press release sent today by 1science 
which I thought could be relevant to this list

Eric Archambault, CEO of 1science, is pleased to 
announce that 1science is now a key supplier to the Max Planck Digital Library 
(MPDL), based in Munich, Germany. The Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (MPG) joins other 
leading research institutions, including Caltech, ETH Zurich and Stanford, 
which use 1science products, a growing force in the advanced research 
information systems market. With this agreement, the more than 80 MPG centres 
gained access to 1findr™, 1science's 
revolutionary abstracting and indexing database.

This puts the MPG at the forefront of search and access technology and, 
according to Dr. Ralf Schimmer, Director of Scientific Information Provision at 
the MPDL, contributes significantly to the MPG's “goal of moving away from 
traditional subscription-based systems”. Schimmer says, "The Max Planck Digital 
Library regards 1science as a strategic partner that will help the Max Planck 
to systematically integrate access to freely available versions of scholarly 
publications and will be instrumental in supporting the transition strategy 
outlined in OA2020."

Dr. Archambault says that “what 1science is doing with partners like MPDL is 
disrupting the old model dominated by outdated technology and assumptions about 
what users of peer-reviewed literature want." Archambault says that what makes 
1findr unique is the "aim to break down artificial barriers that limit indexing 
to less than half of peer-reviewed articles." 1findr searches among 85 million 
articles published as early as 1665 in scholarly journals all over the world, 
in all languages, and all fields of research. Moreover, using the oaFindr link 
resolver, this advanced search solution provides hyperlinks to 30 million 
freely available articles.

The Max Planck Digital Library is part of the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, which, 
with 18 Nobel laureates, is Germany's most successful research organization. 
With more than 80 institutes producing 15,000 articles a year, the MPG is one 
of the world's largest and prestigious research organizations. 1science is 
honoured by the trust and recognition shown by this great institution.


Eric Archambault, PhD
CEO  |  Chef de la direction
1335, Mont-Royal E
Montréal QC Canada  H2J 1Y6

T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
C. 1.514.518.0823
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com
science-metrix.com  &  
1science.com

[cid:image005.png@01D32BA7.3B7A7410]  [cid:image002.png@01D2DBC3.D6FBAF50]

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

Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

[Éric Archambault]

Dear Gemma

The OA2020 proposes a separate business model involving a “large scale 
transition to open access”. What is the position of Elsevier relative to that 
initiative? The position of the Max Planck is there is enough money in the 
system to enable the transition to an open access model so it is largely a 
matter of shifting that money around. Do you share the same views? What are the 
challenges and enablers you view in the OA2020 proposal? I think this 
initiative deserves attention as it would allow us to set aside that mounting 
“arm race” between users who want unhampered access and publishers who need 
revenues.

Cordially

Éric

Eric Archambault, PhD
CEO  |  Chef de la direction
1335, Mont-Royal E
Montréal QC Canada  H2J 1Y6

T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
C. 1.514.518.0823
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com
science-metrix.com  &  
1science.com

[cid:image002.jpg@01D2E993.3D1730C0]  [cid:image004.png@01D2E993.3D1730C0]



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Hersh, Gemma (ELS-CAM)
Sent: June 19, 2017 11:18 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

Dear Richard

Elsevier's hosting 
policy explains 
how platforms can host Elsevier content. This includes enabling institutional 
repositories to share their employee's or student's accepted manuscripts 
publicly after an embargo period, but not beforehand.

The challenge with the proposal below is that it wouldn’t really work very well 
for very long; an embargo period is needed to enable the subscription model to 
continue to operate, in the absence of a separate business model.

Best wishes

Gemma

Gemma Hersh
VP, Policy and Communications
Elsevier I 125 London Wall I London I EC2Y 5AS
M: +44 (0) 7855 258 957 I E: g.he...@elsevier.com
Twitter: @gemmahersh




From: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Richard Poynder
Sent: 18 June 2017 14:30
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND


*** External email: use caution ***


On a related topic, this poster might be of interest to list members:

Exploiting Elsevier’s Creative Commons License Requirement to Subvert Embargo

"In the last round of author sharing policy revisions, Elsevier created a 
labyrinthine title-by-title embargo structure requiring embargoes from 12-48 
months for author sharing via institutional repository (IR), while permitting 
immediate sharing via author's personal website or blog. At the same time, all 
pre-publication versions are to bear a Creative 
Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND) license.

"At the time this policy was announced, it was rightly criticized by many in 
the scholarly communication community as overly complicated and unnecessary. 
However, this CC licensing requirement creates an avenue for subverting the 
embargo in the IR to achieve quicker open distribution of the author's accepted 
manuscript.

"In short, authors may post an appropriately licensed copy on their personal 
site, at which point we may deposit without embargo in the IR, not through the 
license granted in the publication agreement, but through the CC license on the 
author's version, which the sharing policy mandates. This poster will outline 
this issue, our experimentation with application, and engage viewers in 
questions regarding its potential risks, benefits, and workflows."

https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/24107

​


On 18 June 2017 at 12:24, Mittermaier, Bernhard 
> wrote:
Dear colleagues,

on sharing in file-sharing networks, Creatice Commons explain:

“Can I share CC-licensed material on file-sharing networks?
Yes. All CC licenses allow redistribution of the unmodified material by any 
means, including distribution via file-sharing networks. Note that file-trading 
is expressly considered to be noncommercial for purposes of compliance with the 
NC licenses. Barter of NC-licensed material for other items of value is not 
permitted.”
https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-share-cc-licensed-material-on-file-sharing-networks

The “Elsevier Sharing Rules” say
“CC-BY-NC-ND licensed articles may be shared on non-commercial platforms only.”
http://help.sciencedirect.com/flare/sdhelp_Left.htm#CSHID=password.htm|StartTopic=Content%2Fsharing_pubs.htm|SkinName=svs_SD

and again in the table at the bottom of that webpage: “Public posting on 
commercial platforms 

Re: [GOAL] List of APCs per publisher

[Éric Archambault]

Many thanks to all who contributed information to this.

Kudo once again to Bielefeld for its generous contribution to the growth of 
open access and of information on open access.

Éric



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Dirk Pieper
Sent: May 19, 2017 5:53 AM
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: Re: [GOAL] List of APCs per publisher


Hi,

you can try this:

https://treemaps.intact-project.org/apcdata/openapc/#publisher/

Best,

Dirk



Am 18.05.2017 um 23:53 schrieb Arthur Smith:
Hi Eric

I'm not aware of an up-to-date list, but if you want to go direct to the 
source, most publishers provide this information in one way or another:

Elsevier - http://cdn.elsevier.com/promis_misc/j.custom97.pdf
Wiley - 
https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/licensing-open-access/open-access/author-compliance-tool.html
 (you can inspect the page source for a full list of APCs)
T - http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/journal-list/
SAGE - normally $3000 but with some exceptions 
https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/sage-choice-journal-and-pricing-exceptions
Springer - flat rate of $3000 for all their hybrid journals 
http://www.springer.com/gp/open-access/springer-open-choice

And we also publish all our APC data in our repository. Look through this 
collection for our reports: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/260180 
We'll be adding our latest 2016/17 RCUK report shortly too. Our average APC 
(including 20% VAT) is approx. £2000.

Best,
Arthur


Dr Arthur Smith | Open Access Service Manager | 
as2...@cam.ac.uk<mailto:as2...@cam.ac.uk> | 01223 766376

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Éric Archambault
Sent: 18 May 2017 18:03
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] List of APCs per publisher

Hi everyone,

Are you aware of a list of average APCs per publisher (or per journal) which is 
current, and even better, which is up to date and regularly maintained? I'm 
looking for APCs for both hybrids and bon-gold journals.

Thanks in advance

Éric

Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
CEO | Chef de la direction
Science-Metrix & 1science
[Description: Description:  
http://1science.com/images/LinkedIn_sign.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/in/ericarchambault>
T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
C. 1.514.518.0823
F. 1.514.495.6523

[Description: Description:  
http://1science.com/images/Logo_SM_horizontal_small.png]<http://www.science-metrix.com/>
   [Description: Description:  
http://1science.com/images/1science.png] <http://www.1science.com/>







___

GOAL mailing list

GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org>

http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal



--

-

Dirk Pieper

Deputy Director Bielefeld UL



www.ub.uni-bielefeld.de<http://www.ub.uni-bielefeld.de>

www.base-search-net<http://www.base-search-net>

--


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature>
Version: 2016.0.8013 / Virus Database: 4776/14475 - Release Date: 05/16/17
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] List of APCs per publisher

[Éric Archambault]

Hi everyone,

Are you aware of a list of average APCs per publisher (or per journal) which is 
current, and even better, which is up to date and regularly maintained? I'm 
looking for APCs for both hybrids and bon-gold journals.

Thanks in advance

Éric

Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
CEO | Chef de la direction
Science-Metrix & 1science
[Description: Description: 
http://1science.com/images/LinkedIn_sign.png]
T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
C. 1.514.518.0823
F. 1.514.495.6523

[Description: Description: 
http://1science.com/images/Logo_SM_horizontal_small.png]
   [Description: Description: http://1science.com/images/1science.png] 




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

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Éric Archambault]

Marc has a good point on the NC character.

Does intermediation counts? For example, Google presents millions of papers on 
its search results pages and these papers contribute as fodder to Google's 
$2.18 million net after taxes profit per hour (the vast majority of these 
profits are from advertising obviously). Is this a commercial use?

Éric



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Couture Marc
Sent: January 23, 2017 10:46 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to 
meet the definition of open access?

Stephen Downes wrote :

"From the perspective of a person wishing to access content, a work that is 
CC-by, but which requires payment to access, is not free at all"

I find this interpretation a bit extreme, considering that:

- The CC BY work for which payment is required must be attributed, and this 
attribution normally includes (at least in the case of online distribution) a 
link to the original source 
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Best_practices_for_attribution .

- The first person, or institution paying the access fee can then freely (in 
all senses) distribute the work online.

Not considering fraudulent activities (e.g. not mentioning the license, which 
violates the terms of the licence), which could be done for any version of the 
CC license, one could certainly find cases (best practices not followed; print 
copies) where one would have to do a little work to find the original work 
(nothing more though than a Google search with the title). In any event, I 
wouldn't describe such a work as being "not free at all".

On the other hand, the problem with the -NC condition is that the definition of 
non-commercial is quite vague, so that one can easily imagine uses that authors 
wishing to impede profit-seeking uses would also prevent others they wouldn't 
object to. Stephen mentions educational uses, but many of them could well be 
considered commercial (for instance, in private institutions, or even public 
ones, if students pay documentation fees).

Recent lawsuits, in Germany and in the US, illustrate the problem.

- Germany: "non-commercial" equates "private use only" (2014 decision appealed, 
still waiting for the outcome) http://merlin.obs.coe.int/article.php?id=14679

- US: Public school disctrict subcontracting reproduction and distribution of 
print copies to private firm (2016 case yet to be heard) 
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160902/00165835421/creative-commons-wants-to-step-into-lawsuit-over-definition-noncommercial-cc-license.shtml

Marc Couture


De : goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de Downes, Stephen
Envoyé : 23 janvier 2017 09:46
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet 
the definition of open access?

> Some open access advocates do equate OA with the CC-BY license, but not all 
> of us. My perspective is that pushing for ubiquitous CC-BY is a major 
> strategic error for the OA movement.

I also have been arguing that CC-by-NC ought to be considered equally 
acceptable. Open access licenses prior to Creative Commons sought typically to 
prevent commercial appropriation of openly published work. From the perspective 
of a person wishing to access content, a work that is CC-by, but which requires 
payment to access, is not free at all, in either sense. This is especially 
important in the context of open educational resources.



Stephen Downes

National Research Council Canada | Conseil national de recherches Canada
1200 rue Montreal Road 349 M-50, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R6
Tel.: (613) 993 0288  Mobile: (613) 292 1789
stephen.dow...@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca ~ 
http://www.downes.ca



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison
Sent: January-23-17 8:19 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to 
meet the definition of open access?

Some open access advocates do equate OA with the CC-BY license, but not all of 
us. My perspective is that pushing for ubiquitous CC-BY is a major strategic 
error for the OA movement. Key arguments:

Granting blanket downstream commercial re-use rights allows for downstream toll 
access whether or a one-off or broad-based scale.

Examples (broad-based at end):...


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

[GOAL] 1science pricing -- RE: Dramatic Growth of Open Access September 30, 2016

[Éric Archambault]

escription: Description: 
http://1science.com/images/Logo_SM_horizontal_small.png]<http://www.science-metrix.com/>
   [Description: Description: http://1science.com/images/1science.png] 
<http://www.1science.com/>


Come visit us at the Frankfurt Book Fair at booth L85 in Hall 4.2 on October 
19-23!
Venez nous rencontrer à la Foire du livre de Francfort du 19 au 23 octobre, 
kiosque L85 du Hall 4.2.

[Description: Description: cid:4bf9275a-c9e7-4a8d-a5bd-af23b1aa248f]



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Richard Poynder
Sent: October 7, 2016 10:24 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Dramatic Growth of Open Access September 30, 2016

​I agree that like-for-like comparisons are needed.

BASE says that around 60% of the documents it indexes are full-text. See here: 
https://www.base-search.net/about/en/

Some of its records also appear to be a little lightweight. Consider, for 
instance, the first item listed here: 
https://www.base-search.net/Search/Results?lookfor=poynder+timothy=all=1=1===dcresen=1

This essentially seems to be a link to a link.

I understand that 1Science (of which I think Eric is CEO) says it currently 
offers 18.5 million OA articles, but its OAfindr does not appear to be an OA 
service itself. Presumably users have to pay to access the service? That seems 
to be an important factor when making comparisons. If there is an access charge 
for OAfindr, how much is that charge?

It is also worth noting that ScienceOpen, which says it allow users to search 
over 25 million articles, actually only provides OA to 10% of those articles. 
See: https://twitter.com/RickyPo/status/783575794471886848.

Has anyone done a review/comparison of all these services in order to allow us 
to get a better sense of like-for-like?
[https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif]
Richard Poynder​

On 7 October 2016 at 11:55, Éric Archambault 
<eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com<mailto:eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com>>
 wrote:
Just a quick note.

The fact that BASE has more than 100 million "documents" is not such a 
meaningful information as they do not define "documents". My impression is that 
they are truly speaking about metadata records, not full-text documents as a 
large number of these records do not contain documents - so document is a 
misnomer. Scopus and WoS both have more than half a billion references 
compiled. This is also several order of magnitude greater than ScienceDirect 
but what is the value of that information as we are not comparing likes. 
ScienceDirect comprises full-text articles. How many are from peer-reviewed 
journals; are many such articles (deduplicated) are in BASE. This is the 
relevant statistics. Of course, extending this to monographs and conference 
proceedings full-text papers is also relevant, but we need to compare likes for 
likes.




Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
President and CEO | Président-directeur général
Science-Metrix & 1science

T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111<tel:1.514.495.6505%20x.111>
C. 1.514.518.0823
F. 1.514.495.6523


Come visit us at the Frankfurt Book Fair at booth L85 in Hall 4.2 on October 
19-23!
Venez nous rencontrer à la Foire du livre de Francfort du 19 au 23 octobre, 
kiosque L85 du Hall 4.2.




-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>] On Behalf Of 
Heather Morrison
Sent: October-06-16 9:56 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Dramatic Growth of Open Access September 30, 2016

The third quarter Dramatic Growth of Open Access is now available. There will 
be plenty to celebrate for this year’s open access week!

