Re: [GOAL] Informed consent and open licensing: some questions for discussion

[Couture, Marc]

Hi all,

Heather Morrison raises in this thread some relevant and important issues 
regarding open licenses: How they are displayed? How to treat works combining 
elements bearing various licenses (some of them being possibly "all rights 
reserved")? She asks:

"who is using embedded licensing metadata (as opposed to displayed), and how?"

Licensing metadata embedding, though not explicitly part of its "best 
practice", is suggested by DOAJ, and is a condition for obtaining the DOAJ 
Seal. This can be done by including basic HTML code in the article (and/or 
abstract) pages, and by importing XMP metadata in the PDF (see 
https://doaj.org/rights).

I was in charge of this task for our small journal (http://ijthe.org) when we 
had to reapply to DOAJ, and we did qualify for the Seal. However, I didn't see 
any way to embed, in the (HTML) abstract page or the PDF, anything other than a 
global license applying to the whole article. Embedding licensing metadata of 
individual elements is probably easier in the HTML versions of the articles, 
but as we offer only PDFs (and HTML abstracts), I didn't try to find how to do 
it. Maybe others can pitch in.

We do include in the CC mention displayed in the journal footer the disclaimer 
("Except when otherwise noted..."), and we clearly display in the articles (as 
it's usually done in scholarly publishing) the status of any element not 
covered by our CC licence. However, I didn't find anything about embedding in 
the PDF such a disclaimer, which would be useless anyway if the licensing info 
of individual elements is not also embedded.

As a final thought, as part of an exhaustive survey of Canadian scholarly OA 
journals, I assessed how journals cope with copyright matters. I plan to write 
about it soon (the survey is almost finished), but I can already point out that 
these (mostly) small (or very small indeed) journals could really improve their 
practice in this matter. I'll just say for now that talking of embedding 
licensing metadata would be too soon, too much for many journals, as compared 
to actually display the license (if any) so that their potential recipients 
(users/readers) can see it, or even to say something user rights, or even about 
copyright itself. DOAJ could really be of help here, and I know they are making 
efforts to reach these journals.

Marc Couture

De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de 
Heather Morrison
Envoyé : 28 août 2019 12:17
À : goal@eprints.org
Objet : Re: [GOAL] Informed consent and open licensing: some questions for 
discussion

Thank you Martyn, this is very helpful.

As an author, I have appreciated MDPI's flexibility with respect to licenses. I 
am sure that other publishers have similar situations where re-use of material 
and/or accommodating particular authors requires flexibility with respect to 
licensing.

This mixed licensing environment raises a number of questions, mostly technical 
ones. Fully answering the questions requires an understanding of who proposes 
to use these works, and how. Following are 2 questions that I hope will further 
understanding of the issues, one for MDPI and other publishers and one for 
everyone.

  1.  For MDPI and other publishers: based on the Jan. 31, 2019 DOAJ metadata, 
it appears that all or nearly all of MDPI journals have answered "yes" to 
"Machine-readable CC licensing information embedded or displayed in articles". 
Q: can you explain how embedding works when the CC license does not apply to 
all of the content in the article, as is the case when re-use of an item like 
an image requires permission and must be under All Rights Reserved terms? For 
example, do the elements that require separate licensing have separate metadata 
embedded licensing? Does the embedded metadata at the article level state the 
default license only or does it speak to the separately licensed material, in 
specific or general terms?

  2.  Everyone: who is using embedded licensing metadata (as opposed to 
displayed), and how? Are there hopes or expectations of how this metadata will 
be used in future for which there are no examples yet?
Further discussion - answers or more questions - is encouraged.


Dr. Heather Morrison

Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa

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

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

sustainingknowledgecommons.org

heather.morri...@uottawa.ca

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

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


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org  on behalf of Martyn 
Rittman 
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 7:02 AM
To: goal@eprints.org 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Informed consent and open licensing: some questions for 
discussion

Attention : courriel externe | external email
Heather raises a good point here related to certain 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] On Academic Freedom

[Couture, Marc]

Jennifer wrote :

>
In terms of restricting where one may publish, doesn't the usual institutional 
tenure and promotion policy do that as well, if more subtly? There are definite 
expectations of where one may publish, as I understand it. (Not being 
tenure-track myself.)
>

That's right on point (same for the rest of Jennifer's post).

While all agree that academic freedom includes the freedom to choose one's 
research topics and to disseminate the results, there is much variation among 
organisations and individual researchers as to the exact meaning of this 
freedom, particularly its extent in practice. For instance, Manan, cited by 
Karran and Mallinson (2017, p. 6; http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/26811) points 
out that "there are professors who used academic freedom as a weapon to defend 
themselves from their performance being evaluated by the academic community". 
These would certainly, on the same basis, object to the rules (implicit or 
explicit) you allude requiring publication in peer-reviewed journals, or in a 
certain class or category of them. However, few have done so, and I don't think 
they have had any success, even if one may argue that it's what AAUP's "full 
freedom in the publication of the results" means.

As I explained in a previous post, the use of academic freedom as an argument 
is justified, in my opinion, when it's a condition for "doing science right", 
meaning in the interests of the scientific community and/or the public. It 
would be perfectly justified if a rule or decision has the potential to make 
certain topics impossible to pursue, or certain results impossible to 
disseminate. For instance, were universities to enforce their copyright on the 
works of their professors (which they most probably own, at least in certain 
jurisdictions), that would be in real conflict with academic freedom, because 
they would be able to decide if a given work can be published, or if a part of 
it should be removed.

But if we go further than that, for instance the freedom to choose any journal, 
I think it's more fruitful to discuss the issues at hand, in this case first 
and foremost the hierarchy (or "prestige economy") of journals, instead of 
trying to ascertain if a rule or a decision is in conflict with a certain 
definition or interpretation of academic freedom.

Marc Couture

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

De : scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org [mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org] 
De la part de Jennifer Heise
Envoyé : 26 mars 2018 10:38
À : SANFORD G THATCHER
Cc : Danny Kingsley; scholcomm; goal@eprints.org
Objet : Re: [SCHOLCOMM] On Academic Freedom

I have some questions in relation to these assertions:

I'm unclear how signing your copyright over to a publisher in toto (which is 
basically what I was asked to do when publishing with Haworth) would still 
allow you the right to object to derivative works. Surely only the copyright 
owner can object to derivative works, and in fact, if the creator is not the 
copyright owner, the copyright owner has the right to object to derivative 
works subsequently published by the original creator! (In fact, this is one of 
the issues I believe the Statute of Anne was meant to address-- Gervase 
Markham, for instance, was sued by a consortium of his publishers for having 
sold them all works that were derivatives of each other.)

In terms of restricting where one may publish, doesn't the usual institutional 
tenure and promotion policy do that as well, if more subtly? There are definite 
expectations of where one may publish, as I understand it. (Not being 
tenure-track myself.)

After 27 years in the field of librarianship, I can confidently assert that the 
decline of the scholarly presses that Sandy Thatcher decries predates the OA 
movement significantly, though not predating the surge of predatory pricing in 
the 1990s by journal publishers. 18% increases in journal budgets were the rule 
of thumb even before the widespread electronic availability of subscriptions 
(the research on that trend is left as an exercise for the reader), and many 
academic libraries were cutting book budgets to survive even then. Even the AUP 
admits that the decline of the university press can seen as far back as 1970.

respectfully,


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

[GOAL] My mistake - dont't post

[Couture, Marc]

Hi Richard,

I sent a reply to a SCHOLCOM thread to both that list and GOAL, by mistake: I 
did Reply to All to Danny Kingsley seed message, which had both forums as 
recipients.

I don't think it should be posted on GOAL, as the thread isn't on both forums 
(though the subject certainly interests GOAL subscribers).

I'm not sure Danny's post appeared in GOAL, so maybe there was no need for this 
message.

Thank you, and have a good day,

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

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] On Academic Freedom

[Couture, Marc]

Hi all,

I'll discuss here two major issues discussed in this thread: the freedom (1) in 
the choice of journals in which to publish and (2) in the choice of a user 
licence when publishing.

I don't think it's very useful to discuss these issues on the basis of what 
exactly does - or don't - cover the notion of academic freedom. I concur here 
with Åkerlind & Kayrooz (2003; doi:10.1080/0729436032000145176, paywalled) that 
"there is substantial variation in views as to the meaning of academic freedom. 
[...] In public debate [...] this kind of variation in meanings and definitions 
can lead to debate at cross purposes".

We should rather focus on the higher goals academic freedom is supposed to 
achieve, one of which being permitting, or helping academics "to undertake 
research to create new knowledge, freely disseminated to their students and the 
wider academic community" (Karran and Mallinson, 2017; 
http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/26811). I would add that academic freedom should 
ensure that these activities (research and its dissemination) be done in the 
interests of both the scientific community and the society. In other words, as 
we often hear about open science, "science done right".

So, instead of trying to determine (or convince others) that a given policy is 
unacceptable because it is at odds with academic freedom, according to some 
non-consensual definition, I prefer to ask "Does this policy help or hinder the 
creation and dissemination of knew knowledge, in the interests of the 
scientific community and the public?".

Now, as to the two issues mentioned above.

Choice of journals. - A policy restricting the number of journals suitable for 
publication could, theoretically at least, bar some researchers altogether from 
publishing in journals, for instance if they have chosen unpopular subjects or 
methods that, though they are legitimate, few journals will consider. But I 
haven't heard of such a problem. What may occur, though, is that they couldn't 
publish in some journals - possibly well-rated ones (normally meaning a high 
impact factor). However, as you're certainly aware, there is an ongoing 
discussion about this so-called "prestige economy", which seems to many an 
impediment to "good science". What is at stake here seems more the interest of 
the researcher, who is subject to a flawed evaluation system. Invoking academic 
freedom as an argument that, in fact, helps maintaining this system doesn't 
seem appropriate to me.

Choice of license. - More generally, it's about the way one deals with 
copyright when publishing. It's true that mandates and policies may force 
researchers to let go of the control over their works they have been getting 
back lately - remember that they have for a long time willingly, or without 
giving it a thought, abandoned this control to publishers. Again, one should 
consider how total control by researchers - who are most often employees of 
publicly funded institutions - of the use of works resulting mostly from 
publicly funded research fares with the interests of the scientific community 
and the public. What I prefer to discuss is not, for instance, how CC BY makes 
a researcher uncomfortable, but what are its pros and cons from a more general 
perspective. There are arguments from both perspectives in this thread, and I 
do think there are significant issues to clarify concerning the risks, from a 
collective perspective, associated to the use of CC BY licenses (personally, I 
think the advantages far exceed those risks, even for individual researchers).

In brief, I understand very well why researchers don't like constraints, but 
using academic freedom as an argument to support individual decisions or, 
indirectly, whole systems that may conflict with collective interests can just 
devaluate this important concept.

Marc Couture
___
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

[Couture Marc]

Hi all,

What’s to conclude from this perplexing answer?

I did check Elsevier’s policy, in case it had changed overnight... but it 
didn’t: manuscripts under embargo still must bear CC licenses allowing anybody 
(except the authors, who are bound by the publishing agreement they have 
signed) to post them on a non-commercial site (that includes all institutional 
repositories, as far as I can see).

I can just assume that “it wouldn’t really work very well for very long” means 
that if it does works (that is, if enough researchers and repository staff 
members do what is needed), Elsevier will simply (again) change its policy, 
like they did before after mandates became more prevalent.

Will this cat-and-mouse play ever end?

Researchers could - and should - be the ones calling the shots, deciding how 
and under what conditions their results are made public. Some are already 
showing the way (http:/openlibhums.org, 
http://episciences.org, http://discreteanalysisjournal.com, etc.).

Marc Couture


De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de 
Hersh, Gemma (ELS-CAM)
Envoyé : 20 juin 2017 02:18
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : 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

___
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

[Couture Marc]

Hi all,

Just to make myself clear: I also think we can safely reuse ideas found in a 
text, irrespective of permissions granted, and that means reproducing 
expressions and significant excerpts when needed. This falls under fair use / 
fair dealing or similar exceptions. I also think also that scholars/scientists 
don't - and shouldn't - care too much about these subtleties when they write.

The main problem I can foresee is when they publish in commercial venues (which 
is the case for almost all book chapters and monographs, and now for the 
majority of articles).

(1) In some jurisdictions (UK, US) the commercial nature of the use goes, or 
tend to go against these exceptions.

(2) Publishers may be overly cautious as to potential infringements. I remember 
colleagues explaining me that the publisher (of a book) required that authors 
obtain written permissions from copyright owners for any excerpt reproduced, 
although this falls clearly under the (Canadian) fair dealing exception.

I certainly agree with Heather that we need broad exceptions to copyright and 
user rights, but it's a long term objective, and I don't see nowadays much 
movement in that direction (but I would be happy to be pointed to any and, 
well, participate in it if feasible).

Marc Couture

___
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

[Couture Marc]

Jevan Pipitone wrote :

>
The fact that it says "No Derivatives" seems a concern for example sometimes 
researchers can publish a summary of other peoples articles and then include 
all the articles used in the references. [...]

... to gain ideas from other people which can then be used to create new things 
by the researcher, but, this is potentially a "derivative" work since it can 
build on the work of others. So I think there is a problem there too.
>

This is a relevant question.

Ideas are not protected by copyright. Thus whatever the license (if any), one 
can always build upon the ideas found in the texts of others. One has to 
mention the source, but it’s a matter of scientific integrity, not of 
copyright. What is protected is the particular expression of ideas, as found in 
a text, for instance.

However, the difference between ideas and their expression is not clear-cut, as 
the only way to communicate ideas is by expressing them. In order to guarantee 
the free use of ideas embedded in copyright law, courts have held that when 
there are just a few ways to express an idea, or when an idea is so simple that 
there is no significant “creativity” or “originality” involved in its 
expression, reusing the expression is deemed using the idea; it’s not thus a 
basis for copyright protection (and infringement).

In particular, creating a summary of a work can be viewed as expressing in 
another way the ideas found in the first work. The summary is then an original 
work, based on the ideas of the first, so that there is no copyright issue. But 
such a summary could include particular expressions, some of them not simple, 
taken from the first work. At an extreme, one could build a summary mainly by 
juxtaposing carefully chosen excerpts from the first work; this would open the 
door to the summary being a derivate work. You can imagine all intermediate 
situations; there is a grey zone here.

In conclusion, because of this uncertainty, the ND condition could indeed be an 
impediment to the reuse not only of a work, but even of the ideas it conveys.

