[GOAL] Re: "Yawanna know wush wrong with this damn planet...?."

[Graham Triggs]

> On 31 Dec 2015, at 15:59, Thomas Krichel  wrote:
> 
>  oh I know. It's because libraries are spending money on subscriptions.
>  And as long as they do, OA remains editable.


With the talk of flipping journals, and where libraries should be allocating 
their funds, maybe it’s worth reflecting on two years of operation for SCOAP3:

https://indico.cern.ch/event/461709/contribution/9/attachments/1195643/1737390/AK_SCOAP3_DK_Librarians_Presentation_Nov2015.pdf

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

[GOAL] Re: EU considering link taxing and blocking

[Graham Triggs]

The EU is not considering link blocking.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/16/eu_wont_make_hyperlinks_illegal_copyright/
 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/05/ec_copyright_framework_leak/ 


Any effects of restrictions seem to be limited to commercial sites aggregating 
copyrighted material - but then copyrighted material by definition has 
restrictions of use, subject to whatever licences may be granted.

Open Access - material that explicitly grants a licence to reuse (and link) 
content - is not going to be, and can’t be, affected.

The most likely outcome of this bill is make text and data mining of 
copyrighted material easier for research purposes.


> On 17 Nov 2015, at 23:12, Heather Morrison  
> wrote:
> 
> Open Access depends on linking - and is one of the best exemplars of why 
> links should not be blocked. Please sign.
> 
> https://savethelink.org/yourvoice?src=158734
> 
> best,
> 
> Heather Morrison
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: EU considering link taxing and blocking

[Graham Triggs]

Correct, regulating the commercial aggregation of content does not directly 
provide for easier content mining.

But this is a Copyright Framework, which would have a number of provisions. One 
of them is likely to be specific exceptions for non-commercial text and data 
mining.

> On 18 Nov 2015, at 18:55, William Gunn <william.g...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Graham, I'm having a hard time seeing how regulating aggregation of content 
> or links to content makes text and data mining easier. Seems like it would be 
> harder, and especially if any publication of results becomes infringing.
> 
> On Nov 18, 2015 3:39 AM, "Graham Triggs" <grahamtri...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:grahamtri...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> The EU is not considering link blocking.
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/16/eu_wont_make_hyperlinks_illegal_copyright/
>  
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/16/eu_wont_make_hyperlinks_illegal_copyright/>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/05/ec_copyright_framework_leak/ 
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/05/ec_copyright_framework_leak/>
> 
> Any effects of restrictions seem to be limited to commercial sites 
> aggregating copyrighted material - but then copyrighted material by 
> definition has restrictions of use, subject to whatever licences may be 
> granted.
> 
> Open Access - material that explicitly grants a licence to reuse (and link) 
> content - is not going to be, and can’t be, affected.
> 
> The most likely outcome of this bill is make text and data mining of 
> copyrighted material easier for research purposes.
> 
> 
>> On 17 Nov 2015, at 23:12, Heather Morrison <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca 
>> <mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>> wrote:
>> 
>> Open Access depends on linking - and is one of the best exemplars of why 
>> links should not be blocked. Please sign.
>> 
>> https://savethelink.org/yourvoice?src=158734 
>> <https://savethelink.org/yourvoice?src=158734>
>> 
>> best,
>> 
>> Heather Morrison
>> ___
>> GOAL mailing list
>> GOAL@eprints.org <mailto:GOAL@eprints.org>
>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal 
>> <http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal>
> 
> 
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org <mailto:GOAL@eprints.org>
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal 
> <http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal>
> 
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: Predatory Publishing: A Modest Proposal

[Graham Triggs]

On 10/09/2015 11:37:02, Nicolas Pettiaux  wrote:
What about the idea : research published only non profit OA journals should be 
taken into account.
Wouldn't this push the predatory OA journals by competition out of business ?
Well, first, try and define what your criteria for a "non profit" OA journal is.
Even a genuine declared non-profit journal would run profits in some years, due 
to the need to potentially cover shortfalls in others. The reality is you would 
be aiming for a modest profit, which would then be subsequently re-invested in 
future years.
But regardless of your criteria, profit is just income - costs... and it would 
be fairly easy for a "predatory" journal to hide it's profit by paying another 
company some vastly inflated sum for a bunch of services. The journal isn't 
making any money itself, but it all flows through the chain.
G___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: How a flat APC with no price increase for 3 years can be a 6% - 77% price increase at the same time

[Graham Triggs]

Also worth noting that a flat APC in one currency actually equates to a price 
decrease in real terms over time.

The effect of regional pricing in real terms is quite a bit less when you 
factor in e.g. local inflation.

On 14/05/2015 07:08:49, Michael Eisen mbei...@gmail.com wrote:
It is true that distributing publication services locally would diminish the 
risk of currency fluctuations affecting APC stability, but it does not 
necessarily reduce costs for authors. I am sure, for example, that most authors 
would be happier to pay APCs that varied +/- 25% around $1350 than they would a 
fixed $2000. 

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca 
[mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca] wrote:

In this post Jihane Salhab  I explain the impact of currency variations and 
fluctuations on the APC model. PLOS ONE has been a good model for the past few 
years in at least one respect: maintaining the APC of $1,350 USD with no price 
increase over several years. However, if you happen to be paying in Euros, the 
PLOS ONE APC rose 14% from March to December of 2014, or 23% from March 20, 
2014 to March 20, 2015. In South Africa, the price increased 58% in the same 
3-year period; in Brazil, the price increase was 77%.

For details and to view a table illustrating the PLOS ONE pricing in 8 
currencies:
http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/13/how-a-flat-apc-with-no-price-increase-for-3-years-can-be-a-6-77-price-increase/
 
[http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/13/how-a-flat-apc-with-no-price-increase-for-3-years-can-be-a-6-77-price-increase/]

Any scholarly publishing system that involves cross-border payments, whether 
demand side (subscriptions / payments) or supply side (APC, journal hosting or 
other production services) has this disadvantage of pricing variability almost 
everywhere. In this case, US payers benefit from the flat fee, but anytime an 
APC is paid for a US scholar publishing in an international venue the same 
pricing variations based on currency will apply. In contrast, any scholarly 
publishing system that involves local payments (e.g. hosting of local journals, 
paying local copyeditors and proofreaders) has the advantage of relative 
pricing stability that comes with paying in the local currency.

Also on Sustaining the Knowledge Commons today: does the market economy really 
work for social reality? Reflections on an interview with David Simon by Alexis 
Calvé-Genest.
http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/13/market-economy-and-social-reality-a-pragmatic-view-from-a-well-known-author/
 
[http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/13/market-economy-and-social-reality-a-pragmatic-view-from-a-well-known-author/]

best,

-- 
Dr. Heather Morrison
Assistant Professor
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
University of Ottawa
Desmarais 111-02
613-562-5800 ext. 7634 [tel:613-562-5800%20ext.%207634]
Sustaining the Knowledge Commons: Open Access Scholarship
http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/ [http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/]
http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html 
[http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html]
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca [mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]




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





--

Michael Eisen, Ph.D.
Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Professor of Genetics, Genomics and Development
Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
University of California, Berkeley
___ 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: Is the GOAL of open access free re-use for promotional purposes?

[Graham Triggs]

On Friday, 1 May 2015, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote:

  Question: does the GOAL of open access include making works freely
 available for use in promotional material? I argue that this kind of re-use
 is highly problematic from legal and author moral rights perspectives.


Please, this is another straw man argument. Consider:

1) if the reuse misinterprets and misuses the research, it is a breach of
CC licencing

2) advertisers are free to cite publications in any case

3) a restricted licence only means that the advertiser pays the publisher a
fee to use the material, the author isn't asked

In relation to this argument, there is no practical benefit to not using
CC-BY.



 As Lessig points out, a noncommercial license would have been a better fit
 and would almost certainly have avoided this situation.


That only works so long as the advertiser would have to seek the permission
of the photographer to use the material.

If Flickr's TCs give it the right to resell material that the photographer
uploads as CC-BY-NC then the advertiser just pays Flickr without asking the
photographer.

In science, the publisher is assigned those rights by the author. As long
as that happens, you have no effective argument against the use of CC-BY.

Funders and institutions that are requiring or strongly encouraging open
 access might want to consider potential similar scenarios where the
 photographer is a researcher and they publish the photo under a CC-BY


Funders wasn't the research to be used, not for there to be barriers
against it.




 My argument is that rather than pushing for blanket re-use rights, we
 should have a more nuanced conversation that asks whether there are some
 re-use rights that most would agree to and others, like promotional use,
 that are problematic.


 There are some sensitive issues that require a different approach, and the
appropriate funders will do so.

Continually holding up straw man arguments about Cc-BY being bad is just
damaging to all forms of open access.

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

[GOAL] Re: A case for strong fair use / fair dealing with restrictive licenses

[Graham Triggs]

On 28 April 2015 at 22:45, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca
wrote:

  There is nothing in any of the CC licenses that requires that works be
 made available free of charge, either by the downstream user or by the
 original licensor. It is true that a CC license cannot be revoked, however
 the catch is you have to have a copy of the work and proof of the license
 under which you obtained the work. There is nothing to stop the original
 licensor from changing their mind, taking down the CC-BY copy and replacing
 it with a work under whatever terms they like (or not making the work
 available at all).


In any licence that a work is distributed under, there is nothing
compelling the distributor to continue to distribute the work in perpetuity
under the same licence conditions.



  This argument is basically that while CC-BY may appear to be highly
 desirable and reflect the BOAI definition of OA (which I now reject as the
 source of the problem), it is a weak license full of loopholes that could
 be the downfall of open access.


See my statement above. Licences attached to the distribution of a work
just deal with how people that receive the work can make use of it.

What the publisher / distributor can do has to be governed by the rights
assigned to them by the author / copyright holder, and/or the contract that
is in place between the author / copyright holder and the publisher /
distributor. Even when a journal publishes an article as CC-BY; even when
an author deposits a paper to a repository to be distributed as CC-BY, the
author is not making the work available to the publisher or repository
under a CC-BY licence. They are providing a limited set of rights and/or
signing a contract with specific instruction that the distribution to end
users must be made as CC-BY.

You are trying to attach a problem to a particular licence, that could
never, ever be prevented or solved by any licence that exists or could ever
be invented in the future.