Highlights:

Globally OA repository contents have exceeded a milestone of over 100 million 
documents as indirectly measured by a BASE meta-search. This dispersed 
collection is now an order of magnitude larger than Science Direct!

Despite a vigorous weeding and new get-tough inclusion policy, DOAJ articles 
searchable at article level grew by about a quarter million this past year, and 
DOAJ is now adding titles at the rate of 1.5 per day. OpenDOAR added new 
repositories at almost exactly the same rate as DOAJ added journal titles.

Internet Archive now has over 3 million audio recordings. There are over 2,000 
more OA books and 161 more publishers in DOAB than there were a year ago.

PubMedCentral continues to show strong growth in every measure: more journals 
actively participating, more providing immediate free access, all articles open 
access, some articles open access.

Details and links: 
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2016/10/dramatic-growth-of-open-access.html

To download the data: https://dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dataverse/dgoa

best,

--
Dr. Heather Morrison
Assistant Professor
École des s

Re: [GOAL] Dramatic Growth of Open Access September 30, 2016

[Éric Archambault]

Just a quick note.

The fact that BASE has more than 100 million "documents" is not such a 
meaningful information as they do not define "documents". My impression is that 
they are truly speaking about metadata records, not full-text documents as a 
large number of these records do not contain documents - so document is a 
misnomer. Scopus and WoS both have more than half a billion references 
compiled. This is also several order of magnitude greater than ScienceDirect 
but what is the value of that information as we are not comparing likes. 
ScienceDirect comprises full-text articles. How many are from peer-reviewed 
journals; are many such articles (deduplicated) are in BASE. This is the 
relevant statistics. Of course, extending this to monographs and conference 
proceedings full-text papers is also relevant, but we need to compare likes for 
likes.




Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
President and CEO | Président-directeur général
Science-Metrix & 1science

T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
C. 1.514.518.0823
F. 1.514.495.6523
   

Come visit us at the Frankfurt Book Fair at booth L85 in Hall 4.2 on October 
19-23!
Venez nous rencontrer à la Foire du livre de Francfort du 19 au 23 octobre, 
kiosque L85 du Hall 4.2.
 



-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Heather Morrison
Sent: October-06-16 9:56 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Dramatic Growth of Open Access September 30, 2016

The third quarter Dramatic Growth of Open Access is now available. There will 
be plenty to celebrate for this year’s open access week!

Highlights:

Globally OA repository contents have exceeded a milestone of over 100 million 
documents as indirectly measured by a BASE meta-search. This dispersed 
collection is now an order of magnitude larger than Science Direct!

Despite a vigorous weeding and new get-tough inclusion policy, DOAJ articles 
searchable at article level grew by about a quarter million this past year, and 
DOAJ is now adding titles at the rate of 1.5 per day. OpenDOAR added new 
repositories at almost exactly the same rate as DOAJ added journal titles. 

Internet Archive now has over 3 million audio recordings. There are over 2,000 
more OA books and 161 more publishers in DOAB than there were a year ago.

PubMedCentral continues to show strong growth in every measure: more journals 
actively participating, more providing immediate free access, all articles open 
access, some articles open access.

Details and links: 
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2016/10/dramatic-growth-of-open-access.html

To download the data: https://dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dataverse/dgoa

best,

-- 
Dr. Heather Morrison
Assistant Professor
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
University of Ottawa
http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca



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

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13121 - Release Date: 09/30/16

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

Re: [GOAL] MDPI APCs 2011 - 2016

[Éric Archambault]

Shy-Kun

Congratulations for your progress. I admire your resolve. Would be nice to 
meet-up when I'll happen to be around, or should you come to Montreal. 

Cordially

Eric

Eric Archambault
1science.com
Science-Metrix.com
+1-514-495-6505 x111

> On Sep 13, 2016, at 7:07 AM, Dr. Shu-Kun Lin  wrote:
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> MDPI Annual Report 2015 is available to downloaded:
> http://img.mdpi.org/data/annual-report-mdpi-2015.pdf
> 
> According to our own statistical data (our scilit.net), MDPI is among
> the 20 largest journal publishers in 2015 as listed at our website
> http://sciforum.net/statistics/top-publishers-by-articles
> 
> At our scilit.net, the DOI numbers registered or the papers published
> last month indicate that most recently in the month of August 2016, MDPI
> publishes more than Hindawi and PLoS and perhaps becomes the second
> largest OA publisher:
> #1 SpringerNature (BMC, SpringerOpen): 3556
> #2 MDPI: 2028
> #3 PLOS: 1928
> #4 Hindawi: 1533
> #5 Frontiers: 1204
> 
> You are welcome to visit our new headquarters office building we
> purchased. Our new address: St. Alban-Anlage 66, 4052 Basel. This year
> we set up two offices in Europe: in Spain and Serbia, see:
> http://www.mdpi.com/about for more details. We are growing.
> 
> Best regards,
> Shu-Kun
> 
> --
> Dr. Shu-Kun Lin
> President of MDPI
> Postal address: MDPI AG, Postfach, CH-4020 Basel, Switzerland
> Office Location: St. Alban-Anlage 66, CH-4052 Basel, Switzerland
> Tel. +41 61 683 77 34 (office); Fax +41 61 302 8918
> Mobile: +41 79 322 3379; Skype: mdpibasel-lin
> E-mail: l...@mdpi.com
> Company homepage: http://www.mdpi.com
> My homepage: http://www.mdpi.org/lin
> 
>> On 08.08.2016 14:01, Heather Morrison wrote:
>> Thank you, Dietrich Rordorf.
>> 
>> To clarify, this is a limitation of the study, not an assumption.
>> That is, I only note the price per journal, but do not assume that
>> this is the only relevant variable to understanding the impact of the
>> APC.
>> 
>> The APC study in brief is a longitudinal study of the APC list prices
>> of a large sample of journals whose publishers have been included in
>> DOAJ. There are other aspects of the APC that could be (or are being)
>> usefully addressed by other researchers, such as what payers are
>> actually paying, hybrid journals, quantity and qualities of articles
>> published (qualities could include length, language, formats, linking
>> within articles), etc. If anyone has time and energy to conduct
>> research in this area, there is plenty of work.
>> 
>> best,
>> 
>> Heather Morrison
>> 
>> 
>>  Original message  From: Dietrich Rordorf
>>  Date: 08-08-2016 1:48 AM (GMT-05:00) To: "Global
>> Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)"  Subject:
>> Re: [GOAL] MDPI APCs 2011 - 2016
>> 
>> Dear Dr. Morrison,
>> 
>> I think that you make a very strong assumption of equal distribution
>> of journal sizes, which to me does not hold up to a reality check.
>> Because of this the "average" APC you compute is three to four times
>> lower compared to what authors/institutions actually pay to MDPI per
>> paper in average.
>> 
>> To complete your history of APC changes, you may also want to
>> consider the following websites (or their archived counterparts, in
>> case they are taken offline):
>> 
>> http://www.mdpi.com/about/apc-2011 (http://weblock.io/8E4P1NWIOG)
>> http://www.mdpi.com/about/apc-2012 (http://weblock.io/RO6RKQRHM6)
>> http://www.mdpi.com/about/apc-2013 (http://weblock.io/8E4P1NNIQ4)
>> http://www.mdpi.com/about/apc-2014 (http://weblock.io/YVLDG6ZHR1)
>> http://www.mdpi.com/about/apc-2015 (http://weblock.io/3YK2L6RUWD)
>> http://www.mdpi.com/about/apc-2016 (http://weblock.io/6Z4WKM6B2)
>> 
>> Kind regards, Dietrich Rordorf
>> 
>> E-mail: drord...@gmail.com  Tel. +41 76
>> 561 41 83
>> 
>> 2016-07-29 16:58 GMT+02:00 Heather Morrison
>> >:
>> 
>> A preliminary version of our MDPI APC longitudinal study is now
>> available:
>> https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2016/07/29/mdpi-apc-fdp-2011-2016/
> 
>> 
>> In brief
>> 
>> MDPI is a new commercial publisher committed to the APC model, with a
>> not uncommon approach of free publication for new journals. Thanks to
>> Solomon and Björk, we have APC data for 25 journals for both 2011 and
>> 2016. The average APC for this group of journals increased from 624
>> CHF in 2011 to 1,148 CHF in 2016, an average increase of 524 CHF or
>> an 84% price increase in contrast to a compound U.S. inflation rate
>> during this time frame of 8.7% (EU would have been lower).
>> 
>>> From 2014 to 2015, MDPI journals either stayed at the same APC or
>> lowered their price. From 2015 to 2016, all journals either stayed
>> the same in price or increased in price, with the average increase
>> 18% or 60 CHF.

Re: [GOAL] Research confirms 50% greater impact of open access papers, despite delayed availability

[Éric Archambault]

Hi Paul

Thank you. I forgot to place a CC BY licence sign on it. Feel free to repost 
and even to sell it if you can!

Eric Archambault
1science.com<http://1science.com>
Science-Metrix.com<http://science-metrix.com>
+1-514-495-6505 x111

On Aug 6, 2016, at 04:08, Paul Royster 
<proyst...@unl.edu<mailto:proyst...@unl.edu>> wrote:

Eric,
Thank you for sharing this.
Is one allowed to re-post this paper? Or may we only link to it?

Paul Royster
Coordinator of Scholarly Communications
University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries
proys...@unl.edu<mailto:proys...@unl.edu>
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Éric Archambault
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 11:56 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
(goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>) 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Subject: [GOAL] Research confirms 50% greater impact of open access papers, 
despite delayed availability

[Distributed to multiple lists - please excuse any duplication.]


1science and her sister company Science-Metrix are presenting the first results 
of an ongoing large-scale study on open access. The results reveal that open 
access papers have a 50% greater citation advantage than papers published in 
traditional subscription-based journals.

The new research also shows that the widely held belief that open access papers 
have a greater impact at least in part due to them being available earlier than 
their commercially published versions is not consistent with the large-scale 
data collected by 1science. In fact, based on a time series comprising more 
than 17.4 million papers published between 2000 and 2015, it is clear that open 
access still suffers from the effect of embargoes enforced by traditional 
publishers who maintain that they require that delay to keep the subscription 
model alive.

This evidence suggests that traditional scholarly journals that restrict access 
by enforcing subscription paywalls and embargoes will lose their relevance for 
researchers and governments. Researchers want their papers to be cited as it 
demonstrates the relevance of their research, and governments want papers to be 
as widely available as possible as a large part of scholarly and scientific 
research is financed through public funds.

Read the oaNumbr #1 report online: http://www.1science.com/oanumbr.html
Download the oaNumbr #1 report: 
http://1science.com/PDF/oaNumber_OACA_3million_paper.pdf


Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
President and CEO | Président-directeur général
Science-Metrix & 1science
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/ericarchambault>
T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
C. 1.514.518.0823
F. 1.514.495.6523

<http://www.science-metrix.com/>   [Description: 
http://1science.com/images/1science.png] <http://www.1science.com/>



___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org<mailto: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

Re: [GOAL] SocArXiv debuts, as SSRN acquisition comes under scrutiny

[Éric Archambault]

This type of venue is essential and certainly welcomed for the social sciences. 
Yet, it would be even greater a place if it also included the humanities and 
the arts. There is a considerable challenge in the SSH because there are far 
fewer authors on average on scholarly papers (1 to 2 authors on average) 
compared to the natural sciences (5 authors on average) and the health sciences 
(6 co-authors on average on papers). This means each social scientist and 
humanities scholar has considerably more work to make papers available in OA. 
Whereas authors in the natural sciences can afford to self-archive only 20% of 
the papers on average to have all the material available in OA, in the 
humanities, because of the sole authorship common in this domain of scholarly 
activity, 100% of the papers have to be self-archived. The level of effort is 
somewhat mitigated by the fact that output is commensurably reduced (as all the 
work of writing papers falls to a single person, rather than to a fifth or a 
sixth of a person). Still, the easier it is to archive, the more likely SSH 
scholars will be likely to self-archive. Would be nice if SocArXiv became a 
more inclusive AHSocArxiv. We have enough of the incoherent inclusion policies 
of arXiv, inclusiveness should be celebrated in OA - we should no longer be 
divided and conquered.
Éric

Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
President and CEO | Président-directeur général
Science-Metrix & 1science
[http://1science.com/images/LinkedIn_sign.png]
T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
C. 1.514.518.0823
F. 1.514.495.6523

[http://1science.com/images/Logo_SM_horizontal_small.png]
   [http://1science.com/images/1science.png] 






From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Richard Poynder
Sent: July 19, 2016 11:01 AM
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] SocArXiv debuts, as SSRN acquisition comes under scrutiny

The arrival of a new preprint server for the social sciences called SocArXiv 
comes just a month after news that Elsevier is acquiring the Social Science 
Research Network (SSRN), a preprint repository and online community founded in 
1994 by two researchers.

Given the concern and disappointment expressed over the SSRN purchase by 
researchers, it is no surprise that the launch of SocArXiv has been very well 
received. Still smarting from Elsevier's 2013 acquisition of Mendeley - another 
formerly independent service for managing and sharing scholarly papers - many 
(especially OA advocates) were appalled to hear that the publisher has bought a 
second OA asset. The reasons for this were encapsulated in a blog post by 
University of Iowa law professor Paul Gowder entitled "SSRN has been captured 
by the enemy of open knowledge".

This concern has also attracted the attention of the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) which has launched a review of the SSRN purchase. The FTC is currently 
contacting many institutions and experts in scholarly publishing to assess the 
implications of the acquisition, presumably in order to decide whether it needs 
to intervene in some way.

Elsevier is understandably keen to downplay the interest the US government is 
showing in its latest acquisition. "The Federal Trade Commission is conducting 
a routine, informal review of our acquisition of the Social Sciences Research 
network," vice president and head of global corporate relations at Elsevier Tom 
Reller emailed me. "Elsevier's interest in SSRN is and has been about SSRNs' 
ethos, a place where it is free to upload, and free to download. We are working 
cooperatively with the FTC, and believe that the review will conclude 
favourably."

In other words, Elsevier does not believe the FTC's interest in its purchase 
will lead to a formal investigation.

But however timely SocArXiv's launch may be, the service is not a response to 
the SSRN acquisition, the director of the new service, and professor of 
sociology at the University of Maryland, Philip Cohen assured me. "We were 
already in planning before we heard about the SSRN purchase."

More here: 
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/socarxiv-debuts-as-ssrn-acquisition.html



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7688 / Virus Database: 4627/12641 - Release Date: 07/18/16
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Dramatic Growth of Open Access: June 30, 2016

[Éric Archambault]

Heather,

In the absence of strong evidence, it is difficult to speak of a dramatic 
growth. The specific challenge of measuring OA availability is that in order to 
measure growth you need to measure at different points in time with the same 
measure or to be able to re-calibrate your measures for each different 
measures. This is due to the effects of journals which contents become free 
over time, embargoes, and backfilling. 

Here are measures of gratis OA availability as measured in 122 oncology and 
carcinogenesis journals by examining what is currently available in 1science 
oaIndx (which compiles gratis OA) coupled with data from Thomson Reuters Web of 
Science (WoS). Please note that this is a population based measure (all of the 
papers in WoS for these journals are measured) but we haven't done a 
calibration of oaIndx in this field so I cannot tell you what the recall and 
precision are. I would say precision is about 98 to 99% and recall between 70% 
to 80%, meaning these percentages could be multiplied by an approximate 
calibration factor of about 1.33. The results are presented here - I just 
computed them as I'm finishing a report on a German university's library's 
subscriptions and had these data available by extracting this small part from 
the report. The one before last column is the measured, floor quantity of 
gratis OA. This shows that as measured in June 2016, the effect of backfilling 
and desembargoing could be substantial but as we don't have a similar point of 
measure back in time this can only be surmised. What is clear is that in such 
an important area of research for human health, embargoes are still hurting 
free knowledge circulation and we are still too far from 100% gratis OA.