Marc Couture

___
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

[Couture Marc]

Bernhard Mittermaier wrote:
>
My interpretation of the CC licence is that sharing of CC BY-NC-ND article by 
commercial platforms is OK as long as they don’t sell the articles (which they 
don’t do).
>
Despite the large amount of discussion around the notion of “non-commercial”, 
and the meaning of the terms defining the NC condition of CC licenses, it 
remains difficult to determine if a specific use is commercial or not.
As explained in the CC site 
(https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpretation), the key 
is not “the category or class of reuser”, but the “primary purpose” of the 
reuse. In the case of ResearchGate, for instance, a researcher’s primary 
purpose is not “intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or 
monetary compensation”, but ResearchGate’s primary purpose certainly is. But 
who is the reuser here? The researchers who post their files, or RG who hosts 
them, making much effort to help researchers uploading them (sending multiple 
emails pointing to one’s own articles and inviting to upload them)?
The same CC page concludes: “the context and purpose of the use is relevant 
when making the determination, but no class of reuser is per se permitted or 
excluded from using an NC-licensed work”. This doesn’t clarify much the issue.
>
But apart from that - what authors are doing is IMHO definitely not prohibited 
because they have no commercial gain whatsoever.
>
There’s another issue here: the publishing agreement signed by the authors 
explicitly forbids posting on repositories (except on arXiv and RePEC) before 
the end of the embargo, and on commercial repositories forever (there is a 
definition of “commercial”, not so clear IMHO, in Elsevier’s Sharing FAQ 
https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/sharing/policy-faq).
However, according to the policy, embargoed postprints must carry a CC licence. 
It allows anybody to post it anywhere for a non-commercial purpose, so that 
institutional and subject-based repositories are OK, but RG or Academia may not 
be. By anybody, I mean anybody except the authors, because they are bound by 
the publishing agreement, unless some legal subtlety makes the clauses of the 
CC licence (that applies to all, authors included) take precedence over those 
of the publishing agreement. Frankly, I don’t know how, from a legal point of 
view, is treated such a case, where someone is subject to conflicting contracts 
(the publishing agreement and the CC licence).
In any event, there’s a way to circumvent the embargo, as has been pointed out: 
repository staff could legally post any CC BY-NC-ND manuscript they get or 
find, because obviously they are not bound by the publishing agreement.
I had envisioned this when Elsevier changed their policy 2 years ago, and 
discussed the issue privately with some colleagues, but I had concluded that it 
wouldn’t constitute an efficient and/or viable strategy, as it breaks the usual 
self-archiving workflow and relies in coordinated actions involving researchers 
(for instance, putting their postprints on their websites instead of on the IR, 
or sending copies to third parties, or even to repository staff, hoping (but 
not asking) that they will end up being posted by someone else than themselves.
One thing which could work though, is repository staff switching to open access 
postprints researchers have posted in restricted (or closed) access, complying 
with their publishing agreement. This also require that researchers post their 
manuscripts well before the end of the embargo, and that repository staff (or 
the legal counsel of their institution) don’t hesitate at the slightest risk of 
infringement (though I don’t see any here, but one never really knows on 
complex legal matters).
The bottom line, as has been suggested, is that if this strategy did work 
(meaning become significant), Elsevier would soon change its policy, as they 
did before.
My own conclusion two years ago was to not pursue this line of action, and 
simply let researchers decide what to do. I never hesitated to point out that 
when faced with a convoluted, fuzzy and ambiguous policy, one should just do 
what they want: publishers have a duty to adopt clear, coherent and easily 
understandable guidelines, adapted to their intended audience.
One last point, of a more general scope: when I recently made a roundup of the 
“big-five” self-archiving policies, I wondered why three of them (Elsevier, 
Springer and Taylor & Francis) have embargoes for posting on IRs, but not for 
posting on personal websites. Part of the answer is surely that almost all 
researchers have access to an IR, but not all have personal websites. But what 
struck me is that this allow them to be Green according to Sherpa-ROMEO, which 
makes no distinction as to allowed platforms: if there’s a way for researchers 
to post immediately, you are Green.
I find this quite unfortunate, because these publishers can boast their “Green” 
status to prove 

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

[Couture Marc]

l, I find some of the underlying assumptions to be problematic.

For example the extreme of closed access assumes that having to pay 
subscriptions, membership, pay per view etc. is the far end of closed. My 
perspective is that the opposite of open is closure of knowledge. Climate 
change denied, climate scientists muzzled, fired or harassed, climate change 
science defunded, climate data taken down and destroyed, deliberate spread of 
misinformation.

This is not a moot point. This end of the spectrum is a reality today, one that 
is far more concerning for many researchers than pay walls (not that I support 
paywalls).

Fair use in listed in a row named closed access. I argue that fair use / fair 
dealing is essential to academic work and journalism, and must apply to all 
works, not just those that can be subject to academic OA policy.

There is an underlying assumption about the importance and value of re-use / 
remix that omits any discussion of the pros, cons, or desirability of re-use / 
remix that I argue we should be having. Earlier today I mentioned some of the 
potential pitfalls. Now I would like to two potential pitfalls: mistranslation 
and errors in instructions for dangerous procedures.

There are dangers of poor published translations to knowledge per se (ie 
introduce errors) and to the author's reputation, ie an author could easily be 
indirectly misquoted due to a poor translation. There are good reasons why some 
authors and journals hesitate to grant  downstream translations permissions.  
Reader side translations (eg automated translation tools) are not the same as 
downstream published translations, although readers should be made aware of the 
current limitations of automated translation.

If people are copying instructions for potentially dangerous procedures  
(surgery, chemicals, engineering techniques), and they are not at least as 
expert as the original author, it might be in everyone's best interests if 
downstream readers are not invited and encouraged to manipulate the text, 
images, etc.

In creative works, eg to prepare a horror flick, by all means take this and 
that, mix it together and create something new and intriguing. I am not 
convinced that the same arguments ought to apply to works that might guide 
procedures in a real hospital operating room.

I suggest the "how open is it" spectrum is a useful exercise that has served a 
purpose for some but not a canon for all to adhere to.

best,

Heather Morrison



 Original message 
From: David Prosser <david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk<mailto:david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk>>
Date: 2017-01-23 2:16 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to 
meet the definition of open access?

I rather like the 'How open is it?' tool that approaches this as a spectrum:

http://sparcopen.org/our-work/howopenisit/


I may be quite 'hard line', but I acknowledge that by moving along the spectrum 
a paper, monograph, piece of data (or whatever) becomes more open - and more 
open is better than less open.

If the funders have gone to the far end of the spectrum it is perhaps because 
they feel that the greatest benefits are there, not because they have been 
convinced that they have to follow the strict, 'hard line' definition of open 
access.

David



On 23 Jan 2017, at 18:30, Richard Poynder 
<richard.poyn...@gmail.com<mailto:richard.poyn...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Marc,

You say:

"I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such:

I don't equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I'm a little bit 
tired of discussions about what 'being OA' means."

I hear you, but I think the key point here is that OA advocates (perhaps not 
you, but OA advocates) are successfully convincing a growing number of research 
funders (e.g. Wellcome Trust, RCUK, Ford Foundation, Hewlett Foundation, Gates 
Foundation etc.) that CC BY is the only acceptable form of open access.

So however tired you and Stevan might be of discussing it, I believe there are 
important implications and consequences flowing from that.

Richard Poynder



On 23 January 2017 at 16:31, Couture Marc 
<marc.cout...@teluq.ca<mailto:marc.cout...@teluq.ca>> wrote:
Hi all,

Just to be clear, my position on the basic issue here.

I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such :

- I don't equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I'm a little bit 
tired of discussions about what "being OA" means.

- I work to help increase the proportion of gratis OA, still much too low.

- I try to convince my colleagues that CC BY is the best way to disseminate 
scientific/scholarly works and make them useful.

I favour CC BY over the restricted versions (mainly -NC) because I find the 
arguments about potentially unwanted or devious uses far less c

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

[Couture Marc]

Hi all,

Éric wonders if Google infringes copyright (or violates the licence) when 
displaying CC BY-NC papers in its search results pages.

As these pages only contain basic bibliographical data, very short excerpts and 
hyperlinks, I would think that this "use" falls either outside of copyright 
protection or under the fair use/dealing exception.

Add to that the fact that copyright owners can "ask" Google (through metadata 
in the header of a page) not to be indexed. That's indeed one the reasons even 
Google's cache, which doesn't reproduce small excerpts but the entirety of the 
indexed page, was deemed non-infringing in a 2006 US case. Fair use was another.

For the legally inclined: see 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_v._Google,_Inc.   or 
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Field_v._Google,_Inc for the actual decision.

Marc Couture


De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de 
Éric Archambault
Envoyé : 23 janvier 2017 11:14
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?

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> 
[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) 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
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> 
[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.


-

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

[Couture Marc]

Hi all,

Just to be clear, my position on the basic issue here.

I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such :

- I don't equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I'm a little bit 
tired of discussions about what "being OA" means.

- I work to help increase the proportion of gratis OA, still much too low.

- I try to convince my colleagues that CC BY is the best way to disseminate 
scientific/scholarly works and make them useful.

I favour CC BY over the restricted versions (mainly -NC) because I find the 
arguments about potentially unwanted or devious uses far less compelling than 
those about the advantages of unrestricted uses and the drawbacks of 
restrictions that can be much more stringent than they seem at first glance.

Like Stevan said, OA advocates are indeed a plurality. The opposite would 
bother me.

Marc Couture


___
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?

[Couture Marc]

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

Re: [GOAL] Beall's list is removed

[Couture Marc]

Hi all,

Although I don’t applaud to the sudden disappearance of Beall’s list, I 
certainly think his legacy is highly controversial. In short, relying on a 
one-person black list to make overall quality judgments (on publishers or 
journals) as well as specific decisions (on where to publish) was not 
appropriate. There are other ways, and other tools (DOAJ, to name one) better 
suited to these tasks. An eventual new “reliable service” (a “black” complement 
to Cabells’ white list?) could be part of them; we’ll see.

To Stevan: I wish to reassure you that I don’t see myself as “predatorily 
inclined” (not being sure though what that means) and that I’m not aware, much 
less part of any “FUD campaign to take [Beall] down” ;-)

Marc Couture

De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de 
Stevan Harnad
Envoyé : 18 janvier 2017 13:04
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : Re: [GOAL] Beall's list is removed

No, this is not the whole -- nor the end — of the story.

My prediction is that the take-down of Beall’s list was indeed a result of FUD 
threats and actions (to Beall and his institution) by the deep pockets 
profiting from predation on authors’ publish-or-perish pressures.

My hope is that a reliable service like it will indeed re-appear, with the 
collaboration of Jeffrey Beall (who has been something of a loose cannon, but 
on balance provided a valuable service).

My suspicion is that those trying to make hay out of this take-down are 
themselves predatorily inclined and perhaps even part of the FUD campaign to 
take him and his institution down.

Where there’s big bucks to be made, as in predatory “journal” publishing,” 
principles and scruples wither (with peer review the first to go)...

Stevan Harnad

On Jan 18, 2017, at 10:24 AM, Jihane Salhab 
> wrote:

Hi all,

FYI Beall’s list is removed. Check the following post: Mystery as controversial 
list of predatory publishers 
disappears
 .

A better option for authors to verify good publishers is 
thinkchecksubmit.org. In my opinion, it does a  
better job than Beall's controversial list, because it relies on authors’ own 
judgements.

 “Think. Check. Submit. is a cross-industry initiative led by representatives 
from ALPSP, DOAJ, INASP,  ISSN, LIBER, OASPA, STM, UKSG, and individual 
publishers.”

Have a good day!

Jihane Salhab
___
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] Elsevier as an open access publisher

[Couture Marc]

Hi all,

Jeroen Bosman wrote: "Elsevier is the single most important obstacle to 
achieving and getting support for open access".

Ross Mounce wrote: "I hope no politicians or librarians are fooled by this 
simple ruse".

Well, I very much agree with Jeroen's statement and Ross' wishes. However, I 
think it's important to understand and take the full measure of the situation 
and figures mentioned by Heather. If not, I don't know how one can hope 
influence those who make the decisions. Calling Elsevier "the bad guy" and its 
recent OA move a "simple ruse" won't do the job, I'm afraid (not that I think 
Jeroen or Ross thought so ;-).

There have been discussions since the very beginning of the OA era (I recently 
reread the "Subversive Proposal" of 1994, where this issue was already amply 
discussed) on a possible significant, even radical, decrease of the overall 
cost of scientific publishing, now estimated at more than 10 G$ worldwide, 
permitted (or rendered inevitable) by the transition to online dissemination.

Now that, as I believe, that universal OA is on the way, no clear scenario as 
to what will be the new disseminating/publishing/funding model(s) has emerged. 
Abolishing journals or publishers? Open solutions (OJS) in the hands of the 
research community? Harnad's Fair Gold (overlay journals based upon 
repositories)? Major for-profit publishers revenue-preserving (or even 
revenue-increasing) "solutions"?

In this regard, the fact that it's none other than Elsevier that now offers the 
largest fleet of OA journals, 60 % of them not charging APCs, must be looked at 
carefully.

What I find the most interesting (not in a positive way though) is that those 
300 journals without APCs seem to be all society journals. The same applies to 
journals in the low-end of the OA and hybrid APC distributions (a systematic 
investigation should be made).

So it seems that these societies decided that it's a good thing to subcontract 
to Elsevier their OA publishing operation. The problem is, we don't know how 
much (per paper, for instance) it costs them, compared to the "normal" Elsevier 
non-hybrid APCs ($1500 - $3000). We don't know either if they have envisioned 
other solutions, like less costly publishers (for instance Hindawi or Ubiquity 
Press; see http://bit.ly/2iqYglv) or systems like OJS. Maybe society members, 
if they care, could obtain these figures and, hopefully, explanations; maybe 
some societies have to be transparent in this regard. Is it possible that 
Elsevier (and, surely, the other major publishers) succeeds easily in 
convincing societies that it's worth paying for a more expensive solution? 
Because it's less trouble? Because of the perceived value of the publisher's 
imprint (compared to that of the society)?

By the way, I noticed in the web pages of some non-APC Elsevier OA journals 
(again a systematic investigation should be made) that peer-review is "under 
responsibility" of the society (or institution). This seems to mean that 
Elsevier is in no way involved in this part of the publishing process, which is 
often deemed the most significant publisher added value.

We certainly need more information to better understand these issues. For my 
part, I'll probably take some time to dig a little bit further.

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

Re: [GOAL] CC-BY with copyright transfer - correction

[Couture Marc]

Hi all,

Greg Tananbaum, from SPARC, informed me that there has been a change in 2014 in 
the  “Copyrights” criteria of “How open is it”, which now stress authors’ 
rights/permissions more than copyright ownership.

The original, 2013 version I discussed is the one available on SPARC own 
website; Greg told me this will soon be fixed. The version available on PLOS 
website should be the right one, though: 
https://www.plos.org/files/HowOpenIsIt_English.pdf

The fact remains that the very notion of “author/publisher copyright ownership” 
should treated with much caution: as always, one must read the “small print”.

Marc Couture


De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de 
Couture Marc
Envoyé : 24 mai 2016 08:50
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : Re: [GOAL] CC-BY with copyright transfer

Hi all,

I also agree that this is an important, but badly treated/understood issue.

For instance, in SPARC’s “How open is it” scale, author copyright ownership 
gives a minimum of 4 (over 5) for the “Copyrights” criterion, irrespective of 
possible restrictions that, as one sees, may amount in practice to no more 
rights than publisher ownership. Thus Elsevier’s exclusive licence gives them 
4/5 for this criterion.

http://sparcopen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/hoii_guide_rev4_web.pdf

In 2012, in my response to SPARC’s Request for Comments on a preliminary 
version of this guide, I had stressed this exact problem, explaining that the 
real issue was author control over usage, not copyright ownership per se. I 
don’t know if I was the only one to do so, but nothing was changed in the final 
version. This is the kind of situation that makes me believe that the issue is 
all but well understood.

Marc Couture



De : goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de Peter Murray-Rust
Envoyé : 24 mai 2016 04:38
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : Re: [GOAL] CC-BY with copyright transfer

I agree with Heather, this is unclear and needs checking. There is a difference 
between the author of a work and the owner. I would agree that it appears to be 
a deceptive practice. I have had similar problems "arguing" with Elsevier about 
text-and-datamining "licences" where the licences apparently give rights to 
Elsevier.

I will try to get an informal opinion.

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Heather Morrison 
<heather.morri...@uottawa.ca<mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>> wrote:
Elsevier's copyright page provides a very clear example of copyright transfer 
combined with CC licenses. Elsevier is not alone in this practice; I see this 
quite frequently while looking for APCS.

The Elsevier copyright page:
https://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/copyright

States under "for open access articles":
"Authors sign an exclusive license agreement, where authors have copyright but 
license exclusive rights in the article to the publisher. In this case authors 
have the right to share their articles in the same ways permitted to third 
parties..."