Your concerns can only ever be addressed through the agreements an author
makes with a publisher, not through the licence that is offered to end
users.

The only loophole in CC-BY is whether you accept that downstream users
can make commercial use of the work - and if that is a genuine / serious
problem -NC and -SA variants can prevent that.

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

[GOAL] Re: A case for strong fair use / fair dealing with restrictive licenses

[Graham Triggs]

On 29/04/2015 14:09:40, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk wrote:
It is unlikely that many authors have contracts with publishers requiring a 
particular license even at the time of publication.

When an author submits a paper to a journal they often get a selection of 
licenses to choose from. Surely that’s part of the contract to publish?
Agreed - if you are given the choice of a thing, and pay for a thing, then your 
contract is for that thing.
Even for fully OA journals, where there is no selection of a licence, then the 
OA licence that is presented is part of the offering for which you are 
(likely) paying for.
If a specific licence is cited as part of the offering, and there are no terms 
and conditions that allow for it to be varied without the author's permission, 
then there are no legal grounds for changing the licence (without explicit 
permission from the author).
On 29 Apr 2015, at 12:52, Heather Morrison  wrote:

The potential for downstream enclosure posed by CC-BY is not a problem of 
licenses of individual works, but rather the attraction of large masses of 
works for profit-taking if CC-BY succeeds as default.
But who is going to pay for it? Certainly not academic libraries, who would 
know that the CC-BY version exists, and make it available to users.
And the downstream enclosure couldn't legally obscure the existence of the 
CC-BY version - they have to acknowledge it in accordance with the licence 
terms.
A downstream commercial user could compete with Elsevier. Since they don't need 
to bother paying a cent to contribute to the original production costs, 
downstream commercial users are at a relatively advantage compared to the 
original publisher when it comes to added value services.
The downstream commercial user also won't be paid a cent for providing those 
production costs - that will have gone to Elsevier in the form of APCs.
They will largely be competing against Elsevier over something that is free - 
the distribution to end users.
Elsevier wouldn't be making much money - if any - from the distribution. There 
might be some advertising attached, and so consideration of that revenue. But 
in the main, a downstream commercial user trying to sell a distribution 
wouldn't be taking significant revenue from Elsevier - they would just be 
reducing their costs.
If this threatens Elsevier revenue streams (eg competition for Science Direct 
search services as opposed to content, Scopus), it would make business sense 
for Elsevier to change the license for CC-BY works to more limited terms, or to 
revert to toll access and use differential pricing to discourage commercial use.
These are all straw man arguments. We aren't in a hypothetical world of not 
having used CC-BY licences. They have existed and been used in publishing for 
over 10 years.
Look at the growth in publications of BioMed Central (and Springer). And the 
profits they have attracted.
Look at the growth of PLoS, and their avoidance of losing money.
10 years of evidence that publishing CC-BY is not incompatible with commercial 
publishing.
That doesn't mean certain revenue streams may be threatened, and some 
publishers are certainly not actively encouraging a fully CC-BY world. But the 
practical and legal realities of Elsevier doing what you suggest is 
inconceivable.
Regards,
Graham___
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?

[Graham Triggs]

On 14/04/2015 06:44:06, Andrew A. Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp wrote:
I don't think it's this clear-cut. Over on a list of lawyers working on Free
Software legal issues (*) we recently had a discussion about what happens
when someone violates a provision of a free software license. Do they then
lose all access to the software or could they, after simply stopping their
violating behaviour, simply download a new copy of the software and start
using it again? There is generally no language in any of the Free Software
licenses limiting the grant of the rights. Different views were offered and
none have been tested so far in any jurisdiction.
However, the CC licences do have language that says that a violation of the 
licence loses the rights of that licence. And 4.0 adds language that if the 
violation is repaired within 30 days, the rights of the licence are 
automatically returned.
Software may be trickier, as it tends to evolve - how can you breach the 
licence on a piece of code that never existed when you first downloaded it? So 
if a feature is added after you make a licence violation, and then you reuse 
the new code in accordance with the licence is that allowed or not?
There may be similar complications with derivatives - if I violate the CC 
licence on an article and lose the rights granted to me, and the someone else 
publishes a derivative also under a CC licence, to what extent am I able to 
exercise the rights granted to me under CC?
But to the extent that articles tend to be static, the provision for handling 
licence violations is there.
So, if I redistribute a derivate if a CC-ND work, together with a copy of the
original, I can certainly be sued (with a good chance fo success) for
violating the ND element. I doubt that a court would increase damages because
my violation of the ND license then means I didn't have a license to
distribute the original unamended. Would a court order me to stop future
distribution of the unamended work as well? How about simoply keeping a copy
of the original work for my own use?

If you violate the terms of CC linked to a work, and therefore lose your rights 
under CC for that work, then you presumably lose all of the rights - including 
the right to read, let alone redistribute or reuse.
What may be more relevant here is the likelihood of anyone to pursue a 
violation. As long as any future use of a work is in accordance with the CC 
licence, it is highly unlikely that anyone would want to pursue that as a 
violation - it would be against the intention of them issuing a CC licence in 
the first place.
But anyone violating the terms of a CC licence would no longer be licenced 
under CC (for a work). Under those circumstances, providing the original 
violation could be proven - e.g. there was a court judgement - they could be 
pursued and damages awarded in accordance with a breach of copyright, with no 
licence granted.
G___
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?

[Graham Triggs]

On 13/04/2015 14:09:02, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote:
PLOS authors retain copyright. CC licenses are a waiver of one's rights under 
copyright.
That isn't quite true - CC licences are an expression of the rights that you 
grant to end users, and the conditions attached to that licence. Rather than a 
waiver, it is pre-authorisation to exercise rights that are normally reserved 
under copyright, without seeking express permission.

It's a really important difference when you consider that the licence also 
contains conditions under which invalidates the licence for an end user. Say, 
for example, you completely misrepresented someone through re-use of their work 
- that would invalidate the licence as it applies to you. Not only would you be 
unable to re-use the work in that way, you would not be allowed any future 
re-use of the original work under a CC-BY licence, without express permission.
In those circumstances, the full extent of copyright restrictions can be 
applied against you, as someone without access to the CC-BY licence.
However, that does raise an interesting question about licensor vs copyright 
holder - if an end user invalidated the CC-BY licence as granted to them, who 
would be able to authorise any future use: PLoS, or the author(s)?
G___
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?

[Graham Triggs]

On 11/04/2015 15:39:23, Heather Morrison 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 the possibility that 
their work would be sold or re-used in ways that they would not approve of.
So what of the public / funder that finds what they consider to be reasonable 
use of the research they have paid for restricted by the application of a 
certain licence by the academic (/publisher)?
But, it is fair to be concerned about the use of a piece of work, and your 
association to it. You see it quite clearly outside of science - for example, 
with the forthcoming UK Election, musicians get worried about their implied 
endorsement of a party because someone licences their song to be used on a 
party broadcast.
Bear in mind that CC does explicitly provide legal code for misuse as 
invalidating the licence agreement. That doesn't necessarily ease the issues of 
determining misuse and enforcing it, but it would likely cover many potential 
instances of contentious re-use for scientific material.
Refusing to use CC-BY because of the concerns of re-use does not actually 
protect you against uses that you personally don't approve of - it just means 
others aren't by default licenced to do so freely. If anyone has deep enough 
pockets, they can almost certainly purchase the rights they need for re-use 
directly off the publisher, without any specific approval by the author(s).
As evidence, I would note that the current CC-BY license gives licensors the 
authority to insist that downstream users do NOT use attribution. This suggests 
that CC received complaints from licensors whose works were used in ways that 
the licensor did not want to be associated with.
CC-BY is not purely a licence for scientific material. See concerns above about 
political use of creative works, and you can see why there are circumstances 
where individuals would not want to have attribution (for their creative 
materials).
The misuse of scientific material would usually be a more clear cut example of 
misrepresentation - e.g. selective quoting of research in order to support 
quackery - and would invoke the clause that invalidates the licence.
If a blanket 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. I 

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

[Graham Triggs]

On 10 April 2015 at 20:00, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca
wrote:

 is PLOS and not the author that is the Licensor?


That's a fair reading.


 Two reasons why this is important:

  1. If other publishers are making works available to PLOS under CC-BY
 licenses, do they have the right to do so? It has happened with works and
 initiatives that I have been involved with more than once that works that
 were released under other licenses were switched by someone to CC-BY
 licenses without the knowledge or permission of the proper rights-holders.
 This is not an ethical practice, and there are legal and relationship risks
 for people and organizations that do this. Even publishers that fully own
 copyright may not have the right to grant blanket commercial and re-use
 rights downstream; the original author, for a variety of reasons, may not
 have had such rights to grant.


There isn't a single answer to this - depending on what was transferred to
the original publisher, what agreements were made with the original
publisher, then they may or may not have rights to grant other licenses. In
the majority of cases, they probably are going to be able to grant those
licenses.

Where they don't have those rights, and don't seek to obtain those rights,
and yet grant the license anyway, then the proper right-holder can take the
matter to court, and seek appropriate damages.

You can reasonably expect that publishers will actually make all reasonable
efforts to ensure they have the correct rights before granting a different
licence - they may not be too worried about an individual author taking
action against them, but as you say, the author may not be the affected
party, and it's unlikely that they want to risk being pursued by a shark.


 2. When the publisher is the Licensor, note that a CC Licensor has no
 obligation whatsoever to continue to make the work available at all, never
 mind for free or under the same license conditions. A publisher CC-BY
 licensor is fully within their rights to switch these works to toll access,
 change the license and/or to sell their business to another entity that
 prefers a toll access model (unless there is a separate contract with the
 author that forbids this). Note (again) that author copyright retention can
 co-exist with a publisher having rights as a Licensor.


The distinction of a publisher at this point is a little unhelpful. Any
Licensor has no obligation to continue publishing something under a CC
license, as far as the license itself is concerned. Although it's true that
a publisher may - possibly following an acquisition - be more likely to
re-publish works than an individual.