These data are CC BY - feel free to use - cite the List here if you want to use 
(sorry too busy to publish anything these days)

Gratis OA papers found and total papers in WoS in 122 published in journals 
classified in "Oncology & Carcinogenesis" (Science-Metrix Journal 
Classification)

Year // Papers in 1science oaIndx//Papers in WoS // Measured % Gratis OA // 
Approx. % with 1.33 calibration
20068,368   16,890  50% 66%
20078,915   17,775  50% 67%
20089,492   18,358  52% 69%
20099,394   18,684  50% 67%
201010,207  19,236  53% 71%
20119,910   19,694  50% 67%
20129,940   21,135  47% 63%
201312,046  23,597  51% 68%
201412,487  26,201  48% 64%
20157,975   24,003  33% 44%
Source: Computed by Science-Metrix in collaboration with 1science using 
1science oaIndx and Thomson Reuters' Web of Science data.


Have a nice Canada day!


Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
President and CEO | Président-directeur général
Science-Metrix & 1science   





-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Heather Morrison
Sent: June 30, 2016 4:46 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
Subject: [GOAL] Dramatic Growth of Open Access: June 30, 2016

The June 30, 2016 version of the Dramatic Growth of Open Access is now 
available:
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2016/06/dramatic-growth-of-open-access-june-30.html

Highlights

Over 40% of the cancer literature indexed by PubMed is available as full-text 
within 3 years of publication (17% within 30 days) Internet Archive exceeds 10 
million free texts Ongoing strong growth in open access archives, both 
repositories and content, as seen through OpenDOAR, ROAR, and BASE 50% annual 
growth rate for the Directory of Open Access Books Directory of Open Access 
Journals has overall negative growth due to major clean-up but showed strong 
growth in articles searchable at article level and now adding titles at the 
rate of 4.5 per day Concern noted about the apparent ongoing dramatic growth of 
Elsevier

best,

--
Dr. Heather Morrison
Assistant Professor
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies University 
of Ottawa http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca



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

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12512 - Release Date: 06/28/16

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

Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Éric Archambault]

Should read Holtzbrincksevier, not Digisevier.

;-)

Eric Archambault
1science.com<http://1science.com>
Science-Metrix.com<http://science-metrix.com>
+1-514-495-6505 x111

On May 20, 2016, at 07:51, Peter Murray-Rust 
<pm...@cam.ac.uk<mailto:pm...@cam.ac.uk>> wrote:



On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Éric Archambault 
<eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com<mailto:eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com>>
 wrote:
Isidro

Not so sure. Two weeks ago while visiting university libraries in Europe I saw 
that many of them are switching/considering to switch to their CRIS instead of 
continuing to rely on their traditional repositories and the mostly open source 
software. We'll have to see how far it goes but the rise of national research 
assessment exercises and national OA mandates, there is growing pressure to 
consolidate research data and expect Elsevier, Holtzbrinck (->Digital 
Science->Symplectic), and Thomson Reuters (and whomever acquires the IP & 
Science unit - which the rumor mill suggests could be acquired by BC Partners, 
itself Holtzbrinck's partner in Springer Nature - thus possibly more 
consolidation on the way) to increase their stronghold on research data and 
research intelligence.

Only fools think we are witnessing an opening of research knowledge 
dissemination. The winners of open data and open access will be large 
corporates concerns. Research is big business and there are huge economies of 
scale in that industry, just as in so many others. Consolidation is the name of 
the game, and amateur bricolage solutions are giving way to corporate 
professional solutions, whether we like it or not.

Eric


Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
President and CEO | Président-directeur général
Science-Metrix & 1science

T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111<tel:1.514.495.6505%20x.111>
C. 1.514.518.0823
F. 1.514.495.6523



Completely agree with Eric. It's the increasing privatizing of academic 
Infrastructure that terrifies me. Geoff Bilder has also cogently argued this.

Open (whether Green or Gold) is almost irrelevant if the material is held in 
non-discoverable fragmented repos. A commercial "solution" - TR, Elsevier, 
DigitalScience will effectively lock in discovery and access. The primary value 
of CC-BY open is that you can fork it. You can't fork Green. You can't fork 
academia.edu<http://academia.edu> or Researchgate. You can't fork Mendeley 
(whose contents are "open" in name but not forkable in practice).

My prediction is that DigitalScience and Elsevier will compete to manage 
university repos. What do repos cost? Peter Suber said 1.5 - 5 FTE/year. 
Multiply across UK (*150) and you get ca 400 FTEs. cost this at 100K real costs 
(e.g. RC costing) and you get 40 Million GBP. And that's for 5% of output. 
Suppose Digisevier goes to VCs or HEFCE or JISC and offers to do it for half 
and allow those valuable library staff to be "repurposed".

We must build our own Open infrastructure. It's a matter of crisis. If we don't 
do it in the next 12 months it will be too late.

There is enough Open technology to do it. If Universities, Funders, Libraries 
scholars and citizens get up and shout for Open infrastructure we can pool 
resources and do it. If we out-source our thinking and planning to Digisevier 
we shall be sidelined within 5 years.



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

Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

[Éric Archambault]

t of view. 
I’m bringing this back – at the system level, large firms are extremely 
efficient because of their large scale, and even in the presence of indecent, 
non-sufficiently taxed profits, they often are in a position to offer a 
solution that is more socially optimal than having thousands of academics 
working inefficiently on a small scale in an unsynchronized manner. I’m not 
defending that model as the right one for everything, I just think we should 
keep a cool head and respect the value of plurality.

And for those who wonder, I truly love Stevan and I’m happy that a very small 
parts of my taxes is going towards paying for his salary (and, reflectively 
that a small part of my taxes is paying for me and my team as more than 90% our 
work is paid by public taxes). I am happy to live in a world where we can 
afford to have independent thinkers whose job is not jeopardized by the mere 
fact of having socially progressive ideas and challenging the status quo. 
Stevan and I have many things in common, one of them is that we like having a 
little argument every now and then. I truly hope I don’t sound condescending 
here, if I do it is because of my eternal youth and maladresse. Stevan, keep 
poking with your sharp mind, I have been missing you on GOAL recently, it gets 
far too gentile when you are too busy with your other causes.

Respectfully

Éric




Stevan Harnad

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Éric Archambault 
<eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com<mailto:eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com>>
 wrote:
Eric

At 1science, we have developed a robust solution to address some of the 
problems you are mentioning. In contrast to the optimistic view of the 
repositories that Stevan has, in our efforts to locate all the contents which 
is available in green and gold (including hybrid), we are finding that most of 
the IRs have only about 5-8% of the papers published by authors at the 
universities hosting these repositories. Another contrast, the latest data we 
have compiled at 1science shows that we are fast approaching 60% of the papers 
indexed the Thomson Reuters Web of Science which can be found in gratis OA form 
somewhere on the internet. Given the law of large numbers, on average, there is 
a gap of more than 50% between what is available somewhere on the net, and what 
is available in local IR. It’s clear tat a solution that fills that gap quickly 
can remove a huge pain point in the filling of IR with full-text (or links to 
full-text) and proper metadata.

We have developed a product called oaFoldr which basically repatriates these 
papers to the IRs. Our privileged model is to feed the IRs with good quality 
metadata (and when institutions are subscribing to the Web of Science, we can 
install the WoS API and populate the repository with very high quality metadata 
and this removes a lot of the pain of entering data manually) and then place 
URLs that points to locations (other IR, publishers’ websites, arXiv, Scielo, 
PMC,…) where a gratis OA version is located. This turns empty IRs into 
institutional knowledge hubs. Of course, many librarians are also actively 
examining these links and copying a physical version of the paper in the IR 
(where possible considering licencing and rights issues). If the uptake is good 
for this product (which we think it will as we developed this solution because 
we kept hearing from tens of university librarians that something of the kind 
was really needed), IRs are going to be way more populated, way faster, and 
librarians and researchers will be able to spend more time archiving and 
self-archiving pre-prints and post-prints that do not exist anywhere else. For 
libraries to spend time looking at what is uniquely missing makes sense, this 
is an exercise in search engine optimization as the Bing and Google bots will 
see unique content. This solution will help move universities towards 100% OA 
availability at the institutional level. Take Caltech – they already have a 
stunningly good IR but using 1science’s data it’ll be every better – we can 
find close to 80% of Caltech’s paper in Gratis OA somewhere on the internet. Of 
course, this solution is not a silver bullet and some problems will remain but 
it will help creating a more robust, distributed architecture.

Éric


Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
President and CEO | Président-directeur général
Science-Metrix & 1science
[http://1science.com/images/LinkedIn_sign.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/in/ericarchambault>
T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111<tel:1.514.495.6505%20x.111>
C. 1.514.518.0823
F. 1.514.495.6523

[http://1science.com/images/Logo_SM_horizontal_small.png]<http://www.science-metrix.com/>
   [http://1science.com/images/1science.png] <http://www.1science.com/>





From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>] On Behalf Of 
Eric F. Van de Velde
Sent: May 18, 2016

Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

[Éric Archambault]

Forgot to specify – we are approaching 60% of WoS contents that can be found in 
gratis OA – that’s for the last few years (about 5 years – except the latest 
year which is still plagued by embargoes and the lack of reflex by researchers 
to self-archive immediately the pre-prints and post-prints).

Sorry for the typos in my previous post – I never read these enough without new 
modifications before pressing “send”.


Éric



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Eric F. Van de Velde
Sent: May 18, 2016 4:39 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

Stevan:
Yes,
distributed management of Institutional Repositories spread the costs and 
immunize them against a take-over. That is why advocated for them as early as 
the 1999 UPS meeting in Santa Fe.

But,
it is now also increasingly clear that this distributed management comes with 
significant downsides. Any successes of the OA movement have been in recruiting 
content for IRs and in enacting OA mandates. Unfortunately, the network of IRs 
federated through OAI-PMH is simply not good enough for professional-level 
research. If IRs fail at this task, they'll simply disappear into obscurity. 
Distributed management does not immunize IRs against becoming irrelevant.

Each IR is managed to accommodate idiosyncratic local concerns and not the 
broader interests of the world. There is no consistent access to the full text 
(many records contain only metadata). Many records just contain bad scans. Many 
IRs prohibit/discourage data mining. With globally inconsistent metadata, it is 
impossible to search and find anything with consistent reliability. Moreover, 
in its institutionalized form, the supposedly-cheap IR has become rather 
expensive.

The distributed nature has led to a paralysis in development. To put it 
bluntly: Today's institutional repositories are run with software of the early 
2000s and managed with the cataloging mindset of the 1980s.

Frankly, I have no solution to offer. The crowdsourced alternatives like 
figshare, academia.edu, etc. look increasingly better in 
comparison.

--Eric.



http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
Twitter: @evdvelde
E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Stevan Harnad 
> wrote:
The worldwide distributed network of Green Institutional 
Repositories is by far the best prophylactic against 
Elsevier predation. I hope universities and research funders will be awake 
enough to realize this rather than falling for quick "solutions" that continue 
to hold their research output hostage to the increasingly predatory publishing 
industry.

"We have nothing to lose but our chains..."

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Paul Walk 
> wrote:
"The software may change, but you can't sell off a distributed network of 
independent repositories.”

I agree, and I think that this is the crucial point. The software doesn’t 
matter (well, it does matter, but it doesn’t affect this principle). It’s about 
the distribution of *control*.

We are truly fortunate to have a global, distributed infrastructure of 
institutional repositories which are (mostly) under institutional control. This 
is quite an unusual arrangement these days - and I think we should regard it as 
precious and inherently powerful in its denial of the possibility of 
“ownership” by one party.

We should do what we can to both hang on to this infrastructure, and to exploit 
it more fully, in pursuit of a better scholarly communications system.

Paul

> On 17 May 2016, at 22:06, Leslie Carr 
> > wrote:
>
> The software may change, but you can't sell off a distributed network of 
> independent repositories.
>
> Prof Leslie Carr
> Web Science institute
> #⃣ webscience #⃣ openaccess
>
> On 17 May 2016, at 21:35, Joachim SCHOPFEL 
> >>
>  wrote:
>
> Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide 
> is not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional repositories can be 
> replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better solutions, more 
> functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better connected to 
> databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.
>
> - Mail d'origine -
> De: Stevan Harnad 
> >>
> À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
> >>
> Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
> Objet: Re: 

Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

[Éric Archambault]

Eric

At 1science, we have developed a robust solution to address some of the 
problems you are mentioning. In contrast to the optimistic view of the 
repositories that Stevan has, in our efforts to locate all the contents which 
is available in green and gold (including hybrid), we are finding that most of 
the IRs have only about 5-8% of the papers published by authors at the 
universities hosting these repositories. Another contrast, the latest data we 
have compiled at 1science shows that we are fast approaching 60% of the papers 
indexed the Thomson Reuters Web of Science which can be found in gratis OA form 
somewhere on the internet. Given the law of large numbers, on average, there is 
a gap of more than 50% between what is available somewhere on the net, and what 
is available in local IR. It’s clear tat a solution that fills that gap quickly 
can remove a huge pain point in the filling of IR with full-text (or links to 
full-text) and proper metadata.

We have developed a product called oaFoldr which basically repatriates these 
papers to the IRs. Our privileged model is to feed the IRs with good quality 
metadata (and when institutions are subscribing to the Web of Science, we can 
install the WoS API and populate the repository with very high quality metadata 
and this removes a lot of the pain of entering data manually) and then place 
URLs that points to locations (other IR, publishers’ websites, arXiv, Scielo, 
PMC,…) where a gratis OA version is located. This turns empty IRs into 
institutional knowledge hubs. Of course, many librarians are also actively 
examining these links and copying a physical version of the paper in the IR 
(where possible considering licencing and rights issues). If the uptake is good 
for this product (which we think it will as we developed this solution because 
we kept hearing from tens of university librarians that something of the kind 
was really needed), IRs are going to be way more populated, way faster, and 
librarians and researchers will be able to spend more time archiving and 
self-archiving pre-prints and post-prints that do not exist anywhere else. For 
libraries to spend time looking at what is uniquely missing makes sense, this 
is an exercise in search engine optimization as the Bing and Google bots will 
see unique content. This solution will help move universities towards 100% OA 
availability at the institutional level. Take Caltech – they already have a 
stunningly good IR but using 1science’s data it’ll be every better – we can 
find close to 80% of Caltech’s paper in Gratis OA somewhere on the internet. Of 
course, this solution is not a silver bullet and some problems will remain but 
it will help creating a more robust, distributed architecture.

Éric


Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
President and CEO | Président-directeur général
Science-Metrix & 1science
[http://1science.com/images/LinkedIn_sign.png]
T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
C. 1.514.518.0823
F. 1.514.495.6523

[http://1science.com/images/Logo_SM_horizontal_small.png]
   [http://1science.com/images/1science.png] 





From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Eric F. Van de Velde
Sent: May 18, 2016 4:39 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

Stevan:
Yes,
distributed management of Institutional Repositories spread the costs and 
immunize them against a take-over. That is why advocated for them as early as 
the 1999 UPS meeting in Santa Fe.