This language makes it very clear that when Elsevier applies CC licenses, 
Elsevier (or one of its partners)  is the Licensor or copyright holder, even 
when there is a copyright statement indicating the author holds copyright.

I argue that this is a deceptive practice that I call author nomination 
copyright.

This is important,  because CC licenses place obligations downstream for 
licensees, not Licensor. The copyright holder of a CC license has no obligation 
to continue to provide a copy of the work under the same terms in perpetuity 
(unless there is a separate contract).

To assess the extent of this practice one must examine journal/author 
contracts, not just visible indications, because even if an author is licensed 
CC-BY and indicates the author as copyright holder, it may actually be the 
publisher who owns all the rights under copyright.

best,

Heather Morrison




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



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

Re: [GOAL] CC-BY with copyright transfer

[Couture Marc]

Hi all,

I also agree that this is an important, but badly treated/understood issue.

For instance, in SPARC’s “How open is it” scale, author copyright ownership 
gives a minimum of 4 (over 5) for the “Copyrights” criterion, irrespective of 
possible restrictions that, as one sees, may amount in practice to no more 
rights than publisher ownership. Thus Elsevier’s exclusive licence gives them 
4/5 for this criterion.

http://sparcopen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/hoii_guide_rev4_web.pdf

In 2012, in my response to SPARC’s Request for Comments on a preliminary 
version of this guide, I had stressed this exact problem, explaining that the 
real issue was author control over usage, not copyright ownership per se. I 
don’t know if I was the only one to do so, but nothing was changed in the final 
version. This is the kind of situation that makes me believe that the issue is 
all but well understood.

Marc Couture



De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de 
Peter Murray-Rust
Envoyé : 24 mai 2016 04:38
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : Re: [GOAL] CC-BY with copyright transfer

I agree with Heather, this is unclear and needs checking. There is a difference 
between the author of a work and the owner. I would agree that it appears to be 
a deceptive practice. I have had similar problems "arguing" with Elsevier about 
text-and-datamining "licences" where the licences apparently give rights to 
Elsevier.

I will try to get an informal opinion.

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Heather Morrison 
> wrote:
Elsevier's copyright page provides a very clear example of copyright transfer 
combined with CC licenses. Elsevier is not alone in this practice; I see this 
quite frequently while looking for APCS.

The Elsevier copyright page:
https://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/copyright

States under "for open access articles":
"Authors sign an exclusive license agreement, where authors have copyright but 
license exclusive rights in the article to the publisher. In this case authors 
have the right to share their articles in the same ways permitted to third 
parties..."

This language makes it very clear that when Elsevier applies CC licenses, 
Elsevier (or one of its partners)  is the Licensor or copyright holder, even 
when there is a copyright statement indicating the author holds copyright.

I argue that this is a deceptive practice that I call author nomination 
copyright.

This is important,  because CC licenses place obligations downstream for 
licensees, not Licensor. The copyright holder of a CC license has no obligation 
to continue to provide a copy of the work under the same terms in perpetuity 
(unless there is a separate contract).

To assess the extent of this practice one must examine journal/author 
contracts, not just visible indications, because even if an author is licensed 
CC-BY and indicates the author as copyright holder, it may actually be the 
publisher who owns all the rights under copyright.

best,

Heather Morrison




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



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

Re: [GOAL] Do libraries fight to preserve the public domain?

[Couture Marc]

Hi all,

This is another example on ambiguous, if not outright contradictory content one 
finds in publishing agreements, especially concerning CC licenses.

There is an inherent conflict between an exclusive license to publish and a 
non-exclusive CC user license.

Granting an exclusive license to a publisher means that only the publisher (not 
even the author himself) has therefore the right to perform the acts that are 
part of the license. In the present case, those are essentially all the acts 
protected by copyright. The author remains the copyright owner, but it's only a 
kind of symbolic ownership, as she loses all effective control in her work.

On the other hand, a CC license is non-exclusive by design, meaning that 
anybody can perform several of the acts protected by copyright (copy, 
distribution, communication to the public, etc.), with some restrictions 
according to the version of the license.

If an author chooses CC BY, the publishing agreement tells that only OUP may 
use the work (publish it, translate it, etc.), but the CC license tells that 
anybody can do it. Furthermore, the agreement apparently grants the author some 
permissions (in the "Further information" section), but these are more 
restrictive than what the CC license (especially CC BY) allows anyone to do. 
For instance, anyone can modify a CC BY article and sell the resulting work, 
for any purpose, but the author is forbidden to do that according to the 
"Educational use" clause.

I have no idea how one deals with these conflicting conditions from a legal 
point of view, and I'm not aware of any study of this type of conflict between 
an exclusive and a user license applied to the same work. Maybe somebody can 
enlighten us. But we must realize that we're in very muddy waters here.

Marc Couture


De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de 
Walker,Thomas J
Envoyé : 6 avril 2016 12:06
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : Re: [GOAL] Do libraries fight to preserve the public domain?

Dear GOAL readers,

This thread, started by Lucie Burgess of Oxford University, seems to be a good 
place to gain a better understanding of the "Oxford 
Open" initiative of 
Oxford University Press (OUP).  Starting in 2015, OUP became the publisher of 
the journals of the Entomological Society of America (ESA).  These included 
ESA's four peer-reviewed subscription journals that date back to 1908, 1908, 
1968, and 1972.  Prospective authors of these four journals who want OA are now 
informed that they will be granted copyrights to their articles but will be 
required to sign OUP's License to 
Publish 
immediately afterward.  At the time they are granted their copyrights they must 
choose one of three CC licenses.  On the web 
page
 where prospective authors might learn about the implications of choosing among 
the three licenses, the three licenses are listed (CC-BY , CC-BY-NC ,  
CC-BY-NC-ND) and their prices given (either of the last two  costs $500 less 
than the first).  Authors learn nothing about why some authors might choose to 
buy the more expensive license or what benefits they might lose if they choose 
one of the two that cost less.  In email exchanges, ESA's Director of 
Publications suggested that, from an author's viewpoint, there were no 
significant differences among the licenses but did indicate that most authors 
bought the cheaper ones.

I know that the CC-BY license is required by many funders who want the results 
of the research they sponsor to be as widely available as possible but am 
unsure whether signing OUP's License to Publish can take back or nullify any 
authors' privileges that they would have had if they had not signed it.

Question
Under FURTHER INFORMATION on p.2 of OUP's License to 
Publish are 
many restrictions that authors would see no reason to violate, but would it be 
illegal (as opposed to unethical) if an author knowingly violated any of them?


I will appreciate any help that GOAL members may offer.

Tom


Thomas J. Walker
Department of Entomology & Nematology
PO Box 110620 (or Natural Area Drive)
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0620
E-mail: t...@ufl.edu  Phone: 352-273-3920
Web: http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/walker/


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Lucie Burgess
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 2:55 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Do libraries fight to preserve the public domain?

Dear Peter,

I wanted to respond to the point you made that:

'So 

[GOAL] Re: Can time-stamped PDF's qualify as OA?

[Couture Marc]

Pippa Smart wrote:

“I agree that the licence wording is not as clear as it could be - but the 
requirement for "exclusive" publication refers to "first" publication - usually 
journals do not want to publish something that has already been published 
elsewhere (they want original content), and they also want to ensure that 
authors are not submitting to several journals at the same time.”

Two comments:

1. It's quite surreal to hear that the license is simply “not as clearly worded 
as it could be”.

The license gives OUP the exclusive (meaning nobody, even the author, can do 
it) rights not only to "publish the final version of the Article in the above 
Journal", which is what Ms. Smart refers to by "first publication", but also 
"to distribute it and/or to communicate it to the public, either within the 
Journal, on its own, or with other related material throughout the world, in 
printed, electronic or any other format or medium whether now known or 
hereafter devised; to make translations and abstracts of the Article and to 
distribute them to the public; to authorize or grant licenses to third parties 
to do any of  the above; to deposit copies of the Article in online archives 
maintained by OUP or by third parties" (excerpt from 
http://entnemdept.ifas.ufl.edu/walker/OUP_License_to_Publish.pdf).

Except if you can imagine some use that isn’t mentioned here (I don’t), you’ll 
easily agree that this is entirely equivalent to a full copyright transfer: The 
author remains technically the copyright owner, but the exclusive character of 
the licence forbids her to use her own work.

2. OUP has certainly the right to forbid non-original or duplicate publication. 
But this is an ethical concern, which has nothing to do with copyright. And it 
can simply be taken care of by relevant statements in the publishing agreement, 
without any rights being granted.

In fact, All OUP (or any OA publisher) needs, in the case of a CC BY-NC 
article, is a non-exclusive licence to publish it in the Journal (because the 
CC license doesn’t allow it), with a statement by the author, in the same 
publishing agreement, that he or she will comply with the publication 
conditions, which include no-prior and no-duplicate publication clauses.

Furthermore, in the case of a CC BY article, OUP doesn’t even need a specific 
licence from the author. A statement by the author, in the publishing 
agreement, that he or she makes its paper available under a CC BY licence is 
sufficient. This would allow OUP to publish it first, because an author who 
would use a previously published work or send the same work to another journal 
would violate the terms of the publishing agreement.

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

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

[Couture Marc]

Hi all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marc Couture


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

[GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

[Couture Marc]

Hi all,

Well, I don't know exactly what part of Jeffrey Beall's post Dana Roth agrees 
with, but I'm wondering about that part of the same post:




most peer-reviewed open access journals charge no fees at all. [1] This 
misleading statement is based on a 2012 study that examined a 
non-representative subset of open-access journals, a limited cohort, so 
conclusions that apply to all OA journals cannot, and should not, be drawn from 
it.





I found no link to or mention of a 2012 study in the cited blog post (by Peter 
Suber). Before we go any further (if need be), perhaps we should ask Mr Beall 
to tell us what study he alludes to, so that we can judge by ourselves the 
validity of conclusions such as the one in the excerpt quoted.



Marc Couture


De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de 
Dana Roth
Envoyé : 14 août 2015 13:40
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

I strongly agree with Jeffrey Beall ... journals, like 'ACS Central Science', 
that provide OA without author charges need to be recognized and applauded!

Dana L. Roth
Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
dzr...@library.caltech.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Stevan Harnad [amscifo...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 9:16 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues
1. Green OA means OA provided by the author (usually by self-archiving the 
refereed, revised, accepted final draft in an OA repository)

2. Gold OA means OA provided by the journal (often for a publication fee)

3. Gratis OA means free online access.

4. Libre OA means Gratis OA plus various re-use rights

There is no Platinum OA. OA is about access, not about funding mechanisms (of 
which there are three: subscription fee, publication fee, or subsidy [the 
latter not to be confused with gratis])

After at least a decade and a half I think it would be a good idea to stop 
fussing about what to call it, and focus instead on providing it...

Stevan Harnad,
Erstwhile Archivangelist

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Beall, Jeffrey 
jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edumailto:jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu wrote:
For the record, some also use the term platinum open access, which refers to 
open-access publications for which the authors are not charged (no charge to 
the author and no charge to the reader). Using this term brings great clarity 
to discussions of open-access journals and author fees. Using gold to refer 
both to journals that charge authors (gold) and those that do not charge 
authors (platinum) leads to confusion, ambiguity, and misunderstanding.

Some have abused the term gold open access to promote open access, 
proclaiming, for example, that most peer-reviewed open access journals charge 
no fees at all. [1] This misleading statement is based on a 2012 study that 
examined a non-representative subset of open-access journals, a limited cohort, 
so conclusions that apply to all OA journals cannot, and should not, be drawn 
from it.

Jeffrey Beall

[1]. 
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/open-access-myths-peter-suber-harvard

-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Danny Kingsley
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 8:56 AM
To: goal@eprints.orgmailto:goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

Thanks Helene,

Yes you are not the first to be confused which was which because I put the 
terms in a different order.

Gold open access is 'born' open access - because it is published open in an 
open access journal (with or without a cost), or in a hybrid journal where the 
remainder of the journal remains under subscription (always incurs a cost). 
There are many, many times that the terms 'gold open access' has been taken to 
mean 'pay for open access'. Publishers of course have done little to dissuade 
this impression.

Green open access is 'secondary' open access because it is published in a 
traditional manner (usually a susbcription journal) and a copy of the work is 
placed in a repository - institutional or subject.

I hope that is a bit clearer. I agree it would not be easy to change. But we 
all used to call things preprints and postprints. That really made no sense 
because post-prints were not yet printed. We do not use those terms any more, 
not in the UK anyway. We use the terms Submitted Manuscript, Author's Accepted 
Manuscript (AAM) and Version of Record (VoR).

Regards,

Danny

 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was
 

[GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

[Couture Marc]

Hi all,

The problem is that the two following peer-reviewed papers (both published in 
2012, by the way, so I had thought it was one of them) conclude that the 
majority of OA journals don't charge APC's.

David J Solomon, D. J.  Björk, B.-C. (2012). A Study of Open Access Journals 
Using Article Processing Charges. JASIST, 63(8), 1485-1495. Manuscript 
(accepted version) retrieved from 
http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/apc2/preprint.pdf

Laakso, M.  Björk, B.-C. (2012). Anatomy of open access publishing: A study of 
longitudinal development and internal structure. BMC Medicine, 10, 124. 
Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/124

I had previously read them in depth, and hadn't found any flaw in their 
methodology. Neither did the reviewers, obviously.

However, to get a more complete picture, one must also consider the proportion 
of articles published each year. According to Laakso and Björk (2012), a slight 
majority of OA articles published in 2011 required APCs (the exact figure is 
hard to tell, for reasons I understood fully after a private discussion with 
one of the authors).

So, to minimize any risk of misleading, one could safely say that:

- A fair majority of OA journals don't ask APCs.

- APCs are paid for a majority of OA papers (assuming waivers are not widely 
granted).

By the way, it seems that APC figures in DOAJ website are being updated (along 
with all the new metadata), so one can't get any reliable data there for the 
time being (the figure is 6% with APCs, but with very partial coverage as 
reveals a quick inspection of the available spreadsheet).

Marc Couture


De : Beall, Jeffrey [mailto:jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu]
Envoyé : 14 août 2015 15:30
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc : Couture Marc
Objet : RE: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

Dr. Couture is correct that the passage I cited does not itself cite the 2012 
SOAP study, and I apologize for this error.

Here is what I really should have included:

The overwhelming majority (nearly 70%) of OA journals charge no APCs. 
Moreover, when they do charge APCs, the fees are usually paid by funders (59%) 
or by universities (24%). Only 12% of the time are they paid by authors out of 
pocket. See Table 4 of the comprehensive Study of Open Access Publishing 
(SOAP). http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5260;

This passage is from Dr. Peter Suber's blog here: 
https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/K1UE3XDk9E9
I also got the year of the SOAP study wrong; it was 2011, not 2012. Dr. Suber's 
blog post quoted above is from April 5, 2013.

Jeffrey Beall


From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Couture Marc
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 12:56 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

Hi all,

Well, I don't know exactly what part of Jeffrey Beall's post Dana Roth agrees 
with, but I'm wondering about that part of the same post:




most peer-reviewed open access journals charge no fees at all. [1] This 
misleading statement is based on a 2012 study that examined a 
non-representative subset of open-access journals, a limited cohort, so 
conclusions that apply to all OA journals cannot, and should not, be drawn from 
it.





I found no link to or mention of a 2012 study in the cited blog post (by Peter 
Suber). Before we go any further (if need be), perhaps we should ask Mr Beall 
to tell us what study he alludes to, so that we can judge by ourselves the 
validity of conclusions such as the one in the excerpt quoted.



Marc Couture


De : goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de Dana Roth
Envoyé : 14 août 2015 13:40
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

I strongly agree with Jeffrey Beall ... journals, like 'ACS Central Science', 
that provide OA without author charges need to be recognized and applauded!

