[GOAL] Re: Japan's National OA Mandate for ETDs.
Am 02.04.13 16:15, schrieb Heather Morrison: One reason is that it is common ... for students to go on to revise and submit either portions of a thesis or the entire thesis for re-publication as articles or books. ... For this reason, it will generally be in the best interest of the student /*to reserve the right to create derivatives and commercial use.*/ which of course they have and do not need to expressly reserve when they issue their work under CC-BY. It is another discussion whether they need the *exclusive* rights to do so. a) Their and others' academic ability to cut and paste (or whichever way to create derivatives) or earn reputation from derivatives made by others, is governed more by good research/academic practises than by *any* license. b) whether they need to *sign over exclusive* commercial rights (or to create derivative) is an issue still under discussion, pending real evidence. Even if their preferred publisher pretends he needs these exclusive rights, your poor (humanities ?) scholar would give away once and for all those very rights you say (s)he needs. best, Hans ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Harnad Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate
Am 21.03.13 10:35, schrieb Tim Brody: By comparison, taking a copy is little extra effort and the institution can say unambiguously that they have an open access copy. wrong: if somebody uploads a PDF the institution - may have a /*copy*/ if the identity of the file submitted or its equivalence with the version of record can be established - may have an /*OA copy*/. But to establish that, someone at the institution (the library?) must check the copyright notice in it (if any) and possibly consult with the authors about his/her contract with the publisher (because, legally, something found on the web pages of the publisher or ROMEO does not count), ... I just insisted on bean counting because it was done to the other side as well. I think this could go on indefinitely and should therefore be stopped. Seen from a non-British perspective, the discussion has morphed from being about Open Access to a discussion about controlling of science. And setting up of mandates and policies which are the least costly to enforce. Cost to the admin dept., of course! Where the library, if involved in this, may morph into a branch of admin. How very German! Enjoy! best, Hans ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Rockefeller University Press: CC-BY is not essential for Open Access
Am 13.03.13 07:52, schrieb Richard Poynder: RUP has no current plans to become an OA publisher, As a publisher of selective journals, our cost per article is higher than the current standards for APCs for immediate access, even the $5,000 fee that is now charged by some journals. A non-OA publisher, which seems to suffer from/enjoys ridiculous cost/income per article should not be given voice in this discussion. There are simply journals which can ask whatever they want (money, rights,..) and will get it (Nature, Science,...) _Forget about them_ - as long as the authors may publish their manuscripts with an embargo of 6/12 months max. And the authors should retain (from their publishers / by law) the right to put whatever license on those manuscripts. Regarding CC-BY-NC and RUP's assertion that it still achieves the funding agencies' goal of reuse of content for text and data mining. I wonder wether it is true for, say, Google (Scholar)? If I put an *explicit* NC clause in any license on a web resource: may Google index and list it? Only on pages *not* enhancing their revenue, i.e. without advertising? Or not on any of their pages, since money loosing services may still enhance the brand ... I think only specialized lawyers can answer that - and then probably just for one jurisdiction. Is RUP's Rossner a specialist of that kind? On how many jurisdictions? Or is it just wishful thinking on his part, because he wants to maintain maximum control over what publishers see as their property? Hans ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Rockefeller University Press: CC-BY is not essential for Open Access
Am 13.03.13 18:21, schrieb Heather Morrison: Try a Google search - for any terms. The results will not be limited to CC-BY licensed works. Google does not require blanket commercial rights to index and link. Google indexes a wide variety of works, in many countries, with many different terms and conditions - even All Rights Reserved. again, muddled representation: I asked whether, legally, a NC-license *when present* would not impede a search engine (strictly seen). And please, let us ask a (team of) lawyer(s)! My CC-BY-NC-SA licensed blog is hosted and indexed by Google. Ads do not appear on my blog, but this is because Google offers me the option of turning on or leaving off Adsense. Indeed, Google has been accused by many parties not to respect copyright (think Google Books and, again, the German newspapers). It is not alone in this as Peter Murry Rust pointed out recently about the big science publishers (Springer in his case?) putting their copyright notice on his OA material. Google, Elsevier etc. can afford to risk the occasional appearance in court - while most of us, our institutions and small companies cannot. Hans ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: OASPA CC-BY chart: where's the data?