But,
it is now also increasingly clear that this distributed management comes with 
significant downsides. Any successes of the OA movement have been in recruiting 
content for IRs and in enacting OA mandates. Unfortunately, the network of IRs 
federated through OAI-PMH is simply not good enough for professional-level 
research. If IRs fail at this task, they'll simply disappear into obscurity. 
Distributed management does not immunize IRs against becoming irrelevant.

Each IR is managed to accommodate idiosyncratic local concerns and not the 
broader interests of the world. There is no consistent access to the full text 
(many records contain only metadata). Many records just contain bad scans. Many 
IRs prohibit/discourage data mining. With globally inconsistent metadata, it is 
impossible to search and find anything with consistent reliability. Moreover, 
in its institutionalized form, the supposedly-cheap IR has become rather 
expensive.

The distributed nature has led to a paralysis in development. To put it 
bluntly: Today's institutional repositories are run with software of the early 
2000s and managed with the cataloging mindset of the 1980s.

Frankly, I have no solution to offer. The crowdsourced alternatives like 
figshare, academia.edu, etc. look increasingly better in 
comparison.

--Eric.

Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Éric Archambault]

Hi

Not everyone who uses a CRIS uses it as a repository - few probably do actually 
as they have started a while back with their repository software. If I'm not 
wrong, Symplectic Elements facilitates the workflow from the CRIS to the IR.


Eric Archambault
1science.com
Science-Metrix.com
+1-514-495-6505 x111

On May 18, 2016, at 09:30, Ross Mounce 
> wrote:

Hi Jessica (et al.),

I guess it depends which list you read.

Elsevier's own list boasts over 200 PURE implementations at different 
institutions including 28 in the UK: 
https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/pure/who-uses-pure/clients

Even Elsevier's list isn't complete. I know for a fact that for instance that 
the University of Bath uses PURE http://www.bath.ac.uk/ris/pure/ and yet this 
doesnt appear on Elsevier's list, nor OpenDOAR.

OpenDOAR is a registry run by people with close links to EPrints & DSpace. It's 
no surprise then that EPrints and DSpace are well registered within OpenDOAR.

Time to remove the blinkers. PURE is much more prevalent than you'd think from 
a glance at OpenDOAR.




On 18 May 2016 at 13:08, Jessica Lindholm 
> wrote:
Hi Ross (et al.),
Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure instances as you mentioned 
that many institutional repositories run on Pure.

Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories (http://www.opendoar.org/) I find 
16 PURE-repositories listed, whereas e.g. Eprints has +400 instances and DSpace 
has +1300 instances. However I am not at all sure to what degree openDOAR is 
containing exhaustive data (or rather I am quite sure it doesn’t) -it is either 
lacking data about PURE instances – or if not, I do not agree that they are 
many..

Regards
Jessica  Lindholm


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Ross Mounce
Sent: den 17 maj 2016 22:54
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Elsevier have actually done a really good job of infiltrating institutional 
repositories too:
http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/

They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the software that 
many of world's institutional repositories run on.
I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can further 
monetise academic IP.

Best,

Ross




On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL 
> wrote:
Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide is 
not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional repositories can be 
replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better solutions, more 
functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better connected to 
databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.

- Mail d'origine -
De: Stevan Harnad >
À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
>
Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Shame on SSRN.

Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):

It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed 
scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer needed, 
and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as a foothold 
if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a legacy from an 
obsolete Gutenberg era.

I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated expenses 
are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is that the 
distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide  is not for 
sale, and that is their strength...

Stevan Harnad



On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk 
> wrote:

This is an interesting news item which should interest the
readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.

Bo-Christer Björk



 Forwarded Message 
Subject:

Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman

Date:

Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)

From:

Michael C. Jensen 

Reply-To:

supp...@ssrn.com

To:

bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi




[http://papers.ssrn.com/Organizations/images/ihp_ssrnlogo.png]

[http://static.ssrn.com/Images/Header/socialnew.gif]



Dear SSRN Authors,


SSRN announced today that it has changed ownership. SSRN is
joining 

Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Éric Archambault]

Isidro

Not so sure. Two weeks ago while visiting university libraries in Europe I saw 
that many of them are switching/considering to switch to their CRIS instead of 
continuing to rely on their traditional repositories and the mostly open source 
software. We'll have to see how far it goes but the rise of national research 
assessment exercises and national OA mandates, there is growing pressure to 
consolidate research data and expect Elsevier, Holtzbrinck (->Digital 
Science->Symplectic), and Thomson Reuters (and whomever acquires the IP & 
Science unit - which the rumor mill suggests could be acquired by BC Partners, 
itself Holtzbrinck's partner in Springer Nature - thus possibly more 
consolidation on the way) to increase their stronghold on research data and 
research intelligence. 

Only fools think we are witnessing an opening of research knowledge 
dissemination. The winners of open data and open access will be large 
corporates concerns. Research is big business and there are huge economies of 
scale in that industry, just as in so many others. Consolidation is the name of 
the game, and amateur bricolage solutions are giving way to corporate 
professional solutions, whether we like it or not. 

Eric


Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
President and CEO | Président-directeur général
Science-Metrix & 1science

T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
C. 1.514.518.0823
F. 1.514.495.6523
   






-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Isidro F. Aguillo
Sent: May 17, 2016 4:59 PM
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

To my knowledge a few universities are considering to use the CRIS  
software called PURE (by Elsevier, of course) instead of their current  
IRs.

Main reason is the "not enough" added value of current IRs repository  
managers.

Joachim SCHOPFEL  escribió:

> Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories  
> worldwide is not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional  
> repositories can be replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better  
> solutions, more functionalities, more added value, more efficient,  
> better connected to databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.
> - Mail d'origine -
> De: Stevan Harnad 
> À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
> Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
> Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
>
> Shame on SSRN.
> Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):
> It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed  
> scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no  
> longer needed, and in which they would not even have been able to  
> gain as much as a foothold if it had been born digital, instead of  
> being inherited as a legacy from an obsolete Gutenberg era.
> I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its  
> concentrated expenses are always vulnerabe to faux-benign  
> take-overs) but what's sure is that the distributed network of Green  
> institutional repositories worldwide  is not for sale, and that is  
> their strength...
> Stevan Harnad
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk  
>  wrote:
> This is an interesting news item which should interest the
>  readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.Bo-Christer Björk
>
>
>
>   Forwarded Message 
> Subject:
> Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN ChairmanDate:Tue, 17 May 2016  
> 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)From:Michael C. Jensen Reply-To:
> support@ssrn.comTo:bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi
>
>
>
> Dear SSRN Authors,
>
>
>  SSRN announced today that it has changed ownership. SSRN is
>  joining Mendeley and Elsevier
>  to coordinate our development and delivery of new products and
>  services, and we look forward to our new access to data, products,
>  and additional resources that this change facilitates. (See Gregg
>  Gordon’s Elsevier
>  Connect post)
>
>
>  Like SSRN, Mendeley and Elsevier are focused on creating tools
>  that enhance researcher workflow and productivity. SSRN has been
>  at the forefront of on-line sharing of working papers. We are
>  committed to continue our innovation and this change will enable
>  that to happen more quickly. SSRN will benefit from access to the
>  vast new data and resources available, including Mendeley’s
>  reference management and personal library management tools, their
>  new researcher profile capabilities, and social networking
>  features. Importantly, we will also have new access for SSRN
>  members to authoritative performance measurement tools such as
>  those powered by Scopus and
>  Newsflo
>  (a global media tracking tool). In addition, SSRN, Mendeley and
>  Elsevier together can cooperatively build bridges to close the
>  divide between the previously separate worlds and workflows of
>  working 

[GOAL] Re: Inside Higher Ed: All six editors and all 31 editorial board members of Lingua resign over Elsevier

[Éric Archambault]

Jeffrey

Your black list is the largest journal banner in the world. Where do you take 
the moral authority to give lessons to others who want to do the same thing on 
a much smaller scale?

Éric

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Beall, Jeffrey
Sent: November-13-15 6:55 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Inside Higher Ed: All six editors and all 31 editorial 
board members of Lingua resign over Elsevier

I think that Guedon's advice to "Remove access to Lingua going forward" is the 
moral equivalent of a book banning.

There's no moral difference between saying "Remove access to Lingua" and saying 
"Remove the book Heather Has Two Mommies."

I understand that all book banners (and journal banners) think they are doing 
the right thing and helping society.

I think it is shameful for anyone, especially a librarian, to call for the 
removal of content from a library.

Guedon is the modern-day equivalent of a book banner. He is pressuring 
libraries to ban serials, the same, morally, as banning books.

Jeffrey Beall
University of Colorado Denver

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Richard Poynder
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 11:59 PM
To: 'Global Open Access List' 
Subject: [GOAL] Inside Higher Ed: All six editors and all 31 editorial board 
members of Lingua resign over Elsevier

I am posting this message on behalf of Jean-Claude Guédon:


The article below (thanks to Colin Steele) is an example of a courageous move 
that must be supported by the libraries.

With regard to the Lingua (now Glossa) editorial board, libraries could, for 
example,

1. Remove access to Lingua going forward (keep access to archive up to December 
31st, 2015) if caught in a Big Deal; remove Lingua from subscriptions, starting 
in 2016, if not in a Big Deal

2. Support Glossa (the new journal) financially,

3. Promote Glossa widely. ERIH is already classifying the new journal at the 
level of its current status by arguing that the quality of a journal is linked 
to the editors and editorial board, and not to the publisher.

Researchers in linguistics, of course, should boycott Elsevier's Lingua from 
now on.

This event also demonstrates the importance for Learned and scientific 
societies not to sell the title of their journals to publishers. So long as we 
foolishly evaluate research according to the place where it is published (i.e. 
a journal title), publishers will hold a strong trump card.

Finally, this event displays the incredible behaviour of the multinational, 
commercial, publishers with particular clarity. These are not the friends of 
the scientific communication system we need.

>>

Extract from Inside Higher Ed article:

"All six editors and all 31 editorial board members of Lingua, one of the top 
journals in linguistics, last week resigned to protest Elsevier's policies on 
pricing and its refusal to convert the journal to an open-access publication 
that would be free online. As soon as January, when the departing editors' 
noncompete contracts expire, they plan to start a new open-access journal to be 
called Glossa."

The article can be read in full here:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/02/editors-and-editorial-board-quit-top-linguistics-journal-protest-subscription-fees

For a list of some of the other coverage of this issue see here: 
http://kaivonfintel.org/2015/11/05/lingua-roundup/


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.6173 / Virus Database: 4457/10972 - Release Date: 11/09/15
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Need for a new beginning - Assessing Publishers and Journals Scholarly Practices - Reloaded

[Éric Archambault]

Hi Jeroen

Good point. I don’t necessarily argue for a new list, improving/merging 
existing tools may indeed be the way to go.

Eric



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)
Sent: October-04-15 12:03 PM
To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Need for a new beginning - Assessing Publishers and 
Journals Scholarly Practices - Reloaded

Dear Eric,

Though I agree simply accepting one man’s list is not sustainable, I doubt 
creating yet another list is the best way forward. There are already so many 
lists out there. Every new initiative seems to dilute and weaken efforts. 
Please let’s just try to tie the initiatives together (e.g. DOAJ, Sherpa/Romeo 
and QOAM/SciRev) and making them as open and transparent as possible. For a 
list of these lists check our tools database (data tab, category 23, rows 
409-424): http://bit.ly/innoscholcomm-list.

Best,
Jeroen

[101-innovations-icon-very-small]  101 innovations: tools 
database<http://bit.ly/innoscholcomm-list> | 
survey<https://101innovations.wordpress.com/>

Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences
Utrecht University Library<http://www.uu.nl/library>
email: j.bos...@uu.nl<mailto:j.bos...@uu.nl>
telephone: +31.30.2536613
mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands
visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3, Utrecht
web: Jeroen 
Bosman<http://www.uu.nl/university/library/en/disciplines/geo/Pages/ContactBosman.aspx>
twitter @jeroenbosman/ @geolibrarianUBU
profiles: : Academia<http://uu.academia.edu/JeroenBosman> / Google 
Scholar<http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-IfPy3IJ=en> / 
ISNI<http://www.isni.org/28810209> /
Mendeley<http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/jeroen-bosman/> / 
MicrosoftAcademic<http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/51538592/jeroen-bosman>
 / ORCID<http://orcid.org/-0001-5796-2727> / 
ResearcherID<http://www.researcherid.com/ProfileView.action?queryString=KG0UuZjN5WmCiHc%252FMC4oLVEKrQQu%252BpzQ8%252F9yrRrmi8Y%253D=Yes=CR=ROUTER.Success=N27lOD6EgipnADLnAbK>
 /
ResearchGate<http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeroen_Bosman/> / 
Scopus<http://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.url?authorId=7003519484> /  
Slideshare<http://www.slideshare.net/hierohiero> /  
VIAF<http://viaf.org/viaf/36099266/> /  
Worldcat<http://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n91-100619>
blogging at: I 2.0<http://im2punt0.wordpress.com/> / 
Ref4UU<http://ref4uu.blogspot.com/>
-
Trees say printing is a thing of the past

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Éric Archambault
Sent: zaterdag 3 oktober 2015 17:16
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Need for a new beginning - Assessing Publishers and Journals 
Scholarly Practices - Reloaded

Hi List
Hi list

My previous efforts rapidly went off-topic, so I’m making a second effort to 
reload the questions to the list with the hope of receiving more input on this 
important topic.

Back to our still largely unaddressed problem, I am re-inviting people to 
contribute ideas, focussing away from individuals.

What is the best way to deal with the question of assessing the practices of 
publishers and journals (for subscription only, hybrid and open access 
journals)?
Should it be done through a negative list listing journals/publishers with 
deceptive practices?
Should it be done through a positive list of best-practice journals?
Should it be done through an exhaustive list comprising all scholarly 
quality-reviewed journals (peer-review is somewhat restrictive as different 
fields have different norms).

Personally, I think the latter is the way to go. Firstly, there is currently no 
exhaustive list of reviewed scholarly journals. Though we sent astronauts to 
the moon close to half a century ago, we are still largely navigating blind on 
evidence-based decision-making in science. No one can confidently say how many 
active journals there are the world over. We need an exhaustive list. Secondly, 
I think journals and publishers should not be examined in a dichotomous manner; 
we need several criteria to assess their practice and the quality of what is 
being published.

What metrics do we need to assess journal quality, and more specifically`:
-What metrics of scholarly impact should be used (that is, within the scholarly 
community impact – typically the proprietary Thomson Journal Impact Factor has 
been the most widely used even though it was designed at the same time as we 
sent astronauts to the moon and has pretty much never been updated since -- 
full disclosure: Science-Metrix is a client of Th

[GOAL] Need for a new beginning - Assessing Publishers and Journals Scholarly Practices - Reloaded

[Éric Archambault]

Hi List
Hi list

My previous efforts rapidly went off-topic, so I’m making a second effort to 
reload the questions to the list with the hope of receiving more input on this 
important topic.

Back to our still largely unaddressed problem, I am re-inviting people to 
contribute ideas, focussing away from individuals.

What is the best way to deal with the question of assessing the practices of 
publishers and journals (for subscription only, hybrid and open access 
journals)?
Should it be done through a negative list listing journals/publishers with 
deceptive practices?
Should it be done through a positive list of best-practice journals?
Should it be done through an exhaustive list comprising all scholarly 
quality-reviewed journals (peer-review is somewhat restrictive as different 
fields have different norms).