(Even if there was an obligation to continue to make the work available at
all, there would always be cases where that is unenforceable; for instance,
a publisher going out of business and no-one acquiring the content - there
would simply be no entity to hold to account)

But practically, that is of little concern. You can stop publishing
something with a CC license, but you can't revoke it. Anyone that has the
work acquired under a CC license, who has done nothing to invalidate the CC
license, can with proper attribution redistribute / republish that work
[and perpetuate the license]. And as long as it can't be proven that the
work was not acquired and used legally under a CC license (or rather, you
can prove that the work was issued under a CC licence at some point, that
we work in question corresponds to that CC licensed version, and that this
has all been done legally in accordance with that CC licence) then there
isn't anything that anybody can do about it.

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

[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?

[Graham Triggs]

On 8 April 2015 at 22:29, Couture Marc marc.cout...@teluq.ca wrote:

  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”.



And more explicitly from the legal code:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode

Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work
under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time

So it is directly asserted that the licensor (e.g. a publisher) could stop
distributing the work with a CC-BY licence at any time, and distribute the
work with any other licence.

Whether a publisher actually can is not a facet of the CC-BY licence, but
the agreements / contracts entered into with the authors of the work.

As I said before, that the license is irrevocable does not cover what the
licensor is permitted to do in how they choose to distribute / stop
distributing / distribute with a different license. It covers only a
licensee's rights as granted to them when they obtained that work - whether
directly from the licensor, or through a permitted redistribution - in
acceptance of those license terms.

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

[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?

[Graham Triggs]

On 08/04/2015 18:27:24, David Prosser 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: When Gold OA isn't free to non-subscribers!!

[Graham Triggs]

On 27 March 2014 07:37, Andrew A. Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp wrote:

 
 https://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2014/03/26/elseviergate-elsevier-is-still-charging-for-open-access-even-after-i-have-told-them-wellcome-should-take-them-to-court/
  Elseviergate;
  Elsevier is STILL charging for Open Access even after I
  have told them. Wellcome should take them to court

  Someone needs to take formal action against Elsevier. Like taking them
  to court. In this case Wellcome.

 This is yet another reason to prefer the Green route to Open Access.


Although if you are relying on the Green route alone, then it may not be
available immediately, you may not necessarily be retaining ownership,
other people may still have to pay for rights to use your article as they
wish to.

You may not be concerned with those issues, but if you are, then you may
still need to take a Gold option to have them. That doesn't mean that you
don't need to archive the paper / distribute it in many different places -
you absolutely should (that is, after all, what you've paid for).


 Hybrid
 Open Access depends on the publisher actually making the paper freely
 available, while their infrasutrcture is set up, and the incentives are in
 place, for them to default technically to closed access if they have any
 doubt or difficulty about the status ofthat article. Even Gold OA can have
 its problems. I published a paper in the then-new then-OA journal Policy
 and
 Internet in 2010. Last year I happened to follow the link on my own website
 to find that the link was broken, the journal had moved to Wiley and had
 become toll access.


As you point out, iIt's not just a question of the publisher failing to
provide Open Access (which absolutely is a legal / contractual issue, and
you have every right to take formal action to ensure that the contract is
honoured). But what if the publisher goes bankrupt? There may not be an
incentive for another publisher to take over the back-catalog of content
and continue providing Open Access to it (there often is an incentive to
take it and make it available as part of a continuing revenue stream - e.g.
subscription access).

Many publishers do take appropriate action to address such scenarios -
participating in LOCKSS, depositing in PubMed Central, etc. But
fundamentally it comes back to the authors (and/or funders) to ensure that
they have (and will have in perpetuity) the access provision that they care
about - using multiple routes, as appropriate.

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

[GOAL] Re: The dramatic growth of BioMedCentral's open access article processing charges

[Graham Triggs]

Jan Erik, Heather,

There are a number of factors that can be at play here. I think it's
reasonable to suspect that as a journal becomes more established - becoming
better known, more trusted and potentially having greater kudos - that
submission rates increase, and that may well impact on rejection rates.
Costs that then have to be recovered from a proportionally decreasing
number of accepted articles. It may even be an editorial policy to become
more selective.

But you also need to look at the absolute comparison to the market, not
just the changes over time - $1300 (allowing for inflation and membership)
is only slightly more than the cost of publishing in PLoS ONE. And $2155 is
still lower than any of the selective PLoS journals (significantly in the
case of the the higher prestige titles).

So compared to the rates of a not-for-profit selective journal, the current
fees not out of line. That suggests that the initial fees were much more a
promotional rate, rather than any attempt to reflect the true costs of the
journal.

And if you look at the journal itself, it only managed to publish articles
in every month for the first time in 2012. So it's only in the last couple
of years that it can be said to be established enough to transition from a
promotional / establishment period.

The same analysis on the long established BioMed Central titles would
likely show a far less dramatic growth of charges in the last 3 years.

Regards,
G





On 28 February 2014 11:43, Frantsvåg Jan Erik jan.e.frants...@uit.nowrote:

  Interesting numbers!



 Have you investigated if some of this increase could be explained by an
 increased rejection rate? - this would be an acceptable explanation, in my
 opinion.



 The suspicion is, of course, that this could be one result of e.g. the
 RCUK OA policy, which creates a less competitive market and better
 conditions for generating super-profits.



 I think it was Guédon who asked why currency fluctuations always led to
 price increases ... J



 Best,

 Jan Erik



 Jan Erik Frantsvåg

 Open Access adviser

 The University Library of Tromsø

 phone +47 77 64 49 50

 e-mail jan.e.frants...@uit.no


 http://en.uit.no/ansatte/organisasjon/ansatte/person?p_document_id=43618p_dimension_id=88187

 Publications: http://tinyurl.com/6rycjns









 *Fra:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *På
 vegne av* Heather Morrison
 *Sendt:* 28. februar 2014 00:54
 *Til:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 *Emne:* [GOAL] The dramatic growth of BioMedCentral's open access article
 processing charges



 Thanks to the University of Ottawa's open sharing of their author fund
 data, I've been able to calculate that over the past few years there is
 evidence that BMC is raising prices at rates far beyond inflation (and far
 beyond what could be accounted for through currency fluctuations).



 Details are posted here:


 http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2014/02/the-dramatic-growth-of-biomedcentral.html



 Note that this data reflects BMC practices and cannot be generalized to
 open access publishing as a whole. Public Library of Science, for example,
 has achieved a 23% surplus in the same time frame without increasing their
 OA article processing charges at all.



 best,



 --
 Dr. Heather Morrison
 Assistant Professor
 École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
 University of Ottawa

 Desmarais 111-02

 613-562-5800 ext. 7634
 http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
 heather.morri...@uottawa.ca



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


___
GOAL 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

[Graham Triggs]

An exclusive license, that prevents an author from exercising their
copyright rights, may be as good as a copyright transfer as far as a
publisher is concerned.

In terms of the statistics you quote, do you know if that covers all types
of publishers (for-profit, not-for-profit, societies, etc.), and if so, how
does the breakdown correlate with the type of publisher? And how are
publishers that publish a variety of closed, open and hybrid journals
accounted for?

G


On 5 February 2014 13:17, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.ukwrote:

 I find Andrew's experience surprising.  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.  A further 19.6%, though initially asking for transfer of
 copyright, would on request provide a licence document instead.  There had
 been a steady move away from transfer of copyright since 2003.

 Sally



 Sally Morris
 South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
 Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
 Email:  sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk

 -Original Message-
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf
 Of Andrew A. Adams
 Sent: 05 February 2014 00:04
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly
 articles

  Chris Zielinski ziggytheb...@gmail.com wrote:
  But even more prudent authors simply shouldn't sign the copyright
  assignment form - publishers don't need anything more than a licence
  to publish.

 Good luck with that if you're anything other than a tenured professor with
 a
 track record that means where your recent papers are published won't effect
 funding decisions (individually or for your univesity). I tried to apply
 this rule myself a few years ago and after a couple of occasions of getting
 nowhere with the publishers decided that doing this individually was just
 harming my career and not having any impact on the journals.

 Now, I just archive and be damnedposting the author's final text (not the
 publisher PDF) in open depot ignoring any embargoes. If any publisher
 bothered to issue a take-down I'd reset to closed access (and always
 respond
 to button requests). None have so far.

 --
 Professor Andrew A Adams  a...@meiji.ac.jp
 Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and Deputy
 Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
 Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan   http://www.a-cubed.info/


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

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

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

[GOAL] Re: Speech by Dutch junior minister in Berlin

[Graham Triggs]

On 29 January 2014 13:43, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote:

 (*5*) Dekker apparently misunderstands that all peer-reviewed journal
 articles are peer-reviewed, whether Gold or Green.


Researchers will have to go through the peer review process whilst at the
same time publishing another version in a local repository.

What's more, the quality of the publications is also unclear: especially
for users outside the scientific world, it will be hard to discern the
status of quality insurance of all these local repositories.

I guess you can take that any way you want, but I don't see any statement
about articles in repositories not being peer-reviewed.

What there is, is a question mark about what the version in the repository
actually represents - it could be the publisher's version, it could be the
author's copy following peer-review, it could be a version before any
peer-review changes were made.

Apart from the publisher's PDF, you've probably only got an author-provided
statement as to what the version is, if that. What editorial / review
processes has the repository gone through? There are certainly repositories
out there that do not review at all the author submission, and act later to
remove content that shouldn't have been posted if they are alerted to it.

Publisher's will check to see if an author has posted a version they were
not entitled to, but if the posting doesn't breach copyright, who is
checking that it has been clearly and correctly described?

So, what Dekker says is not the Green article may not be peer-reviewed,
but asks how do we know that it represents the peer-reviewed material.
When repositories do not make it clear to people downloading papers what
process of review the deposit went through, that's not an unreasonable
question to ask.

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

[GOAL] Re: Elsevier, Flip your journals to Gold OA and/or offer an acceptable Hybrid Model

[Graham Triggs]

On 20 December 2013 13:51, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote:

 SCOAP3 and the pre-emptive flip model for Gold OA 
 conversionhttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/421-SCOAP3-and-the-pre-emptive-flip-model-for-Gold-OA-conversion.html


To quote:

*5. Conclusions.* In sum, the problem is not only that a Rowsean flip is
profligate and premature at today's asking prices in fields where universal
Green OA self-archiving has not yet downsized publishing and its costs to
their post-OA essentials.

SCOAP3. High Energy Physics. Isn't this the one field that you keep telling
us has 1005 Green OA, via arXiv? Which you also say is why 100% Green OA is
achievable and sustainable, because it hasn't led to journal subscriptions?