Dana L. Roth
Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
dzr...@library.caltech.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Stevan Harnad [amscifo...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 9:16 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues
1. Green OA means OA provided by the author (usually by self-archiving the 
refereed, revised, accepted final draft in an OA repository)

2. Gold OA means OA provided by the journal (often for a publication fee)

3. Gratis OA means free online access.

4. Libre OA means Gratis OA plus various re-use rights

There is no Platinum OA. OA is about access, not about funding

[GOAL] Re: Update on statement against Elsevier's new sharing policy

[Couture Marc]

Hi all,

I found the entire “Papiers dorés” video highly interesting. It features mainly 
high-profile French scientists, who all describe the dominant 
publication/evaluation model as inadequate and doomed to be superseded in the 
near (or not-so-near) future.

Here is my rough translation of some excerpts of the interview with Daniel 
Rodriguez, director of Elsevier Masson SAS (a branch of Reed Elsevier group), 
to which Dider alludes.

Rodriguez speaking; we don’t hear the question(s).

(14:22) “It’s like you opposed – here I caricature – a financial and a 
scientific community: there’s no common ground. Thus you oppose an approach 
that, whichever way you present it, remains first and above all a profit – 
[more precisely] profit increase – approach to, let’s say, a much more 
scientific, “noble” goal related to the global progress of science. In a 
certain way, I don’t think these two universes can meet each other.”

(16:08) “We are a group whose goal is earning money, so the traditional model 
remains extremely lucrative. I repeat: we are a publicly traded group, whether 
we want it or not; we mustn’t bury our head in the sand.”

Marc Couture

De : Didier Pélaprat [mailto:didier.pelap...@inserm.fr]
Envoyé : 11 juin 2015 05:14
À : 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
Cc : frederique.bordig...@enpc.fr; Couture Marc
Objet : RE: [GOAL] Re: Update on statement against Elsevier's new sharing 
policy

Hi Alicia,

One question puzzles me, studying your interventions everywhere explaining the 
changes in policy :

Seems you have the same coach as Erik Merkel-Sobotta, from Springer, don’t you?

http://poynder.blogspot.fr/2013/06/open-access-springer-tightens-rules-on.html


For those who understand French: another explanation from Elsevier, that sounds 
more realistic on the aims, objectives and relationships between Elsevier and 
the scientific communities; it’s called “papiers dorés” (“Golden papers”)

http://vimeo.com/127546263

Sorry not to have the English translation yet.  Should be available probably in 
july.


have a nice day.

Didier

De : goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)
Envoyé : jeudi 11 juin 2015 02:21
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc : Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)
Objet : [GOAL] Re: Update on statement against Elsevier's new sharing policy

Hi Marc,

Apologies for the delay in replying – I have been on the road this week.

The introduction of tags was an idea we developed after consultation with 
large, mainly commercial, sharing platforms such as social collaboration 
networks. For them the challenge is to handle a tsunami of user-uploaded 
content in an automated way.  We are working to implement tagging of both final 
articles and manuscripts which will include information to allow platforms to 
automatically detect what version of the article has been uploaded along with 
other key information such as the embargo end date. The availability of these 
metadata on full-text uploads will be particularly helpful to them.

Repositories are free to extract and use the data from the tags if they would 
like to do so.  We will also make these metadata available for everyone to use 
via our ScienceDirect API. However, not all repositories like the idea of a 
variety of APIs and some express the wish of a more simple method. Tagging 
therefore helps us to cater for differing platform needs.

We recognize that the development of an industry-wide API would be desirable to 
avoid the need for repositories to integrate with multiple APIs, and we would 
support this approach.

With kind wishes,
Alicia

Dr Alicia Wise
Director of Access and Policy
Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB
M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.commailto:a.w...@elsevier.com
Twitter: @wisealic

From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Couture Marc
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:03 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Update on statement against Elsevier's new sharing policy

Hi all,

Elsevier has a record of pretending to make its decisions (at least partly) in 
the interests of researchers, or research, and now repositories.

One example is the introduction of tagged manuscripts. I don’t really 
understand how it will work and what will be gained by authors or repositories 
if they use these instead of the usual author-supplied manuscripts, with 
metadata residing in the repository itself.

The new policy seems to imply that either the author-provided or the 
Elsevier-tagged manuscripts could be self-archived, but like much of the 
policy, it’s far from clear.

In this page 
(http://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-updates-its-policies-perspectives-and-services-on-article-sharing),
 it is stated that in order to help repositories “ensure self-archived accepted

[GOAL] Re: Update on statement against Elsevier's new sharing policy

[Couture Marc]

Hi all,

Elsevier has a record of pretending to make its decisions (at least partly) in 
the interests of researchers, or research, and now repositories.

One example is the introduction of tagged manuscripts. I don’t really 
understand how it will work and what will be gained by authors or repositories 
if they use these instead of the usual author-supplied manuscripts, with 
metadata residing in the repository itself.

The new policy seems to imply that either the author-provided or the 
Elsevier-tagged manuscripts could be self-archived, but like much of the 
policy, it’s far from clear.

In this page 
(http://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-updates-its-policies-perspectives-and-services-on-article-sharing),
 it is stated that in order to help repositories “ensure self-archived accepted 
manuscripts can be made available in line with publisher’s hosting  posting 
policies”, Elsevier will be “taking steps to tag all manuscripts from the point 
of acceptance with key metadata”. And also this: “IRs will have access to the 
tagged manuscripts if an author self-archives.”

What I understand here is that these embedded metadata could be used by 
Elsevier to automatically, and more efficiently, monitor policy  compliance 
(notably embargo). Which they have certainly the right to do, by the way. The 
point is: do we have, or wish to work for them on this?

Finally, I suggest that you read the Comments section of  the above-cited page, 
especially Ms Wise’s answers, which are - how to say it - more to the point 
than what I’d been expected to find.

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

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY journal draft policy: possibly of interest

[Couture Marc]

Hi all,

Although I don't share Heather's fears as to the dangers of CC BY in scientific 
publishing, I agree that authors should be able to make an informed choice when 
they are asked to accept it as a publication condition.

The verb share certainly doesn't convey the full scope of the rights granted 
users by the CC BY licence. The correct verb would be use, and it should be 
stated that it includes, among others, distributing copies, republishing, and 
adapting (translating, for instance).

By the way, one may wonder if the authors of this proposed policy fully 
understand the meaning of the CC BY licence. For instance, the second part is 
completely irrelevant: anyone who obtains a work with a CC BY licence can 
republish it with no need of a separate, additional contractual arrangement 
with the copyright owner (unless one doesn't want to be bound by the 
attribution condition).

Marc Couture

-Message d'origine-
De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de 
Heather Morrison
Envoyé : 21 mai 2015 11:10
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : [GOAL] CC-BY journal draft policy: possibly of interest

The Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports has posted a Proposed Creative Commons 
notice which may be useful for discussion purposes.

My perspective is that it is helpful to have this explanatory information, good 
to see clarification of author copyright retention and active encouragement for 
authors to re-use their own works. However, the explanation of what CC-BY does 
is not accurate as it fails to explain that the license grants blanket 
commercial and re-use rights to anyone downstream. How would an author know 
that they could be opening up their work (or third party work) to the kind of 
commercial exploitation we saw in the Chang vs. Virgin Mobile case? 
(http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2014/02/chang-vs-virgin-mobile.html)

The journal links to the CC-BY deed, but not to the quick explanation for 
authors or the legal code. Whether CC-BY is a good idea for open access is a 
separate question; my argument is that it is not 
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/10/critique-of-cc-by-series.html


Proposed Policy for Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports
from:
http://jocr.co.in/index.php?journal=jocrpage=aboutop=submissions#authorGuidelines



Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first 
publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons 
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an 
acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this 
journal.

. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual 
arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published 
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it 
in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., 
in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the 
submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier 
and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

I am noting some of the copyright-related issues spotted during the 2015 OA APC 
data gathering process, including instances of OA APC charging journals with 
copyright transfer agreements. There are journals with CC-BY licenses requiring 
full copyright transfer and limiting author rights. Details here: 
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2015/05/open-access-publishing-current-issues.html

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

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

[GOAL] Re: Master theses as preprints

[Couture Marc]

Longva Leif wrote:


 So I am still keen on views on how common it is for journals to reject 
 manuscripts
 if the preprint is already available in an IR.


This would be an application of Ingelfinger Rule (no submission accepted in 
case of “prior publication”).

I haven’t found any in-depth study on the criteria journals use to determine 
what constitutes prior publication, or simply on the prevalence of this rule 
these days (some journals/publishers which used to apply the rule have ceased 
to do so).

The following blog post gives some information, notably about major publishers. 
It suggests that posting on an institutional repository is not usually 
considered “prior publication”.

http://www.scilogs.com/from_the_lab_bench/open-access-to-science-communication-research-your-options
 

As to the specific case of theses (Master or PhD), I would think that even 
fewer publishers apply the rule. I know only of one particular publisher, 
American Chemical Society, among the most anti-OA publishing organizations (no 
self-archiving of articles, very limited reuse rights for authors, etc.), which 
states on its website:

“posting of theses and dissertation material on the Web prior to submission of 
material from that thesis or dissertation to an ACS journal may affect 
publication in that journal. Whether Web posting is considered prior 
publication may be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the journal’s editor.”

http://pubs.acs.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1218205107465/dissertation.pdf 

But I would think this hard stance is not shared by many other publishers.

Marc Couture

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

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY and open access question: who is the Licensor?

[Couture Marc]

Heather Morrison wrote :


If a blanket [CC BY] license is granted, a downstream user would have to be 
psychic to know what kinds of commercial uses or re-uses might be acceptable or 
offensive to the original author.


to which Graham Triggs replied:


To the extent that the terms are compatible with CC licencing, there is no 
reason that you can't make explicit reference to those terms alongside the 
licence declaration.


But consider the following in CC legal code (previously quoted in this 
discussion):


“You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on 
[...] the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed 
Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material.”



So, I believe that you couldn’t add alongside a CC BY licence a condition 
stating that certain commercial uses are forbidden. On the other hand, I 
suppose you could add to a CC licence with the -NC condition a statement that 
certain commercial uses are allowed, as this doesn’t restrict the licensed 
rights (on the contrary).



But, as I understand them, CC licenses are meant to be standard licenses, so as 
to avoid, when works are (re)used, the burden to interpret terms formulated by 
each author (or licensor). The only condition for which the licensor is invited 
to express preferences is Attribution. In my opinion, adding terms modifying 
the other conditions (-NC or -ND), even if it allows for more uses, would “go 
against the grain”, so to say.



Like many others (a majority among researchers, so it seems), I used those two 
restrictions (-NC and -ND) when I first applied CC licenses to my works, out of 
fear of (hypothetical) uses I wouldn’t have been happy to authorize in advance. 
But I became convinced at some point that the risk of useful and legitimate 
uses (many of which one can’t envision a priori) simply not occurring due to 
these restrictions far outweighs the risk of undesirable  uses CC BY may allow.



Marc Couture


De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de 
Graham Triggs
Envoyé : 12 avril 2015 07:35
À : goal@eprints.org
Objet : [GOAL] Re: CC-BY and open access question: who is the Licensor?


On 11/04/2015 15:39:23, Heather Morrison 
heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote:
For example, you have clarified that with PLOS CC licenses, PLOS is the 
licensor.
That isn't what I said - I just agreed that your interpretation is probably 
correct.
Are you an academic, or an employee of a company seeking to profit from 
commercial use of academic works?
Unless otherwise stated, my postings here are personal opinions as a member of 
the public; from the point of view of public interest.
we need repositories with a long-term commitment to public access. The public 
access repository solution can work for everyone; it's what I recommend.
Very much agreed - whilst there are potential downsides to multiple copies, 
these are insignificant compared to the problems of relying on the continued 
operation of a sole custodian. OA publishing should not be an alternative to 
repositories, but there are distinct benefits over repositories being an 
alternative to OA publishing.
It is good advice for downstream users to retain evidence of the license terms 
permitting re-use. Note that this is tricker than one might think. For example, 
the article my group published earlier this year in MDPI's Publications is 
licensed CC-BY-NC-SA - but if you find this through DOAJ you'll first come 
across the DOAJ indication of a journal-level CC-BY license and then click 
through to the article which is incorrectly labelled as CC-BY.
You can't rely on journal metadata as a substitute for article metadata - 
especially where journals allow choice or have hybrid models. The importance of 
retaining evidence may depend on subject area and jurisdiction. If Wellcome pay 
(and therefore have a record of paying) the APC for a medical article, which is 
deposited by the publisher with a CC licence to PubMed Central, then it becomes 
very, very hard for a publisher to try to prove otherwise, and/or that some 
usage was not made under a CC licence but some alternative they have attached.
One such objection is academic freedom; if authors are restricted to publishing 
material that can be made available for blanket commercial use and re-use, this 
restricts what academics are able to publish.
As a citizen, that is an area I struggle with. If you take money for anything 
(e.g. grant to carry out research), then that money will reasonably come with 
certain restrictions / expectations - I don't believe anyone has the right to 
call foul about that.
However, there does need to be some common sense - I would not say that such 
restrictions should be applied to all research, as clearly that would make 
certain research impossible. There has to be some room to determine whether it 
is appropriate.
Some academics expressed concern that CC-BY would open up 

[GOAL] Re: Sharing and reuse - not within a commercial economy, but within a sharing economy

[Couture Marc]

Jeffrey Beall wrote:


There is beauty in the simplicity of copyright, that is, transferring one's 
copyright to a publisher. It is binary. The terms are clear.


I must disagree here.

One the one hand, it's clear that the publisher then owns the copyright in the 
work.

On the other hand, as someone who has many times tried, mostly at the request 
of puzzled colleagues, to decipher the terms of the permissions (or author 
rights) publishers give back to the authors who have just lost the ownership 
of copyright, I have to say that it's often very hard to understand exactly 
what authors are allowed to do and when, notably regarding self-archiving.
 
SHERPA / RoMEO makes a somewhat good job in harmonising the terminology 
(preprint, postprint, submitted manuscript, proof, final version, publisher's 
version, version of record, etc.), but it only goes so far. More often than 
not, one faces contradictory, incompatible, or simply unclear statements.

Marc Couture

-Message d'origine-
De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de 
Beall, Jeffrey
Envoyé : 13 avril 2015 10:45
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : [GOAL] Re: Sharing and reuse - not within a commercial economy, but 
within a sharing economy

Regarding this ongoing discussion about Creative Commons licenses and scholarly 
publishers, I think it is fair to conclude the following:

1. There is much disagreement about what the licenses mean, how they can be 
interpreted, and how they are applied in real-world situations

2. The licenses are not as simple as advertised. In fact, they are complex 
legal documents subject to expert interpretation, and they lead to ongoing 
contentiousness and debate, even among experts. 

3. There is beauty in the simplicity of copyright, that is, transferring one's 
copyright to a publisher. It is binary. The terms are clear. The publisher 
employs professionals that expertly manage the copyright. Owning the copyright 
incentives the publisher to make the work available and preserve it over time. 

I just had an article accepted recently, and last week I turned in a form 
transferring copyright to the publisher, something I was happy to do. There is 
nothing wrong with this. It's my choice. The paper will eventually appear in 
J-STOR and will be preserved.

My transaction was easy to understand, unambiguous, and clear. Let's remember 
that transferring copyright to a high quality publisher is still a valid option 
and for many authors may be the best option.

Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor Scholarly Communications Librarian 
Auraria Library University of Colorado Denver
1100 Lawrence St.
Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
(303) 556-5936
jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu



___
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: What is the GOAL?

[Couture Marc]

Graham wrote:


So - e.g. Elsevier - could change the licence on papers served by their 
website, and that would affect anyone obtaining it from the website after that 
point.