Am 12.03.13 09:46, schrieb David Prosser: As the chart has data going back to 2000 and OASPA was only formed in 2008 I'm finding it difficult to see how the figures can be influenced by growing OASPA membership! The caption says Articles published by OASPA members und CC-BY and the text says Data was supplied by the following members of OASPA as number of CC-BY articles per year since implementation of the license by that publisher: Which means, obviously: Regardless of when they became members of OASPA. And implicitly, then, the growth of membership cannot influence this curve (Should there be a new member next year and they repeat the exercise, they would get a completely new curve which would lie entirely above the this current one, from the year *that* publisher started using CC-BY, not the year the publisher joined OASPA) best, Hans David On 11 Mar 2013, at 20:57, Heather Morrison wrote: OASPA has posted a picture of a chart of CC-BY growth on their blog: http://oaspa.org/growth-in-use-of-the-cc-by-license-2/ The chart by itself is difficult to interpret. For example, to what extent is CC-BY growth conflated with OASPA membership growth or overall open access growth? Will OASPA be releasing the data for all to mine? best, Heather G. Morrison ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: OASPA's ironic demonstration of the inadequacy of CC-BY for data mining
Am 12.03.13 18:06, schrieb David Prosser: (An additional complication is, of course, that we are really talking about data here rather than papers, and so perhaps a database license would be even more appropriate.) Indeed, facts are not copyrightable - at least in Germany ;-)) - and thus a CC-License (except perhaps CC0) or any other license _based on copyright_ (or German Urheberrecht) would be mostly pointless. (For a comparison of the situation in some jurisdictions, see http://www.knowledge-exchange.info/Default.aspx?ID=461; there seems be be a risk that /some/ data might be copyrightable under UK or Danish law.) A database right in EU jurisdictions (not in the US, as I understood from spurious sources) comes into play only if some entity has had significant investments in the database as such, not counting cost of acquiring the data in the database. This is clearly not the case here. As far as I understood, a simple table of numbers is not protect-able (in most cases) as soon as it is out in the wild. So no need for a license, if you intend to make it freely (libre) available. (In contrast to text or photos, which are protected, even if there is no (C) mark on it.) As to Heather's argument in her blog, that On the Internet, the way to note that a web page is /not/ available for text and data mining is to use the norobots.txt in the web page's metadata.: That is true, but not necessarily accepted by lawyers. Proof: German publishers of newspaper lobby - quite successfully, so far - that Google shall pay for displaying snippets - and still implicitly expect to be displayed in Google search. Ironically, they do use robot.txt, but not to drive Google or any other big search engine away. (AFAIK there is no norobots.txt. Also, robots.txt is a file at the root / of a _site_, not in the metadata of a _page_), My overall point is that one cannot assume that what seems appropriate or sensible will be seen as legal or unproblematic by lawyers. And nobody can justify building an infrastructure or even a common practise on shaky ground. So a simple, unambigous and (hopefully) internationally identical legal environment is indispensable for research and information infrastructures. One of the outstanding features of CC is that it is providing such an environment for text - except for the NC clause, which is wide open for doubt about its meaning. best, Hans ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Fwd: Ranking Web of Universities of the World: January Edition, 2013
Am 20.02.13 17:22, schrieb Stevan Harnad: Its objective is to motivate and reinforce the role of the university as a source and distributor of high quality web contents and to promote and support open access initiatives. note that there is also a ranking for research institutions! best, Hans Pfeiffenberger ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: RCUK policy: relationship between green and CC-BY-NC