But wait! We can't flip to a cheaper Gold OA that will also deliver
immediate access and re-use rights to the final published material, because
it hasn't downsized publishing to post-OA essentials - as Green OA
inevitably will. Despite 20 years of arXiv failing to downsize publishing,
and having reached 100% there is nowhere left for it to go. So in another
20 years we would still be looking at the subscription based status quo -
unless some additional action is taken to change that.


 Fool's Gold: Publisher Ransom for Freedom from Publisher 
 Embargo?http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1066-Fools-Gold-Publisher-Ransom-for-Freedom-from-Publisher-Embargo.html


But the publisher who embargoes Green and then pockets the extra revenue
derived from hybrid Gold, over and above subscriptions, without even
reducing subscription charges proportionately, is indeed charging twice for
publication, i.e., double-dipping (and offering absolutely nothing in
return except *freedom from the publisher's own Green OA embargo*).

Oh, but they do reduce subscription prices, based on Gold OA option uptake:

http://www.nature.com/press_releases/emboopen.html
http://static.springer.com/sgw/documents/1345327/application/pdf/Springer
+Open+Choice_Journal+Price+Adjustments+2013.pdf

And it offers more than freedom from the publisher's own Green OA
embargo. It allows:

1) Authors to retain full copyright
2) [Generally] immediate publication of provisional material upon acceptance
3) [Generally] freely available machine-readable markup (e.g. XML)
4) [Generally] a CC-BY licence for all content consumers

- the use of which can drive economic growth and improve efficiency of
public spending. According to:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/reports/value-and-benefits-of-text-mining

one estimate puts such use of material in the US Health Care sector alone
as delivering $300bn in value per annum. If you believe those numbers, then
that would represent twice the the entire 2011 RD budget for the US (and
more than half of that was in the defence sector). Again, if that was the
case, then it could easily not only justify ring-fencing the RD budget,
but possibly increasing it - potentially by more than the 1% of the budget
that it would take to make everything Gold OA.

But lets not do that. Lets not lower the cost of publishing [maybe only by
a relatively modest amount, but still],. Lets not have authors retain their
copyright. Lets not have freely available marked up content, which can then
drive economic growth. Lets not have economic growth be the reason for
increasing RD spending, allowing more, better research to be conducted.
Lets not do any of that, because the absolute worst thing that anyone can
ever do is make a profit.

But while we're at it, it's probably a good idea to get rid of all of those
other for-profit companies that supply resources that are used in
conducting and reporting on research. After all, aren't Apple supposed to
be making about 25-30% per laptop?

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

[GOAL] Re: Fwd: Institutions: Ignore Elsevier Take-Down Notices (and Mandate Immediate-Deposit)

[Graham Triggs]

On 20 December 2013 13:41, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:

 So why don't subscription publishers use that distinction in their
 policies and provide a simple, human-readable-only version freely, on their
 own web sites (findability, transparency as regards usage), while keeping
 the fully functional, machine-readable version for the professional
 scientist (power-user) covered by subscription pay-walls?


Because if the provisional version was sufficiently human readable, then
all of the subscriptions for providing basic access would be unnecessary,
and cancelled.

Licencing the enhanced, machine-readable version would only occur when
someone justifies that they have a project to text-mine the corpus. At
which point, and despite having theoretically freed up the budget, the
cost would mean that most text-mining efforts never even get off the ground.

And so free [to author] publishing as subscription publishers currently do
would be unsustainable.

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

[GOAL] Re: Hybrid Open Access

[Graham Triggs]

On 18 December 2013 12:07, Andrew A. Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp wrote:


 Graham,

 There is still disagreement as to the exact scope of CC-NC license. For
 example, a University which uses material in a MOOC for which it does not
 charge any fees isclearly NC. However, what about if they offer
 certification
 of completion for a fee (as some do). Does the profit/not-for-profit status
 of the institution (or the platform) make a difference?


Yep, no question that there are times where it may be debatable whether an
activity is non-commercial or commercial. However, two things to consider:

1) If it's a commercial use, you are presumably being paid for the product
/ service. At which point, you just consider the costs of purchasing rights
to re-use as part of your overall costs in determining whether the venture
is commercially viable and what price to set.

2) -NC simply means that you need to have explicit permission from the
copyright holder. This could involve purchasing the rights, but equally,
those rights could be granted at no cost, simply by asking. And that could
mean asking the author, not the publisher.

And let me be clear about this - my personal opinion is that publicly
funded research should be made available as CC-BY, not CC-BY-NC - as is
consistent with the BOAI definition of Open Access. But it's useful to have
a rational discussion about the pros and cons of different licences,
especially where it can reflect on efficient use of public funds.

Oh in terms of profit / not-for-profit status - that explicitly makes no
difference, according to the terms of CC-BY-NC license. What is considered
is the use of the content, and whether that purpose is considered
commercial.

There is clear
 precedent in tax law, for example, of treating some activities of
 non-profit
 organisations as commercial activity (though in the US for 501(c)(3)
 organisations this is usually only applied to activities outside their core
 purpose).


And some commercial companies provide free licences for their paid-for
products to not-for-profits and charities. For example, Atlassian:

https://www.atlassian.com/software/views/community-license-request

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

[GOAL] Re: Elsevier, Flip your journals to Gold OA and/or offer an acceptable Hybrid Model

[Graham Triggs]

On 18 December 2013 12:47, christian.gutkne...@ub.unibe.ch wrote:

 1. Flip your journals to Gold OA. Start with high ranked journals, because
 as you know most researchers still care. Although the true cost of
 publishing remains unclear (http://doi.org/kxz), I think it's safe to say,
 that with an APC between $1500 and $3000 you still can make solid profit.
 Probably not as much as with the subscription model, but still reasonable.
 And if you really have a high ranked journal you can indeed increase the
 price to whatever the demand on researcher side will support.

 Others publisher are doing it:
 http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/PressRelease/pressReleaseId-109721.html
 Why not Elsevier?


Every single one of those are association / society journals. So this
wouldn't be a commercial decision by a publisher, but a political one by
the association / society. After all, you can't really advocate open
access, if your own journals aren't.

Simply making a hybrid journal into open access only would not be
sustainable, unless a significant proportion of the articles are already
utilising the open access option.


 2. Offer an acceptable hybrid model. Avoid double dipping on an
 institutional/consortium/national level (not on a global level as you do
 now). We explicitly requested Elsevier to do so in Switzerland. However

Elsevier refused to come up with a solution that reduces our subscription
 price according the amount of paid hybrid of our authors. Elsevier argued,
 subscription and OA are two independent things and shouldn't be mixed
 financially. This might be true for Elsevier, where local sales manager
 obviously are not aware, what's going on about OA in the own company. But
 it isn't true for any institution which has to care about its budget.


I realise local budgetary issues are a concern. And if you do not have
outside funding for research that includes the publication cost of an OA
option, then making use of an OA option is going to be impossible whilst
you are paying a subscription.

But this is not double dipping. It's just a question of institution /
national affordability.


 How
 can an institution justify additional hybrid costs in a budget if only a
 tiny share will immediately come back with reduced global list prices.
 This may temporary work in UK, but I¹m quite sure they soon will realize
 that Hybrid without reducing the direct subscription cost is not
 sustainable.


In theory, Open Access publishing ought to be justifiable in it's own
right, in terms of doing the right thing and maximizing the benefit of
funding in research.

Where the money comes from, how you allocate funds, etc. are a different
matter, and it may well be that given the funding that you have, an Open
Access option may only be an illusion of a choice.

But Hybrid is reducing the direct subscription cost - for Elsevier, it
appears to be a very minor activity in their hybrid journals, so it is
having minimal effect. But if you look at Embo Journal, various Springer
hybrid journals - there are documented cases of the subscription costs not
just increasing by a lesser amount, but actually reducing in price.


 And yes, other publishers are doing it:
 http://www.rsc.org/publishing/librarians/goldforgold.asp
 Why not Elsevier?


The publishing arm of a royal society. So, it is a political decision to
expedite the transition to Open Access.

And you are right, there is no reason why Elesvier couldn't use the
subscription income as a limited promotion to drive the adoption of Open
Access.

(Note that under this model, as Open Access publishing increases, the
subscription amount and the subsidy for next year's OA publishing would
decrease. So the each year's expenditure would be made up of a decreasing
amount of subscription, and an increasing amount of Open Access APC
payments).

There is no reason why they can't offer such a promotion, but there is also
no reason - for them - why they should. That isn't just an issue about
revenue / profit either - there will be agreements in place that may make
this tricky, there is investment and re-organisation that would be needed
to cope with the transition, and then there are still people questioning
trust of paying to publish instead of paying to read.

Whilst we are all very vocal about wanting Open Access, it still doesn't
quite translate to the entire community just yet.

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

[GOAL] Re: Hybrid Open Access

[Graham Triggs]

On 17 December 2013 22:38, Couture Marc marc.cout...@teluq.ca wrote:

  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).


To re-iterate a previous discussion, an exclusive publishing license exists
between the author and the publisher, and can not limit anyone downstream
with what they can do according to the terms of the licence they have been
granted. So anything that is CC-BY would allow full derivative and
commercial use providing there is appropriate attribution. It's impossible
for the exclusive license to limit that.

For rights not covered by the licence (e.g. commercial use for an -NC), and
this may be dependent on the license between author / publisher (but it
would need to be more specific than exclusive publishing rights of the
article), then the copyright holder is able to grant those rights.

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

[GOAL] Re: Hybrid Open Access

[Graham Triggs]

On 18 December 2013 06:41, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

 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.


 This may be true in theory, but I have never heard of an *author*, at
 least in scientific disciplines, issuing a take-down notice or taking an
 exploiter to court. Please give counterexamples if they exist.


The publisher may be given (or rather, have requested) rights to police
copyright infringement on behalf of the author. You are probably right that
an author would not issue such a notice - certainly not to other scholars -
but the safest route is to simply request permission from the copyright
holder (author). It is similarly unlikely that they would refuse such
permission, and there is nothing an acting authority could do if you have
that permission.