Personally, I think the latter is the way to go. Firstly, there is currently no 
exhaustive list of reviewed scholarly journals. Though we sent astronauts to 
the moon close to half a century ago, we are still largely navigating blind on 
evidence-based decision-making in science. No one can confidently say how many 
active journals there are the world over. We need an exhaustive list. Secondly, 
I think journals and publishers should not be examined in a dichotomous manner; 
we need several criteria to assess their practice and the quality of what is 
being published.

What metrics do we need to assess journal quality, and more specifically`:
-What metrics of scholarly impact should be used (that is, within the scholarly 
community impact – typically the proprietary Thomson Journal Impact Factor has 
been the most widely used even though it was designed at the same time as we 
sent astronauts to the moon and has pretty much never been updated since -- 
full disclosure: Science-Metrix is a client of Thomson Reuters’s Web of Science 
raw data; competing indicators include Elsevier’s SNIP and SCIMAGO’s SJR, both 
computed with Scopus data and available for free for a few years but with 
comparatively limited uptake -- full disclosure: Science-Metrix is a client of 
Elsevier’s Scopus raw data; note also that bibliometrics practices such as 
CWTS, iFQ and Science-Metrix compute their own version of these journal impact 
indicators using WoS and/or Scopus data)
-What metrics of outreach should be used (e.g. use by the public, government, 
enterprises – typically these are covered by so-called “alternative metrics”)?
-What metrics of peer-review and quality-assessment effectiveness should be 
used?
-What other metrics would be relevant?

Perhaps before addressing the above questions we should examine these two 
questions:

Why do we need such a list?
What are the use cases for such a list?

The following “how” questions are very important too:

-How should such a list be produced?
-How will it be sustainable?

Finally the “who” question:
Who should be contributing the list?
   -A Wikipedia-sort of crowdsourced list?
   -Should only experts be allowed to contribute to the list? Librarians? 
Scholars? Anyone?
   -A properly funded not-for-profit entity?
   -Corporate entities vying for a large market share?

Thank you for your input,

Éric




Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
President and CEO | Président-directeur général
Science-Metrix & 1science
1335, Mont-Royal E
Montréal, QC  H2J 1Y6 - Canada

E-mail: 
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com
Web:science-metrix.com
 1science.com











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

[GOAL] Re: Need for a new beginning

[Éric Archambault]

Hi List

I’d like to steer this debate away from individuals and bring it back to the 
questions that need to be addressed in a fairly urgent manner. Though I 
personally don’t agree with many if not most positions that Jeffrey has taken 
over the years on different subjects, and many list members here disagree with 
them with their gut, please bear in mind that Jeffrey is under nearly 
continuous attack, except from the masses turning to his list and increasingly 
calling “predatory” what Jeffrey calls “questionable”. I think it’s difficult 
to show one’s best side under these circumstances. Jeffrey has put a lot of 
effort into this list, and there is no doubt that some journal editors have 
deceptive practices, so kudos to him for alerting the community. His list has a 
lot of traction, and Jeffrey cannot be ignored. I hope that if we stop 
harassing him he will help with his in-depth knowledge, and himself agree that 
this is no longer a piece of work that can be done by one person alone.

I’m re-loading the question on a new thread, I really hope to get 
contributions: we need to navigate with robust instruments, not only with 
personal opinions, however well intentioned. I know many people will disagree 
with me here, and you are free to say so – but please do it on this thread, not 
on the reloaded one.

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

[GOAL] Need for a new beginning

[Éric Archambault]

Dear list members:
What started as a one-man, useful list that identified “Potential, possible, or 
probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers”, which Jeffrey himself 
further qualifies as a “list of questionable, scholarly open-access 
publishers”, has now overshot its usefulness. We need a new beginning.
If these publishers are questionable, let’s find a mechanism to question them, 
and let’s, at the very least, document their answers. Currently, this list of 
editors/journals, deemed questionable by one man alone, is increasingly being 
found guilty of “predatory” practices by the jury. Even Björk, someone who I 
really respect for his immeasurable services to the OA movement, has fallen 
prey (sorry for the pun) to a lack of critical perspective. So, now we 
supposedly have 8,000 journals that are no longer questionable and that have 
been condemned, found guilty of being predatory, without any sort of due 
process (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/13/230):
Methods
After an initial scan of all predatory publishers and journals included in the 
so-called Beall’s list, a sample of 613 journals was constructed using a 
stratified sampling method from the total of over 11,000 journals identified. 
Information about the subject field, country of publisher, article processing 
charge and article volumes published between 2010 and 2014 were manually 
collected from the journal websites. For a subset of journals, individual 
articles were sampled in order to study the country affiliation of authors and 
the publication delays.
Results
Over the studied period, predatory journals have rapidly increased their 
publication volumes from 53,000 in 2010 to an estimated 420,000 articles in 
2014, published by around 8,000 active journals.
In an open society, especially one that accepts and promotes scholarly and 
scientific values and methods, the right to discuss is absolutely essential.
I’d like to invite readers of this list to read MDPI’s answer to the fact that 
it was placed on a list of questionable journals by Jeffrey:
http://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/534
Please also read Richard Poynder’s blog:
http://poynder.blogspot.ca/2015/04/the-open-access-interviews-publisher.html
Alongside 1science Inc, which is developing a series of tools to increase OA 
use, uptake and diffusion, we are about to create the 1science Foundation, a 
non-profit organization whose goal will be to support OA initiatives and 
critical thinking.  Following the thread sent a month ago on this list by 
Richard Poynder, I reached out to the Canadian Research Councils with the idea 
of them partnering with the 1science Foundation to create a research fund to 
investigate this issue. As a starting point, here are some of the questions I 
feel need funding now so that they can be addressed by the scholarly community:
 “What criteria could be used to determine the entry and exit of journals on a 
list of journals for which research funding bodies would usually advise against 
researchers paying article processing charges?”
“How could a system that would monitor gold OA journals be established and 
operate in a self-sustainable manner?”
This is not enough, and with hindsight, perhaps my first question lacks 
reflectivity and may be loaded. I don’t pretend that these are good questions. 
However, what I am certain about is that we need to question the lack of due 
process that may unduly affect the reputation of publishers, and we need to 
protect the public interest by making sure that publishers-- including 
traditional publishers who, should we remind people, also deviate from best 
practices from time to time--do not use public funds in a way that could be 
qualified as being abusive. I know that asking the question in this way will 
certainly lead to many questioning how can one determine if a subscription 
price or article processing charge is abusive. Maybe we cannot exclude this 
from being questioned. When we say that charging $500 for a paper with no peer 
review is questionable, others could argue that charging $3,000 when academics 
do the work for free is equally if not more questionable. I don’t necessarily 
think this is the way to go, even though this is an important social and public 
policy debate. I think what is at the heart of the problem that Jeffrey wanted 
to address with his list is the fact that some publishers and editors have 
deceptive practices. Most of this is centered on the peer review process – some 
gold publishers say they do it, but don’t do it adequately if at all, but there 
are also documented lapses by both subscription-based and transiting-to-OA 
publishers. The question should therefore not be restricted to gold OA, but 
also to subscription (paywall) publishing. Paying subscriptions to deceptive 
journals with public funds is not any better than using these funds for APC.
Here is what I would like members of this list to contribute:

1)  Questions to examine, review and fairly 

[GOAL] Re: Dutch begin their Elsevier boycott

[Éric Archambault]

Thomas

I don't think it's fair to say this is a problem made by libraries. It is a 
systemic problem which calls for systemic solutions. Part of the solution is to 
make OA more discoverable and this starts with systems such as RePEC being more 
user-friendly and clearly and simply exposing what is OA, instead of burying it 
among subscription-only contents.

It's just too easy to single out one source of problem and claim that it only 
has the solution. We have lost this capacity to feel concerned individually and 
while we continue to be divided, large MNC continue to rule. Kudos to the 
Dutch's universities for grouping their efforts, I hope they succeed in getting 
a better deal.

Éric



-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Thomas Krichel
Sent: July-03-15 8:14 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Dutch begin their Elsevier boycott


  Danny Kingsley writes

 Dutch universities have begun their boycott of Elsevier due to a 
 complete breakdown of negotiations over Open Access.

  I guess the Summer silly season is here. 

 As a first step in boycotting the publisher, the Association of 
 Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) has asked all scientists that 
 are editor in chief of a journal published by Elsevier to give up 
 their post.

  It would be very foolish indeed for any academic to give up such a
  prestigious post forever, presumably, to come in aid of a temporary,
  presumably, boycott, with no compensation from the boycotters.

 If this way of putting pressure on the publishers does not work, the 
 next step would be to ask reviewers to stop working for Elsevier.

  This may have a small effect since reviewing for journals is a
  tedium to many academics. Dutch academics can use the boycott as as
  excuse not to review. But publishers can draw on a non-Dutch
  reviewers.

 After that, scientists could be asked to stop publishing in Elsevier 
 journals.

  Good luck with that. As an academic you have to take submission
  decisions based on the likelihood to be in a good journal, not
  based on some boycott ideology. 

  The whole strategy makes very little sense whatsoever from a
  theoretical perspective thinking about academics' incentives. And
  there is historical evidence that adds weight to the theoretical
  argument. Recall the Public Library of Science.  Before it became a
  publishing business, it was a grass root group. It issued a similar
  boycott call. I can't find the text now. I guess they withdrew the
  text from public view. By my impression it was completely
  ineffective. 

  Libraries have created, and continue to maintain the closed-access
  publication system by subscribing to journals. They should stop
  subscribing to journals and use the proceeds to fund open access
  publications.  Publishers will get the same revenue stream but open
  access is achieved. 

  In short: Stop bothering academics and publishers about a
  library-made problem. 

-- 

  Cheers,

  Thomas Krichel  http://openlib.org/home/krichel
  skype:thomaskrichel 
___
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: Dramatic Growth of Open Access

[Éric Archambault]

Hi Heather

A lot of these number are just numbers, without much direct relevance to OA. 
Full-text document does not mean it is accessible for free. How many of the 
SSRN are available for free? Number of documents in the case of Bielefeld 
Academic Search Engine (BASE) is practically meaningless as all it refers to is 
the availability of metadata (1 document = 1 source of metadata, metadata can 
refers to photos, music partitions, and a few to OA peer-reviewed scientific 
papers, metadata can be of very low quality too). 

So considering that there is no control whatsoever for what is open access in 
many of these sources, how do you come to the conclusion that there is dramatic 
growth in OA beyond what we already know? What is the percentage of growth you 
are measuring? What is due to growth in instantly available OA, what is due to 
recent term dis-embargoing (usually as part of OA mandates that put pressure on 
publishers to dis-embargo paid-access articles)  and what is the longer-term 
dis-embargoing that creates a translation movement in the availability curve 
(the latter being a mix of green self-archiving and back-filling and longer 
term dis-embargoing by publishers)? As we have shown at Science-Metrix in our 
work for the European Commission, measuring the growth of OA is a complex issue 
and one has to describe with care what exactly is the aspect of OA growth being 
measured.

Cordially

Éric



-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Heather Morrison
Sent: July-01-15 11:48 AM
To: Global Open Access List
Subject: [GOAL] Dramatic Growth of Open Access

The June 30 issue of the Dramatic Growth of Open Access is now available:
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2015/06/dramatic-growth-of-open-access-june-30.html?m=1

Selected highlights:

Free full-text is now available from 15% of the 24 million citations in PubMed.

71% of the works indexed in PubMed funded by NIH link to free full-text (no 
filters on date of publication, type of work etc.)

DOAB lists more than a hundred publishers of scholarly open access books.

Social Sciences Research Network has more than half a million full text papers.

Bielefeld Academic Search Engine indexed over 75 million documents.

Due to a clean-up project, DOAJ journal numbers decreased slightly this 
quarter. The number of journals and articles searchable at the article level 
continues to grow.

best,

Heather Morrison
___
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] Elsevier Cracks Down on Pirated Scientific Articles

[Éric Archambault]

May be of interest to GOAL's readers. I never thought that free (even if 
illegal) circulation of scientific knowledge poses a threat to public health. 
Interesting suggestion, I'd like to see the peer-reviewed evidence on this. 
This is particularly interesting as it is mentionned here that the pirate site 
helped increase access in developing countries such as Iran, India and 
Indonesia where access to research is not as common. Common sense would 
suggest that increased access to scientific knowledge has a positive effect on 
public health. 

-

Elsevier Cracks Down on Pirated Scientific Articles | TorrentFreak
Friday, June 12, 2015
2:06 PM
Academic publishing company Elsevier has filed a complaint at a New York 
District Court, hoping to shut down the Library Genesis project and the 
SciHub.org search engine. The sites, which are particularly popular in 
developing nations where access to academic works is relatively expensive, are 
accused of pirating millions of scientific articles.
 
With a net income of more than $1 billion Elsevier is one of the largest 
academic publishers in the world. 
Through its ScienceDirect portal the company offers access to millions of 
scientific articles spread out over 2,200 journals. 
Most large universities have licenses to allow staff and students to use 
ScienceDirect freely, but for outsiders most of the top academic publications 
are behind an expensive paywall.
In common with other content behind paywalls, there are several specialized 
sites that allow the general public to download pirated copies of these 
academic works. The Library Genesis project for example, with libgen.org and 
bookfi.org, as well as the search portal sci-hub.org.
These sites are particularly popular in developing countries such as Iran, 
India and Indonesia where access to research is not as common. However, this 
unauthorized use is not welcomed by academic publishers.
According to Elsevier the company is losing revenue because of these sites, so 
in order to stem the tide the publisher has filed a complaint (pdf) at a New 
York federal court hoping to shut them down. 
Defendants are reproducing and distributing unauthorized copies of Elsevier's 
copyrighted materials, unlawfully obtained from ScienceDirect, through Sci-Hub 
and through various websites affiliated with the Library Genesis Project, the 
complaint reads. 
Specifically, Defendants utilize their websites located at sci-hub.org and at 
the Libgen Domains to operate an international network of piracy and copyright 
infringement by circumventing legal and authorized means of access to the 
ScienceDirect database, it adds. 
According to Elsevier, the websites access articles by using unlawfully 
obtained student or faculty access credentials. The articles are then added to 
the pirate library, backed up on their own servers. 
Through the lawsuit the publisher hopes to obtain an injunction against the 
site's operators, search engines, domain registrars and hosting companies, to 
take them offline as soon as possible. 
In addition, Elsevier is requesting compensation for its losses, which could 
run into the millions.
Tom Allen, President of the Association of American Publishers (AAP), informs 
TF that websites such as Libgen pose a threat to the quality of scientific 
publications, as well as the public health.
Scholarly publishers work to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record by 
issuing corrections and revisions to research findings as needed; Libgen 
typically does not, Allen says. 
As a result, its repository of illegally obtained content poses a threat to 
both quality journal publishing and to public health and safety.
The court has yet to decide whether the injunctions should be granted, but 
considering outcomes in recent piracy cases there's a good chance this will 
happen. For the time being, however, the Libgen and Sci-hub websites remain 
online.

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

[GOAL] Re: More RE: Positive example: Springer ... is the Royal Society a better example?

[Éric Archambault]

Hi Dana

My point wasn't that Springer was a saint, nor the best.

That said, thanks for sharing this.  It's useful to mention best practices, 
alongside bad practices.

Eric Archambault
Science-Metrix
+1-514-495-6505 x111

On May 27, 2015, at 17:44, Dana Roth 
dzr...@library.caltech.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu wrote:

The Royal Society has had a 'transparent-pricing' policy, since 2012, that 
accounts for income, from  'author-pays' open access articles, in setting 
future subscription rates.