Am 01.02.13 22:59, schrieb Peter Murray-Rust: But publishers need to prevent innovation from people like me as it threatens their ownership of content. ... And the product will be an order of magnitude more valuable than any current closed scientific databases. The results will be fully semantic with recall/precision perhaps 50%. I can't wait to see it! And indeed, Google started with two people having a good idea and not even a garage. Prevailing legal practises in academic publishing are designed to prevent similar success from happening. Am 02.02.13 02:02, schrieb Arthur Sale: I have called it the Titanium Road to emphasise that it is based on social networking rather than mandates ResearchGate is not built on mandates but on SPAMing: I joined for testing purposes half a year ago and have received 150 mails from them meanwhile. Does it make money from something? Probably, but not from selling articles. This is murky, as are many issues in OA. I would not think that commercial re-use is limited to an outright (re-)selling of articles. This murky-ness of the term, is key: As long as Peter is doing his thing on research grants, the clause provided non-commercial re-use such as text and data mining is supported may protect him. But what if he tried the obvious and recover some money through premium services for, say, the pharmaceutical industry? (He might be forced some time in the future to do so by funds drying up our cost shooting through his institution's roof) best, Hans ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: RCUK policy: relationship between green and CC-BY-NC
Mark, Am 01.02.13 11:07, schrieb Thorley, Mark R.: The policy does not define a specific licence for green deposit, provided non-commercial re-use such as text and data mining is supported. if now Google (Scholar) set out to go beyond indexing and offered (free) access to text mining of the documents they crawled, this would most certainly be a commercial activity. Wouldn't you think that an explicit endorsement of publishers claiming a limitation of commercial use from authors is unwise? How can repositories make sure that nobody is making commercial use of the manuscripts they hold? Do they need to exclude Google (Scholar) from indexing, just in case? (@PMR: Contrary to what you believe, I would operate and formulate policy from the assumption that sooner or later documents from almost *all* disciplines may be mined profitably) Just to mention another commercial use: ResearchGate (allegedly a social network for researchers) and similars are certainly for profit (even if one cannot see how they could make a profit). Is a researcher allowed to upload their manuscript there? best, Hans ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Please distinguish what is and is not relevant to mandating Green OA self-archiving
I am afraid both of you see the closeness of repositories and journals from a much to technical perspective. Being responsible for an institutional repository (epic.awi.de) and chief editor of an open access journal (ESSD) for many years, I recognize vast differences of what is expected in added value from the operators of these things. From that perspectives, they almost do not have anything in common. I cannot see how forcing them to use the same technical platform will provide a significant benefit. best, Hans Am 21.01.13 19:11, schrieb Heather Morrison: Jean-Claude raises an important point: from a technical perspective, there is no necessary difference between journal repositories and other types of repositories. Ideally, all will be interoperable for searching purposes and cross-deposit will be routine. The only difference is what is collected in a given repository. A journal collects the works that belong in the journal, a disciplinary repository the articles that fit a particular discipline, an institutional repository the output of the institution. Other signs that this is already beginning to happen: Library scholarly communication services frequently combine journal hosting and the institutional repository, sometimes using the same software. The SWORD protocol facilitates cross-deposit, including journal / repository cross-deposit. A growing number of journals, both OA and non-OA, routinely deposit all articles in repositories as well - e.g. BioMedCentral deposits in both PMC and institutional repositories (where this is technically feasible); a number of journals deposit all articles in E-LIS for preservation purposes. OJS (and likely other open access journal platforms) supports the OAI-PMH protocol, facilitating cross-searching of journals and repositories. From a searching perspective, the tendency to start from databases or internet search engines like Google rather than browsing journals has been a growing factor for years, predating open access. What is surprising is not the convergence per se, but rather how long the transition is taking considering how much sense this makes. It is good to see that mathematicians are taking the lead in furthering what to me is an obvious next stage in publishing, overlay journals building on repositories: http://www.nature.com/news/mathematicians-aim-to-take-publishers-out-of-publishing-1.12243 Years ago I would have argued that the question of archiving and preservation could be left to a later date and should not distract from the task of making the work open access in the first place. Now that we already have more than 20% of the world's scholarly literature freely available within a couple of years of publication, and the emergence of the possibility of publication of research data becoming routine, I argue that this task needs to be addressed - not to delay or distract us from making open access happen, but rather at the same time. On the ground it is generally different people who are involved in the tasks of preserving information, so moving forward with this need not take anything away from the primary drive to OA. One of the arguments for deposit in the institutional repository is that the work will be preserved - many an IR service now needs to go about the task of fulfilling this promise. best, Heather Morrison The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com On 2013-01-21, at 8:02 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote: No quarrel with all this. I just wanted to point out that an OA journal, technically, is very close to a repository, at least at its basic level. Modular functions can be added, of course, but they can also move across platforms without much trouble. As for the vocabulary: repository, archive, depository, whatever... We might want to make this terminology a bit more rigorous, but it is not a major issue Imho. Incidentally, from what I have just said, it is not difficult to understand why I believe that OA journals and repositories will converge (mixing and matching). I see the emergence of mega-journals as a potent sign of this. Best, Jean-Claude Guédon Le lundi 21 janvier 2013 à 11:42 +1100, Arthur Sale a écrit : I think we are now getting into an off-target area: not open access but archiving. It is really unfortunate that open access repositories were ever called archives. Heather is right. In the past print publishers of books and journals just had to print them onto papyrus, vellum, or paper, using a non-ephemeral ink, and rely on dissemination (and libraries) to do the preservation. Preservation in the digital era is a different matter, having to cope with ephemeral media and error-resistant information (the opposite of the Gutenberg era). But this is not central open access stuff, important though it is. Of course, to forestall comment by someone who wants to carp, the
[GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber
@Peter, Am 14.12.12 15:44, schrieb Peter Murray-Rust: For a start I'm talking about things like clear licences, clear undertakings to authors, readers and funders. At present publishers can create whatever they like - it's often self contradictory and inpoerable. There is huge amounts of fuzz and fudge about what Open Access means operationally. I understand that licenses and prices are what *you* care about. And *I* was responding to the thread's sub-theme of predatory publishers. To my knowledge, this term is normally used for entrepreneurs who pretend to run a publishing business but actually have just fake editorial boards and review processes. Perhaps there are also lesser crimes against scholarly publishing worth to be named predatory behaviour. @Richard But should the research community give up because the task seems difficult? not at all. I am just extremely sceptical of an approach by committee! On the other hand, a solution by crowdsourcing (or individual efforts) of any kind might be deemed working by us, but would probably not fit in any kind of regulated decision making process about funding of APCs (where those are needed). Hans ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber
Am 13.12.12 14:09, schrieb Richard Poynder: Another way would be for DOAJ to start excluding journals but that could become very complicated and resource demanding. This is no doubt true, but isn't it time that some organisation took responsibility for doing this difficult work? at first sight, one is certainly tempted to say: Yes! But which organization? There have been (understandable) advances of funders trying to nail down which journals' APCs are worth funding. However, to me it is a horrible thought of commissions being instituted to decide which journal is a worthy addition to the publishing landscape - considering, as it was proposed, aimsscope, composition of editorial board, method(s) of peer review (open, post publication, ...), ..., business model. Clearly, such commissions would be formed of eminent, well established etc. researchers. Who would most probably be more sceptical of innovation than, say, a publisher. Instead of an abstract argument in support of this conjecture I wish to express thanks to Arne Richter of Copernicus Publications for believing in the future of a journal for data publication in Earth System Science and now Martin Rasmussen for continued support! I would never had gotten as much support as fast with zero overhead of bureaucracy from any funder (or other organization)! The main policy arguments against *organizations* is that they would conglomerate or even monopolize influence as compared to a (pre-big deal, pre-Internet) situation where the success of a journal was determined by independent subscription decisions of thousands of departments and library commissions at universities etc. We simply have to find a better solution than an(!) organization. In this context, I am also frightened by PMR's advocacy of regulation. Peter, do you really think that expanded (and ever-expanding) regulation is to the advantage of *research*? Even if we agree on predators being around - OA as well as non-OA publishers! - we should not endanger the freedom and innovative power of science just for the sake of battling those. Hans ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber
Am 12.12.12 09:41, schrieb Richard Poynder: Thanks for the comments David. Your point about not equating Gold OA with APCs is well taken. But it also invites a question I think: do we know what percentage of papers(not journals, but papers) published Gold OA today incur no APC charge, and what do we anticipate this percentage becoming in a post-Finch world? perhaps this http://svpow.com/2012/12/10/what-does-it-cost-to-publish-a-gold-open-access-article/ might help for a start? If the numbers are correct, it shows a strong bias in the Finch report's numbers towards the always costly domain of medicine ... Hans ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber
Hi Alicia, an hour before your mail, I suggested a blog article which seems to say that about 50% of all gold OA journals do not ask for APCs at all and APCs were indeed not paid for by half of all Gold OA articles. This is not reconcilable with the 3-4% you report. Are we perhaps talking about completely different ratios? best, Hans for your convenience: the link, again, was: http://svpow.com/2012/12/10/what-does-it-cost-to-publish-a-gold-open-access-article/ Am 12.12.12 13:59, schrieb Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF): Hi Richard, My colleague does an in-depth annual study on the uptake of different business models, and suggests that this figure was 3-4% of total articles at the start of 2012. Elsevier, and I'm sure a wide array of other publishers, have used a range of business models to produce free-to-read journals for decades. I find it very interesting that these models are now claimed by the open access community as 'gold oa' titles although I suppose that's much less of a mouthful than 'free-at-the-point-of-use' titles! With kind wishes, Alicia *From:*goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On Behalf Of *Richard Poynder *Sent:* Wednesday, December 12, 2012 8:42 AM *To:* 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber Thanks for the comments David. Your point about not equating Gold OA with APCs is well taken. But it also invites a question I think: do we know what percentage of papers(not journals, but papers) published Gold OA today incur no APC charge, and what do we anticipate this percentage becoming in a post-Finch world? Richard // *From:*goal-boun...@eprints.org mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On Behalf Of *David Prosser *Sent:* 11 December 2012 19:53 *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber As ever, Richard has put together a fascinating and entertaining interview, and augmented it with a really useful essay on the current state of OA policies. I have a small quibble. On page two, Richard writes: ...or by means of gold OA, in which researchers (or more usually their funders) pay publishers an article-processing charge (APC) to ensure that their paper is made freely available on the Web at the time of publication. APCs make up just one business model that can be used to support Gold OA. Gold is OA through journals - it makes no assumption about how the costs of publication are paid for. I think it is helpful to ensure that we do not equate Gold with APCs. David On 3 Dec 2012, at 18:51, Richard Poynder wrote: /Stuart Shieber is the Welch Professor of Computer Science at Harvard University,//Faculty Co-Director/ http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/sshieber///of the//Berkman Center for Internet and Society/ http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/sshieber/, Director of Harvard's Office for Scholarly Communication (//OSC/ http://osc.hul.harvard.edu//), and chief architect of the Harvard Open Access (//OA/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access/) Policy --- a 2008 initiative that has seen Harvard become a major force in the OA movement./ // http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/the-oa-interviews-harvards-stuart.html ATT1..txt Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales). ___ 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 It True That It's Illegal To Mandate Green OA Self-Archiving in Germany?
The so called Zweitveröffentlichungsrecht - if it comes! - will be a *freedom* to populate repositories without resorting to research on Sherpa/Romeo or depending on (legally) uncertain concessions published on volatile web-pages of publishers. But this modification of the German copyright law (Urheberrecht) will in no way *mandate the exercise* of that freedom.? It is misleading to call this an Open Access law. There will be no (strong) OA mandate of any kind in Germany due to constitutional concerns (art.5), at least not for some time ... But the legal situation of those willing to deposit or being forced, e.g. by the FP7/H2020 mandate, will be much more clear. Hans Pfeiffenberger ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