 The exploitation is carried out by the *publisher* through CCC Rightslink.
 This does not involve the author (IMO it absolutely should) - it is a
 monopoly business carried out by the publisher. I would be amazed if 0.1%
 of authors understood they had handed over effective exploitation rights to
 CCC+publisher. CCC Rightslink nowhere mentions authors - this is why I use
 the word irrelevant - it only mentions the publisher, even where the
 copyright is still held by the author. In effect the publisher is
 exploiting the author without involving them.


The publisher may have rights to sell the content / re-sell commercial
rights. Such purchases may be unnecessary according to the licence a work
is distributed under, but it's not illegal (but false advertising of the
sale - such as incorrectly asserting who holds copyright - is).

But also, unless it is covered specifically by a licensing agreement
between the author and publisher (and what has been documented so far as an
exclusive right to publish probably isn't sufficient), then the copyright
holder is able to grant rights.

As for exploitation...


 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.


 If you manage all permissions yourself then this may be true but I would
 need to see details - which Journal?.  If you involve CCC RightsLink I
 would be very surprised if the exploitation - including pricing - was not
 done by the publisher without reference to individual authors.

 And please reconsider NC. It does a lot of harm beyond the RightsLink
 stuff. It is not allowed by many funders and cannot be deposited in the
 Open Access subset of (Europe) PMC


I agree with you about the other problems about funders and OA subset.
However, let's just step back a minute and think about the bigger picture.

An -NC licence does not prevent any scholarly use of the content, which by
definition, would be non-commercial. It only covers commercial interests,
and purchasing those rights would come from private funds.

If an -NC licence allowed the authors (funders) to pay a lower APC, with
the balance expected to be made up from commercial sales to private funds,
then this would reduce the burden of publishing on the public purse, at no
harm to scholarly use.

Arguably, that could be considered a good thing. Although more likely it
would be seen that the public expenditure as an investment to allow
commercial use to drive economic growth outweighs the small cost difference.

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

[GOAL] Re: Hybrid Open Access

[Graham Triggs]

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.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.org [mailto: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 RightsLink demanding payments
 for OA reuse?  I'd really like to know details.


   --
 Laura Markstein Quilter / lquil...@lquilter.net

 *Attorney, Geek, Militant Librarian, Teacher *
 Copyright and Information Policy Librarian
 University of Massachusetts, Amherst
 lquil...@library.umass.edu

 Lecturer, Simmons College, GSLIS
 laura.quil...@simmons.edu



 On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk
 wrote:

 Moving the discussion to a new title...




 On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 9:16 AM, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk
 wrote:



 What my paper missed and what may have been obvious at the time, but which
 I only saw with hindsight, were the biggest problems with the model:



 1. There is little incentive for the publisher to set a competitive APC.
  It is clear that in most cases APCs for hybrids are higher than APCs for
 born-OA journals.  But as the hybrid is gaining the majority of its revenue
 from subscriptions why set a lower APC - if any author wants to pay it then
 it is just a bonus.  Of course, this helps explains the low take-up rate
 for OA in most hybrid journals - why pay a hight fee when you can get
 published in that journal for free?  And if you really want OA then best go
 to a born-OA journal which is cheaper and may well be of comparable quality.



 2. There is little pressure on the publisher to reduce subscription
 prices.  Of course, everybody says 'we don't double dip', but this is
 almost impossible to verify and  from a subscriber's point of view very
 difficult to police.  I don't know of any institution, for example, in a
 multi-year big deal who has received a rebate based on OA hybrid content.




   There are several other concerns about hybrid:

 * the unacceptable labelling and licensing of many TA publishers. Many
 hybrid papers are not identified as OA of any sort, others are labelled
 with confusing words Free content. Many do not have licences, some have
 incompatible rights.

 * many are linked to RightsLink which demand payment (often huge) for Open
 Access reuse

 * many deliberately use Non-BOAI compliant licences. One editor mailed me
 today and said the the publisher was 

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

[Graham Triggs]

On 17 December 2013 16:32, Couture Marc 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

[Graham Triggs]

On 14 December 2013 20:53, Jean-Claude Guédon 
jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote:

  Regarding an earlier post of your that seemed to complain that OA
 advocates are using too narrow and too strict a definition of open access,
 you might consider that the publishing industry, for its part, has done its
 utmost to confuse issues by throwing all kinds of new terms.


Which terms have been introduced by the publishing industry? The majority
of the terms that I see regularly were introduced - or at least claimed to
have been - by scholars.

The publishing industry has been fairly quick to make use of the variety of
terms though - some in attempting to best engage with and understand the
needs and desires of the academic community; others to preserve their
business models for as long as possible.


 Finally, the focus of OA is not to destroy the publishing industry. Saying
 this amounts to some form of paranoia. Some OA advocates, including myself,
 are very angry at some members of the publishing industry, but these are
 individuals, not the OA movement. Some OA supporters try to imagine
 alternatives to the present publishing system.


It's kind of difficult to say that somebody outside of the publishing
industry is paranoid in stating that some sections of the OA movement are
attempting to destroy the publishing industry. You might say that it is
ignorant to believe that some OA supporters are merely speculating on
alternatives, without hoping - attempting, even - to engineer a situation
that destroys the publishing industry.


 Some os us strongly feel that research communication comes first, and the
 publishing industry a distant second, so that the publishing industry
 should not consider scholarly communication as if it were a gold mine ready
 to be pillaged at will (45% profit, to my mind, is pillaging, and pillaging
 a lot of public money, to boot). But perhaps I am a little too precise
 here... [image: :-)]


Profits alone are not a good measure of whether the public purse is being
pillaged or not. They are just the difference between revenue and costs. At
which point:

1) Publisher revenue does not just come from the public purse - sales to
privately funded institutions, personal subscriptions, reprints,
advertising...

2) For everything that they do (which may or may not be appropriate), the
publishing industry is very, very good at reducing costs.

Ultimately, the public purse is not necessarily disadvantaged by engaging
with for-profit industries; although it could benefit from ensuring there
are competitive markets. You can argue that the publishing industry could
stand to reduce it's profits by charging less - but there is no guarantee
that an alternative would take less money overall from the public purse.

Finally, I would like you to think seriously and deeply about what Jacinto
 Dávila wrote in response to you. Developing nations are hit in a number of
 nasty ways by a communication system that seems to think that knowledge is
 not fit for Third World brains, or that Third World brains are good enough
 only if they focus on problems defined by rich countries. Make no mistake
 about this: the anger in those parts of the world where 80% of humanity
 lives is rising and what the consequences of this anger will be, I cannot
 foretell, but they will likely be dire and profound. If I were in your
 shoes, I would be scared.


From free and low cost access programmes, through APC waivers, and
charitable partnerships, the publishing industry does a lot more for
developing nations than the picture you are painting.

Is it perfect? No. Could more be done? Probably. Can the industry do it
alone? No.

If you want to see the situation improve, then it's going to take funders
and researchers to work with the publishing industry.

Or you could try and ignore the industry entirely. But simply depositing
research in institutional repositories does not necessarily solve
developing nation's access problems, and does not necessarily solve their
publishing problems.

G
face-smile.png___
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

[Graham Triggs]

On 16 December 2013 20:28, Jean-Claude Guédon 
jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote:

  Who introduced hybrid journals? who introduced delayed open access
 - an oxymoron if there ever was one? What about Elsevier's universal
 access? etc. etc.


Admittedly, universal access is somewhat confusing.

As for delayed open access, then publishers themselves likely did not
introduce it. Searching, I could not find any instances of publishers using
the term. Although, there was an article 10 years ago by a publisher's
association that mentioned it.

It shouldn't be surprising that publishers may be very careful about how
they cite terms like Open Access, because - unlike scholars debating the
issue - they could actually be charged with false advertising if they
misled people through incorrect use of the terms.

And yes, if you take the whole definition of Open Access, which includes
immediate, then delayed open access is an oxymoron, But the so can
green open access (and certainly gratis open access), when by and large
this does not provide a liberal licence as also defined by BOAI.

Actually, you can find journals (such as RNA), who provide their delayed
access content under a Creative Commons licence. Some would argue that is
closer to Open Access than simply providing eyes-only access to content.

 Ultimately, the public purse is not necessarily disadvantaged by engaging
 with for-profit industries; although it could benefit from ensuring there
 are competitive markets. You can argue that the publishing industry could
 stand to reduce it's profits by charging less - but there is no guarantee
 that an alternative would take less money overall from the public purse.


 Profits alone begin to indicate where the problem lies, just by comparison
 between publishers. Enough money comes from the public purse in many
 countries (Canada, for example, or most European countries) to justify my
 anger. As for point 2, it is quite laughable. Why does not Elsevier reduce
 its profit rate then? The answer is that each journal is a small monopoly
 in itself. And in monopoly situations, what is the incentive to reduce
 pricing?


Correct, there is little competitive pressure to force publisher's to
reduce the prices they charge.

But for point 2, I never said that they reduce costs to consumers - e.g.
the price. I said they reduce costs. *Their* costs. Aside from any
competitive pressure [that currently doesn't exist] on prices, profit will
always provide an incentive to commercial publishers to drive the
underlying costs down.

If you remove commercial interests from publishing, then there is little
incentive to chase market share, and little incentive to reduce the
underlying costs. And if provision of non-commercial publishing is [too]
fragmented, then it won't benefit from economies of scale either.

Like for like, service for service, the underlying costs for
non-competitive, non-commercial publishing, will likely be higher than the
underlying costs for commercial publishers. And there is no guarantee that
they will be lower than the prices that commercial publishers charge [or
would charge under an open access / APC business model].


  Is it perfect? No. Could more be done? Probably. Can the industry do it
 alone? No.


 It would be a lot cheaper if the industry got out of the way.


This is speculation. Which may be right. In fact, it may well be right if
you are comparing it to the current subscription market. But it's not
guaranteed, and it's less likely to be true compared to APC-paid Open
Access publishing.

There are good reasons to believe that a truly competitive commercial
market - involving for-profit publishers - would be cheaper than removing
the commercial publishers.

 If you want to see the situation improve, then it's going to take funders
 and researchers to work with the publishing industry.


 I would rather see funders support publicly supported efforts such as
 Scielo or Redalyc in Latin America. The publishing industry does not need
 yet another subsidy to begin expanding its potential markets.


According to this:
http://blog.scielo.org/en/2013/09/18/how-much-does-it-cost-to-publish-in-open-access/#.Uq-RWvRdV8E,
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. It's even more or less the same price that PLoS One should
be, once you adjust for their 23% surplus. And this is whilst the the
market [for Open Access publishing] is still small and not truly
competitive.

At that level, there is every reason to believe that commercial publishing
could, at the low end, compete and better SciELO publishing for price, even
whilst making a profit

But then all funders need do is support publicly supported and commercial
efforts on an equal basis - i.e. funding the APC to publish in either - and
foster an environment that lets the market decide 

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

[Graham Triggs]

On 13 December 2013 13:14, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.ukwrote:

  The few responses to my original posting have all focused on whether the
 'credo' of the BBB declarations is or is not fundamental to the underlying
 concept of OA.  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'


If you are talking about Open Access - as defined by BOAI - rather than
public access, then no. I don't agree with you. To a large extent, real
Open Access has come about in conjunction with, and driven by, the
publishing industry - whether that is for-profit or non-profit players.

The focus of some people who align themselves as being part of the open
access movement - but don't necessarily demand Open Access in the defined
sense - could be argued is the destruction of the publishing industry.

Peter can state his own opinion, but I don't see him as necessarily being
that anti-publisher. He is anti-restricted access, he is anti-giving up
ownership. There are plenty of commercially operated publishers that
provide compatible terms - generally for an upfront APC, instead of a
toll-access subscription.

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


You could arguably say that access provided by repositories is not so
self-evidently beneficial. Many won't hit access barriers, due to
institutional subscriptions, so they have no need to seek out a repository
alternative when the version of record is readily available. They aren't
conferring any extra rights for text mining, re-use, etc. And they simply
aren't that visible to them, so they don't necessarily see who and how they
benefit. They may not even realise the repository exists where they can put
their content.

Imho, it's easier to demonstrate the benefit of Open Access publishing, and
maybe more might be willing to choose that route. Except they see the cost
of possibly not publishing with the leading journal. They see the cost of
having to pay an APC. And it's not even as simple as saying make funds
available to pay the APCs, because authors don't necessarily know that the
funds are available, that they can claim, or how to. Wellcome Trust has
already been down the route of simply making funds available to pay APCs,
and it didn't make much difference to the take up - it took working with
publishers to automatically route submissions that were associated with
Wellcome funding to go via the Open Access route.

So certainly more education, but possibly still a little coercion may
always be required.

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

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

[Graham Triggs]

On 11 December 2013 20:13, Bosman, J.M. j.bos...@uu.nl wrote:

  Let me be clear on this. My suggestion to move the discussion on peer
 review to another list has nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing with
 anyone. It has to do with the degree to which peer review is related to
 Open Access. Even with zero open access peer review would reach its limits
 and needs to change. I think peer review discussions are more fruitful in a
 forum that focusses on innnovations in scholarly communication rather than
 just open access, although of course some lines that converge and
 intersect.


Well, at the risk of putting words into the mouths of others, I find it
hard to believe that there is anyone - even advocates of traditional
publishing - who thinks it is a good idea to deny access to the outputs of
quality research.

Two highly substantive issues about open access are cost and credibility.
Closed access publishing is not immune to the potential flaws in peer
review, but open access can provide more opportunity and incentive to
leverage flawed peer review.

Whilst the major [open access] publishers have maintained a commitment to
honest peer review, the same can't be said of every operating publisher.

This list may not be the appropriate place for an in-depth discussion about
changing the peer review process. But assuring the credibility of open
access - in particular open access publishing - is inextricably linked to
peer review, and how it is conducted. And a discussion of any changes would
also impact on how much open access [publishing] costs, and how it is
funded.

On that basis, it would be impractical to consider peer review as off topic
for an open access list - but any discussion would also need to recognise
that there is a larger audience that needs to be involved (but then that is
true of any list that people choose to subscribe to, regardless of it's
scope).

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

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly CompromisesCredibilityofBeall's List

[Graham Triggs]

On 12 December 2013 15:14, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.ukwrote:

  But I still feel that the BOAI definition may be an unnecessarily
 tight/narrow definition of the end: optimal scholarly exchange, as you put
 it (or unimpeded access to research articles for those who need to read
 them, as I would perhaps more narrowly describe it)


Sorry Sally, but I really have to disagree. It is a definition for what a
number of people considered to be important. Plus, it is consistent with
the other existing definitions of open ... (such as open source).

Clearly, other people may have a different opinion. Some may feel that
everyone who needs access already has it (or they at least don't feel that
people denied access are particularly relevant to them). Others may believe
that only being able to read is important, and additional terms, whilst
beneficial are not as necessary, and may be holding back delivering
access.

That doesn't mean that the BOAI definition is too narrow. It means that
people are campaigning for a different end. Which is fine. But as they are
different ends (with some similarities), let's call them different things.
We have Open Access - as defined by BOAI, and there is public access,
which provides the ability to read for free, but with none of the other
freedoms.

Let people choose which unambiguously defined term provides for optimal
scholarly exchange, rather than redefining a 10 year-old term, changes to
which nobody will ever be able to agree on.

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

[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: [SIGMETRICS] Elsevier Study Commissioned by UK BIS

[Graham Triggs]

On 7 December 2013 12:56, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote:

 4. The majority of publishers with Green OA embargoes have an embargo of
 one year (though 60%, including Elsevier and Springer, have no embargo at
 all).


That's not true - Springer have adopted a 12 month embargo, and Elsevier
require an embargo for non-voluntary deposits. (You can argue as much as
you like about whether you can call a spade a fork, it doesn't change what
the policy is).

Further, your claim of 60% seems to be entirely based on Sherpa/RoMEO data
- which you usually provide links to. Except the classifications of RoMEO
alone does not lead to saying that 60% of journals / publishers have no
embargo, as when you read through the restrictions, what you CAN do may be
listed as being subject to an embagro (as in the case of Elsevier and
Springer).

The reasoning is that since free access after a year is a foregone
 conclusion, because of Green mandates, it's better if that free access is
 provided by publishers as Gold, so it all remains in their hands
 (navigation, search, reference linking, re-use, re-publication, etc.).


Actually, providing that a CTA has been signed as part of publishing the
article, then the re-use and re-publication is only possible in accordance
with the licence(s) that the publisher allows the content to be distributed
under. So, regardless of whether the content is on another site or not, the
[publisher granted rights via CTA] still retain that control.

Everyone gets Gold access after a year, and that's the end of it. Back to
 business as before -- unless the market prefers to pay the same price that
 it pays for subscriptions, in exchange for immediate, un-embargoed Gold OA
 (as in SCOAP3 or hybrid Gold).


Where do you get same price from? Estimates put subscription revenue per
article at around $4,000-$5,000, whereas even high-price hybrid Gold is
only $3,000 an article (with an industry average closer to $1,000 per
article).

Your claim regarding SCOAP3 might have more substance if it wasn't a
library and funding agency led initiative to reduce the cost of publishing
in physics - something that 20 years of 100% OA in arXiv has failed to do.

And* the inevitable is immediate Green OA*, with authors posting their
 refereed, accepted final drafts immediately upon acceptance for
 publication. That version will become the version of record, because 
 *subscriptions
 to the publisher's print and online version will become unsustainable once
 the Green OA version is free for all*.


If it was immediate Green OA of the refereed, accepted final draft (and it
could be trusted that was the case), then there might be a chance of that
happening. Might.

Not that print is necessarily under threat from that - if people want print
[enough], then they would continue to pay for it, regardless of where else
it may exist, or at what cost.

But that isn't what's happening, is it? Springer and Elsevier have
introduced and/or lengthened embargoes in response to Green mandates (in
Elsevier's case, the clause is specifically invoked by the presence of a
mandate).

These embargoes are going to exist as long as publishers believe that they
are necessary. And so, if you expect to continue to publish -at no author
cost - in the journals you choose to now, you are only going to see
embargoes disappear if people will continue to pay the subscriptions.


 as Fair Gold (instead of today's over-priced, double-paid and
 double-dipped Fool's Gold) out of a fraction of the institutional annual
 windfall savings from their cancelled annual subscriptions.


And the evidence of double-dipping is?

On the other hand, not only has Wellcome stated there are indications of
subscription price rises being constrained appropriately by limited uptake
of hybrid Gold options, we have actual statements of subscription prices
REDUCED because of Gold uptake in others:

http://www.nature.com/press_releases/emboopen.html
http://static.springer.com/sgw/documents/1345327/application/pdf/Springer+Open+Choice_Journal+Price+Adjustments+2013.pdf


 So both the 1-year embargo on Green and the 1-year release of Gold are
 attempts to fend off the above: *OA has become a fight for that first
 year of access: researchers need and want it immediately; publishers want
 to hold onto it unless they continue to be paid as much as they are being
 paid now.*


No, publishers are going to hold onto it unless they continue to be paid *what
they see* as a fair return on their costs.

I can't ever see there not being a tension between academics and
[commercial] publishers over profits. But changing the business model so
that you pay upfront for publishing services can and will reduce the
overall cost to the scholarly community.

However, it would be a mistake to just talk about first year of access.
Ownership of materials is also important. Aside from the other opportunity
costs, not retaining ownership is what allows these embargoes to exist.

Changing the 

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

[Graham Triggs]

On 10 December 2013 13:05, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

 There is a general point: the Elsevier site(s) are riddled with Open
 Access inconsistencies. I have discovered at least:

 * open access articles behind paywalls
 * articles advertised as open access but not labelled anywhere
 * (private correspondence) articles paid for as open access but never
 posted as such  (espite correspondence by authors)
 * articles without any statement of open access (IMO both the HTML and PDF
 should have clear statements)


The question is whether these are honest mistakes, system failures, or
something more deliberate.

Occasionally, things are going to go wrong - especially when you are
talking about options (e.g. as in a hybrid journal) rather than a blanket
policy across a journal or publisher.

However, they would still represent a breach of the contract that was
agreed when the article was published. Which would mean two things:

1) The publisher should act quickly to comply with the terms of the contract

2) Compensation could be due to the injured party(ies)

Which ought to mean refunding the author a portion of their APC (maybe
1/365th for each day or part day that it is closed access). And refunding
anyone who paid to have access to the article.