See:  http://royalsocietypublishing.org/librarians/transparent-pricing


Dana L. Roth
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.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
brent...@ulg.ac.bemailto:brent...@ulg.ac.be
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 10:41 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Positive example: Springer

Eric,

What is the significance of 0.8% (83/10,429) ?
What useful metrics can you draw from that ?
Why would Springer deserve a kudo ? Just for transparency?
What's new if it becomes clear that double-dipping means taking underfunded 
academic institutions for a ride ?

Greetings,

Bernard
_
BernardRentier
Hon. Rector, Université de Liège, Belgium

Le 27 mai 2015 à 00:53, Éric Archambault 
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.commailto:eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com
 a écrit :
Dear all
Yesterday I was complaining about the fact that journals were not transparent 
about their gold à la pièce.
Here is an example of a positive step in the right direction:
http://link.springer.com/journal/10645
Here, one can see clearly what the OA papers are, and one can calculate the 
proportion of Gold to locked papers.
The stats for this journal reveals that 83/10,429 papers are gold à la pièce 
(aka hybrid).
This helps library determine if they are taken for a ride (i.e. with double 
dipping).
I'll see whether and how Science-Metrix could start monitoring these journals 
to see how much more they get cited (or less, as this is a hypothesis!) - this 
would show the golden benefits to scientific publishers.
Well, Kudo to Springer! The company should definitely be congratulated for 
leading the way among the big three, it is the least afraid of embracing OA, 
the most transparent, and likely to be coming out on top following the 
transition to OA (which certainly won't be a simple flip, as Stevan said, 
rather a Escher impossible-figure, an evolutionarily unstable strategy. As 
Schumpeter said, these are certainly gales of creative destruction, and let's 
hope that more progressive publishers such as Springer destroy the market share 
of dinosaurs!).
Éric Archambault
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.orgmailto:GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
___
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: Elsevier: Trying to squeeze the virtual genie back into the physical bottle

[Éric Archambault]

My bad, apologies to Elsevier, unless I'm having hallucination and what I see 
on Elsevier doesn't really exist [or I'm not hallucinating and this policy has 
changed], I was wrong in my interpretation yesterday.

I have cognitive dissonance between what I read here, and what I read a few 
weeks - or thought I read.

This is from: 
http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-posting-policy#accepted-manuscript

The Elsevier site states clearly, and I find this quite positive, though 
somewhat inconsistent (you can self-archive to your personal webpage or to 
arXiv but not to your IR):

Accepted 
Manuscripthttp://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-policies/aam-light-box
[AAM Light box: What is an Accepted Manuscript (AM)? This is the version of the 
manuscript of an article that has been accepted for publication and which 
typically includes any author-incorporated changes suggested through the 
process of submission, peer review and editor-author communications]
Authors can share their accepted manuscript:
Immediately

  *   via their non-commercial personal homepage or blog.
  *   by updating a 
preprinthttp://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-policies/preprint_lightbox
 in arXiv or RePEc with the accepted manuscript.
  *   via their research institute or institutional repository for internal 
institutional uses or as part of an invitation-only research collaboration 
work-group.
  *   directly by providing copies to their students or to research 
collaborators for their personal use.
  *   for private scholarly sharing as part of an invitation-only work group on 
commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement.
After the embargo period

  *   via non-commercial hosting platforms such as their institutional 
repository.
  *   via commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement.
In all cases accepted manuscripts should:

  *   Link to the formal publication via its 
DOIhttp://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/lightbox-doi.
  *   Bear a CC-BY-NC-ND license - this is easy to do, click 
herehttp://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/lightbox_attach-a-user-license 
to find out how.
  *   If aggregated with other manuscripts, for example in a repository or 
other site, be shared in alignment with our hosting 
policyhttp://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/hosting.
  *   Not be added to or enhanced in any way to appear more like, or to 
substitute for, the published journal article.

Alicia: is this the up-to-date policy. What arXiv but not IR?

Éric Archambault



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
William Gunn
Sent: May-26-15 5:27 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier: Trying to squeeze the virtual genie back into the 
physical bottle

Eric,
I'm not sure I'm reading it the same way you are, nor am I as convinced as Mike 
is that Green OA (of pre-prints  author manuscripts) is a threat to publishers.
On the first point, if you read Karen's statement as the author version, 
including peer-review revisions is now considered to be a pre-print this is 
indeed a advancement over the previous policy as is doing the opposite of what 
you state. They're essentially saying with this policy, as I read it, that the 
major value-add the publisher brings is the branding  the hosting of the 
version of record, because the peer review is included in the free-to-post 
preprint.
On the second point, we need data. Are there any libraries who say they will 
definitely cancel a subscription if they can find all papers from a given 
journal in a repository somewhere? What does that even mean, given that 
libraries don't buy subscriptions a la carte, but as bundles? We need data!


William Gunn
+1 (650) 614-1749
http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Éric Archambault 
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.commailto:eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com
 wrote:
Stevan

The point you make is important. Elsevier HAS changed its policy and in fact 
the difference is that the peer-review process, done for free by academics, is 
now under embargo, whereas it wasn't before. So you are right to mention that 
Elsevier is backpedalling on OA. The pre-print, pre-peer-reviewed was not 
embargoed before the latest policy, and it is not with that policy either. In a 
way, Elsevier says the original contribution to knowledge that academics and 
researchers submit for publication does not belong to them, and so authors are 
free to make this available for free. Fair enough, this is paid for by public 
money (the greatest majority of it anyway).

What Elsevier says now is that the peer-review process belongs exclusively to 
Elsevier, at least during the embargo period. This is problematic as most of 
the value-added in the peer-review process is paid for by the public and income 
taxes. As Elsevier paid only between 6% of to 8% of its revenues in income 
taxes in the last two years, it can't pretend

[GOAL] Positive example: Springer

[Éric Archambault]

Dear all
Yesterday I was complaining about the fact that journals were not transparent 
about their gold à la pièce.
Here is an example of a positive step in the right direction:
http://link.springer.com/journal/10645
Here, one can see clearly what the OA papers are, and one can calculate the 
proportion of Gold to locked papers.
The stats for this journal reveals that 83/10,429 papers are gold à la pièce 
(aka hybrid).
This helps library determine if they are taken for a ride (i.e. with double 
dipping).
I’ll see whether and how Science-Metrix could start monitoring these journals 
to see how much more they get cited (or less, as this is a hypothesis!) – this 
would show the golden benefits to scientific publishers.
Well, Kudo to Springer! The company should definitely be congratulated for 
leading the way among the big three, it is the least afraid of embracing OA, 
the most transparent, and likely to be coming out on top following the 
transition to OA (which certainly won’t be a simple flip, as Stevan said, 
rather a Escher impossible-figure, an evolutionarily unstable strategy. As 
Schumpeter said, these are certainly gales of creative destruction, and let’s 
hope that more progressive publishers such as Springer destroy the market share 
of dinosaurs!).
Éric Archambault
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Elsevier: Trying to squeeze the virtual genie back into the physical bottle

[Éric Archambault]

I am getting a bit irritated reading about parasitic and especially about 
predatory solely in the context of OA, as if the shortcoming of the 
scientific publication system and of the peer-review process were exclusively 
encountered in OA (Gold) journals.

Remember the work of Cyril and Dominique Labbé

http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763

*  Cyril Labbé, Dominique Labbé. Duplicate and fake publications in the 
scientific literature: how many SCIgen papers in computer science? 
Scientometrics 94, no. 1 (2013): 379-396 (online June 2012 - 
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/71/35/55/PDF/0-FakeDetectionSci-Perso.pdf
 )

If it's fine to use the term predatory for OA journals and their publishers, 
then we should also mention that the IEEE maybe a predatory publisher.

Jeffrey: Perhaps that should be your first publisher, together with Springer 
which also published SciGen papers, for a new list Potential, possible, or 
probable predatory scholarly subscription-access publishers.



Éric Archambault



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Jean-Claude Guédon
Sent: May-26-15 4:50 PM
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier: Trying to squeeze the virtual genie back into the 
physical bottle

Like Stevan, I would not characterize the green road as parasitic; or, if I 
were, I would do so only in the sense that when some mushrooms parasite other 
mushrooms, they make them much more comestible...

Green and Gold are a bit like the two fists of a boxer: you parry with one and 
hit with the other, and either fist is just as good to fulfil either task.

Stevan has always been clear about the fact that what he demands first is not 
the ultimate objective, but only a necessary first step. No one wants to stop 
efforts at the level of gratis OA, but getting at least gratis OA is a valuable 
first step.

CC-BY-NC-ND is indeed terribly restrictive, but, again, it is better than 
nothing.

APC-Gold is better than nothing, but it too has downsides: it opens the door to 
predatory journals; it certainly stimulated the thinking behind a truly 
terrible system - namely the hybrid journals -, and, like subscription 
journals, it discriminates against poorer institutions and/or countries (and 
exceptions made for poorer countries are not entirely satisfactory either).

Subsidized mega-journals would be the best system because:

1. Being subsidized, they would offer gratis access to authors and libre access 
to users. They could choose a CC-by licence.

2. Being subsidized, they would remind all of us that the publishing phase of 
research is an integral part of research (which is subsidized, and would not be 
sustainable without subsidies), and they would move the financing of 
publishing research with the financing of research;

3. Because they are mega-journals, they would decouple quality from editorial 
orientations: issues of marginal, peripheral, curiosity-driven, interests would 
be treated on an equal footing with hot issues, whatever the source of 
heat. We might have had better and earlier answers to Ebola with such a 
system, just to use this example;

4. Repositories could be transformed into mega-journals by accepting papers 
that go nowhere else and by organizing peer review. By reducing acquisition 
budgets by so much percent per year, libraries could find resources to support 
the organization of peer review over their collections of unrefereed 
submissions;

5. Repositories could go for papers of good scientific quality that lead to 
negative results. Such papers are precious, yet are presently being lost;

6. Repositories could guarantee the free (and libre) capability of linking data 
sets to papers, as well as data and text mining of any kind;

7. Ultimately, the evaluation of research would come primarily from these 
networks of repositories acting as mega-journals, and would be based on a set 
of criteria that would totally by-pass the impact factor.

8. With decreasing revenues from libraries, and a loosening grip on the 
criteria of quality control, the large commercial corporations would have to 
shape up, or shape out.

The devil, as usual, is in the details, but here is a workable scenario that 
starts from two bases - green OA plus gratis-libre-Gold. It builds on Stevan's 
vision, and it also builds on the visions inherent on platforms such as Redalyc 
and Scielo. It retains many lessons from PLoS ONE.

Finally, this perspective also integrates the rising data issue, the linkages 
between research papers and data, and the issues related to both data and text 
mining. It focuses on the needed first steps, but it also provides a roadmap 
for the healthy development of a scientific communication system that would 
work on a world scale and be inclusive and poly-centric rather than hierarchic 
and oligarchic.




Jean-Claude Guédon

Professeur titulaire

Littérature comparée

Université de Montréal

[GOAL] Re: Elsevier: Trying to squeeze the virtual genie back into the physical bottle

[Éric Archambault]

-promotion] and our 
forthcoming 1science product which aims to make all forms of peer-reviewed OA 
articles searchable in a user-friendly, highly streamlined system [end of the 
commercial self-promotion].

Don’t get me wrong, I consider your work as extremely important. Yet, you once 
told me in an email that I was conflating the high price paid for subscription 
with the access issue. You were right to note that, and I saw the light thanks 
to you. I don’t care about the money so much as I care about access – I’m 
putting my money where my mouth is and developing solutions to increase access 
to peer-reviewed scientific publications. With the fool-gold discourse, you 
conflate profits and access. For the sake of switching to a more socially 
optimal position, it would be better if we did not trap publishers and bare 
them for doing a honorable exit from the currently social un-optimal model 
towards one everyone can see is clearly better for everyone, provided 
publishers can survive. We all need publishers to make the transition in their 
business model. Your suggestions amount to the near-annihilation of the 
publishers, if I were them, I wouldn’t be too tempted to follow that path, and 
this is what they do at the moment, and for this I cannot blame them. We have 
to partners with the thousands of middle-income highly taxed individuals in 
these companies to ease the transition of their employers. Let’s keep the 
pressure for green, support the intelligent non-doubled-dipped use of gold, 
support monitoring and more transparency. If we keep all the jobs in the 
publishing industry, then just as well, they’ll be more taxpayers to pay the 
tab for the $450 billion we spend collectively on research, and on paying the 
salaries of university staff and free though conflating thinkers such as 
yourself.

Éric Archambault
President and CEO, Science-Metrix Inc.
President and CEO, 1science Inc.







From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Stevan Harnad
Sent: May-25-15 2:24 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Elsevier: Trying to squeeze the virtual genie back into the 
physical bottle

Alicia Wise 
wrotehttp://www.elsevier.com/connect/coar-recting-the-record#comment-2037996108:

Dear Stevan,

I admire your vision and passion for green open access – in fact we all do here 
at Elsevier - and for your tenacity as your definitions and concepts of green 
open access have remain unchanged for more than 15 years. We also recognize 
that the open access landscape has changed dramatically over the last few 
years, for example with the emergence of Social Collaboration Networks. This 
refresh of our policy, the first since 2004, reflects what we are hearing from 
researchers and research institutions about how we can support their changing 
needs. We look forward to continuing input from and collaboration with the 
research community, and will continue to review and refine our policy.

Let me state clearly that we support both green and gold OA. Embargo periods 
have been used by us – and other publishers – for a very long time and are not 
new. The only thing that’s changed about IRs is our old policy said you had to 
have an agreement which included embargos, and the new policy is you don’t need 
to do an agreement provided you and your authors comply with the embargo period 
policy. It might be most constructive for people to just judge us based on 
reading through the policy and considering what we have said and are saying.

With kind wishes and good night,
Alicia Wise, Elsevier


Dear Alicia,

You wrote:

This refresh of our policy [is| the first since 2004... Embargo periods have 
been used by us... for a very long time and are not new. The only thing that’s 
changed about IRs is our old policy said you had to have an agreement which 
included embargos...

Is this the old policy that hasn't changed changed since 2004 (when Elsevier 
was still on the side of the angelshttp://j.mp/OAngelS insofar as Green OA 
was concerned) until the refresh? (I don't see any mention of embargoes in 
it...):

Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 03:09:39 +0100
From: Hunter, Karen (ELS-US)
To: 'harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.ukhttp://harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk'
Cc: Karssen, Zeger (ELS) , Bolman, Pieter (ELS) , Seeley, Mark (ELS)
Subject: Re: Elsevier journal list

Stevan,

[H]ere is what we have decided on post-prints (i.e. published articles, 
whether published electronically or in print):

An author may post his version of the final paper on his personal web site and 
on his institution's web site (including its institutional respository). Each 
posting should include the article's citation and a link to the journal's home 
page (or the article's DOI). The author does not need our permission to do 
this, but any other posting (e.g. to a repository elsewhere) would require our 
permission. By his version we are referring to his Word or Tex file, not a 
PDF or HTML downloaded from

[GOAL] Journal Impact Factor will show that embargo hurts the Impact Factor and thus the reputation and value of subscription-based journals

[Éric Archambault]

Stevan and other proponents of OA are adamant that embargoes are unacceptable. 
It is a huge fight, a very unequal one. What is likely to happen to give the 
final word to these advocates and lead to embargo elimination is the fact that 
embargoed journals are not going to get the citations that green-friendly 
journals are going to get. This will mean that embargoed journals are going to 
receive lower Journal Impact Factors (JIF), as computed by Thomson Reuters.