I’m not sure about that. According to the legal code, the license applies to 
the work “to which the Licensor applied [the] license”, not to a specific copy 
of it. And the licensee (“You”), is not someone who obtains a copy, but “any 
individual exercising the Licensed Rights”.

I find it very hard to believe that I could distribute a copy of a work 
obtained before a new license has been applied, but not a copy of the same work 
obtained after, as the original CC BY license is still in force.

Marc  Couture


De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de 
Graham Triggs
Envoyé : 8 avril 2015 16:46
À : goal@eprints.org
Objet : [GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?


On 08/04/2015 18:27:24, David Prosser 
david.pros...@rluk.ac.ukmailto:david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk wrote:
Once the paper has been offered under a CC-BY license that license is 
‘irrevocable’. Does ‘irrevocable’ not mean what I think it does? Further, also 
under Scope:
If you think that 'irrevocable' means that the copyright holder is not able to 
stop distributing it under CC-BY, and then distributing under another license, 
then no, that is not what it means.
It means that you can not remove any rights acquired by someone that has been 
given to them by the CC-BY licence which was granted to them at the time they 
retrieved the paper.
So - e.g. Elsevier - could change the licence on papers served by their 
website, and that would affect anyone obtaining it from the website after that 
point. But they could not do anything to restrict the rights of anyone that has 
already downloaded the paper under a CC-BY licence (which would include 
redistribution, including with the same licence for further users).

re: No downstream restrictions.
Here, it does not prevent anyone re-issuing the paper that they have acquired 
with different licence terms - you would need an -SA variant to do that.
What it says is that when offering the paper under CC-BY you can't add barriers 
that prevent the person acquiring the paper from being able to exercise all the 
rights afforded to them under CC-BY.
If you take the example of ReadCube read access links - you could not issue a 
(version of the) paper with a CC-BY licence within a print / copy restricted 
reader. But you could take a CC-BY paper - that would be a technological 
restriction. But you could take the CC-BY paper and re-issue it under a 
different licence within a restricted reader; providing that it wasn't e.g. 
CC-BY-SA licence.
G
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?

[Couture Marc]

Hi all,

Note. It seems that Heather Morrison and I wrote our posts simultaneously. 
You'll find that our explanations are quite similar (a good thing for the both 
of us).

- - - - - - -

To determine what a CC license allows (or forbids) one to do, one has to 
carefully distinguish between the Licensor (the one who holds the rights to the 
work) and the Licensee (everyone else, called Downstream recipients, or You 
in the CC license code).

The CC licence is indeed irrevocable, meaning that even the rights holder can't 
cancel it. But it's also non-exclusive, meaning that the rights holder can 
simultaneously distribute the work under different conditions and/or 
restrictions, even without using any user license. For instance, he or she may 
sell the work without mentioning the existence of the CC license, because 
Attribution (and other conditions) apply only to those who obtain rights as CC 
Licensees. Note that the rights holder can be the author, or any third party 
(e.g. a publisher) to which the author has transferred copyright or granted 
publishing rights.

This brings us back to two situations mentioned in this forum before the actual 
discussion.

1. Third parties reselling a CC BY work (without the right holder 
authorization). This is legal, but mentioning that the work is under a CC BY 
licence is required by the Attribution condition, and a hyperlink to the 
original (no doubt OA) must be provided. The only ways to make this a business 
practice is through customer delusion (hoping that they don't understand what a 
CC license is and/or that they are too lazy to look for a free copy), or by 
plain violation of the license conditions. This has happened and been reported 
in this forum.

2. Rights holders (for instance, publishers having obtained exclusive rights) 
deciding at some time to offer the same work but now under different 
conditions. The CC BY license is still in force, but the publisher is not 
required to display it (not being the Licensee mentioned in the CC License, 
it's not bound by its conditions). This is one of the scenarios envisioned by 
Heather Morrison. I'm not aware that this happened, and don't think it's likely 
to happen. If copies of the work are available elsewhere, this is identical to 
situation #1. In the worst case, one person would have to buy a copy and put it 
online (in a repository, for instance) with the CC license.

Finally, I think it's worth repeating that depositing in repositories even CC 
BY articles is the best way to avoid these situations. Just look at the 
prominence of OA versions in Google Scholar research results. People will find 
them.

Marc Couture


-Message d'origine-
De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de 
David Prosser
Envoyé : 8 avril 2015 12:47
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : [GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?

Hi Heather

OK, so let's take your specific example.  Every open access paper in PMC is 
mirrored in Europe PubMed Central.  So our publisher not only has to get PMC 
switched off, but Europe PMC as well.  Oh, and PMC Canada.  I suspect that the 
moment that it is suspected that any publisher is trying to get all three sites 
shut down, through a massive lobbying operation on multiple national 
governments and private trusts (the funders of the three sites), somebody (and 
I would put money on Peter Murray Rust being first in line) will download the 
entire corpus and make it available.  And there is nothing anybody can do to 
stop that somebody.

The danger is greater when the CC-BY license is in the hands of a company that 
holds some or all of the rights under copyright. For example, if a fee is paid 
to Elsevier, Wiley, etc. to publish a work as CC-BY, there is nothing in the 
CC-BY license per se that would prevent the companies from reverting to All 
Rights Reserved or other more restrictive licenses. This could happen even if 
the author retains copyright, because author copyright retention can co-exist 
with transfer of virtually all rights to a publisher (some license-to-publish 
approaches are very much like this). Authors could in theory negotiate 
publishing contracts to prevent this; but don't expect the industry to develop 
this.

Is this true?  Legal experts will need to help me, but looking at the current 
CC-BY code I note (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode):


Section 2 - Scope.

  1.  License grant.
 *   Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the 
Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, 
non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the 
Licensed Material to:
*   reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and
*   produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material.

Once the paper has been offered under a CC-BY license that license is 
'irrevocable'.  Does 'irrevocable' not mean what I think it does?  

[GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly articles

[Couture Marc]

Sally Morris wrote:


When Cox  Cox last looked into this (in 2008), 53% of publishers requested a 
copyright transfer, 20.8% asked for a licence to publish instead, and 6.6% did 
not require any written agreement.


These figures don't mean much by themselves. When an exclusive licence is used, 
the author may actually end up with less permissions than what many copyright 
transfer agreements allow. Unfortunately, as Cox  Cox report isn't freely 
available, I don't know if they distinguished exclusive and non-exclusive 
licences.

In a more recent paper (2013), one of the Coxes, commenting the above mentioned 
study, makes it clear:

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2333context=atg 

Who owns the copyright is much less important than what the author can do with 
his or her own work.

I found in that short paper another interesting statement, quite well-founded 
if one remembers the discussions on this list about abstruse or incoherent 
information on many publisher websites.

Publishers have been negligent in making clear to their authors how their 
copyright policies operate in practise.

Well, some (including me, after having recently tried to decipher, not to say 
to simply find, the copyright section in some publisher websites) are tempted 
to see more than negligence there.

Marc Couture





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

[GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly articles

[Couture Marc]

Hi all,

As in all things legal, only a court decision could really settle this issue. 
In the meanwhile, legal commentators can weight the various arguments, drawing 
upon similar court decisions and legal principles.

Unfortunately, neither Charles Oppenheimer nor Kevin Smith go much farther than 
simply stating their opposite conclusions:

CO: the author transfers the copyright on the last (revised) version, but keeps 
the copyright on all previous versions (notably the submitted version).

KS: the transfer of the copyright on the last version implies the simultaneous 
transfer for all previous versions, which are derivatives of one another.

I really would like to read a legal discussion about this issue (but I think 
this forum is not the right place for it). Being no legal scholar myself, all I 
can say is that I find both conclusions unconvincing.

I have much difficulty accepting Oppenheimer's statement that the extent of the 
difference between versions is irrevelant: what if the only difference is a few 
typos? Same for Smith's use of the notion of derivative works: it's true that 
an author keeps rights in all future derivative works (that is, works 
containing a significant part of his original work), but not obvious if or how 
the same reasoning can be used backwards (acquiring rights to previous versions 
upon transfer).

However, all of this is not that important in practice, as OA advocates, 
including Oppenheim himself, don't recommend the so-called Harnad-Oppenheim 
solution anymore (archiving the pre-print with a corrigenda describing the 
changes made after peer-review). OA mandates are all about the final, revised 
version.

Marc Couture

___
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

[Couture Marc]

Citing a blog post 
(http://blog.scielo.org/en/2013/09/18/how-much-does-it-cost-to-publish-in-open-access
 ), Graham Triggs wrote:


 publishing in SciELO journals ranges from US $660 in one subsidized journal, 
 to
 US $900 for foreign authors in another journal.

 US $900 puts it in a similar ballpark to the lower prices of the commercial
 publishers.


This is a somewhat incomplete, if not flawed argument.

1. The prices mentioned by Graham are just two examples (out of 280 current 
journals in SciELO Brazil). One reads further in the same blog post : In the 
case of SciELO Brazil, the average per article cost of publication is around US 
$130.

2. The two examples are both medical journals, which tend to have higher APCs, 
for instance, $2900 for PLoS Medicine (more than twice than PloS One).

Marc Couture

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

[GOAL] Re: Hybrid Open Access

[Couture Marc]

Peter Murray-Rust wrote:


 Proponents of CC-NC should realize that this licence directly gives a monopoly
 for exploitation to the publisher - the author is irrelevant


Not necessarily. It means that for any commercial use (and the CC definition is 
subject to interpration), one has to obtain the permission of the copyright 
owner, which may be the author, depending of the scope of the license granted 
to the publisher.

I'm in the editorial board of an OA journal which uses -NC but doesn't ask 
authors to grant it a license, so the authors keep the exploitation rights.

The problem with Elsevier is that they require (even for CC-BY) an exclusive 
license to publish that effectively makes them the ones who give permissions 
(and pocket the money).

Marc Couture





De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de 
Peter Murray-Rust
Envoyé : 17 décembre 2013 16:04
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : [GOAL] Re: Hybrid Open Access

I flagged this up to Elsevier about 5 months ago.
I would agree that they could be in violation of trading laws as they are 
asserting rights over free material and charging for it.  I don't know whether 
the trading standards office would be able to deal with it - we might have to 
make purchases.
From my observations it has happened frequently with Elsevier (see my blog). I 
have no idea whether my examples I pointed out have been corrected.
There is a more general problem in that many publishers charge for CC-NC 
articles. It is unclear which categories can be legitimately charged for. I 
note that Elsevier journals such as Cell Reports have a very high proportion of 
CC-NC(-ND) on the basis that authors choose it (in the same way that 10 year 
olds choose burgers and sweets). I was sent an example today of an editor who 
was being urged by Elsevier to make her journal CC-NC. as it would protect 
authors.
Proponents of CC-NC should realize that this licence directly gives a monopoly 
for exploitation to the publisher - the author is irrelevant.

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Graham Triggs 
grahamtri...@gmail.commailto:grahamtri...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for that Robert.

Interestingly, the Rightslink page also claims that the article is Copyright 
Elesvier. Which it isn't - the copyright is held with the authors (which is 
only clear when you download the PDF).

That means on Rightslink, aside from the licence not requiring re-use rights to 
be purchased, the page is making false and misleading statements about the item 
in question. I would say that is breaking UK law, and presumably other regions 
too.

I would suggest that Elsevier needs to urgently review how this is advertised 
and/or it's relationship with CCC on the basis of that evidence.

Although I suspect a lot of this comes from blanket rules in place for an 
entire serial with CCC, and a lot of these problems could at least be mitigated 
by ScienceDirect:

a) being clear about copyright and licencing in the HTML page, as well as the 
PDF

b) not providing links to Rightslink for CC-BY articles, where this is clearly 
unnecessary.

G

On 17 December 2013 16:30, Kiley, Robert 
r.ki...@wellcome.ac.ukmailto:r.ki...@wellcome.ac.uk wrote:
Laura

It is not difficult to find an example of RightLink (and probably others) 
quoting re-use fees for CC-BY articles.

Let me give you an example.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0898656813002489 is an 
article funded by Wellcome, and made available under a CC-BY licence.  This is 
made clear at ScienceDirect (albeit in a footnote).

However, if you follow the link to Gets rights and content you get redirected 
to the Rightslink site where there is a form you can complete to get a quick 
quote for re-use.  So, for arguments sake I selected that I wanted to use this 
single article:


* In a CD-ROM/DVD

* I was a pharmaceutical company

* I wanted to make 12000 copies

* And translate it into two languages

..and RightsLink gave me a quick price of 375,438.35 GBP [I love the accuracy 
of this price.]

Of course for a CC-BY article, there is no need for anyone to pay anything to 
use this content. Attribution is all that is required.

I don't know what would have happened if I had continued with the transaction, 
but I hope that a user would not really end up getting charged.

As the CC-BY licence information is in the ScienceDirect metadata I'm not sure 
why RightsLink can't read  this and for whatever use the user selects, the 
fee is calculated to be £0.00.  Better still would be for CC-BY articles NOT to 
contain a link to RightsLink.

Regards
Robert




From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Laura Quilter
Sent: 17 December 2013 14:53
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Hybrid Open Access

Can you clarify regarding instances of CCC 

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

[Couture Marc]

You're right: we need more information before drawing any conclusion.

I found this in a 2009 paper in the Canadian Journal of Higher Education (in a 
special issue to which J. C. Guédon contributed, by the way): 
http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/cjhe/article/view/479/504

...if the complete editorial flow, from the reception of manuscripts, the 
peer-review process, editing,
and the online SciELO publication, is taken into account, the total cost for 
each new SciELO Brazilian collection article is estimated to be between US$200 
and $600.

This seems to be a more meaningful figure, for this discussion, than the cost 
to authors. It's still much lower than the average APC of $1350 for commercial 
publishers (thus cost + profit), according to Solomon  Bjork 2012 paper in 
JASIST (postprint available: 
http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/apc2/preprint.pdf).

Marc Couture

De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de 
Graham Triggs
Envoyé : 17 décembre 2013 16:18
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's 
List

On 17 December 2013 16:32, Couture Marc 
marc.cout...@teluq.camailto:marc.cout...@teluq.ca wrote:
This is a somewhat incomplete, if not flawed argument.

1. The prices mentioned by Graham are just two examples (out of 280 current 
journals in SciELO Brazil). One reads further in the same blog post : In the 
case of SciELO Brazil, the average per article cost of publication is around US 
$130.

Does that represent US $130 cost to the author, or US $130 cost for the 
journal? There are cases of subsidized journals on SciELO, in which case you 
then also have to look at where that funding is coming from, to consider the 
overall cost to the public purse of publishing on SciELO.

Without knowing more detail (and we have to accept that and make allowances for 
incomplete information on both sides of the fence), it's not unreasonable to 
suggest that the higher priced APCs for SciELO journals are more indicative of 
the true underlying publishing costs.

G
___
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

[Couture Marc]

Sally Morris wrote :


I find it interesting that no one has commented at all on the two main points I 
was trying to make (perhaps not clearly enough):

1)The focus of OA seems to be, to a considerable extent, the destruction 
of the publishing industry:  note the hostile language of, for example, Peter 
M-R's 'occupying power'

 2)It still seems curious to me (as to Beall) that scholars have to be 
 forced, by mandates, to comply with a behaviour which is considered be 
 self-evidently beneficial to them


I think these  two points have been extensively discussed, but if it needs 
repeating (of stated in different words), here is my take.

1) I know some OA advocates suggest that science could do without publishers 
and/or journals. But I don't share your opinion that this is to a considerable 
extent the focus of OA. I rather think the opposite : to me it seems to be a 
marginal position. But, absent any serious study of the OA movement, these are 
just that: opinions.

By the way, what is missing in Beall's recent opinion piece can help define 
what one should do in such a study: define and categorize the actors (OA 
advocates???), analyze their discourse in forums, blog posts, etc. 
(text-mining?). That would certainly be interesting...