 * articles with conflicting messages (CC-BY and All rights reserved)


Copyright vs distribution / usage licence. These aren't really conflicting
- in fact, it's only through asserting copyright that you can provide a CC
licence. The reader is [still] granted the rights that have been reserved
through copyright.

There are other serious deficiencies:
 * the licence is often many pages down the paper (e.g. just before the
 references and very difficult to locate). It must be on the visible section
 of page 0.
 * the Rightslink is seriously broken.


These are standards issues - or rather, that there is enough room for
variability in what is legally required to actually make this difficult for
users. So in order to make things easier, the industry should agree some
standards that they will comply with.

G
___
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

[Graham Triggs]

On 10 December 2013 13:38, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:05, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

 Elsevier are the worst offender that I have investigated, followed by
 Springer who took all my Open Access images, badged them as (C)
 SpringerImages and offered them for resale at 60 USD per image. Just
 because OA is only 5% of your business doesn't mean practice can be
 substandard.


 Peter, what licence did you publish your OA images under? CC-BY? If so,
 re-labelling them as © Springer is a form of copyright breach
 (actionable?), but selling them isn't, of course


Potentially, the images could be claimed to be derivative works, which
could then by copyrighted. Springer no doubt does format conversions,
resizing, etc. that may qualify this. And branding would presumably be
watermarking to make the images unusable without a fee.

 However, even a copyrighted derivative should acknowledge the original
copyright. Or even in terms of watermarking to make unpaid images unusable,
they could use the original copyright.

As Jan notes, providing a separate service that may be of value to those
purchasing content via that means is not necessarily in conflict with open
access.

And as you have entered into a publishing agreement with Springer, that
will no doubt include granting the rights to re-use the content elsewhere -
including making the images available in a commercial service, even if the
OA licence is infact CC-NC (or CC-NC-ND). (In fact, this can be of use to
users, being able to purchase commercial use rights where the CC licence
does not provide them).

None of this [should] prevent the free use / re-use of images made
available within the context of an open access article - i.e. if I go to
the open access article, and download an image from there, I should be able
to use it in accordance with the CC licence granted.

Providing a separate, chargeable service to serve a different market with
different needs is not necessarily wrong - offering different sizes,
tagging for discovery (of images, rather than articles), possibly
commercial rights, are all value adds. Ultimately people can choose to
use [and pay] for it, or not. But they ought to be able to seek out the
open access publication, and use the material acquired from there under the
terms of the open access licence that is given.

G
___
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

[Graham Triggs]

On 9 December 2013 00:20, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.cawrote:

 Alicia,

 According to your statement below, with CC-BY the only restriction placed
 by Elsevier is for attribution. However, the Elsevier open access license
 policy clearly states that Elsevier demands an exclusive license to publish
 with open access works (including CC-BY). Can you explain this discrepancy?


I don't believe this is a discrepancy. What it is saying that the
definitive record is published by Elsevier, and the author provides an
exclusive licence in order to do so.

Re-publishing, or re-distributing via any other venue constitutes a
derivative work, which is permissible and does not conflict with the
exclusive licence (which is only on the definitive record, not the
derivative) - providing the proper attribution is in place.

Without the exclusive licence to the definitive record, then as the author
retains copyright, then in theory the author could authorize publishing of
a version of the definitive record without attribution to the Elsevier
version.

It's a question of preserving the version of record. The difference between
the author providing a licence to Elsevier to distribute an article under
CC-BY, and the author providing a CC-BY licence to Elsevier.

Comment: Based on this wording it is clear that Elsevier is requiring an
 exclusive publishing license. This is not compatible with your explanation
 below that nothing is required beyond attribution as required by the CC-BY
 license.


It is consistent - the article can be re-published elsewhere, providing it
is accordance with the CC-BY licence, including attribution to the
definitive record as published by Elsevier.

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

[GOAL] Re: UK and Paid vs Free Gold OA Journals

[Graham Triggs]

On 1 December 2013 02:35, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote:

 Because thanks in part to Finch/RCUK's folly and profligacy, many (perhaps
 even most) of the subscription journals that UK authors publish in have
 lately and happily offered hybrid Gold to UK authors in the hope of cashing
 in on the UK's generous Fool's Gold hand-out. (And that's paid Fool's Gold,
 not Free Gold, which is not Fool's Gold but merely irrelevant.)


Which journals have started to offer hybrid Gold recently [as a response to
Finch/RCUK]? When you look at the likes of Elsevier, they started to
introduce 7 years ago, or Springer who started Open Choice 9 years ago.
They may have extended their programmes recently to cover more journals,
but the process has been in place for much longer than the RCUK policy has
been in discussion.

Not that cashing in makes much sense anyway, when
studieshttp://www.nature.com/news/open-access-the-true-cost-of-science-publishing-1.12676
put
the average subscription article revenue at $4,000 - $5,000, whereas APCs
are typically below $3,000 (and average closer to $1,000).

And before you say that subscription costs are rising despite hybrid
options, not only have the likes of Wellcome found that subscription rises
are being held back by increasing take up of open access options, there is
actually evidence of some subscription prices going DOWN because of the use
of open access options:

http://www.nature.com/press_releases/emboopen.html
http://static.springer.com/sgw/documents/1345327/application/pdf/Springer+Open+Choice_Journal+Price+Adjustments+2013.pdf

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

[GOAL] Re: Bohannon study: No damage

[Graham Triggs]

On 13 October 2013 20:53, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote:

 It would be nice if we could all agree to stop conflating OA with Gold OA!


It would be nice if we could all agree to stop conflating Green with OA.
http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#openaccess

free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read,
download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of
these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or
use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or
technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the
internet itself

Public access *is* important - it just shouldn't be conflated, imho.

But different strokes...

It would also be good to distinguish pay-to-publish Gold OA from
 non-pay-to-publish Gold OA, though it has to be admitted that the Gold OA
 journals that most of the controversy (not just Junk, but Finch) is about
 are the pay-to-publish Gold OA journals, whether junk or not.


Fewer than half of the pay-to-publish journals listed by DOAJ accepted the
article.
Almost all of the known / suspected questionable journals listed by Beall
accepted the article.

So it has nothing to do with being pay-to-publish Gold OA. If you submit to
a known/suspected questionable journal, you are very, very likely to get a
questionable outcome.

For everything else, your experience will vary.

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

[GOAL] Re: Bohannon study: No damage

[Graham Triggs]

On 12 October 2013 20:28, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote:

 It is a specific problem of *peer review standards of pay-to-publish Gold
 OA journals* at a time when there is still far too little OA and when
 most journals are still subscription journals, most authors are still
 confused about OA, many think that OA is synonymous with Gold OA journals,
 and, most important, there are not yet enough effective mandates from
 research funders and institutions that require authors to make all their
 papers OA by depositing them in their institutional OA repositories (Green
 OA), regardless of where they were published.


Telling authors that pay-to-publish Gold OA journals are bad (when they are
not per se, just the known predatory ones), and then mandating that they
make their papers open access (well, public access, by depositing to the
repository), is hardly going to make them less confused.


 And each round of peer review (which peers do for free, by the way, so the
 only real cost is the qualified editor who evaluates the submissions, picks
 the referees, and adjudicates the referee reports -- plus the referee
 tracking and communication software) would be paid for on a no-fault
 basis, *per round of peer review*, whether the outcome was acceptance,
 rejection, or revision and resubmission for another (paid) round of peer
 review.

 Unlike with today's Fool's Gold junk journals that were caught by
 Bohannon's sting, not only will no-fault post-Green, Fair-Gold peer-review
 remove any incentive to accept lower quality papers (and thereby reduce the
 reputation of the journal) -- because the journal is paid for the peer
 review service in any case -- but it will help make Fair-Gold OA costs even
 lower, per round of peer review, because it will not wrap the costs of the
 rejected or multiply revised and re-refereed papers into the cost of each
 accepted paper, as they do now.


Nope. It will replace the incentive to publish lower quality papers with
minimal peer review, with an incentive to run it through a couple of peer
review rounds. And as you can't actually force journals to adopt this
model, then there will always remain predatory journals that provide a
means for lower quality papers to be published.

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

[GOAL] Re: Fool's Gold vs. Fair Gold

[Graham Triggs]

On 7 October 2013 21:31, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote:

  *SH:* But with post-Green Fair Gold, the production and distribution and
 their costs are gone
 -- offloaded onto the global network of Green OA IRs. And the peer
 review costs are paid
 for as a service (most sensibly, a no-fault service for the review,
 regardless of outcome).


 *GT:* There would of course be no implications to the quality of
 production, discoverability or usability of the research. It's as if you
 are saying simply making a PDF is good enough, when PDFs are not all
 created equal, and aren't always as portable as they should be.


 Nothing of the sort. The only function of post-Green Fair-Gold OA is peer
 review: no type-setting, no print edition, no online edition, no PDFs, no
 access-provision, no archiving. -- All of that will be offloaded onto the
 global network of Green OA repositories.


You are very keen to have the market test your hypotheses on Green OA.
And yet you ignore all of the market testing of services that are currently
being provided.

[Major] Publishers are not in the habit of incurring costs unnecessarily.
If there was no desire for type-setting, print edition, online edition,
PDFs - then they would cut the costs of providing them, and make even
larger profits.

And so if (and it would be a very big if) publishers were not providing the
full range of services, then the global network of repositories would
*have* to do a lot more than they currently do. That's going to work out a
lot more expensive than you are bargaining for - especially when you fail
to cost or even acknowledge it at all.

 *GT:*
 https://scholasticahq.com/innovations-in-scholarly-publishing/announcement/one-of-the-biggest-bottlenecks-in-open-access-publishing-is-typesetting-it-shouldn-t-be


 No type-setting.


From that very link - Nonetheless, presentation absolutely still matters
to the scholarly community. A scholar writing a blog post about
DIY-typesetting says that, I still prefer reading typeset PDFs of journal
articles to manuscripts.

Despite your assertions, there is value to type-setting - people will pay
for it, whoever does it. And it's not necessarily going to be cheaper or
better for that to not be a publisher.


  *GT:* Based on what? Is that the cost, or the price? What margins are
 you allowing for? How many rounds are there going to be (on average)?


 Based on 25 years as editor-in-chief of a rigorously peer-reviewed journal.

Number of rounds depends on quality of paper.


OK, so how about answering the substantive questions?


 What costs (per paper)? And what costs for providing access? We're
 talking about a server, disk-space and clicks.


You have 25 years experience as editor-in-chief. I have 20 years experience
in providing infrastructure, and your description (and presumably cost
expectation) is woefully short.


  *GT:* And that's without any provision for being able to innovate in the
 delivery services provided - making things accessible from mobile devices,
 or possibly even in just making them accessible at all (nobody wants to
 fall foul of disability discrimination laws).


 And sheltering the homeless and feeding the hungry.

 Let's cross those bridges when we get to them. This is just about
 providing Green OA by depositing the refereed draft in the institutional
 repository immediately upon acceptance for publication...


We've already come to those bridges, which is why the publishers are
crossing them. Dumping files on an FTP server was revolutionary 20 years
ago, when scholarly communication was mainly print. The world has moved on,
and what you advocate as necessary is barely acceptable as a minimum
standard. In fact, it probably wouldn't even be legal. (Accessability acts,
data protection, etc.)


   *SH: *If it's hybrid Fool's Gold, then their payments may even be
 double-dipped.

 The only evidence I've seen - e.g. Wellcome Trust's presentation -
 indicates the contrary.


 Say what...?


http://de.slideshare.net/Wellcome/mandating-open-access-wellcome-trust-presentation

Slide 11. That's the closest I've seen to evidence regarding subscription
prices in hybrid journals - collected by a funder (and so for whom
monitoring such things is quite important).

As I've said before - if you have *any* substantive evidence of even one
publisher double-dipping, then go ahead and post / link to it.


  *GT:* And besides - if you are paying an APC for an article to be made
 open access, then you have entered into a contract with the publisher
 whereby they have to make it available openly, in accordance with the terms
 in that contract. They are only double-dipping if they are making it closed
 access and charging for it - in which case they are in breach of contract.


 No, that's not what double-dipping means.

Subscription revenue + Gold OA revenue = double-dipping: Charging twice for
 the publication of the same article.


No. It's *exactly* what it means.

The subscription revenue would 

[GOAL] Re: Fool's Gold vs. Fair Gold

[Graham Triggs]

On 5 October 2013 23:31, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Graham Triggs grahamtri...@gmail.comwrote:

 In an author-pays model, the author is paying in part for the
 peer-review, editing,

 production, distribution - which are all replicable and comparable
 services between

 publishers, and in part the reputation of the journal they are being
 published in


 That's with pre-Green Fool's Gold.


Well, it was a response to what author-pays and subscription based options
exist today. What opportunities the market may develop in the future aren't
really practical to comment on.


 But with post-Green Fair Gold, the production and distribution and their
 costs are gone
 -- offloaded onto the global network of Green OA IRs. And the peer review
 costs are paid
 for as a service (most sensibly, a no-fault service for the review,
 regardless of outcome).


There would of course be no implications to the quality of production,
discoverability or usability of the research. It's as if you are saying
simply making a PDF is good enough, when PDFs are not all created equal,
and aren't always as portable as they should be.


 And the reason you choose to be reviewed first by this journal is because
 of its
 track-record for quality (as reflected in its title). No extra charge.


Maintaining a track record will inevitably involve higher (per-paper) costs
than having a low standard - even if you were only paying for peer-review,
on a per round basis.

The editorial function of evaluating the submission, picking referees, and
 adjudicating
 the referee reports and revision is part of the peer review service.
 (There's not much
 else going on by way of editing and copy-editing any more anyway, with
 journals,
 hence nothing worth paying for.)


Ah. Right. If you say so.
https://scholasticahq.com/innovations-in-scholarly-publishing/announcement/one-of-the-biggest-bottlenecks-in-open-access-publishing-is-typesetting-it-shouldn-t-be


 Pre-Green Fool's Gold, with all that other stuff bundled in, can cost from
 $1000-$5000+
 per accepted articles.


 My guess is that post-Green Fair Gold should cost around $200 per round of
 no-fault
 refereeing (because the costs of rejected or multiply revised and
 re-refereed papers
 will not have to be borne by the accepted papers only).


Based on what? Is that the cost, or the price? What margins are you
allowing for? How many rounds are there going to be (on average)?

And you've still not factored in the costs of running the IRs, of them
being able to provide for all the accesses on top of what they do right
now, or any provision for quality control, typesetting, etc. that somebody
really ought to be doing if you want this to be useful.

And that's without any provision for being able to innovate in the delivery
services provided - making things accessible from mobile devices, or
possibly even in just making them accessible at all (nobody wants to fall
foul of disability discrimination laws).
.

 If it's hybrid Fool's Gold, then their payments

may even be double-dipped.


The only evidence I've seen - e.g. Wellcome Trust's presentation -
indicates the contrary.

And besides - if you are paying an APC for an article to be made open
access, then you have entered into a contract with the publisher whereby
they have to make it available openly, in accordance with the terms in that
contract. They are only double-dipping if they are making it closed access
and charging for it - in which case they are in breach of contract.

What do you normally do when vendors are in breach of contract?


 The much lower cost of post-Green Fair Gold (for peer review) will be
 single-paid
 out of a fraction of the institutional windfall subscription cancellation
 savings.
 And it will all be fair, affordable, scaleable and sustainable.


When you really look at the total of what will need to be provided - even
if you aren't paying a publisher for all of those services - then I don't
believe the true costs will be a fraction (not globally anyway - there
may be some small institutions that could benefit).

But lets see how we get to those subscription cancellations. In order to do
that, we have to look at publisher incentives. As you submitted to the BIS
report:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmbis/99/99we07.htm

The UK’s new policy of funding Gold OA pre-emptively ... encouraging
publishers to adopt or lengthen Green OA embargoes in order to makes sure
UK authors must choose the paid Gold option.

Or, as stated here:
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/oa-advocate-stevan-harnad-withdraws_26.html

You would offer to “allow” your authors to pay you for hybrid Gold OA
... you would ratchet up the Green OA embargo length ... to make sure your
authors pay you for hybrid Gold rather than picking the cost-free option

or even
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/open-access-emeralds-green-starts-to.html

publishers like Emerald are also

[GOAL] Re: Scholars jobs not publisher profits

[Graham Triggs]

On 5 October 2013 19:12, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.ukwrote:

 **
 The point I was trying to make is that - unlike with subscriptions - there
 is a direct connection between the person who benefits from the value
 offered (the author) and the publisher.  Thus the marketplace should
 operate normally.


More specifically, it's a function of what you are paying for.

In an author-pays model, the author is paying in part for the peer-review,
editing, production, distribution - which are all replicable and comparable
services between publishers, and in part the reputation of the journal they
are being published in (which isn't as immediately replicable, but there is
always opportunity for journals to increase or decrease their perceived
worth).

As an author, you could (maybe) take your paper to another journal that has
a lower APC, and it doesn't (shouldn't) affect the ability of others to
read, share and use your paper.

As a subscriber, you can't simply move your subscription to another journal
and get access to the same material.

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

[GOAL] Re: Scholars jobs not publisher profits

[Graham Triggs]

On 5 October 2013 19:51, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.cawrote:

  The only place where OA article processing fees fit into this picture is
 with hybrid journals / publishers. If the market were working, overall
 subscription prices should be decreasing, not increasing, to reflect the
 new revenue stream.

  In other words, this is further evidence of ongoing market dysfunction.


The short answer is that subscription prices in hybrid journals are only
going to go down if the number of articles published closed decreases.
That is not necessarily a given, when the number of open articles
increases.

The long answer is that the economics are far more complicated than that.

Nominally, you may expect an inflationary rise if publication rates remain
constant.

But there is so much more that can happen behind the scenes. For example:

1) Higher submission rates may result in more labour intensive processes,
even if the number published remains constant (or even decreases).

2) Investment in systems development (this could result in a reduction of
ongoing costs though).

3) Providing production for, and distribution via, new means - e.g. mobile
devices.

I can't, and I'm not going to, justify any individual subscription rise.
But there are lots of factors - lots of genuine costs - that can influence
the pricing, some of which are not immediately apparent.

However, in terms of the impact of OA APCs in hybrid journals, then I could
direct you to the Wellcome Trust's presentation:

http://www.slideshare.net/Wellcome/mandating-open-access-wellcome-trust-presentation

See slide 11, they claim - certainly in the Oxford University Press case -
that the take up of OA options in hybrid journals is having a material
effect on the amount of closed publications, and from there, the cost of
subscriptions.

Given the high level of mistrust, and anti- campaigning with regards to
hybrid OA options, availability of funds, and possibly even routing through
the publication workflow, it's not entirely surprising if the take up of OA
options is not high enough to cause a headline price reduction for the
subscription prices.

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

[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Cancelling because contents are Green OA vs. because publisher allows Green OA

[Graham Triggs]

On 16 September 2013 19:33, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Rick Anderson rick.ander...@utah.eduwrote:

   The issue that was raised (by Fred) under this subject thread was the
 possibility of subscription losses dues to Green OA archiving.

 Yes. But not the possibility of subscription losses because the publisher
allows Green OA archiving.

(That too can be discussed here -- but only to point out the deleterious
consequences of such a policy for OA, and the self-defeating basis of such
a cancellation policy.

 Since libraries comprise a substantial portion of journal subscribers,
 then surely it's substantially relevant to discuss how libraries might make
 cancellation decisions about Green OA journals.

 It is indeed. And if librarian's cancellation decisions are based on
unthinking criteria that self-destruct -- namely, if a journal allows Green
OA, cancel it -- it needs to be pointed out that this would be an excellent
way to ensure that journals decide not to allow Green OA. And thereby slow
the growth of Green OA. And thereby undermine the basis of the cancellation
decision.

 (Such discussion may or may not end up lending support to your favored
 outcome — but is that really the filtering criterion we ought to impose on
 contributions to the conversation?)

 OA is not the filtering criterion for library lists dedicated to the
library's budget problems. But it is certainly the filtering criterion for
the gOAl, bOAi and sparc OA lists.

 Stevan Harnad


  ---
 Rick Anderson
 Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources  Collections
 Marriott Library, University of Utah
 Desk: (801) 587-9989
 Cell: (801) 721-1687
 rick.ander...@utah.edu


 --
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups SPARC OA Forum group.
To post to this group, send email to sparc-oafo...@arl.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum


To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.org.
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal