Re: [GOAL] New OASPA guest post by Jean-Claude Guédon: Scholarly Communication and Scholarly Publishing

[BAUIN Serge]

CAUTION: This e-mail originated outside the University of Southampton.
Dear [GOAL],

In strong resonance with Jean-Claude Guédon blog post, I draw your attention to 
this news piece published in Science magazine:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/04/fifteen-journals-outsource-peer-review-decisions

Best

Serge BAUIN
CNRS DDOR
France

De :  au nom de Bernie Folan 
Répondre à : Global List 
Date : mercredi 21 avril 2021 à 16:05
À : OASPA 
Objet : [GOAL] New OASPA guest post by Jean-Claude Guédon: Scholarly 
Communication and Scholarly Publishing

CAUTION: This e-mail originated outside the University of Southampton.
*** with apologies for cross-posting ***

We have today published a new guest blog post by Jean-Claude 
Guédon
 on the OASPA blog.

In this thoughtful and insightful post, Guédon explores how scholarly 
publishing should relate to scholarly communication. He posits that though 
aligned, publishing and communication have diverged and argues that journals 
and the concept of “version of record” are a legacy from print with some 
processes getting in the way of optimal scholarly communication and says that 
"now is the time to make some fundamental choices."

OASPA and Guédon welcome your comments on the blog and wide sharing of this 
piece.

The OASPA blog is a space for community engagement on issues related to open 
access and open research. We welcome thoughtful engagement and public debate in 
order to foster a transparent exchange of views, experiences and ideas between 
all those working in the open access ecosystem, with the overall aim of 
contributing to the global advancement of open access in a way that supports 
scholars and their institutions, and that gives voice to the whole spectrum of 
models and approaches within our membership and ultimately furthers our mission 
to advance open access and ensure a diverse, vibrant, and healthy open access 
community.

Please get in touch if you are interested in publishing a guest post - please 
note, authors of guest blog posts must be willing to allow moderated comments 
on their post.

Best wishes,
Bernie


Bernie Folan
Communications, Engagement and Outreach Manager, OASPA
OASPA, Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association
bernie.fo...@oaspa.org
___
Stay up to date:  Sign up for OASPA news by email | 
Follow us on Twitter: @OASPA
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] OA Diamond Journals Study. Part 1: Findings | Zenodo

[BAUIN Serge]

CAUTION: This e-mail originated outside the University of Southampton.
Hi GOAL list,

As RickyPo just announced that the GOAL list problems have been fixed, here is 
a real life test :-).

The much-awaited study on OA “diamond” journal and platforms commissioned bat 
cOAlition S has just been released today!
https://zenodo.org/record/4558704

Best

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

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[BAUIN Serge]

In support to Sandy's second point,

It is striking how the “common ground” idea overlooks the dialectical 
opposition between ends and means:

  *   The objective of a “for profit publisher” is, as the name says it, to 
make profits by the means of publishing;
  *   Whereas a “not for profit” publisher has to find revenues in order to 
publish.

Does it make a difference, does it really matter?
I think so.

Best

Serge Bauin



De : "Thatcher, Sanford Gray" mailto:s...@psu.edu>>
Répondre à : Global List mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Date : Mon, 20 Apr 2020 16:54:09 +
À : 'Kathleen Shearer' 
mailto:m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com>>, 
"richard.poyn...@btinternet.com" 
mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com>>, 
"scholc...@lists.ala.org" 
mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org>>, Global List 
mailto:goal@eprints.org>>, Glenn Hampson 
mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org>>
Objet : Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
Communications: A Call for Action

I have two brief comments to add to this thread.

1) On the question of translation, ir strikes me that automatic translation, 
however imperfect, could be satisfactory for certain scholarly purposes but not 
others.  We don;t always need an elegant translation to get the gist of what is 
being said, and that may suffice for certain purposes, say, in background 
reading. On the other hand, I have always opposed the CC BY license as 
inadequate it deprives the author of control over quality in translation, which 
is VERY important to scholars at least in the HSS fields, if not in all.  Once 
a poor translation is done, motivation (especially market-based) declines for 
doing a better one.

2) As for "common ground," of course there is common ground to be found amongst 
all types of publishers, but I see a fundamental "divide" between nonprofit and 
for-profit publishers in that at least one potentially key avenue toward open 
access, viz., endowment funding, is available to nonprofits in a way it is not 
to for-profit publishers. Both nonprofit and for-profit publishers can operate 
on the basis of having the market mechanism be that by which they fund their 
businesses, but only nonprofits have these nonmarket-based alternatives (which 
also include university subsidies to presses) to explore as well. That is a 
basic difference that will determine what the limits of "common ground" can be.

Sandy Thatcher

From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org 
mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org>> on 
behalf of Glenn Hampson 
mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org>>
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:05 AM
To: 'Kathleen Shearer' 
mailto:m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com>>; 
richard.poyn...@btinternet.com 
mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com>>; 
scholc...@lists.ala.org 
mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org>>; 'Global Open Access 
List (Successor of AmSci)' mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: 
A Call for Action


Hi Kathleen, Richard,

Can I suggest another way to look at these questions? First some background. As 
you know, the Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) is launching Plan A today 
(http://plan-a.world).
 Plan A is OSI’s 2020-25 action plan, representing five years of deep thinking 
that OSI participants have invested in the many questions related to the future 
of scholarly communication reform.

Plan A looks at the “bibliodiversity” challenge a little differently. For OSI, 
diversity has also meant inclusion---listening to everyone’s ideas (including 
publishers), valuing everyone’s input, trying to develop a complete 
understanding of the scholarly communication landscape, and trying to reach a 
point where we can work together on common ground toward goals that serve all 
of us.

We have found over the course of our work that most everyone in the scholarly 
communication community recognizes the same challenges on the road ahead, we 
all have the same needs, and we all suffer from the same inability to see the 
full picture ourselves and to make change by ourselves. Fulfilling the vision 
of bibliodiversity will mean valuing everyone’s perspective of and contribution 
to the scholarly communication system, and truly working together across our 
real and perceived divides to achieve, together, what is in the best interest 
of research and society.

OSI’s common ground paper provides a deeper look at this common ground and some 
of the approaches suggested by OSI participants. The summary version will be 
published soon by Emerald Open; for 

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

[BAUIN Serge]

Many thanks to Peter!

Just in case you didn’t know who Dezenhall is (I didn’t):
Scientific American, January, 26, 2007 Open Access to Science Under 
Attack

And for the NY Times reference: it looks like being behind a paywall, but the 
wall is very low. If you use Firefox, just activate “reader view”.

Best

Serge Bauin

De : Peter Murray-Rust mailto:pm...@cam.ac.uk>>
Répondre à : Global List mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Date : Tue, 31 Mar 2020 19:36:57 +0100
À : Global List mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Objet : Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge


Sorry that this has become confrontational, but I think it's important that we 
are not drawn into this idea that Elsevier is part of a community. It is not. 
It is a ruthless commercial organization which, over the 15 years I have had to 
deal with it has tried every trick in the book to make it difficult or 
impossible to use scientific knowledge as we would wish. Lobbying governments 
to make science closed, obfuscating permissions, bullying graduate students, 
publishing fake journals, hiring Dezenhall to discredit the Open Access 
movement, lobbying against Text and Data Mining unless they control it, keeping 
50-year old paywalls up, making researchers take down papers from repositories.
I can provide documentation for all my assertions, but I have more important 
things to do.

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 5:38 PM Éric Archambault 
mailto:eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com>>
 wrote:
Peter, ...

 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.

I did not insult you. I was careful to avoid ad hominem remarks. However in 
reverse I have been publicly insulted some years back on Twitter by an Elsevier 
Director who called me "pompous" and that his role was to take me down a peg.

Communities exist by mutual trust, mutual respect and where necessary being 
humble enough to listen to others and adopt their ideas.  Elsevier 
staff/directors have frequently attempted to imply they are our friends, they 
are there to help, they are part of a community. They are not. They are as much 
a part of my community as my energy provider or car insurance.

It is true that we need to work as a community to tackle COVID-19. We are doing 
that. Elsevier are not. As an example I take the article:
>>>

A serological survey on viral haemorrhagic fevers in liberia

Author:

J. Knobloch,E.J. Albiez,H. Schmitz

Publication:

Annales de l'Institut Pasteur. Virologie

Publisher:

Elsevier

Date:

1982

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0769-2617(82)80028-2

Copyright © 1982 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS

<<<

This paper, 38 years old gave a clear prediction that Ebola could break out in 
West Africa "Liberia should be included in the Ebola endemic zone". It was 
paywalled by Elsevier and the Liberian government complained that if they had 
known of its contents they cold have taken countermeasures. See NY Times 
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/opinion/yes-we-were-warned-about-ebola.html

This paper is key in understanding how signals for viral epidemics can occur in 
the literature years before the outbreak (34 years in fact). I am sure there 
are similar signals about COVID in the scientific literature hidden behind 
paywalls.  Yet the Ebola paper STILL costs 35 USD , and Elsevier still charge 
exorbitantly for its use in teaching. Put it into RightsLink which will charge 
you 300 USD as an academic for permission to teach 100 students and 500 if you 
are an NGO in a French country. This is not "community".

If you wish to be seen as part of a community you have to earn it. After 25 
years of active opposition to everything the Open community is trying to do, 
that will be very hard.

As a minimum I would expect you to make every article on every subject on every 
date openly accessible to the whole world for any purpose. 50 million or 
whatever you control. Not "while the epidemic lasts" (as you did for Ebola and 
closed articles),

But for ever.

That would take courage and I'd applaud. But nothing less will do.

Peter.



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

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

Re: [GOAL] Research posts on open access and Francophone Africa

[BAUIN Serge]

Dear Heather,

Thank you indeed for disseminating all this.
But there is a factual error.
HAL is not an OA platform for the Social Sciences (as the overlay journal ARIMA 
revue africaine de la recherche en informatique et mathématiques 
appliquées shows clearly).
It is for any suitable scholarly output from any discipline.

Best

Serge


De : Heather Morrison 
mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>>
Répondre à : Global List mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Date : Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:11:44 +0100
À : Global List mailto:goal@eprints.org>>, 
"scholc...@lists.ala.org" 
mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org>>, 
"radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk" 
mailto:radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk>>
Cc : Tanoh Laurent Kakou mailto:tkako...@uottawa.ca>>
Objet : [GOAL] Research posts on open access and Francophone Africa

Tanoh Laurent Kakou has published two brief research posts on open access in 
the context of Francophone Africa. Following are links and citations to Kakou's 
posts, brief highlights in French an English Synopses (abstract with 
perspective).

Original posts and highlights:
Kakou, T.L. (2019). Arima, une revue africaine dans Hal archives. Soutenir les 
savoirs communs. 
https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/10/23/arima-une-revue-africaine-dans-hal-archives/
Nous présentons dans cette recherche :Hal archives. Hal est une plateforme 
d’archives ouvertes. Elle conserve des revues sur sa plateforme Episciences.org 
sur laquelle l’on trouve une revue africaine Arima...

English synopsis by Heather Morrison:

African journals seek to create a space for themselves by disseminating their 
journals through online platforms and archives. There are multiple 
possibilities for preservation and publishing on line. One of these is 
electronic archiving. In this research post Kakou presents the HAL archive and 
explores the representation of African document. Developed and administered by 
the Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe (CCSD), the platform HAL 
is an open archive in Social Sciences. In this post, Kakou presents an overview 
of the services offered by HAL, including  Episciences.org and 
Sciencesconf.org. Episciences.org offers journal publishing within the archive 
and supports the innovative peer-review overlay approach to journal publishing. 
Arima, a journal that has been supported by the North-South coalition Colloque 
africain pour la Recherche en Informatique et mathématiques appliquées (CARI) 
for twenty years, is among the 15 Episciences journals. This is « our » 
platform too ; Morrison’s 2018 ELPUB OA APC survey can be found in Episciences.

Kakou, T.L. (2019).  OpenEdition et les revues savantes d’Afrique. Soutenir les 
savoirs commun. 
https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/10/23/openedition-et-les-revues-savantes-dafrique/
Parmi les revues que OpenEdition publie, 21 revues sont africaines. Elles sont 
localisées dans 5 pays. Seul un pays africain (Kenya) y figure. Ce sont : 
Nederland (1), Portugal (2), Kenya (1), France (17), Italie (1).

English synopsis by Heather Morrison:


OpenEdition (formerly Revues.org) publishes 21 African journals. Only one of 
these journals is published in an African country (Kenya). In this post Kakou 
illustrates a gap in dissemination of African scholarship, particularly 
francophone African scholarship. For example, of the 524 journals included in 
African Journals Online (AJOL), 465 (89%) are published in English speaking 
countries and only 39 (7%) in French speaking countries. Only 12 of the 24 
African countries where French is an official or co-official languages are 
represented in AJOL. This research illustrates the African and particularly 
Francophone African knowledge gap that is the focus of Kakou’s doctoral 
research.

best,


Dr. Heather Morrison

Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa

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

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

sustainingknowledgecommons.org

heather.morri...@uottawa.ca

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

[On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for research articles

[BAUIN Serge]

Hi there,

Just to let you know.
In Autumn 2016, a law has been passed in France stating in its article 30, in 
simple words, that the author of a research article retains the right to make 
public his postscript.
Embargo periods, if any, cannot exceed 6 months for STM and 12 for HSS.
Article 30 overrides any contract.

Best

Serge Bauin

PS For those who like this type of literature, here a translation of this 
article (might be not the final version, but the ideas are there):

“I. – When a scientific text arising from a research activity financed at least 
half by funds allocated by the State, local authorities or public institutions, 
by grants from national funding agencies or by funds from the European Union is 
published in a periodical appearing at least once a year, its author, even in 
the event of exclusive transfer of rights to the publisher, has the right to 
make available free of charge digitally, subject to the agreement of any 
co-authors, the final accepted version of his/her manuscript, if the publisher 
itself makes it available free of charge digitally or, failing this, at the 
expiry of a period starting at the date of its first publication. This period 
shall be a maximum of six months for a publication in the sciences, technology 
and medicine, and twelve months in the humanities and social sciences.

“The version made available pursuant to the first paragraph must not be subject 
to an exploitation as part of a publishing activity for commercial purposes.

 “II – If data resulting from a research activity financed at least half by 
funds allocated by the State, local authorities or public institutions, by 
grants from national funding agencies or by funds from the European Union is 
not protected by a specific right or by specific regulations, and is made 
publicly available by the researcher, the research institution or organization, 
its reuse is unrestricted.

“III. – The publisher of a scientific text as mentioned in I may not restrict 
the reuse of data from a research made publicly available as part of its 
publication

“IV. –The provisions of this article are public policy and any clause to the 
contrary is deemed to be unwritten."



De : SANFORD G THATCHER >
Répondre à : Global List >
Date : Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:48:52 -0400
À : David Wojick >
Cc : Global List >, Schoolcom 
listserv >
Objet : Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for research 
articles

Back in the days when publishers were putting out a lot of anthologies, there
was serious money to be made by authors of journal articles that got reprinted
many times. One author of ours at Penn State during that era earned well over
$10,000 from reprint rights to one of his articles. Do you want to deny authors
that possibility to earn extra income?  Of course, the market for anthologies
in the digital era is not what it once was, so maybe this point is moot.

Sandy Thatcher

P.S. However, let me remind everyone that Harry Frankfurt turned a journal
article into a short book titled "On Bullshit," which sold over 300,000 copies
for Princeton University Press. Had that article gone prematurely into the
public domain, Frankfurt would have been a much less wealthy man and PUP denied
the opportunity to publish a best seller. Do you really want to make this kind
of serendipity impossible to achieve?




On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 11:03 AM David Wojick 
> wrote:

We may actually be in agreement, Stevan

You say this ""100 years or so of copyright protection" is something
scholarly journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just
foisted on them as a 'value added" they could not refuse."

I say this in my IPA article: "The key point is that the researcher authors
are not writing to make money. One could even argue that a lifetime+
copyright was misapplied to them in the first place."

We seem to be saying the same thing, as is Willinsky. Journal articles
should become public domain quickly.

As for the embargo period, I do not think Willinsky addresses that
directly. I pick 12 months because it is already established in the Public
Access Program, which Congress has already endorsed several times. I do not
see Congress gutting the journal publishing community.

David
http://insidepublicaccess.com/

At 04:42 PM 3/22/2018, Stevan Harnad \(via scholcomm Mailing List\) wrote:
The copyright agreement already exists. It's called CC-BY. Authors needn't
invent it, just adopt it.

And there is no need or justification for any delay or embargo, whatsoever.

And "100 years or so of copyright protection" is something scholarly
journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just foisted on
them as a 'value added" they could not 

[GOAL] FW: [accesouvert] Pour une science ouverte à tous

[BAUIN Serge]

Dear all,
(sorry for cross posting)

For those who can read French or can have a short French text easily explained.

As you may be aware of, a law is under scrutiny now in France with two articles 
concerning scientific publications.
One is about open access and the right for authors to deposit their papers in a 
an OA repository (very similar to the German law), the second one about TDM 
rights (very similar to the English law).
The French law has been adopted by the « Assemblée Nationale » (lower chamber) 
and is now in the hands of the « Sénat » (higher chamber).
Lobbying by some publishers endangers a proper voting in the Sénat.
An opinion column signed by 33 top level scientists, including 3 Nobel price 
and a Fields medal laureates, has been published in « Le 
Monde
 » early this month.
The decision has been taken to turn this column into a petition to be addressed 
to Thierry Mandon, Junior Minister for Higher Education and Research.

You can sign it and have it signed if you will.

All the best

Serge

De : Emilien RUIZ 
>
Répondre à : Emilien RUIZ 
>
Date : Fri, 25 Mar 2016 16:37:36 +0100
À : "d...@groupes.renater.fr" 
>, 
"accesouv...@groupes.renater.fr" 
>
Objet : [accesouvert] Pour une science ouverte à tous


Bonjour à toutes et tous,

Constatant le poids politique d'un très petit nombre d'éditeurs privés et leur 
activisme contre la loi auprès des cabinets (Recherche, Education, Culture, 
Premier Ministre, Elysée), nous avons décidé, avec les co-auteurs de la tribune 
parue dans Le Monde le 7 mars dernier, de la transformer en pétition sur 
Change.org, afin de collecter la signature des "chercheurs de terrain". Notre 
objectif est d'atteindre plusieurs milliers de signatures avant le vote de la 
loi.

https://www.change.org/p/thierry-mandon-education-gouv-fr-pour-une-science-ouverte-%C3%A0-tous


Si vous partagez le point de vue de ce texte, n'hésitez pas à le signer et à le 
diffuser.

Bien cordialement,

--
Émilien Ruiz
Maître de conférences en histoire contemporaine
Université Lille 3 - IRHiS (UMR 8529)
Site web | Page 
professionnelle

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

[GOAL] Re: Open journals that piggyback on arXiv gather momentum

[BAUIN Serge]

You might be interested in discovering an « overlay journals platform » called 
episciences developed by the CCSD 
(CNRS/INRIA/Université de Lyon) which now hosts 5 journals, soon 6 etc. 
Momentum, indeed.
It is piggybacking on both arXiv and HAL, 
but I presume it can piggyback other repositories.
And if you are planning to launch a new journal or to transform an existing 
one, you should consider this resource as a viable option.

All the best for the new year
Serge Bauin
Université Sorbonne Paris Cité and 
CNRS

PS. There is an English language version (look top right). When I visit the 
site, the default seems to be French, but maybe is this based on IP address…

Le 05/01/2016 15:32, « Heather Morrison » 
> a écrit :

Elizabeth Gibney’s article in Nature with this title may be of interest to list 
readers:
http://www.nature.com/news/open-journals-that-piggyback-on-arxiv-gather-momentum-1.19102?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews

--
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

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

[GOAL] Re: France's Digital Republic bill and OA

[BAUIN Serge]

Hi,

There is still one piece missing (well… in fact quite many, the bill is still 
on its way. Missing as of the consultation phase.).
On Friday the 16th, after a 24h notice, a brainstorming meeting (called 
GouvCamp) has taken place in Paris (too bad for those not being in Paris or 
around) to discuss 6 of the 30 or articles of the bill.
The 6 were those most discussed on the « République Numérique » web site. There 
were, of course, 6 workshops, one of them on article 9.
The Minister for Digital Affairs Axelle 
Lemaire came for the wrap up. She 
heard all six oral summaries and returned what she had heard to the audience.
A written summary in 8 
points
 from the rapporteur of our group about article 9 was posted Sunday evening as 
a sort of last contribution to the web consultation.
I have no translation of this summary, sorry for Andrew (and 80% or so of our 
readers, I guess…).
Sorry for that.

So, what’s going on now?
Ha!
We’ll see ;-)

Cheers

Serge

De : Andrew Hyde >
Répondre à : Global List >
Date : Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:59:08 +0100
À : Global List >
Objet : [GOAL] Re: France's Digital Republic bill and OA

Thanks Laurent and Jean-Francois for the explanation. I hadn't quite realised 
that the bill is yet to be passed and could be redrafted - so I appreciate the 
summary.

Have a good weekend!

Andrew

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Laurent Romary
Sent: 30 October 2015 12:01
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
>
Subject: [GOAL] Re: France's Digital Republic bill and OA

Hi Andrew,
It is very difficult to comment on a process where a variety of voices have 
heard and the final decision is still to be made (ministry, than 
parliamentary), but yes, article 9 has been the focus of attention for the 
research community:
- the initial draft was rather publisher friendly with long embargoes (12 - 24) 
and prevention of commercial re-use
- the community at large has pushed dramatically reduce embargoes (amendment by 
CNRS) and even suggest that we should get rid of them (amendment di Cosmo) or 
leave the author’s manuscript free of any constraint (Inria)
- there is an attempt to re-introduce an exemption for TDM which had disappear 
between an early draft of the law and the one made available for public 
consultation
It seems that the community has been heard and that we may have a more 
favorable draft at the next stage.
Still, the important aspect related to this law is that it made many of use 
read thoughtfully the Code de la Propriété Intellectuel and converge on the 
idea that it is not allowing any kind of non remunerated (exclusive) copyright 
transfer. Quick some good news for French scholars who have been forced to sign 
such (illegal) CTA.
Have a good week-end,
Laurent


Le 30 oct. 2015 à 11:31, Andrew Hyde 
> a écrit :

Hi all,

My first time posting a question to the GOAL list. I wondered if anyone in 
France or familiar with the Digital Republic bill (Republique Numerique) could 
tell me a bit more about its implications for OA to French publicly funded 
research (eg. CNRS).

I've read a bit about the bill in English and have run some things through 
Google Translate, now regretting my poor attention in French class in secondary 
school. The news articles I've 
read
 make it sounds like a laudable process, open to public consultation on the 
Internet, with some popular propositions to reduce proprietary software in 
schools and universities in favour of Linux/GNU, as well as proposals to 
protect privacy of personal data and encryption.

Article 9 concerns Open 
Access
 to public research.

I've read contradictory statements about what the bill proposes in terms of 
embargoes for Green archiving. This SciELO blog post (October 
9)
 suggests that the bill proposes that publicly funded research should be 

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

[BAUIN Serge]

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

Serge



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

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

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

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

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

David



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

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

[GOAL] Re: Who benefits from for-profit open access publishing? A case study of Hindawi and Egypt

[BAUIN Serge]

Just to be silly:
US$ 6000 for the high end western APC  is more than the amount of one month 
salary of a senior scientist here in France. :-(

Serge

Envoyé d'un téléphone portable, désolé pour le caractère inélégant...

 Le 11 avr. 2015 à 19:04, Bo-Christer Björk bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi a 
 écrit :
 
 Hi all,
 
 The 1500 USD charged by Hindawi for the journal in question is by global 
 standards fairly reasonable, given the impact factor level of the 
 journal. The problem is that uniform APCs for all countries is probably 
 unsustainable in the long run. For this reason many gold OA journals 
 give Waivers for authors from developing countries. In this particular 
 case authors from around 60 countries, mainly from Africa and Asia and 
 curiously also Ukraine can get waivers. Egypt alas is not on the 
 relevant World Bank list.
 
 The leading publishers do not charge the same amounts for big deal 
 subscription licenses in different countries, but take into account the 
 potential customers ability to pay (its a bit like airline ticketing). 
 Likewise I would hope that if we convert to a dominating APC funded gold 
 OA solution, then OA publishers will develop more tieried APC schemes 
 than the current binominal full APC- waiver one. There are already some 
 examples of policies with at least three levels.
 
 Bo-Christer Björk
 
 
 On 4/11/15 5:58 PM, Heather Morrison wrote:
 David, Jan  Peter: thank you for your comments. I agree with some of what 
 you say, would like to point to where we said basically the same things in 
 the original post. and have some comments to add:
 
 Agreed - Hindawi has a deserved reputation as a leader in scholarly 
 publishing, and in particular for commitment to quality. I also acknowledge 
 that Egyptian researchers can benefit by reading the OA works of others. 
 Following are words to this effect from the original blogpost:
 
 Details, first paragraph: Hindawi is an open access commercial publishing 
 success story and an Egyptian business success story. Hindawi Publishing 
 Corporation was founded by Ahmed Hindawi who, in an interview with Richard 
 Poynder conducted in September 2012, confirmed a revenue of millions of 
 dollars from APCs alone – a $3.3 net profit on $12 million in revenue, a 28% 
 profit rate (Poynder, 2012). Hindawi is highly respected in open access 
 publishing circles, and was an early leader in establishing the Open Access 
 Scholarly Publishers’ Association (OASPA), an organization that takes 
 quality in publishing seriously. Towards the end: Egyptian researchers can 
 read open access works of others.
 http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/04/10/who-is-served-by-for-profit-gold-open-access-publishing-a-case-study-of-hindawi-and-egypt/
 
 David Prosser said: I know of no country where APCs are mainly paid from 
 academic salaries.  In the same way that centrifuges, reagents, etc., etc. 
 tend not to be paid for from salaries.  They are mainly paid from research 
 grants and so the comparison to salaries strikes me as meaningless.
 
 Comment: one way to think of this is that there are larger pools of funds 
 from which both academic salaries and monies for other expenses (including 
 APCs, subscription payments, reagents) are drawn. I argue that providing 
 funds for research per se is a necessary precondition to dissemination of 
 research results. I further argue that research funders working in the 
 developing world will be more effective if they prioritize funding for 
 academic salaries, student support,  and other direct supports for actually 
 doing the research, rather than paying APCs. A subsidy of two APCs for 
 Hindawi's Disease Markers - or a single APC of $3,000 charged by some other 
 publishers - would pay a year's salary for a lecturer position in Egypt.
 
 Of course I am Canadian, have never been to Egypt, and do not speak Arabic. 
 I am merely commenting on the impact of a model that I am viewing from a 
 distance. To understand what is best for Egypt and her researchers requires 
 in-depth knowledge of the country, consultation with and ideally leadership 
 by Egyptian researchers themselves.
 
 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 mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Paperity launched. The 1st multidisciplinary aggregator of OA journals papers

[BAUIN Serge]

Many thanks, indeed

Your answer is clear, and I wish you success

Cheers
Serge

De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de 
Marcin Wojnarski
Envoyé : dimanche 12 octobre 2014 21:20
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : [GOAL] Re: Paperity launched. The 1st multidisciplinary aggregator of 
OA journals  papers

Hi Serge,

We're working on this. Paperity started as a non-profit academic project, but 
yes, we need to develop a business model to make it sustainable and to achieve 
the goal of 100% OA aggregated. Most likely we'll expect participating journals 
to support our services, which we think is a fair solution when many of them 
charge APCs and we actually help them do their job (dissemination). We're aware 
however that there are also many small non-profit journals which don't charge 
APC at all, and we definitely want to aggregate them all, too. So the details 
are still to be sorted out, but I'm confident that over time we'll come up with 
a good solution: one that's fair, efficient and acceptable for everybody. Of 
course, there are also more traditional solutions that we'll investigate, like 
adverts.

Cheers
Marcin

On 10/11/2014 09:07 PM, BAUIN Serge wrote:
Marcin,

May I ask what is the economic model of Paperity?
I didn't find any information about that on your web site.

Cheers

Serge

Envoyé d'un téléphone portable, désolé pour le caractère inélégant...

Le 10 oct. 2014 à 08:22, Marcin Wojnarski 
mwojn...@ns.onet.plmailto:mwojn...@ns.onet.pl a écrit :
Jeroen,

Thanks, it's great to hear that you like Paperity!

True peer-reviewed means published in a peer-reviewed journal, in contrast to 
a pdf just posted somewhere on the web (think Google Scholar), which can be 
anything: a peer-reviewed paper or not, published or not, even randomly 
generated to resemble a scholarly article, for example to pump up G Scholar 
citations (http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0638).

The new technology is called REgular Document EXpressions (redex). It is a 
computer language for analyzing long and complex documents, particularly 
written in a markup, like HTML or XML. It facilitates analysis of web context 
where the paper occured, which is critical for maintaining the link between the 
paper and its journal. Redex builds on top of the very fundamental technology 
of regular expressions (regex), but redefines the language entirely to make it 
suitable for large structured texts.

Best,
Marcin
On 10/09/2014 05:02 PM, Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) wrote:
Marcin,

This is a great initiative. I had been hoping BASEsearch would take on this 
task, but it is good to see others are stepping in.

Congrats on the initiative. Still, a long way to go

Could you elaborate on how your technology is able to recognize true peer 
reviewed papers and what you consider to be  true peer reviewed papers?

Best,
Jeroen Bosman
@jeroenbosman
Utrecht University Library
From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Marcin Wojnarski
Sent: donderdag 9 oktober 2014 14:51
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Paperity launched. The 1st multidisciplinary aggregator of OA 
journals  papers

(press release, apologies for cross-posting)

With the beginning of the new academic year, Paperityhttp://paperity.org, the 
first multidisciplinary aggregator of Open Access journals and papers, has been 
launched. Paperity will connect authors with readers, boost dissemination of 
new discoveries and consolidate academia around open literature.

Right now, Paperityhttp://paperity.org (http://paperity.org/) includes over 
160,000 open articles, gold and hybrid, from 2,000 scholarly journals, and 
growing. The goal of the team is to cover - with the support of journal editors 
and publishers - 100% of Open Access literature in 3 years from now. In order 
to achieve this, Paperity utilizes an original technology for article indexing, 
designed by Marcin Wojnarski, a data geek from Poland and a medalist of the 
International Mathematical Olympiad. This technology indexes only true 
peer-reviewed scholarly papers and filters out irrelevant entries, which easily 
make it into other aggregators and search engines.

The amount of scholarly literature has grown enormously in the last decades. 
Successful dissemination became a big issue. New tools are needed to help 
readers access vast amounts of literature dispersed all over the web and to 
help authors reach their target audience. Moreover, research is 
interdisciplinary now and scholars need broad access to literature from many 
fields, also from outside of their core research area. This is the reason why 
Paperity covers all subjects, from Sciences, Technology, Medicine, through 
Social Sciences, to Humanities and Arts.

- There are lots of great articles out there which report new significant 
findings, yet attract no attention, only because they are hard to find. No more 
than

[GOAL] Re: Paperity launched. The 1st multidisciplinary aggregator of OA journals papers

[BAUIN Serge]

Marcin,

May I ask what is the economic model of Paperity?
I didn't find any information about that on your web site.

Cheers

Serge

Envoyé d'un téléphone portable, désolé pour le caractère inélégant...

Le 10 oct. 2014 à 08:22, Marcin Wojnarski 
mwojn...@ns.onet.plmailto:mwojn...@ns.onet.pl a écrit :

Jeroen,

Thanks, it's great to hear that you like Paperity!

True peer-reviewed means published in a peer-reviewed journal, in contrast to 
a pdf just posted somewhere on the web (think Google Scholar), which can be 
anything: a peer-reviewed paper or not, published or not, even randomly 
generated to resemble a scholarly article, for example to pump up G Scholar 
citations (http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0638).

The new technology is called REgular Document EXpressions (redex). It is a 
computer language for analyzing long and complex documents, particularly 
written in a markup, like HTML or XML. It facilitates analysis of web context 
where the paper occured, which is critical for maintaining the link between the 
paper and its journal. Redex builds on top of the very fundamental technology 
of regular expressions (regex), but redefines the language entirely to make it 
suitable for large structured texts.

Best,
Marcin

On 10/09/2014 05:02 PM, Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) wrote:
Marcin,

This is a great initiative. I had been hoping BASEsearch would take on this 
task, but it is good to see others are stepping in.

Congrats on the initiative. Still, a long way to go

Could you elaborate on how your technology is able to recognize “true peer 
reviewed papers” and what you consider to be “ true peer reviewed papers”?

Best,
Jeroen Bosman
@jeroenbosman
Utrecht University Library
From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Marcin Wojnarski
Sent: donderdag 9 oktober 2014 14:51
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Paperity launched. The 1st multidisciplinary aggregator of OA 
journals  papers

(press release, apologies for cross-posting)

With the beginning of the new academic year, Paperityhttp://paperity.org, the 
first multidisciplinary aggregator of Open Access journals and papers, has been 
launched. Paperity will connect authors with readers, boost dissemination of 
new discoveries and consolidate academia around open literature.

Right now, Paperityhttp://paperity.org (http://paperity.org/) includes over 
160,000 open articles, gold and hybrid, from 2,000 scholarly journals, and 
growing. The goal of the team is to cover - with the support of journal editors 
and publishers - 100% of Open Access literature in 3 years from now. In order 
to achieve this, Paperity utilizes an original technology for article indexing, 
designed by Marcin Wojnarski, a data geek from Poland and a medalist of the 
International Mathematical Olympiad. This technology indexes only true 
peer-reviewed scholarly papers and filters out irrelevant entries, which easily 
make it into other aggregators and search engines.

The amount of scholarly literature has grown enormously in the last decades. 
Successful dissemination became a big issue. New tools are needed to help 
readers access vast amounts of literature dispersed all over the web and to 
help authors reach their target audience. Moreover, research is 
interdisciplinary now and scholars need broad access to literature from many 
fields, also from outside of their core research area. This is the reason why 
Paperity covers all subjects, from Sciences, Technology, Medicine, through 
Social Sciences, to Humanities and Arts.

- There are lots of great articles out there which report new significant 
findings, yet attract no attention, only because they are hard to find. No more 
than top 10% of research institutions have good access to communication 
channels and can share their findings efficiently. The remaining 90%, 
especially authors from developing countries and early-career researchers, 
start from a much lower stand and often stay unnoticed despite high quality of 
their work – says Wojnarski. He adds that it is not by accident that Paperity 
partners right now with the EU Contest for Young Scientists, the biggest 
science fair in Europe. With the help of Paperity, the Contest wants to improve 
dissemination of discoveries authored by its participants – top young talents 
from all over the continent.

Paperity is the first service of this kind. The most similar existing website, 
PubMed Central, aggregates open journals, too, but is limited to life sciences 
alone. Another related service, the Directory of Open Access Journals, does 
index articles from multiple periodicals and different disciplines, but does 
not provide aggregation, only pure indexing: it shows metadata of articles, but 
for fulltext access redirects to external sites. Moreover, both PMC and DOAJ 
impose strict technical requirements on participating journals, which limits 
the scope of aggregation. Paperity adapts to 

[GOAL] Re: [***SPAM***] Don't Conflate OA with Peer-Review Reform

[BAUIN Serge]

Jeroen,
Which list? Already existing or starting a new one, let us know, I'm quite 
interested, and probably not the only one.
Cheers
Serge

De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de 
Bosman, J.M.
Envoyé : mardi 10 décembre 2013 21:50
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : [GOAL] Re: [***SPAM***] Don't Conflate OA with Peer-Review Reform

Stevan,

I think it is perfectly possible to discuss and promote experiments with more 
effective and useful review whilst keeping full force in switching to 100% OA. 
They are not prerequisites for one another. We cannot stop thinking and 
hypothesizing about innovation in scholarly communication, but maybe we should 
take that discussion to another list.

Best,
Jeroen


Op 10 dec. 2013 om 18:46 heeft Stevan Harnad 
amscifo...@gmail.commailto:amscifo...@gmail.com het volgende geschreven:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Armbruster, Chris 
chris.armbrus...@eui.eumailto:chris.armbrus...@eui.eu wrote:

Same inkling as Jan  Laurent.  The way fwd for OAP would be some form of 
accreditation by repository  publisher. One would need to show what review  
quality assurance mechanism is used, e.g. Pre- Post- Open peer review and 
demonstrate annually to the accreditation agency that this is what you are 
doing. The rest can be left to authors, readers and reviewers...

Ah me! Are we going to go yet another round of this irrelevant loop? 
http://j.mp/OAnotPReform

The purpose of OA (it's not OAP, it's OA) is to make peer-reviewed research 
freely accessible online to all of its potential users, webwide, not just to 
subscribers -- by freeing peer-reviewed research from access tolls, not by 
freeing it from peer review (nor by first reforming and reassigning peer 
review).

Haven't we already waited long enough?

Stevan Harnad


 Ursprüngliche Nachricht 
Von: Laurent Romary
Datum:10.12.2013 17:31 (GMT+01:00)
An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Betreff: [GOAL] Re: Pre-publication peer review (was: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly 
Compromises Credibility of Beall's List)
Each further day of thinking makes me feel closer and closer to this view. As 
an author, I just like when colleagues are happy with one of my texts online. 
As a reviewer I am fed up with unreadable junk.
Let us burn together, Jan.
Laurent



Le 10 déc. 2013 à 15:36, Jan Velterop 
velte...@gmail.commailto:velte...@gmail.com a écrit :


Sally,

May I join you in the ranks of those who risk being pilloried or branded 
heretics? I think the solution is clear. We should get rid of pre-publication 
peer review (PPPR) and publish results in open repositories. PPPR is the one 
thing that keeps the whole publishing system standing, and expensive - in 
monetary terms, but also in terms of effort expended. It may have some 
benefits, but we pay very dearly for those. Where are the non-peer-reviewed 
articles that have caused damage? They may have to public understanding, of 
course (there's a lot of rubbish on the internet), but to scientific 
understanding? On the other hand, I can point to peer-reviewed articles that 
clearly have done damage, particularly to public understanding. Take the 
Wakefield MMR paper. Had it just been published without peer-review, the damage 
would likely have been no greater than that of any other drivel on the 
internet. Its peer-reviewed status, however, gave it far more credibility than 
it deserved. There are more examples.

My assertion: pre-publication peer review is dangerous since it is too easily 
used as an excuse to absolve scientists - and science journalists - from 
applying sufficient professional skepticism and critical appraisal.

Doing away with PPPR will do little damage - if any at all - to science, but 
removes most barriers to open access and saves the scientific community a hell 
of a lot of money.

The 'heavy lifting is that of cultural change' (crediting William Gunn for that 
phrase), so I won't hold my breath.

Jan Velterop

On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:36, Sally Morris 
sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.ukmailto:sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote:


At the risk (nay, certainty) of being pilloried by OA conformists, let me say 
that - whatever ithe failings of his article - I thank Jeffrey Beall for 
raising some fundamental questions which are rarely, if ever, addressed.

I would put them under two general headings:

1) What is the objective of OA?

I originally understood the objective to be to make scholarly research 
articles, in some form, accessible to all those who needed to read them.   
Subsequent refinements such as 'immediately', 'published version' and 'free to 
reuse' may have acquired quasi-religious status, but are surely secondary to 
this main objective.

However, two other, financial, objectives (linked to each other, but not to the 
above) have gained increasing prominence.  The first is the alleged cost saving 
(or at least cost shifting).  The second - more malicious, and 

[GOAL] Re: I would like to receive some training about open access to become an expert and help the scholars in Turkey

[BAUIN Serge]

Dear Mr. Barbaros,

You could have a look at the now terminated MedOANet project 
http://www.medoanet.eu/ with an important involvement from Turkey.
I am sure that beyond the global network, from there you can liaise in Turkish 
with very competent people.

All the best

Serge Bauin

Sorbonne Paris Cité and CNRS
http://www.sorbonne-paris-cite.fr/index.php/en/about-us
http://www.cnrs.fr/dist/ (in French)


-Message d'origine-
De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de 
Barbaros Akkurt
Envoyé : samedi 7 décembre 2013 14:16
À : goal@eprints.org
Objet : [GOAL] I would like to receive some training about open access to 
become an expert and help the scholars in Turkey

Respected members,
I have a PhD degree in chemistry and also working in the central library of 
Istanbul Technical University, and it is my ambition to work on open access for 
the good of my scholars in the university.
Is there any training courses for me to become highly knowledgeable about the 
open access movement and become an expert in the subject?
I am looking forward to talking about any details.
Kind regards,
Mr. Barbaros Akkurt, PhD
Istanbul Technical University
Istanbul, Turkey
___
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: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

[BAUIN Serge]

Keep on guys! it's far better than any television series ever put on the air 
(although quite cryptic for anyone appart the happy few)

De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de 
Beall, Jeffrey
Envoyé : lundi 9 décembre 2013 22:46
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's 
List

Wouter,

Hello, yes, I wrote the article, I stand by it, and I take responsibility for 
it.

I would ask Prof. Harnad to clarify one thing in his email below, namely this 
statement, OA is all an anti-capitlist plot.

This statement's appearance in quotation marks makes it look like I wrote it in 
the article. The fact is that this statement does not appear in the article, 
and I have never written such a statement.

Prof. Harnad and his lackeys are responding just as my article predicts.

Jeffrey Beall

From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Gerritsma, Wouter
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 2:14 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's 
List

Dear all.

Has this article really been written by Jeffrey Beall?
He has been victim of a smear campaign before!

I don't see he has claimed this article on his blog http://scholarlyoa.com/ or 
his tweet stream @Jeffrey_Beall (which actually functions as his RSS feed).

I really like to hear from the man himself on his own turf.

Wouter



From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: maandag 9 december 2013 16:04
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

Beall, Jeffrey (2013) The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open 
Accesshttp://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514. TripleC 
Communication, Capitalism  Critique Journal. 11(2): 589-597 
http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514

This wacky article is going to be fun to review. I still think Jeff Beall is 
doing something useful with his naming and shaming of junk OA journals, but I 
now realize that he is driven by some sort of fanciful conspiracy theory! OA 
is all an anti-capitlist plot. (Even on a quick skim it is evident that Jeff's 
article is rife with half-truths, errors and downright nonsense. Pity. It will 
diminish the credibility of his valid exposés, but maybe this is a good thing, 
if the judgment and motivation behind Beall's list is as kooky as this article! 
But alas it will now also give the genuine predatory junk-journals some 
specious arguments for discrediting Jeff's work altogether. Of course it will 
also give the publishing lobby some good sound-bites, but they use them at 
their peril, because of all the other nonsense in which they are nested!)

Before I do a critique later today), I want to post some tidbits to set the 
stage:

JB: ABSTRACT: While the open-access (OA) movement purports to be about making 
scholarly content open-access, its true motives are much different. The OA 
movement is an anti-corporatist movement that wants to deny the freedom of the 
press to companies it disagrees with. The movement is also actively imposing 
onerous mandates on researchers, mandates that restrict individual freedom. To 
boost the open-access movement, its leaders sacrifice the academic futures of 
young scholars and those from developing countries, pressuring them to publish 
in lower-quality open-access journals.  The open-access movement has fostered 
the creation of numerous predatory publishers and standalone journals, 
increasing the amount of research misconduct in scholarly publications and the 
amount of pseudo-science that is published as if it were authentic science.

JB: [F]rom their high-salaried comfortable positions...OA advocates... demand 
that for-profit, scholarly journal publishers not be involved in scholarly 
publishing and devise ways (such as green open-access) to defeat and eliminate 
them...

JB: OA advocates use specious arguments to lobby for mandates, focusing only 
on the supposed economic benefits of open access and ignoring the value 
additions provided by professional publishers. The arguments imply that 
publishers are not really needed; all researchers need to do is upload their 
work, an action that constitutes publishing, and that this act results in a 
product that is somehow similar to the products that professional publishers 
produce

JB:  The open-access movement isn't really about open access. Instead, it is 
about collectivizing production and denying the freedom of the press from those 
who prefer the subscription model of scholarly publishing. It is an 
anti-corporatist, oppressive and negative movement, one that uses young 
researchers and researchers from developing countries as pawns to 

[GOAL] Re: Open access research: some basics for scientists

[BAUIN Serge]

Arthur,

I am amazed... Do you mean that social scientists are not scientists?
You might recall the etymology of the word statistics (e.g. 
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=statistics ).
A (regrettably) large majority of economists are actual mathematicians. 
Demographers... what do they do all day long? Quantitative sociologists, 
geographers? Are they all in literature?

Serge Bauin
Formerly sociologist, initial training in engineering
CNRS


-Message d'origine-
De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de 
Arthur Sale
Envoyé : mardi 17 septembre 2013 00:42
À : 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
Objet : [GOAL] Re: Open access research: some basics for scientists

Heather

I agree with you and endorse your comments. However, there is a caveat: some 
questions addressed in open access are indeed scientific, and not social 
scientific. I think of measuring adoption rates, deposit delays, bibliometrics, 
etc from analyses of public data on the Internet or services such as ISI and 
Scopus.  

To be sure (and this I think you missed and should have mentioned) a reasonably 
good knowledge of statistics is also necessary (generally). Many agricultural 
scientists and medical scientists would meet this criterion far better than 
most social scientists. Many engineers would also have a better grasp of using 
complex mathematical tools such as chaos theory, fractals, and fourier 
analysis. It isn't black vs white.

Arthur Sale
University of Tasmania

-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Heather Morrison
Sent: Tuesday, 17 September 2013 2:04 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Open access research: some basics for scientists

As the OA movement continues to gain steam, we are seeing scholars with a 
background in sciences take a keen interest and even develop surveys and such. 
While the enthusiasm is welcome, from what I am seeing in several instances 
now, is that scientists do not necessarily understand how to go about social 
science research.

A scholar with a background in chemistry doing social science research with no 
training is not unlike a social scientist with no training in chemistry walking 
into a lab and playing about (although the potential damages are generally of a 
different nature).

Scientists doing social science research:

-   should be aware of research ethics requirements - at universities in
North America, for example, you must get a research ethics clearance to conduct 
survey or interview research
-   should understand the methodology used and its limitations
-   should know the area. A poorly conducted survey by someone who is
not an expert on the topic surveyed may be more damaging than helpful. For 
example, the way questions are framed shapes how people understand the topic. 
Before you develop a survey on open access, you should be aware that there are 
least two basic approaches (green and gold), and if asking questions about 
gold, you should be aware that this is not equivalent to the article processing 
fee business model

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
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca

ALA Accreditation site visit scheduled for 30 Sept-1 Oct 2013 / Visite du 
comité externe pour l'accréditation par l'ALA est prévu le 30
sept-1 oct 2013

http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/accreditation.html
http://www.esi.uottawa.ca/accreditation.html




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

[GOAL] Novlangue

[BAUIN Serge]

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novlangue Mot très usité en France pour critiquer 
les autorités (journalistes, gouvernement, publicitaires, grandes entreprises 
(nicknamed « world companies »)
Newspeak is the original in Orwell’s 1984 novel…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

Cordialement

Serge

De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de 
Kathy Johnson
Envoyé : mardi 26 mars 2013 17:20
À : 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
Objet : [GOAL] Re: [accesouvert] Gold??

A propos de rien, a part un peu de curiosite…

Que veut dire “novlangue”?   Et n’y as t’il pas encore de traduction en 
francais pour “peer-reviewed”?

Katherine Johnson
Digital Repositories Coordinating Librarian
Millikan Library 1-32
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, CA  91125
Office: (626) 395-6065 Fax: (626) 792-7540
kjohn...@library.caltech.edumailto:kjohn...@library.caltech.edu

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Stevan Harnad
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 4:52 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: [accesouvert] Gold??


Les historiens qui écriront la chronique du passage traînard vers l'accès libre 
vont s'amuser à raconter comme les chercheurs préféraient rester affamés en 
débattant les vertus de la cuisine cordon bleu biologique pas encore abordable 
plutôt que de se sustenter avec la bonne cuistance campagnarde déjà disponible.

2013/3/26 Jean-Yves CHAPEAU 
jean-yves.chap...@uni.lumailto:jean-yves.chap...@uni.lu
Bonjour,

Traduire Open Access / Accès libre en gratuit pour le lecteur reviendrait à 
supprimer 2/3 du concept d'Open Access.
Le concept d'Open Access, c'est :

1) pas de barrière financière à l'accès (à la littérature peer-reviewed)
2) pas de barrière technique ou juridique à l'accès (à la littérature 
peer-reviewed)
3) liberté de rediffuser ou de réutiliser (en citant la source) (la littérature 
peer-reviewed)

Je ne suis pas fan de la novlangue  mais l'Open Access n'est pas qu'un terme , 
c'est un concept...
 qui ne se limite pas à trouver un début de solution au problème du coût de 
l'accès à la publication scientifique (ou qui aurait pour but de faire la peau 
aux éditeurs)

Cordialement/Cordially,
Jean-Yves Chapeau

-Original Message-
From: 
accesouvert-requ...@groupes.renater.frmailto:accesouvert-requ...@groupes.renater.fr
 
[mailto:accesouvert-requ...@groupes.renater.frmailto:accesouvert-requ...@groupes.renater.fr]
 On Behalf Of allou...@math.jussieu.frmailto:allou...@math.jussieu.fr
Sent: 25 March 2013 21:40
To: accesouv...@groupes.renater.frmailto:accesouv...@groupes.renater.fr
Subject: Re: [accesouvert] Gold??

Je crois de plus en plus qu'il serait sage de choisir des termes parfaitement 
definis et non parasit'es par des considerations politiques ou commeciales : 
clairement les mots acces libre gold ou pas gold ont plusieurs acceptions 
et sont recuperes tour `a tour par les uns et par les autres *avec des sens 
DIFFERENTS*.

En particulier on a bien compris que les differences consistent essentiellement 
`a savoir qui paie quoi et si ou pas l'article a ete arbitre/refere/valide par 
les pairs. Il serait lumineux de le dire lorsque l'on parle :

on remplacerait acces libre par gratuit pour le lecteur, avec abonnement 
par payant pour le lecteur. De meme on aurait avec frais de publication pour 
l'auteur ou son institution qu'on pourrait peut-etre simplifier en avec frais 
de publication et `a l'oppose gratuit pour l'auteur.

On distinguerait aussi entre pretirage (en anglais preprint) non 
necessairement arbitre/relu/refere, et article arbitre.
Puis retirage (dans le cas du papier on dit tiré à la suite
qui est plus juste que tiré à part) qu'on pourrait specifier par exemple en 
retirage gratuit couvrant ainsi le cas de la periode post-embargo et celui du 
depot de la version n ou n-1 dans une archive gratuite.

On saurait enfin de quoi les uns et les autres parlent et les ambiguites --pas 
necessairement innocentes...-- disparaitraient si la terminologie est 
parfaitement claire.

Et on se debarrasserait des mots ambigus comme acces libre
gold etc. etc.

En clair appeler un chat un chat... et en finir avec le double langage, voire 
la double novlangue...

jpa


BAUIN Serge serge.ba...@cnrs-dir.frmailto:serge.ba...@cnrs-dir.fr a écrit :

 Oui, et la maison d'édition ne doit pas être mise au centre.

 Envoyé d'un téléphone portable, désolé pour le caractère cavalier...

 Le 25 mars 2013 à 21:23, Vincent Battesti
 x...@vbat.orgmailto:x...@vbat.orgmailto:x...@vbat.orgmailto:x...@vbat.org
  a écrit :

 Donc, l'article du Monde À qui appartient le savoir? use d'une
 définition non partagée de Gold open access ?
 Voir la figure.

 [http://s1.lemde.fr/image/2013/03/01/310x0/1841302_5_aa7c_ill-1841302-
 e8e0-web-scie-0913-parcours-publicat_92a432d5571905d1dfead832ed069a18.
 png]
 Réf.: 2013/02/28/a-qui-appartient-le-savoir_1840797_1650684.html

 Cordialement,

 Vincent