2) Scholars (well, in the academe) are forced by explicit and implicit rules 
(mostly self-imposed in a collective way) to do many things they would often 
prefer not doing, or doing less, because they don't like them or, more likely, 
because they don't have enough time to do them all: teaching large classes, 
publishing scholarly papers, supervising students, peer-reviewing (papers, 
grant proposals), sitting on committees, writing administrative reports, etc. 
etc. So they all do the same: they decide what they won't do according to what 
non-action entails the less dire or less immediate consequences. Thus I don't 
find it curious, but rather easy to understand that even if they know 
self-archiving is good for them, and would like to do it, it's simply one of 
the easiest things to defer when you look at your workload, unless of course 
there is a consequence. Thus the success of Liège (no publication considered 
for promotion or internal funding request if you don't self-archive) and NIH 
mandates (continuation grant awards not processed).

Marc Couture

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

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility ofBeall's List

[Couture Marc]

Sally Morris 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 don't know if I'm an OA conformist (and I do know I'm not the caricatural OA 
advocate depicted in Beall's paper, and I'm a bit tired of these tags), but :

- I do think these are important questions that, contrary to what you suggest, 
have been discussed here and elswhere. They don't allow for simple answers, 
though.

- I don't thank Beall to have raised them the way he did, because it won't make 
us progress on these issues. Worst, if Beall were to be taken seriously (which 
I doubt, but one never knows) it could do more harm to OA than the predatory 
publishers he rightly denounces.

- I won't pillory you, and I wish you a peaceful Christmas.

Marc Couture
___
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

[Couture Marc]

I'll let more notorious OA advocates (named or unnamed in the article) point 
out the many flaws and weaknesses in Beall's article (if they think it's worth 
the effort).

What strikes me though is that it looks much more like an opinion piece than a 
scholarly paper; the distinction is important, as the appropriate reaction is 
quite different in the two cases.

But I'd like to point out one specific statement :  OA advocates [...] 
ignor[e] the value additions provided by professional publishers .

This is quite strange, because almost all OA advocates value, and want to 
maintain at least one of these additions, the most important in my opinion: 
peer reviewing. Maybe the OA advocates I know are not those whom Beall refers 
to, but  the article doesn't allow us to tell, except for a few, notably 
Harnad, curiously one of the most vocal defenders of peer-reviewing in the OA 
movement.

There is also much irony in this statement, considering the fact that Beall 
published his article in an OA journal that doesn't seem to add much value: no 
formatting, no copy editing (we ask authors to use our Layout template and 
take full responsibility for their own proofreading 
http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/about/editorialPolicies). As to the 
peer-reviewing of Triple-C, if I were to follow Beall, I would probably 
conclude that it constitutes evidence that even non-predatory OA journals 
(Triple-C charges no author fees) are doing a bad job at it. But I won't.

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

[GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu

[Couture Marc]

In his reply to Heather Morrison, Jeoren Bosman wrote:

Do you mean to say that Gold OA articles from Elsevier with a CC-BY license 
can not be shared without restriction? The exclusive license you mention is not 
in the fine print

This issue was raised previously (August 2012) in this forum, but I think it's 
worth making some relevant distinctions.

There are two licenses involved when one chooses OA with Elsevier, in a (Gold) 
OA journal or via the Open Access Article program (hybrid OA).

First, upon final submission, the author grants Elsevier an exclusive license 
to publish and distribute the article, and to attach a CC license to it. This 
contract is solely between Elsevier and the author, and binds the latter, who 
keeps the copyright but, due to the exclusive character of the license, loses 
(for the time being) the right to publish and distribute the article. The 
author presumably keeps the right to adapt it and publish these adaptations 
(derivative works, translations, etc.).

Then, upon publication, Elsevier attaches a user license to the article, which 
gives permissions to everybody (including the author). If the licence is 
CC-BY-NC, for instance, these include non commercial publication and 
distribution. Thus, the author regains part of the rights which were granted 
Elsevier in the first place, but Elsevier keeps the commercial publishing and 
distributing rights.

The situation becomes a little bit weird if the license is CC-BY. Then, anyone 
may (re)publish the article, even on a commercial basis, so that Elsevier 
effectively gives away the exclusive rights it has previously obtained from the 
author.

One may wonder why Elsevier asks exclusive rights in the first place, simply to 
give them away later? The only right it retains in the case of the CC-BY 
license is to be able to cease at some time to distribute the article under 
this license. But, as I pointed out in the above-mentioned discussion, the 
original CC-BY license would still be in force, and the article could then be 
republished by the author, or anyone for that purpose. In fact, it could have 
been republished (or posted on a repository) at any time by anyone: this is 
what CC-BY entails.

One should note that OA publishers like PLoS and BioMed Central, which use the 
CC-BY license, don't ask that authors to grant an exclusive license; they only 
ask them to agree to attach the licence to the article.

Here are relevant excerpts from PLoS and BMC publication conditions:

Upon submission of an article, its authors are asked to indicate their 
agreement to abide by an open access Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 
license. http://www.plosone.org/static/policies

In submitting a research article ('article') to any of the journals published 
by BioMed Central [...] I agree to the following license agreement: [ terms of 
the BioMed Central open access license, identical to CC-BY ]  
http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/copyright

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

[GOAL] Re: Censorship? Seriously? (Re: Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection)

[Couture Marc]

Stevan Harnad wrote:


 There's no need for the OA community to hear about librarians' struggles with 
 their serials budgets when
 it's at the expense of OA


As previous messages in this thread clearly show, the ultimate fate of the 
subscription model, and how it will unfold, is completely unknown, so that any 
contribution that will help to answer the following question If Green OA goes 
from 20% to 100%, and if the demise of the subscription model ensues, when will 
subscription cancellation begin? is relevant in my opinion.

We may not like the hypothesis that embargo-free Green OA journals may be the 
first to be cancelled, but it is kind of logical, though from a very limited 
perspective. And it's a good thing that it has been raised here, in order to 
allow for the OA community to put the issue on a more general level, like 
when Stevan points out that actions or policies which may seem justified 
locally, because they allow for short term savings, can be globally harmful in 
the long term.

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

[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

[Couture Marc]

Peter Murray-Rust wrote:


 There seems to be two incompatible arguments about the effect of Green OA:

 1. Green OA presents no threat to subscription publishing [...]

 2. [...] Green OA will destroy the subscription market.


I've been struggling with the same dilemma for a long time, and much more since 
I've launched a campaign to have my university adopt a Green OA deposit 
mandate, where this issue is regularly raised and has to be addressed.

The truth is that we don't know what will happen. One can equally envision any 
scenario along a spectrum between:

A. Green OA (actually ~20%) reaching an upper limit well below 100 % (mandates 
not generalizing), with limited TA to (Gold) OA conversion among journals, 
resulting in few subscription cancellations, and (possibly) a slight decrease 
of total costs to the community (ultimately the taxpayers) due to (1) OA 
publishing being inherently less expensive, and (2) market pressure (authors 
choosing an OA journal based in part on its impact/publishing fees ratio).

B. Green OA reaching ~100% with total TA to OA conversion, and journals 
downsizing to peer-review providers (the other publication functions being 
overtaken by repositories), resulting in a huge overall cost decrease to the 
community.

While the #2 end of the spectrum may certainly be seen as a threat to 
publishers, or at least to some of them, it's extremely hard to predict which 
scenario is likely to occur, and to what extent any specific scenario 
constitutes a real threat. One can easily imagine a scenario with 100% Green 
OA and journals (partially or totally converted to OA) keeping their actual 
functions.

One problem is that some publishers seem to consider as a threat any pressure 
to change the still dominant dissemination (or business) model, whose 
inadequacy is now widely recognized among the scientific community (but not by 
the shareholders, of course).

So, I think that nobody can honestly state either  #1 or  #2 above as is. But 
one could say that:

- the scholarly publication world is due (and has begun) to change in a 
profound way;

- that nobody knows exactly what this change will be, or what role Green OA 
will play in it;

- that Green OA is a legitimate demand, made in the public interest by (among 
others) publicly paid and funded researchers giving, as authors and reviewers, 
their works and their time for free;

- that those responsible for public policy (and use of taxpayers' money) are 
expected to put the public interest above that of private entities.

Marc Couture

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

[GOAL] Re: On Author/Publisher Agreements

[Couture Marc]

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:08 AM, brent...@ulg.ac.be wrote:


 Elsevier's policy is now clear:


Well, Elsevier's intentions are maybe clear (or clearer now) but, personally, I 
wouldn't qualify as clear a policy which is scattered among many documents 
and which, even after being read and reread, still leaves much to 
interpretation, particularly on what it could imply.

For instance, the policy seems to state that Elsevier invites each and every 
research institution in the world adopting an OA policy to enter into an 
agreement. This is already a big slump to swallow, but if one plays the game 
and considers such a stance reasonable (which I don't), one finds that the 
nature of these agreements is quite hard to assess: What will be the 
conditions? Who will pay for this extra layer of negotiations and paperwork? 
Will there be fees? Will the agreements be linked with others, like site 
licenses?

And the interested and honest reader trying to make his or her own idea about 
all this is not much helped by being told to consult existing agreements 
between Elsevier and funding bodies that mandate deposit (usually in 
centralized repositories), which is quite a different situation.

So I strongly support the advice to ignore altogether all these extra and 
confusing conditions.

Let's ask Elsevier the question in our own terms:

1. Do you, YES or NO, allow posting of author manuscripts?

2. If YES:

a) Which version can be posted: preprint, postprint, publisher-formated?

b) Where can it be posted: author's or institution's website, repository 
(institutional or centralized)?

c) When can it be posted: upon acceptation, after an embargo period (for all or 
some journals)?

and accept only answers to that question.

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

[GOAL] Re: Japan's National OA Mandate for ETDs.

[Couture Marc]

Heather Morrison wrote:


 If the scholar grants blanket rights to create derivatives to any third
 party, then someone else could publish the monograph before the scholar has a
 chance to do so themselves. This is likely to make it more difficult for the
 scholar to publish their own work.


This issue has been considered in various studies, some of them based upon 
surveys conducted among publishers. These are summarized in:

Fox, E. A., McMillan, G.,  Srinivasan, V. (2009). Electronic Theses and 
Dissertations: Progress, Issues, and Prospects. In T. Luke  J. Hunsinger 
(Eds). Putting Knowledge to Work and Letting Information Play: The Center for 
Digital Discourse and Culture (chap. 7). Blacksburg, VA: Center for Digital 
Discourse and Culture.

There have been several surveys of publishers' attitudes towards ETDs (Dalton, 
2000; Seamans, 2001; McMillan, 2001; Holt, 2002). Rarely will a publisher allow 
an ETD without substantial improvement to appear in book or article form, and 
often publishers will consider the popularity of an ETD to be a convincing 
argument to invest in editorial assistance leading to a quality commercial 
product. (p. 133)

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/10th-book/putting_knowledge_to_work.pdf   

(Note that the whole monograph, though not under a CC licence, is freely 
distributable, copyable, and downloadable).

Much like in the case of scholarly monographs becoming bestsellers, one is 
considering mainly dreams here, to re(use) Heather's words. The question is 
thus: should ETD policies be devised to allow a few scholars see their dreams 
come true?

Marc Couture

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

[GOAL] Re: OASPA Adds Licensing FAQs Page to Information Resources

[Couture Marc]

About the display in some journal home pages of both a CC- License and an All 
rights reserved statement, Alicia Keys wrote:


 One set of licensing terms applies to their generic web content, and the 
 other to specific 
 articles that are surfaced via that website.  This isn't a conflict in 
 licensing terms as different 
 things are being licensed, although the presentation could perhaps be a bit 
 clearer.


Quite an understatement! One wonders if this kind of confusion is deliberate, 
or simply evidence that copyright matters are not taken seriously enough by 
(some) publishers.

For the previous example provided by Jeffrey (IJSAT's Terms of Use), I should 
have quoted the first part in its integrity. It reads: IJSAT's Web site and 
all of its materials, including, but not limited to, its software or HTML code, 
scripts, text, artwork, photographs, images, video, and audio (collectively, 
Materials) ...  are protected ...

To me, it's no instance of unclear presentation: How can one think that it 
such an encompassing definition of materials exclude the articles?

Without being too technical, I must point out that even the serious 
publishers I mentioned could be perhaps a bit clearer in their presentation. 
For instance, BioMed Central uses a licence which seems to be both identical... 
and different form the CC-BY license: the legal code (which is mainly intended 
to be read and understood by lawyers) is the same, but the simple-language 
explanations for laypersons are a little bit different...

Anyway, an advantage (for us) of this kind of fuzziness (laziness?) is that it 
allows us, in good faith, to choose the more favorable interpretation.

Marc Couture

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

[GOAL] Re: OASPA Adds Licensing FAQs Page to Information Resources

[Couture Marc]

Jeffrey Beall wrote:


 The two biggest problems I see are 1).
 Contradictory licensing statements, such as the one shown below


I agree with the previous replies that there's no contradiction in the text 
displayed in the image provided.

But I went to the journal's website (http://www.ijsat.com), and clicked on 
Terms of use. And there one finds a gross contradiction. Some excerpts:

IJSAT's Web site and all of its materials, [...] are protected by copyright. 
[...] This is a limited license [...] subject to the following restrictions: 
(a) you may not copy, reproduce, publish, transmit, distribute, perform, 
display, post, modify, create derivative works from, sell, license or otherwise 
exploit this site or any of its Materials without our prior written permission; 
([...] Any unauthorized copying, alteration, distribution, transmission, 
performance, display, or other use of these Materials is prohibited.

This is of course completely at odds with the CC-BY license. Well, this journal 
is on Jeffrey's list (of predatory journals)...

As to the fact that authors must transfer their copyright to the journal, I 
don't think it's a problem: in practice, the effect of the CC-BY license is 
exactly the same if it has been attached by the author or by the journal, 
according to which party holds the copyright. In particular, the -BY condition 
means attribution to the author, even if the journal holds the copyright.

But, as a matter of principle, I think publishers should not require transfer 
of copyright when the CC-BY license is used. Serious open-access publishers 
like PLoS and Biomed Central don't do that.

Marc Couture

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

[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] IOP Publishing moves to CC-BY licence for open access articles and bibliographic metadata

[Couture Marc]

On IOP's decision to use a CC-BY licence also for its metadata, Marcin 
Wojnaraski wrote:


 Bibliographic metadata are just statements of facts (person X published paper 
 Y ...) - that's nothing that could be copyrighted.


Well, the situation is more complex than that, and it depends in a critical way 
upon the jurisdiction considered. Even without considering abstracts, 
bibliographic metadata may contain more than statements of facts, for 
instance, keywords and identifiers added by a third party, which must use 
skills and judgement if these are to say something useful about the work. In 
Canada, this may be sufficient for copyright protection. And in the EU, facts 
may be copyrightable (indirectly) under the database protection regime.

A good, succinct overview of this question, with references, may be found here:
http://www.k4all.ca/planning-research/legal-issues/copyright-journal-article-metadata


 Even if an abstract is included, it still comprises no more than 5% of the 
 work 
 and can be freely used under fair use principle,


Here again, things are a little bit more complicated. As courts have clearly 
and repeatedly stated, there is no magic number or rule of thumb as to what 
proportion of the work involved in the use would automatically make it fair. 
Furthermore, this criterion is only one of several used to assess the 
fairness; one must also consider, for instance, the extent of the use: are we 
talking of making a single copy for personal use, or of posting a copy on a 
public website?

So, IOP's move to attach a CC-BY licence to its metadata eliminate the need to 
consider all these complex and often muddy issues.

Marc Couture

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

[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Anticipated new journal, eLife, publishes first articles

[Couture Marc]

An interesting information on eLife website:

Publishing in eLife will be free of charge, at least for an initial period
http://www.elifesciences.org/the-journal/publishing-fees  

More details found on Wellcome Trust website :

For the first three to four years, to help establish the journal, no fees will 
be charged to authors. Once the journal is established and we begin to expand 
its scope and size, we anticipate that authors will be charged an article 
processing fee to cover some of the ongoing costs of publication. As we 
progress this initiative we will ensure full transparency and publish details 
of the journal's costs.
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Policy/Spotlight-issues/Open-access/Journal/WTVM051948.htm
 


Marc Couture

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

[GOAL] Re: Europe PubMed as a home for all RCUK research outputs?

[Couture Marc]

Sally Morris wrote :


 In their 2008 study, [Cox  Cox] found just over 50% of publishers asking 
 for copyright transfer in the first instance [...];  of these, a further 
 20% would provide a 'licence to publish' as an alternative if requested by 
 the author.  At the same time, the number offering a licence in the first 
 instance had grown to around 20% by 2008.  So that's nearly 90%, by my 
 reckoning, who either don't ask for (c) in the first place, or will 
 provide a licence instead on request.


As has been pointed out, Cox  Cox article is not OA, so I can't check the 
source, but I haven't been able to reconcile these figures with Sally's account 
of that study: 
http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/JournalAuthorsRights.pdf:


 26% of publishers no longer require authors to transfer
 copyright, and a further 21% will offer a 'licence to publish'
 instead of a copyright transfer


This seems to mean that about 50% (not 90%) of publishers don't require 
copyright transfer.

Can Sally explain this (apparent) discrepancy? 

But anyway, the fact is those who don't require copyright transfer most 
generally ask for a license, often exclusive, whose terms may be as (or no 
more) generous as those of copyright transfer agreements. So the issue is not 
mainly if authors keep their copyright or not (although this bears a strong 
symbolic dimension), but what reuse rights they keep according to the agreement 
they are asked to sign.

Marc Couture

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

[GOAL] Re: Europe PubMed as a home for all RCUK research outputs?

[Couture Marc]

Ross Mounce writes that he is disappointed with Stevan Harnad's wild 
assertions not backed by good evidence.

As an occasional contributor to this list, I had my own idea of what level of 
proof (or evidence) one has to reach when one posts something.

First, a post isn't a journal article, so one's surely not asked to back all 
statements with citations, or to avoid anything that resembles an opinion or an 
impression.

At the same time, I agree that one has a responsibility to check basic facts, 
and to distinguish clearly between facts and impressions or hypotheses. And one 
of the advantages of the ongoing discussion is that facts can be corrected or 
added by other members, impressions or hypotheses shared, supported or 
contested. Isn't that the goal of a forum?

As to the three statements of Harnad, described by Ross Mounce as wild 
assertions eroding his credibility, here is my contribution.

1. most fields don't need CC-BY

This is clearly an opinion, with which anyone can disagree, and I don't see how 
one could bring a definitive, or even a clear scientific answer on that 
issue. For my part, I'd rather say that most fields can benefit from CC-BY, but 
I haven't any idea if some fields need CC-BY and others need it less, or not 
at all.

2. most publishers still insist on copyright transfer.

This, in contrast, can be checked, if one doesn't insist on counting all the 
thousands of publishers owning a single journal. And because I have a strong 
interest in copyright I happened to check many publishers' copyright policy 
(including OA publishers). I thus agree that all major publishers (Elsevier, 
Wiley-Blackwell and the like), and even most of those OA publishers which don't 
use CC-BY licences, either ask for copyright transfer or, and this is 
important, let authors keep their copyright but require a (generally exclusive) 
licence whose terms, which can be quite generous towards authors, are not 
compatible with CC-BY. Thus, a more precise statement would be most journals 
copyright agreements are incompatible with the use of CC-BY for manuscript 
deposit.

3. Green mandates don't exclude Gold: they simply allow but do not require 
Gold, nor paying for Gold.

This is a perfectly valid, factual statement, which certainly needs no backing 
citation.

In fact, Ross doesn't seem to contest it. What he seems to disagree with could 
be (but it's not entirely clear) Harnad's interpretation of RCUK new policy as 
excluding Green. But I even don't remember Harnad writing that it excluded 
Green, only that by favouring Gold over Green, RCUK policy will be harmful to 
OA. This is clearly an opinion (with which I totally agree), certainly not a 
wild assertion.

Marc Couture

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

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories

[Couture Marc]

Jan Velterop wrote:


 We've always heard, from Stevan Harnad, that the author was the one who 
 intrinsically had copyright 
 on the manuscript version, so could deposit it, as an open access article, in 
 an open repository 
 irrespective of the publisher's views. If that is correct, then the author 
 could also attach a CC-BY 
 licence to the manuscript version.


First, let's point out that Stevan always made a difference between the 
preprint (eventually posted before any submission, thus any copyright agreement 
with a publisher) and the post-peer-review manuscript (or postprint). Stevan 
(and others) believe that the author retains the copyright on the preprint even 
after having transferred the copyright on the postprint, so that the preprint 
may be posted or remain in the repository at any time. As to the postprint, he 
suggests either the posting of a corrigenda describing the changes made to the 
submitted version or (more recently) the use of the email eprint request 
button. See http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#self-archiving-legal 

The problem I've got with his interpretation is that, except in the case of a 
major rewriting of the article, there is not enough difference between preprint 
and postprint to consider them as two different works with each its own 
copyright owner. But I think the issue here is posting the postprint, not the 
preprint, so that doesn't make any difference.


 Repositories can't attach the licence, but 'gold' OA publishers can't either. 
 It's always the 
 author, as copyright holder by default.


But many publishers - even some gold OA publishers - still require transfer of 
copyright. In that case, they can attach any licence to the articles. And if a 
publisher requires a licence instead of copyright transfer (as it's more and 
more the case), the author, even if he or she remains the copyright holder of 
the published version, can't attach to it say, a CC-BY user licence, as it 
would most probably violate the terms of the publisher-author licence.

Marc Couture

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

[GOAL] Re: Simple Explanation of the Green Road

[Couture Marc]

I've got no problem with Andrew Adam's advice concerning publishers' possible 
(albeit unlikely) lawsuits or take-down requests when I read it in the context 
of the page where it appears.

Andrew is careful enough to state first: Where the publisher requires an 
embargo or does not allow for open access, the full text must still be 
deposited but set to closed access in the repository software.

If one follows **this** advice, no copyright infringement will occur. But it is 
always possible that one misreads or misunderstands a publishers' policy, which 
may be sometimes unclear, even self-contradictory, as has been discussed in 
this forum. In that case, a good-faith response to a take-down notice (i.e. 
reverting to closed access) seems to me to satisfy both law and ethics.

Marc Couture

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

[GOAL] Re: Hindawi grows to more than 5,000 submissions in March

[Couture Marc]

On April 2, 2012, Jeffrey Beal asked Paul Peters :

 
 How many of those 5,400 [March] submissions [to Hindawi journals] will
 be accepted for publication?
 

Maybe I should wait for Mr Peters' reply, but if he knows the answer before 
these papers are reviewed, there will be some reason for concern.

Even if I suspect this is by no way a na?ve question, considering Jeffrey 
Beall's well known (and certainly useful) hunt of predatory OA journals, I 
will take it at face value.

Acceptance rate is one indicator (among many) that can be used to evaluate 
journal quality. But, as all such indicators, it must be used with extreme 
caution. Like the ubiquitous impact factor, it may vary widely according to 
various factors : discipline, intended readership, editorial choices, etc. For 
instance, due to an openly stated editorial stance, PLoS One has a 70% 
acceptance rate, much higher than other prestigious journals.

Another thing is that comparisons are difficult, as this indicator isn't easy 
to obtain. Some journals display this information, others not. And if I found 
easily a reference to Cabell's directories (http://www.cabells.com), which 
covers 3000 journals in various fields, I couldn't go farther without a 
subscription. The same applies, to a lesser extent, to the impact factors, 
which are available for only a fraction of journals (and a small one for OA 
journals).

So, even if I had the numbers for some or all Hindawi journals, I don't know 
what it would really mean, except when it is close to 100%.

To end with a little bit of humour, I invite your to discover what is certainly 
the most prestigious journal according to this indicator : 
http://www.universalrejection.org 

Marc Couture

[GOAL] Re: Hindawi grows to more than 5,000 submissions in March

[Couture Marc]

On April 2, 2012, Jeffrey Beal asked Paul Peters :

 
 How many of those 5,400 [March] submissions [to Hindawi journals] will
 be accepted for publication?
 

Maybe I should wait for Mr Peters' reply, but if he knows the answer before 
these papers are reviewed, there will be some reason for concern.

Even if I suspect this is by no way a naïve question, considering Jeffrey 
Beall's well known (and certainly useful) hunt of predatory OA journals, I 
will take it at face value.

Acceptance rate is one indicator (among many) that can be used to evaluate 
journal quality. But, as all such indicators, it must be used with extreme 
caution. Like the ubiquitous impact factor, it may vary widely according to 
various factors : discipline, intended readership, editorial choices, etc. For 
instance, due to an openly stated editorial stance, PLoS One has a 70% 
acceptance rate, much higher than other prestigious journals.

Another thing is that comparisons are difficult, as this indicator isn't easy 
to obtain. Some journals display this information, others not. And if I found 
easily a reference to Cabell's directories (http://www.cabells.com), which 
covers 3000 journals in various fields, I couldn't go farther without a 
subscription. The same applies, to a lesser extent, to the impact factors, 
which are available for only a fraction of journals (and a small one for OA 
journals).

So, even if I had the numbers for some or all Hindawi journals, I don't know 
what it would really mean, except when it is close to 100%.

To end with a little bit of humour, I invite your to discover what is certainly 
the most prestigious journal according to this indicator : 
http://www.universalrejection.org 

Marc Couture

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

[GOAL] Re: Libre open access, copyright, patent law, and other intellectual property matters

[Couture Marc]

[Apologies for cross-posting]



On March 23, 2012, Klaus Graf wrote:





 It's illegal to hide CC-BY contributions behind a pawywall.





quoting the following excerpt of the legal code:



You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that 
restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights 
granted to that recipient under the terms of the License



Well, without delving too much into legal intricacies, let's just say that even 
if it may seem so at first glance, this doesn't mean that giving access to the 
Work (or to a derivative work based upon the work) through a paywall is 
forbidden.



If it were, then what would be the purpose of the licenses CC-BY-NC-ND (for the 
Work) and CC-BY-NC (for derivative works)?

Instead, the excerpt above may be interpreted, without disrupting the whole CC 
logic, as meaning: If You give access to a copy of the Work (behind a paywall 
or not), You can't apply to it any DRM technology that would forbid the 
recipient to reproduce, etc. (all the rights included in the license, see part 
3 of legal code) the Work.



I agree that putting a CC-BY Work behind a paywall is almost certainly 
dishonest, if not fraudulent, because it makes sense only if you somehow hide 
the fact that the work is freely available elsewhere. Things are different for 
a derivative work, which may offer enough added value to justify a fee. And 
such a work is not bound by the Work's license conditions (unless SA is added). 
It's here that the NC option plays its intended role: an author decides if 
others can make money (by adding a paywall, say) or not from derivative works 
based upon his or her work.



Marc Couture
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120325/21fc8e68/attachment.html
 

[GOAL] Re: Libre open access, copyright, patent law, and other intellectual property matters

[Couture Marc]

Sally Morris wrote :


 Playing devil's advocate:  aren't people (arguably) paying for the service
 provided in gathering together the articles in which they might be interested
 in an easily accessible/searchable form?


This makes sense if someone pays for a subscription to a service, like those 
provided by aggregators, which offers an overall added value. Such databases 
may be viewed as compilations, which are in fact derivative works (see my 
previous posts).

The examples we discussed here used the pay-per-view model, which is different 
in my opinion: they ask a fee for individual works freely available elsewhere.

As to my statement that putting a CC-BY Work behind a paywall is almost 
certainly dishonest, well... I would hesitate to call the British Library 
dishonest.

More an example of overview, which a public organization should since have 
corrected (as P. Murray-Rust points out, it was 5 years ago). It shouldn't be 
difficult to spot the (machine-readable) CC licenses (I don't know how hybrid 
manage this on an article-by-article basis), or to put a link to the article 
and suggest that the reader check for the possibility of open access.

Anyway, these days, people should now know better than pull their credit card 
before checking the title in Google Scholar.

Marc Couture
-- section suivante --
Une pi?ce jointe HTML a ?t? nettoy?e...
URL: 
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120325/306a5362/attachment.html
 

[GOAL] Re: Libre open access, copyright, patent law, and other intellectual property matters

[Couture Marc]

[Apologies for cross-posting]

 

On March 23, 2012, Klaus Graf wrote:

 



 It's illegal to hide CC-BY contributions behind a pawywall.

 

 

quoting the following excerpt of the legal code:

 

You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that
restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights
granted to that recipient under the terms of the License

 

Well, without delving too much into legal intricacies, let's just say that even
if it may seem so at first glance, this doesn't mean that giving access to the
Work (or to a derivative work based upon the work) through a paywall is
forbidden.

 

If it were, then what would be the purpose of the licenses CC-BY-NC-ND (for the
Work) and CC-BY-NC (for derivative works)?

Instead, the excerpt above may be interpreted, without disrupting the whole CC
logic, as meaning: If You give access to a copy of the Work (behind a paywall
or not), You can't apply to it any DRM technology that would forbid the
recipient to reproduce, etc. (all the rights included in the license, see part 3
of legal code) the Work.

 

I agree that putting a CC-BY Work behind a paywall is almost certainly
dishonest, if not fraudulent, because it makes sense only if you somehow hide
the fact that the work is freely available elsewhere. Things are different for a
derivative work, which may offer enough added value to justify a fee. And such a
work is not bound by the Work’s license conditions (unless SA is added). It's
here that the NC option plays its intended role: an author decides if others can
make money (by adding a paywall, say) or not from derivative works based upon
his or her work.

 

Marc Couture




[ Part 2: Attached Text ]

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

Re: Tenurometer

[Couture Marc]

I also find Tenurometer quite interesting, because it is much more
comprehensive than other citation-based tools (Scopus, Web of
Science), as it takes into account citations to a large spectrum of
document types (conference papers, book chapters, preprints, even
blog entries), though all types are included by default in what is
called Number of Articles in the prominently displayed Impact
Analysis field.

 

But, as I realized when I tested it with my own name (of course) and
one of my colleague's from a completely different field, one has to
filter out all irrelevant entries : not just namesakes, but also
redundant entries, documents that cannot be qualified as articles
or article-like (like blog entries or technical reports), and
outright junk (for example, articles by other authors).

 

But this is quite to be expected, as it they explain in the site's
FAQ :

 

Tenurometer gets raw data from Google Scholar, which is based on
automatic crawling, parsing, and indexing algorithms, and therefore
the data is subject to noise, errors, and incomplete or outdated
citation information. Through the Tenurometer interface you can
remove noisy results.

 

Indeed one can easily check out all superfluous entries, and the
statistics are adjusted accordingly.

 

So, once this filtering task is done (buy this could be tedious with
hundreds of entries), Tenurometer sure gives you a better (and much
more up-to-date) measure of your impact in your field than the other
similar tools.

 

But I would hesitate to use it in any official way : the dean is no
fool (or so we hope).

 

Marc Couture

 

 

De : American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]
De la part de Michael Smith
Envoyé : 27 novembre 2009 15:49
À : american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Objet : Tenurometer

 

Tenurometer is great! I evidently get assigned the publications of
all the ME Smiths in any discipline, inflating my h-index to far
higher than the most widely-cited scholars in my discipline. I wonder
if I can fool my Dean with this!

 

Seriously, the search function does allow me to find most of my own
publications, but the statistics function must take in all the ME
Smiths out there. Assigning tags a priori to searches (that is,
before the search has been run), rather than to actually entries, is
a strange procedure that may be to blame for my inflated data.

 

Mike Smith

 

Michael E. Smith, Professor

School of Human Evolution  Social Change

Arizona State University

www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9

http://publishingarchaeology.blogspot.com

http://calixtlahuaca.blogspot.com

 

Re: Wrong Advice On Open Access: History Repeating Itself

[Couture Marc]

Hélène Bosc wrote :


 I can give the example of the 65 researchers of the lab of PRC at INRA in 
 France who publish 
 about 100 articles a year.

 Since 2003 our researchers publish in OA periodicals (essentially BMC 
 periodicals). 

 [...]

 3 in 2008


As an exercise, I cross-checked with DOAJ's list the 89 articles published in 
2008 (in 50 journals) from the INRA database (PUBLICAT), and found 5 more 
articles published in four different OA Journals (including PLoS Biology).

Yet, this total of 8 articles, or 9% of the total INRA article output, is quite 
unimpressive. Nevertheless - and noting that this excludes articles which may 
have been published with optional (fee-based) or delayed OA - it is comparable 
to what obtains with spontaneous (i.e. unmandated and unsupported) 
self-archiving. A (maximum) rate of 15% is often quoted; my rule-of-thumb 
estimate of the self-archiving (unmandated and unsupported) rate at my 
university (UQAM) is less than 5%.

Returning again to Université de Liège's extraordinary success (15 000 deposits 
in 15 months), further examination of the information on the site of the 
archive suggests that it is the result of both an institutional mandate and 
various types of technical support offered to, to paraphrase Stevan Harnad, 
further reduce the number of keystrokes between now and a 100%-OA world.

I suggest to everyone involved in IR development to have a look, and maybe get 
some ideas...

http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/project?locale=enid=106 

Marc Couture

Re: Wrong Advice On Open Access: History Repeating Itself

[Couture Marc]

On November 9, 2009, 18:22, Stevan Harnad wrote:


 I'm not criticizing the pursuit of other options *in addition*
 to mandating self-archiving, I'm criticizing pursuing them *instead*,
i.e. 
 without first doing the doable, and already long overdue.


As one who has worked (and devoted much time) on both Green- and Gold-OA
in the last few years (though on a definitely smaller scale than the
global crusade of Stevan's, but the changes must come from both global
and local actions) I can't really accept his seemingly inescapable
conclusion.

It's not obvious to me that stopping my work on gold-OA issues (or, if I
follow Stevan's line of thought, delaying it until nearly 100% green-OA
has been attained through mandates) would have improved the results of
my green-OA actions.

I don't think there is something like a total amount of time and efforts
available, and that these can be directly linked to definite related
results, so as one result suffers in direct proportion to the
time/efforts devoted to pursue others.

Furthermore, not being particularly stubborn, I fear that, had I limited
my actions to green-OA, I wouldn't have found the will to keep trying,
in view of the disappointing results on the green-OA front. So maybe in
the end, I put more efforts on green-OA because I see more immediate, if
not overreaching, results in gold-OA.

It reminds me of the struggle against poverty: Should we stop for a
while working/ fighting/ devoting time or money to help reduce poverty
(or illness, or illiteracy) in rich countries, because the same efforts
or resources could save or improve many more lives in the developing
world?

So, I would have agreed completely to the following opinion, instead of
the one quoted above:


 I'm not criticizing the pursuit of other options *in addition*
 to mandating self-archiving, I'm criticizing pursuing them *instead*,
i.e. 
 without **also** doing the doable, and already long overdue.


The difference lies in one small word.

Marc Couture

Re: Wrong Advice On Open Access: History Repeating Itself

[Couture Marc]

Stevan Harnad wrote :


 The one point I am not sure I quite understand in Marc's commentary
was I put more efforts [into] green-OA
 because I see more immediate, if not overreaching, results in
gold-OA.


I was speaking on general terms: I see (but it may be highly
subjective) more progress on the general front of Gold OA with, for
instance, successes like PLoS, two journals appearing every day in
DOAJ, etc. Somewhat paradoxically, the feeling that this flavour
(colour?) of OA is indeed accelerating gives me the impetus to keep
on putting much energy in Green OA where, as far as the repository I
contributed to create is concerned, progress is slow, if not
illusory...

But I must admit that we see also interesting advances on the
Green-OA front, with mandates piling up, albeit at a modest pace.

By the way, I saw recently that at Université de Liège's, which
adopted a mandate, the repository ORBi went from 178 full-text
documents in July 2008 to... no less than 15 000 documents (mostly
articles) 15 months later (source: http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/stats).

Now that's some success...

Marc Couture

Re: Universal University Open Access Mandates Moot The Problem of Uncontrolled Journal Price Inflation Caused By Inelastic Demand

[Couture Marc]

On 3-Sep-09, at 5:51 PM, Ian Russell wrote:

 
  Except your starting assumption is incorrect.  The uncontrolled
  inflationary spiral is a myth.  Price-per-page and
  price-per-article are falling and continue to do so.
 
 

Price-per-journal is indeed a good indicator if you have to balance the library 
budget - you don't have the choice but to subscribe to the whole journal!

I agree though that price-per-article is a better indicator if one try to 
ascertain if subscriptions price increases are reasonable - or justified.

I would like to know where you found the information about a decreasing 
price-per-article. Using publicly available data (in the form of the Excel file 
downloadable from Ted Bergstrom's Journal Pricing Page, 
http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Journals/jpricing.html), I obtained a 31% 
average increase from 2004 to 2008 for the price-per-article (based upon the 
4500 journals listed for both years).

By comparison, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase from 2004 to 2008 was 
13% in the US (and 9% in Canada).

There are however huge differences between individual journal price-per-article 
variations. In fact, in the same four-year period, the price-per-article 
actually decreased in a third of the journals, while increasing more than the 
US CPI in half (and more than 50% in one-fifth).

Marc Couture
Professor
UER Science et Technologie
Télé-université (Université du Québec à Montréal)

Re: Number of scholarly journals in the world.

[Couture Marc]

On August 4, 2009, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:


 A 721-page list of social science and humanities journals comprising around 
 20,000 titles has been compiled. 
 This list is limited to SSH journals


I downloaded and examined the 721-page document compiled by JournalBase and 
available at http://www.cybergeo.eu/index22492.html

One looks forward getting access to the database (as promised by the authors) 
instead of a huge text-based table, but one can readily draw some conclusions 
upon simple inspection:

- The number of entries stated by Jean-Claude and given on the Web page (20 
000) would mean an average of 27 titles per page. One can easily verify that 
the actual number is much lower. In fact, based upon a 15-page sample, I 
obtained an average of 12 different titles per page, for a total of the order 
of 9 000 titles (still quite a large number). One indeed obtains an average of 
about 30 when one includes the multiple entries one finds for most journals 
(one entry for each category, plus some journals appearing twice).

- Although this is a fairly intuitive conclusion, the list appears indeed to 
comprise mostly peer-reviewed journals.

- Although the authors indicate that the list includes the information on open 
access journals indexed in the DOAJ, JournalBase features only 350 DOAJ 
journals, while one can estimate the number of social science journals in DOAJ 
to be more in the range 700-900 (depending upon the way one defines an SSH 
journal, and interprets the keywords and categories in DOAJ lists). It seems 
that they didn't use DOAJ as a source for journal titles (and DOAJ is not 
listed in the Sources column), but used it to check the OA status of the 
journals they found in other lists (Scopus, etc.). 

More data and analyses are thus needed to get a reliable estimate of the 
percentage of OA scholarly journals. One gets 17% if one uses DOAJ's and 
Ulrich's data (4000 OA journals over a total of 24 000), but only 4% with 
JournalBase data. Although the ratio for SSH journals could well be lower than 
the overall ratio, I don't think we should but too much emphasis on either 
figure.

Marc Couture
Télé-université (Université du Québec à Montréal)
mcout...@teluq.uqam.ca
http://www.teluq.uqam.ca/spersonnel/mcouture/home.htm

Re: Research: Writ, Reason, and Practice

[Couture Marc]

On 4-Aug-09, at 6:45 AM, S. Harnad wrote:

 

 

 Aside: This formal side-issue has next to nothing to do with Open
Access and Green Open

 Access Mandates. 

 

 

As interesting as may be these discussions about the subtleties of
copyright law and its application to scholarly activities (and I, for
one, am truly interested in these), I agree that this forum is not
the right place to go further in that direction (or even as far as it
has gone).

 

Although I remain aware that many things I do on a routine basis may
(or do in fact) infringe copyright, I am perfectly satisfied by the
pragmatic approach suggested by Harnad.

 

The fact that a few months ago two law professors specialised in
copyright promptly sent me on request copies of those of their
articles to which I didn't have access, seemingly without any second
thought, reassures me in a way. To be true, there was not request
button involved, but I wonder what is really different (except the
time it took me to write my request and them to find the file and
write a polite answer - I appreciated the human touch though).

 

I suggest also to those interested an excellent (and much enjoyable)
paper from John Tehranian, Infringement Nation: Copyright Reform and
the Law/Norm Gap, in which he describes a day in the life of a law
professor, during which he infringes copyright 83 times (including
when he sings Happy Birthday in a restaurant). Fortunately, the
article is available in OA http://bit.ly/EDNSA

 

Have a nice day, even if you will probably infringe copyright before
the sun sets.

 

Marc Couture

Re: Authors Re-using Their Own Work

[Couture Marc]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:19 AM,

c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.ukc.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk wrote:

 

 

 CO: The query referred to cases where the author has ASSIGNED

 copyright to Sage.  Sage then owns the copyright and is perfectly

 entitled to say what can be done with the article. Crucially, if

 something is not mentioned as permitted, it is forbidden. So if you

 have assigned copyright to Sage, you cannot do anything other than

 those things listed as permitted by Sage.

 

 

One should stress that no copyright owner can prevent a user doing
something that is allowed under one of the so-called exceptions which
are part of copyright laws, like fair use (in US) and fair dealing
(in Canada, UK and Australia).

 

For instance, US Copyright law (§107) states :

 

[...] the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by
reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means
specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment,
news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom
use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

 

In the all the jurisdictions I mentioned, the exceptions allow for
distribution of copies (and note that copy is in no way restricted
to print copy) on an individual basis for research purposes, as
embodied in the traditional practice referred to by Harnad or, more
recently, in the request button,

 

It is true that some criteria must be met for such a use to be
considered fair, most notably the effect of the use upon the market.
But should a case concerning the fairness of the request button be
brought before a court, the publisher would have to demonstrate that
this particular act has indeed significantly reduced its earnings. If
it was the case, it would mean that the scenario of green OA
endangering journals has become a reality, something that may happen
in the future as Harnad (among others) dutifully points out.

 

In the meantime, authors should not hesitate to send copies to those
who are interested in (and don't have access to) their closed-access
(embargoed or otherwise) scholarly articles: after all, one can
hardly imagine other uses than research for these specialized works.

 

I will conclude that there are other instances where copyright owners
have tried to restrict the uses more than what these exceptions
allow. In fact, much of the debate about the anti-copying measures
that are part of Digital Rights Management (DRM) has focussed upon
the fact that such measures, which were meant to restrict unlawful
acts, will also restrict lawful ones. So we must remain alert (and
somewhat sceptical) when trying to decipher what uses a publisher
allow (or forbid).

 

Marc Couture

Télé-université (Université du Québec à Montréal)

mcout...@teluq.uqam.ca
http://www.teluq.uqam.ca/spersonnel/mcouture/home.htm

 

 

 

 

De : American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]
De la part de Stevan Harnad
Envoyé : 27 juillet 2009 07:02
À : american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Objet : Authors Re-using Their Own Work

 

 

On 27-Jul-09, at 5:39 AM, [identity deleted] wrote:



Hello Stevan,

Could I ask you to have a quick look at SAGE's terms for Authors
Re-using Their Own Work?  It seems to me that it forbids the email
eprint request button:

http://www.sagepub.com/repository/binaries/journals/permissions/author_use.d
oc

(The link is from this page:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav )

It says you can distribute photocopies of the published article to
your colleagues on an individual basis, but not electronic versions. 
On my reading, there's a 12-month embargo on circulating electronic
copies of the refereed version of the article in any way.  Wouldn't
this prohibit the email eprint request
button? http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/274-guid.html

 

(1) The SAGE 
author-re-usedocument says You can distribute photocopies. It does not say You cannot 
distribute electronic versions. It simply does not
say You can distribute electronic versions.

 

(2) There are many other things the SAGE author-re-use
document does not say you can do with your own work, including that
you can distribute corrected versions, laminated versions, or
versions in Gothic script.

 

(3) And in saying things that you can and cannot do with your own
work, the SAGE author-re-use document is not restricting itself to
the things a publisher can and cannot tell you that you can and
cannot do with your own work. For example, publisher permissions
regarding what you can and cannot do with your pre-submission
preprint prior to acceptance of the refereed postprint are rather
far-fetched (e.g., making corrections in it).

 

(4) But the short answer to your query is this: No, there is nothing
either defensible or enforceable that a publisher can do or say to
prevent a researcher from personally distributing individual copies
of his own research 

Re: [EP-tech] Re: Eprint request button - data on effectiveness

[Couture Marc]

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:27 AM, Francis
Jayakanthfr...@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in wrote:


 Since Jan 2009, our repository (eprints.iisc.ernet.in), has been using

 the GNU Eprints.org version, which supports reprint request. Since 
 then, on an average, we receive about 20-25 reprint request everyday! 
 [...] Will there be any copyright-related issues if the reprint
request
 process is automated?


It is in fact already almost automated, as neither the requester and the
author (or someone acting on his behalf) have to write e-mails or (in
the case of the author) look for the right file to attach. So we're left
with one keystroke per article requested, which isn't going to take much
time, even if a single person receives all the requests for the
closed-access articles in an IR, which seems to be the case for your IR.
I don't see much gain in a fully automated process.

But I have to say that here at Universite du Quebec a Montreal's
Archipel repository, we don't ask the requester to state any reason for
his or her request. Instead, the form in which the requester enters its
e-mail address indicates prominently that it must be for a use allowed
by copyright law, for instance private study, research, review or
criticism (by the way, this covers your other concern). Likewise, the
e-mail generated (again upon a single click) by the author or in his
name, accepting the request, repeats that the use must be lawful. As the
university's lawyers gave their consent to this scheme (and they tend
normally to be overly cautious in these matters) I suppose one shouldn't
be concerned about any copyright infringement.

I may add that unless there would be some kind of massive request for a
single article, (and, as Stevan Harnad suggested, with 20-25 requests
for the entire repository it's not likely to be the case), one doesn't
have to worry about the issue.

Marc Couture
Tele-universite (Universite du Quebec a Montreal)
mcout...@teluq.uqam.ca 
http://www.teluq.uqam.ca/spersonnel/mcouture/home.htm

RE�: Re: Please Don't Conflate Green and Gold OA

[Couture Marc]

On 21 Nov 2008, at 20:37, Arthur Sale wrote:


 Fourthly, the author may still be ignorant or worried about their rights 
 under Australian 
 copyright law (unfounded, but real)...


At Archipel, EPrints-based Université du Québec à Montréal's IR, in part to 
satisfy other very cautious law-abiding people (I'm speaking of University 
lawyers), instead of being asked to explain the rationale of his or her request 
(as in UTAS ePrints Repositoy, which perhaps uses the standard ePrints text), 
the requester is informed that a statement will be joined to the e-mail sent to 
the author explaining that the copy is intended  for research, private study, 
review or critical purposes, or for any other use permitted by Canadian 
Copyright Law.
 
I imagine this could help alleviate the unfounded but, I agree, commonly 
encountered fears of the type described above.
 
Marc Couture
Université du Québec à Montréal