Despite all the complaints about the JIF, the JIF is widely used, and a lower 
IF means receiving fewer and sometimes lower quality manuscripts, a vicious 
circle that will erode a journal’s prestige. Embargoes are also going to 
encourage authors to seek publications in gold journals and to experiment with 
new venues that offer a more innovative, more disruptive model. This means that 
publishers who insist on an embargo period are going to hurt their journals by 
lowering their intrinsic value and competitiveness. Though research to date has 
concentrated on how much green increases the citedness of individual articles, 
the same effect can only be reflected in aggregate for  journals – this is a 
mechanical truth. This lowering of the impact factor will be helped by the 
prescribed use of DOI from the birth of papers as many publishers are insisting 
that preprints carry the final version DOI and point to the paying version of 
articles. So although publishers may see embargoes as helping to protect the 
value of their subscription-based journals, quite the opposite is very likely 
to happen.

This is a serious consideration as strictly subscription-based papers (with no 
archiving) have the least impact on average  in 7 out of 22 academic/scientific 
fields. See 
http://science-metrix.com/files/science-metrix/publications/d_1.8_sm_ec_dg-rtd_proportion_oa_1996-2013_v11p.pdf
  p.24.

It is therefore an essential practice to generalize the use of a single 
homogeneous DOI in all archives to help Thomson Reuters accurately compute the 
aggregate impact of papers and of journals, and to monitor the adverse effect 
of embargoes on the reputation of journals.

Eric Archambault
Science-Metrix
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Elsevier (and other traditional publishers) and PLOS

[Éric Archambault]

Stevan,

Assuming one lives in a purely solipsistic universe, you are unanimously right.

Eric

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Stevan Harnad
Sent: May-01-15 5:11 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier (and other traditional publishers) and PLOS

The only essential cost in peer-reviewed research publication in the online 
(PostGutenberg) era is the cost of managing peer review.

Harnad, S (2014) The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions 
unsustainable: Mandate Green Open 
Accesshttp://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/.
 LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog 4/28 
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/

Harnad, S. (2014) Crowd-Sourced Peer Review: Substitute or supplement for the 
current outdated 
system?http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/08/21/crowd-sourced-peer-review-substitute-or-supplement/
 LSE Impact Blog 8/21 August 21 2014 
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/08/21/crowd-sourced-peer-review-substitute-or-supplement/
Harnad, S. (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity Need 
Not Be Access Denied or Delayedhttp://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/. D-Lib 
Magazine 16 (7/8)http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html. 
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/



On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Éric Archambault 
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.commailto:eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com
 wrote:
Heather

I think using the term toll when what we mean is subscription is quite 
limiting. There is always a toll charged or taken whatever the model used to 
diffuse scientific knowledge. The important question is not about toll or 
profit, it is about seeking an effective knowledge delivery system that is as 
close as possible to universal access to academic and scientific knowledge, 
while doing this relatively efficiently at the system level. Like anything else 
in our money-mediated society, there is a cost associated with achieving this 
objective. Several models are available, all with their own tolls.

PLoS charges tolls at the entry point in the form of Article Processing Charge 
while Elsevier charges tolls in the form of subscription. Both limit access at 
one end of the communication pipeline (to publish, or to read), both charge 
money. Hence, Elsevier and PLoS both are toll access publishers.

Everything being equal, between the two, the APC model is inherently more 
efficient as it more largely unleashes the $450 billion spent annually by 
governments the world over to support public research. However, it presents its 
own problems of equal access (that is, equal access to the capacity to publish 
equal quality papers) and is likely to perpetuate the North-South divide if no 
steps are taken.

Gold with no APC is certainly also associated with large tolls, including 
resource allocation inefficiencies, and lack of sustainability which reduces 
the value of the published output (it takes a long time to build a reputation 
for a publication venue and papers in abandoned journals are less likely to be 
read over time). Individuals in the top 5% income bracket (e.g. university 
professors) producing journals is not a model of efficient allocation of public 
money. Finding long term sustainable income to pay for the rest of the 
personnel involved in APC-less gold also present some definitive challenges, 
sustainability being the toughest.

Hybrid, à la pièce, gold probably present the worse of all worlds as it is 
expensive, paid twice for, and very difficult to discover considering that 
publishers are packaging these papers among the restricted access material. 
These should be duplicated on separate parts of the publishers' website and 
their metadata freely harvestable by anyone, and the papers themselves mass 
downloadable. This would increase their value, and facilitate oversight.

Green alas does not seem to save it all. On the Southampton repository, there 
are only some 7000-8000 peer-reviewed published papers which are available for 
download out of about 57,000 claimed peer-reviewed papers in the repository. 
For most of these 57,000 items, there is only fairly unequal quality and often 
incomplete metadata (what is the purpose of putting varying quality metadata in 
a repo if no associated paper is available is something I still have to 
understand), and frequently, when there is a paper, access is restricted to 
Southampton. Postscript files (.ps) are nice for technically inclined users but 
most ordinary users do not what to do with them and having PDF presenting only 
a cover page is only a loss of time. Sifting through this is time consuming, 
presents a huge toll in time, as the signal to noise ratio really is poor. This 
model takes its toll on the those who depose, and on those who are audacious 
enough

[GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals

[Éric Archambault]

Jeroen

You are right on the dot, but Thomson is certainly not the only one to do this, 
many practitioners in the bibliometrics community also have this habit, albeit 
somewhat unconsciously. This is why we haven't had a much needed debate a 
proper debate on linguistic and national representatively and how current tools 
end up playing a performative function and having a normative role that affect 
publication behaviour to a much larger extent that is recognized, let alone 
discussed intelligently.

Science-Metrix has created a spin-off to offer specific a solution to increase 
OA literature accessibility based on what we learned performing our large scale 
measurement of OA availability for the European Commission in the last three 
years. Because it aims to cover the whole world, we named the company 1science, 
though Peter Suber told me the name wasn't so inclusive as the humanities may 
not felt represented. Being from Quebec, I thought first of having a name that 
fitted both the English and French landscapes, and also told science was 
probably widely recognized around the world and again inclusivity is an 
important goal. Though measurement is not an end into itself for this platform, 
it will certainly bring interesting perspectives on this and hopefully feed 
some much needed debates on accurate measurement of scientific production and 
scientific impact as traditionally measured with bibliometric methods. For the 
time being, we're still at the development stage so I prefer to remain a tad 
quiet on exactly how that is going to have a bearing on impact measures, sorry 
to have been a bit cheeky here.

Best

Éric

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)
Sent: April-29-15 11:37 AM
To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals

I've always been amazed how Thomson/ISI  categorized English language journals 
(mostly published in de US/UK) as international journals and all other 
journals as regional journals. Should ask them.

BTW Eric could you elaborate on what you say in your last sentence?  Will 
Science Metrix launch a bibliometrics service based on GS data or do I have to 
interpret your words in another way?

Jeroen

[101-innovations-icon-very-small]  101 innovations in scholarly 
communicationhttp://innoscholcomm.silk.co/

Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences
Utrecht University Libraryhttp://www.uu.nl/library
email: j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl
telephone: +31.30.2536613
mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands
visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3, Utrecht
web: Jeroen 
Bosmanhttp://www.uu.nl/university/library/en/disciplines/geo/Pages/ContactBosman.aspx
twitter @jeroenbosman/ @geolibrarianUBU
profiles: : Academiahttp://uu.academia.edu/JeroenBosman / Google 
Scholarhttp://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-IfPy3IJhl=en / 
ISNIhttp://www.isni.org/28810209 /
Mendeleyhttp://www.mendeley.com/profiles/jeroen-bosman/ / 
MicrosoftAcademichttp://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/51538592/jeroen-bosman
 / ORCIDhttp://orcid.org/-0001-5796-2727 / 
ResearcherIDhttp://www.researcherid.com/ProfileView.action?queryString=KG0UuZjN5WmCiHc%252FMC4oLVEKrQQu%252BpzQ8%252F9yrRrmi8Y%253DInit=YesSrcApp=CRreturnCode=ROUTER.SuccessSID=N27lOD6EgipnADLnAbK
 /
ResearchGatehttp://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeroen_Bosman/ / 
Scopushttp://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.url?authorId=7003519484 /  
Slidesharehttp://www.slideshare.net/hierohiero /  
VIAFhttp://viaf.org/viaf/36099266/ /  
Worldcathttp://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n91-100619
blogging at: IM 2.0http://im2punt0.wordpress.com/ / 
Ref4UUhttp://ref4uu.blogspot.com/
-
Trees say printing is a thing of the past

From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Éric Archambault
Sent: woensdag 29 april 2015 0:08
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals

Jean-Claude has an excellent point.

Our current outlook is extremely Western-centric. When I was in SPRU, 
professors (can't remember if it was Pavitt or Ben Martin) used to joke that 
bibliometric measurement was highly influenced by the linguistic capacity of 
housewives in Philadelphia. Though today there might have been a shift towards 
Manila for data entry, it remains that bibliographic databases present a 
truncated view of the world, and bibliometrics a distorted, 
pro-Western/Northern Hemisphere biased view of science. If one can potentially 
advance the idea that all ground breaking science eventually makes it to 
Western journals, and that this is what current databases are reflecting, it 
would still remain that normal science

[GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals

[Éric Archambault]

Jacinto

The question is not naïve, it is important. The reason there should be a 
conversation on journals, and their numbers, is to establish the population. 
And we need to determine this to speak about representativeness of current 
sources of data, of sampling biases, and generally of accuracy of measures. As 
we mentioned in the paper on the history of the Journal Impact Factor, the 
choice of data not only shapes measures, it ultimately ends up have a 
self-fulfilling effect as the behaviour of scientists is certainly influenced 
by how we measured their performance.

You are totally right to say that what counts are papers, but as whole journals 
are excluded just because they were difficult to handle commercially (ASCII 
rules!), whole bunch of papers are considered as non-existent. This is a big 
problem. The good news, and this is a positive, perhaps unintended consequence 
of OA and the availability of digital metadata, is that the hidden part of the 
iceberg is rapidly emerging, and it isn’t as white as the rest of the iceberg.

Éric

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Jacinto Dávila
Sent: April-29-15 12:54 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals


May I ask a  couple of naïve questions?

Why do we count journals? If we are all looking forward to a global, hopefully 
distributed archive of knowledge, shouldn't we counting papers or some other 
way of displaying solutions?
El 29/4/2015 11:13, Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) 
j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl escribió:
I’ve always been amazed how Thomson/ISI  categorized English language journals 
(mostly published in de US/UK) as “international journals” and all other 
journals as “regional journals”. Should ask them.

BTW Eric could you elaborate on what you say in your last sentence?  Will 
Science Metrix launch a bibliometrics service based on GS data or do I have to 
interpret your words in another way?

Jeroen

[101-innovations-icon-very-small]  101 innovations in scholarly 
communicationhttp://innoscholcomm.silk.co/

Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences
Utrecht University Libraryhttp://www.uu.nl/library
email: j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl
telephone: +31.30.2536613tel:%2B31.30.2536613
mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands
visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3, Utrecht
web: Jeroen 
Bosmanhttp://www.uu.nl/university/library/en/disciplines/geo/Pages/ContactBosman.aspx
twitter @jeroenbosman/ @geolibrarianUBU
profiles: : Academiahttp://uu.academia.edu/JeroenBosman / Google 
Scholarhttp://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-IfPy3IJhl=en / 
ISNIhttp://www.isni.org/28810209 /
Mendeleyhttp://www.mendeley.com/profiles/jeroen-bosman/ / 
MicrosoftAcademichttp://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/51538592/jeroen-bosman
 / ORCIDhttp://orcid.org/-0001-5796-2727 / 
ResearcherIDhttp://www.researcherid.com/ProfileView.action?queryString=KG0UuZjN5WmCiHc%252FMC4oLVEKrQQu%252BpzQ8%252F9yrRrmi8Y%253DInit=YesSrcApp=CRreturnCode=ROUTER.SuccessSID=N27lOD6EgipnADLnAbK
 /
ResearchGatehttp://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeroen_Bosman/ / 
Scopushttp://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.url?authorId=7003519484 /  
Slidesharehttp://www.slideshare.net/hierohiero /  
VIAFhttp://viaf.org/viaf/36099266/ /  
Worldcathttp://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n91-100619
blogging at: IM 2.0http://im2punt0.wordpress.com/ / 
Ref4UUhttp://ref4uu.blogspot.com/
-
Trees say printing is a thing of the past

From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Éric Archambault
Sent: woensdag 29 april 2015 0:08
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals

Jean-Claude has an excellent point.

Our current outlook is extremely Western-centric. When I was in SPRU, 
professors (can’t remember if it was Pavitt or Ben Martin) used to joke that 
bibliometric measurement was highly influenced by the linguistic capacity of 
housewives in Philadelphia. Though today there might have been a shift towards 
Manila for data entry, it remains that bibliographic databases present a 
truncated view of the world, and bibliometrics a distorted, 
pro-Western/Northern Hemisphere biased view of science. If one can potentially 
advance the idea that all ground breaking science eventually makes it to 
Western journals, and that this is what current databases are reflecting, it 
would still remain that normal science follows similar rules in Russia, Japan, 
and China and yet a huge part of that content still goes unaccounted for. A 
normal US or UK paper is not any better than a normal Brazilian, Chinese, or 
Russian paper yet the former

[GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals

[Éric Archambault]

Paul

I think librarians are still highly concerned about journals, as opposed to 
papers. The reason is that this is how their invoices are structured - they buy 
journals and now bunches of journals. But this is changing because end-users 
increasingly do not see journals, they see results in the Web of Science, 
Scopus, Google Scholar, and universities' discovery systems. These results are 
usually smaller, more atomistic units -  they are papers, conference papers, 
book chapters, etc.

Thus, the use of search engines, as opposed to browsing on the shelves of 
libraries is progressively shifting the relevant unit towards papers as opposed 
to journals. Still, journals will continue to play a very important role as 
they confer prestige to papers, and guide authors' and readers' decisions.


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Uhlir, Paul
Sent: April-29-15 4:09 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals

Good question. And while we're at it, why after 20 years do we still use a 
stovepiped, disaggregated, print model construct as the primary vehicle for 
digitally networked scholarly communication?

Paul F. Uhlir, J.D.
Scholar, National Academy of Sciences, and
Consultant, Data Policy and Management
4643 Aspen Hill Court
Annandale, VA 22003
USA
Tel. 703 941 0817; Cell +1 703 217 5143
Skype: pfuhlir; Email: pfuh...@gmail.commailto:pfuh...@gmail.com
Web: http://www.paulfuhlir.comhttp://www.paulfuhlir.com/; Twitter: @paulfuhlir


From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Jacinto Dávila 
[jacinto.dav...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 12:54 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals

May I ask a  couple of naïve questions?

Why do we count journals? If we are all looking forward to a global, hopefully 
distributed archive of knowledge, shouldn't we counting papers or some other 
way of displaying solutions?
El 29/4/2015 11:13, Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) 
j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl escribió:
I've always been amazed how Thomson/ISI  categorized English language journals 
(mostly published in de US/UK) as international journals and all other 
journals as regional journals. Should ask them.

BTW Eric could you elaborate on what you say in your last sentence?  Will 
Science Metrix launch a bibliometrics service based on GS data or do I have to 
interpret your words in another way?

Jeroen

[101-innovations-icon-very-small]  101 innovations in scholarly 
communicationhttp://innoscholcomm.silk.co/

Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences
Utrecht University Libraryhttp://www.uu.nl/library
email: j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl
telephone: +31.30.2536613tel:%2B31.30.2536613
mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands
visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3, Utrecht
web: Jeroen 
Bosmanhttp://www.uu.nl/university/library/en/disciplines/geo/Pages/ContactBosman.aspx
twitter @jeroenbosman/ @geolibrarianUBU
profiles: : Academiahttp://uu.academia.edu/JeroenBosman / Google 
Scholarhttp://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-IfPy3IJhl=en / 
ISNIhttp://www.isni.org/28810209 /
Mendeleyhttp://www.mendeley.com/profiles/jeroen-bosman/ / 
MicrosoftAcademichttp://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/51538592/jeroen-bosman
 / ORCIDhttp://orcid.org/-0001-5796-2727 / 
ResearcherIDhttp://www.researcherid.com/ProfileView.action?queryString=KG0UuZjN5WmCiHc%252FMC4oLVEKrQQu%252BpzQ8%252F9yrRrmi8Y%253DInit=YesSrcApp=CRreturnCode=ROUTER.SuccessSID=N27lOD6EgipnADLnAbK
 /
ResearchGatehttp://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeroen_Bosman/ / 
Scopushttp://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.url?authorId=7003519484 /  
Slidesharehttp://www.slideshare.net/hierohiero /  
VIAFhttp://viaf.org/viaf/36099266/ /  
Worldcathttp://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n91-100619
blogging at: IM 2.0http://im2punt0.wordpress.com/ / 
Ref4UUhttp://ref4uu.blogspot.com/
-
Trees say printing is a thing of the past

From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Éric Archambault
Sent: woensdag 29 april 2015 0:08
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals

Jean-Claude has an excellent point.

Our current outlook is extremely Western-centric. When I was in SPRU, 
professors (can't remember if it was Pavitt or Ben Martin) used to joke that 
bibliometric measurement was highly influenced by the linguistic capacity of 
housewives in Philadelphia. Though today there might have been a shift towards 
Manila for data entry, it remains

[GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals

[Éric Archambault]

If one wants to see how excluding foreign references can have adverse effects 
on citation analysis, here the list of references for a randomly picked up 
Japanese paper.

Most, if not all, Japanese language references are currently ignored in 
citation analysis, this science is considered non-existent. The paper, and the 
references.

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jssp/30/1/30_30.1/_article/references


  *   Gibb, R., Ercoline, B.,  Scharff, L. (2011). Spatial disorientation: 
Decades of pilot fatalities. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 82, 
717–724.https://jlc.jst.go.jp/DN/JALC/10007449771?type=listlang=enfrom=J-STAGEdispptn=1
  *   Howard, I. P. (1982). Human visual orientation. John Wiley  Sons.
  *   乾　敏郎・小川健二（2010）．認知発達の神経基盤―生後8ヶ月まで―　心理学評論，52, 576–608.
  *   石井正則（1998）．神経・前庭系・空間識について　宇宙開発事業団（編）　宇宙医学・生理学（III-A）　社会保険出版社　pp. 29–41.
  *   Kanas, N.  Manzey, D. (2008). Space psychology and psychiatry (2nd ed.). 
Springer.
  *   木下冨雄（1993）．相対判断の理論―意味、基準系、動き―　京都大学定年退官記念講演録
  *   木下冨雄（2009）．宇宙問題への人文・社会科学からのアプローチ―高等研報告書0804―　国際高等研究所・宇宙航空研究開発機構（編）　国際高等研究所
  *   古賀一男（2011）．知覚の正体　河出書房新社
  *   Leonov, A.  Scott, D. (2006). Two sides of the moon. St. Marti's Griffin.
  *   中川久定（2009）．第3回インタビュー（対話）　木下冨雄（編著）　宇宙問題への人文・社会科学からのアプローチ―高等研報告書0804―　
国際高等研究所・宇宙航空研究開発機構　pp. 376–378.
  *   牧野達郎・下條信輔・古賀一男（1998）．知覚の可塑性と行動適応　ブレーン出版
  *   宮辻和貴・田辺　智・金子公宥（2005）．宇宙船内「体操」のエネルギー消費量に関する研究　体育学研究，50, 201–206.
  *   Oman, C. M. (2003). Human visual orientation in weightlessness. In L. 
Harris  M. Jenkin, (Eds.), Levels of Perception. New York, Springer Verlag. 
pp. 375–398.
  *   Ross, H. E. (1974). Behaviour and perception in strange environments. 
Allen and Unwin.
  *   Small, R. L., Oman, C. M.,  Jones, T. D. (2012). Space shuttle flight 
crew spatial orientation survey results. Aviation, Space, and Environmental 
Medicine, 83, 
383–387.https://jlc.jst.go.jp/DN/JALC/10011723096?type=listlang=enfrom=J-STAGEdispptn=1
  *   立花正一（2009）．人類が宇宙に居住するための医学・精神心理の課題　
木下冨雄（編著）宇宙問題への人文・社会科学からのアプローチ―高等研報告書0804―　国際高等研究所・宇宙航空研究開発機構　pp. 258–259.
  *   立花　隆（1983）．宇宙からの帰還　中央公論社
  *   Vakoch, D. A. (Ed.) (2011). Psychology of space exploration, contemporary 
research in historical perspective. National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration. pp. 85–86.







From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Éric Archambault
Sent: April-29-15 5:40 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals

Paul

I think librarians are still highly concerned about journals, as opposed to 
papers. The reason is that this is how their invoices are structured – they buy 
journals and now bunches of journals. But this is changing because end-users 
increasingly do not see journals, they see results in the Web of Science, 
Scopus, Google Scholar, and universities’ discovery systems. These results are 
usually smaller, more atomistic units -  they are papers, conference papers, 
book chapters, etc.

Thus, the use of search engines, as opposed to browsing on the shelves of 
libraries is progressively shifting the relevant unit towards papers as opposed 
to journals. Still, journals will continue to play a very important role as 
they confer prestige to papers, and guide authors’ and readers’ decisions.


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Uhlir, Paul
Sent: April-29-15 4:09 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals

Good question. And while we're at it, why after 20 years do we still use a 
stovepiped, disaggregated, print model construct as the primary vehicle for 
digitally networked scholarly communication?

Paul F. Uhlir, J.D.
Scholar, National Academy of Sciences, and
Consultant, Data Policy and Management
4643 Aspen Hill Court
Annandale, VA 22003
USA
Tel. 703 941 0817; Cell +1 703 217 5143
Skype: pfuhlir; Email: pfuh...@gmail.commailto:pfuh...@gmail.com
Web: http://www.paulfuhlir.comhttp://www.paulfuhlir.com/; Twitter: @paulfuhlir


From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Jacinto Dávila 
[jacinto.dav...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 12:54 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals

May I ask a  couple of naïve questions?

Why do we count journals? If we are all looking forward to a global, hopefully 
distributed archive of knowledge, shouldn't we counting papers or some other 
way of displaying solutions?
El 29/4/2015 11:13, Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) 
j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl escribió:
I’ve always been amazed how Thomson/ISI  categorized English language journals 
(mostly published in de US/UK) as “international journals” and all other 
journals as “regional journals”. Should ask them.

BTW Eric could you elaborate on what you say in your last sentence?  Will 
Science Metrix launch

[GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals

[Éric Archambault]

Jean-Claude has an excellent point.

Our current outlook is extremely Western-centric. When I was in SPRU, 
professors (can't remember if it was Pavitt or Ben Martin) used to joke that 
bibliometric measurement was highly influenced by the linguistic capacity of 
housewives in Philadelphia. Though today there might have been a shift towards 
Manila for data entry, it remains that bibliographic databases present a 
truncated view of the world, and bibliometrics a distorted, 
pro-Western/Northern Hemisphere biased view of science. If one can potentially 
advance the idea that all ground breaking science eventually makes it to 
Western journals, and that this is what current databases are reflecting, it 
would still remain that normal science follows similar rules in Russia, Japan, 
and China and yet a huge part of that content still goes unaccounted for. A 
normal US or UK paper is not any better than a normal Brazilian, Chinese, or 
Russian paper yet the former are frequently counted, the latter more frequently 
not. The low impact of non-Western countries is in part a reflection of the 
exclusion of journals published in non-English speaking countries, and 
Jean-Claude is right to say there are thousands of them.

The effect on measurement is poisonous because national level self-citations 
are frequently excluded when journals are not published in English-language 
journal. If one wants to see the effect of removing national self-citation, try 
removing them altogether and you'll see how badly clobbered the US ends-up in 
terms of relate impact. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting to measure that 
way as it would be unwise (I always advocate the inclusion of self-citations at 
all levels even though everyone knows some authors and journals are 
narcissistic and playing the number game - self citations are an essential part 
of the knowledge-building edifice and excluding them potentially create more 
problems than it solves), but it is a valid experiment to show how bad the 
situation currently is because we count only publications from half of the 
journals published, and that half is anything but randomly selected. For those 
who want to see the effect, I can send you a table - among countries with 
45,000 papers or more, and adjusted for scale, the US ranked 22nd (after Japan, 
the Czech Republic and Mexico) if only citations from other countries were 
included. We never published that paper as we thought it was brain damaged to 
exclude national self-citation. Yet, by excluding many many locally published 
journals from citation counts, this is what the advanced analytics that come 
out of dominant bibliographic databases do, and this is a sin that we, 
bibliometricians, commit every day.

Hopefully open access will play a huge role in reducing the distortion field. I 
can confirm there is more than 50,000 scholarly and scientific journals the 
world over, not by any measure all open access, but all peer or quality 
reviewed according to the norms of scholarly and scientific communication in 
all fields of academia. Stay tuned, more neutral metrics are going to be 
available in the near future.

Eric Archambault

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Jean-Claude Guédon
Sent: April-28-15 9:07 AM
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Number of Open Access journals

I have repeatedly criticized the numbers of journals used to describe 
scientific and scholarly publishing in the world. I have also regularly 
criticized the use of lists such as the Web of Science, Scopus and Ulrich's as 
being largely centred on the North Atlantic and/or OECD countries.As a counter 
to such numbers, I have pointed out that Latin America alone, as indicated by 
the Latindex vetted list, can sport over 6,000 titles. Presumably, if Asia and 
Africa did the same kind of work, numbers of 25-27,000 titles for the whole 
world would look funny.

Another way to look at this is through disciplines or study areas. No one, I 
suspect, would argue that Classics (Latin and Greek) is a large speciality in 
the world of learning. Typically, classics departments are small and tend to 
disappear. Nonetheless, one can find a list of 1498 journal in this field, and 
that list is limited to open access journals.

http://ancientworldonline.blogspot.ca/2012/07/alphabetical-list-of-open-access.html

The list dates from the summer of 2012. There may be a few more or a few less 
since, but the least one may add is that such a number reveals a publishing 
activity that reaches well beyond expectations (at least mine).

Conclusion: scholarly journal publishing is a lot more complex than what is 
provided by most scientometric studies.

And a final question: who is advantaged by the illusory simplicity of the 
publishing landscape?
--



Jean-Claude Guédon

Professeur titulaire

Littérature comparée

Université de Montréal


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org

[GOAL] Open Access Week: Series of reports on OA

[Éric Archambault]

Apologies for cross-posting

As part of Open Access Week 2014, a series of six reports on open access, 
produced for the European Commission (EC), were posted yesterday on the 
Science-Metrix website:

http://science-metrix.com/en/publications/reports

These reports were produced as part of the EC efforts to monitor the 
development of open access (OA) availability of peer-reviewed papers in 
addition to examining policies to promote OA data and scientific publications.

The core report in the series provides definitions for OA scientific papers to 
address some of the shortcomings of existing definitions which are far too 
incomplete to grasp the full spectrum of situations encountered while measuring 
OA availability.

The following definitions are suggested:

A: Access-can be open (free), restricted or paid; with unrestricted or 
restricted usage rights; quality controlled or not; pre-print (pre-referring), 
post-print (post-referring), or published version (with final copy editing and 
page layout); immediate or delayed; permanent or transient.

OA: Open Access-freely available online to all.

IOA: Ideal OA-free; quality controlled (peer-reviewed or editorially 
controlled); with unrestricted usage rights (e.g. CC BY); in final, published 
form; immediate; permanent.

RA: Restricted Access-access restricted to members of a group, club, or society.

PA: Paid Access-access restricted by a pay wall; includes subscription access, 
licensed access, and pay-to-view access.

Restricted OA-free but with download restrictions (e.g. registration required, 
restricted to manual download, HTML-only as opposed to self-contained format 
such as PDF) or re-use rights (e.g. CC NC).

Green OA-OA provided before or immediately after publication by author 
self-archiving.

Gold OA-immediate OA provided by a publisher, sometimes with paid for 
publication fee. Note that several Gold journals have right restriction: they 
are Gold ROA. For example, of the 38% of journals listed in the DOAJ that use a 
Creative Common licence, only 53% use the CC-BY licence that would allow them 
to qualify for the IOA definition above (Herb, 2014).
Gold OA Journal-journal offering immediate cover-to-cover access.
Gold OA Article-immediately accessible paper appearing in a Gold journal, or in 
a PA journal (the latter is also sometimes referred to as hybrid open access).

ROA: Robin Hood OA or Rogue OA-Available for free in spite of restrictions, 
usage rights, or copyrights (overriding RA, PA, Restricted OA). As the 
publishers' copyright policies and self-archiving rules are compiled by the 
University of Nottingham in the SHERPA/RoMEO database, Rogue OA is synonymous 
with Robin Hood OA.

DOA: Delayed OA-access after a delay period or embargo.
Delayed Green OA-free online access provided by the author after a delay (due 
to author's own delay to make available for free) or embargo period (typically 
imposed by publisher).
Delayed Gold OA-free online access provided by the publisher after a delay 
(e.g. change of policy that makes contents available for free) or embargo 
period.
Delayed Gold OA Journal-Journal offering cover-to-cover access after an embargo 
period or after a delay.
Delayed Gold OA Article-Paper appearing in a Gold journal or in a PA journal 
(the latter is also sometimes referred to as hybrid open access) which is 
available after an embargo period or after a delay.

TOA: Transient OA-free online access during a certain time.
Transient Green OA-free online access provided by the author for a certain time 
which then disappears. Note that a substantial part of Green OA could be 
Transient Green OA due to the unstable nature of the internet, websites, and 
institutional repositories, many of which are not updated or maintained after a 
period of time and are therefore susceptible to deletion in subsequent 
institutional website overhauls. There are also integrator repositories that 
can change access rules, for example after being acquired by a third party.
Transient Gold OA-free but temporary online access provided by the publisher, 
instead of permanent. Sometimes appears as part of promotion. Note that some 
Gold journals and articles sometimes become paid access after a certain time, 
because of revised strategies by a publisher or because they are sold to 
another publisher who instaures paid access.

Looking forward, we need to understand these various forms of OA availability. 
It was beyond the scope of this project to measure all these forms but it is an 
essential element to address. For example, Robin Hood OA has hardly been 
measured and is somewhat of a taboo subject. Transiency is another 
ill-understood subject that should be addressed by fundamental questions such 
as; What is the percentage of OA papers which are transient and why is this 
occurring?

Relative to these definitions, the report has shortcomings. In the present 
reports, the following operational definitions were used to perform measurement: