Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for research articles
oses that we change the copyright law > to embrace public access. It is a big step but it may make sense. > >  Canadian scholar and OA guru John Willinsky (now at Stanford) has > written a thought provoking book and > <http://www.slaw.ca/2018/03/09/let-canada-be-first-to-turn-an-open-access-research-policy-into-a-legal-right-to-know/?t=1=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D=email=4!92321690$4+272699400>blog > > <http://www.slaw.ca/2018/03/09/let-canada-be-first-to-turn-an-open-access-research-policy-into-a-legal-right-to-know/?t=1=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D=email=4!92321690$4+272699400%3eblog> > article. The basic idea is amazingly simple: If we are going to make > research articles publicly available then we should change the copyright > law to do just that. > > Here is how Willinsky puts it (speaking just of Canada): > > "Canada is recognizing that people everywhere have a right to this body of > knowledge that it differs significantly from their right to other > intellectual property (which begins well after the author’s lifetime)." > > What is true for Canada is true for America too. In fact the Canadian > government has a public access program that is similar to the US program. > > The point is that copyright law gives authors certain rights for a certain > time, that is very long (say 100 years), and the idea here is to > dramatically shorten that time for a specific set of articles, namely > research articles in journals. > > As Willinsky points out, we are already making a lot of these articles OA > (such as under the US Public Access Program) by funder mandate. Codifying > this existing practice, without the funder limitation, would be easy as > far as legislative drafting is concerned. > > Getting it passed is another matter, of course, but I can see it having > bipartisan support. The Democrats would like the health care argument for > OA and the Republicans would like the innovation and economic growth argument. > The key point is that the researcher authors are not writing to make > money. One could even argue that a lifetime+ copyright was misapplied to > them in the first place. We need the present limited embargo period of 12 > months to protect the publishing system, but that is all. > > This idea fits the fundamentals elegantly. That makes it an attractive policy. > > In fact Congress has already taken a step in this direction. Public Access > originated in the Executive Branch, but Congress has now legislated it for > the Departments of HHS (think NIH), Education and Labor. > > One possible objection is that the 12 month embargo period is too short > for some disciplines. However, the publishers have had five years to raise > this issue formally with the US Public Access agencies and to my knowledge > none has done so. > > On the other hand, some disciplines are only lightly funded by the Public > Access agencies. In that sense their case has yet to arise and they can > make it in the legislative process. I imagine that if Congress were to > move in the direction of public access copyright there would be a lot of > discussion. > > Willinsky specifically mentions a Canadian government > <https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2017/12/parliament_to_undertakereviewofthecopyrightact.html>review > > <https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2017/12/parliament_to_undertakereviewofthecopyrightact.html%3ereview> > of copyright law that is presently getting underway. His book may even be > timed for it. The title of his blog article is Let Canada Be First to Turn > an Open Access Research Policy Into a Legal Right to Know so this clearly > is a policy proposal. > > How this Parliamentary review proceeds with regard to Willinsky's radical > public access proposal might be worth watching. In any case the US > Congress should consider it. > > Note that Richard Poynder has a lengthy discussion of, and interview with, > Willinsky here: > <https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/the-intellectual-properties-of-learning.html>https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/the-intellectual-properties-of-learning.html > > <https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/the-intellectual-properties-of-learning.html%3ehttps:/poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/the-intellectual-properties-of-learning.html> > > > > > Sanford G. Thatcher > Frisco, TX 75034 > https://scholarsphere.psu.edu <https://scholarsphere.psu.edu/> > > "If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying."-John Ruskin (1865) > > "The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people > who can write know anything."-Walter Bagehot (1853) > > "Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance > with the limitations and incapacities of the human > misunderstanding."-Ambrose Bierce (1906) > > > ___ > 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> Laurent Romary Inria, team ALMAnaCH laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: France's Digital Republic bill and OA
Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge, CB2 8BS > > > > > Cambridge University Press is the publishing business of the University of > Cambridge with VAT registered number GB 823 8476 09. Our principal office is > at University Printing House, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge, CB2 8BS, United > Kingdom. > > ___ > 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> Laurent Romary INRIA laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'
Indeed. And if you look at the randomized usage report: http://www.peerproject.eu/fileadmin/media/reports/20120618_D5_3_PEER_Usage_Study_RCT.pdf <http://www.peerproject.eu/fileadmin/media/reports/20120618_D5_3_PEER_Usage_Study_RCT.pdf> you can read an interesting conclusion: The key finding of the trial is that the exposure of articles in PEER repositories is associated with an uplift in downloads at the publishers’ web sites. This is likely to be the result of high quality PEER metadata, a liberal attitude towards allowing search engine robots to index the material, and the consequently higher digital visibility that PEER creates for scholarly content. Overall, the publisher uplift was 11.4% (95% confidence intervals (CI95), 7.5% to 15.5%) and was highly significant (p < 0.01). This finding is consistent with the only other experimental study that CIBER is aware of that used an RCT design to investigate the impact of institutional repository exposure on publisher downloads, albeit for a single journal (Sho and others 2011). Food for thought. Laurent > Le 22 oct. 2015 à 15:42, David Prosser <david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk> a écrit : > > > Marc’s post reminds me that there was the EC-funded, STM-run PEER project > that attempted to do exactly this comparison: > > http://www.stm-assoc.org/public-affairs/resources/peer/ > <http://www.stm-assoc.org/public-affairs/resources/peer/> > > One of the aims of PEER was to discover the effect of Green OA on journal > viability - for the journals that took part there were no negative effects on > their viability. > > David > > On 22 Oct 2015, at 13:50, Couture Marc <marc.cout...@teluq.ca > <mailto:marc.cout...@teluq.ca>> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> What we would like to see here as evidence is something like what is being >> done about open access to scholarly monographs: rigorous studies, involving >> control groups and close monitoring, testing the effect of making a >> toll-free copy available. >> >> I’m aware of two such studies, both made as part of the OAPEN initiative: >> one in the Netherlands and one in the UK (still ongoing, but preliminary >> results have been released). >> >> Interestingly, both found no measurable effect of toll-free availability on >> the sales. The only “effect” of toll-free access is a tremendous increase of >> use, as measured by summing the sales and the (much more numerous) downloads. >> >> Here also, fears that scholarly publishing is incompatible, or endangered by >> OA were, and still are, regularly aired. >> >> It’s possible that things are not the same for journal publishing. But, >> pending reliable results, we simply don’t know, and predictions as to a loss >> of subscriptions are nothing but speculation (or hypotheses). >> >> For details: >> http://www.oapen.nl/images/attachments/article/58/OAPEN-NL-final-report.pdf >> <http://www.oapen.nl/images/attachments/article/58/OAPEN-NL-final-report.pdf> >> and >> http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/wp-uploads/2014/07/JACKSON-Oxford-OA-Monographs-June-2014.pdf >> >> <http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/wp-uploads/2014/07/JACKSON-Oxford-OA-Monographs-June-2014.pdf> >> >> Marc Couture >> >> >> _______ >> GOAL mailing list >> GOAL@eprints.org <mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal Laurent Romary INRIA laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'
This does not explain why, when the papers where freely available online, we observed an increase in usage for Publishers’ web sites… Laurent > Le 22 oct. 2015 à 15:57, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) <a.w...@elsevier.com> a écrit > : > > Because the journals in the PEER study used publisher-set embargo periods… > > - Alicia > > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of > David Prosser > Sent: 22 October 2015 14:42 > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Subject: [GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story' > > > Marc’s post reminds me that there was the EC-funded, STM-run PEER project > that attempted to do exactly this comparison: > > http://www.stm-assoc.org/public-affairs/resources/peer/ > <http://www.stm-assoc.org/public-affairs/resources/peer/> > > One of the aims of PEER was to discover the effect of Green OA on journal > viability - for the journals that took part there were no negative effects on > their viability. > > David > > On 22 Oct 2015, at 13:50, Couture Marc <marc.cout...@teluq.ca > <mailto:marc.cout...@teluq.ca>> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > What we would like to see here as evidence is something like what is being > done about open access to scholarly monographs: rigorous studies, involving > control groups and close monitoring, testing the effect of making a toll-free > copy available. > > I’m aware of two such studies, both made as part of the OAPEN initiative: one > in the Netherlands and one in the UK (still ongoing, but preliminary results > have been released). > > Interestingly, both found no measurable effect of toll-free availability on > the sales. The only “effect” of toll-free access is a tremendous increase of > use, as measured by summing the sales and the (much more numerous) downloads. > > Here also, fears that scholarly publishing is incompatible, or endangered by > OA were, and still are, regularly aired. > > It’s possible that things are not the same for journal publishing. But, > pending reliable results, we simply don’t know, and predictions as to a loss > of subscriptions are nothing but speculation (or hypotheses). > > For details: > http://www.oapen.nl/images/attachments/article/58/OAPEN-NL-final-report.pdf > <http://www.oapen.nl/images/attachments/article/58/OAPEN-NL-final-report.pdf> > and > http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/wp-uploads/2014/07/JACKSON-Oxford-OA-Monographs-June-2014.pdf > > <http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/wp-uploads/2014/07/JACKSON-Oxford-OA-Monographs-June-2014.pdf> > > Marc Couture > > > ___ > 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> > > > Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, > Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, > Registered in England and Wales. > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal Laurent Romary INRIA laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: A new high level peered review journal at nearly zero cost by Tim Gowers
Since advertising has started, let me mention that the CCSD inFrance has developed an overlay journal platform that would exactly do the trick here: Episciences.org See the ELPUB paper: https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01002815 Laurent > Le 2 oct. 2015 à 11:52, Raf Dekeyser <raf.dekey...@bib.kuleuven.be> a écrit : > > Dear all, > > Do these people realize that there is a free alternative for managing the > peer review system: the Open Journal System (OJS)? > It is easy to install, and you do not have to use it for the final > publication of the papers: just use the peer review management > part of it! > > Raf Dekeyser > LIBER Quarterly managing editor > > > Op 1-10-2015 om 21:55 schreef Dana Roth: >> A great idea ... that hopefully will make SCOAP3 redundant. >> >> Dana L. Roth >> Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32 >> 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125 >> 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540 >> dzr...@library.caltech.edu <mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu> >> http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm >> <http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm> >> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> >> [goal-boun...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>] on behalf of >> Nicolas Pettiaux [nico...@pettiaux.be <mailto:nico...@pettiaux.be>] >> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 11:22 PM >> To: goal@eprints.org <mailto:goal@eprints.org> >> Subject: [GOAL] A new high level peered review journal at nearly zero cost >> by Tim Gowers >> >> Dear All, >> >> I want to share with you this information I have just come accross. >> >> A new post-publication high level peered review journal at nearly zero cost, >> by a famous mathematician >> >> https://gowers.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/discrete-analysis-an-arxiv-overlay-journal/ >> >> <https://gowers.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/discrete-analysis-an-arxiv-overlay-journal/> >> >> Your comments are most welcome. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Nicolas >> >> >> ___ >> 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> Laurent Romary INRIA laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Pre-publication peer review (was: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List)
for the distribution of scholarly research, and it's clear that neither green nor gold open-access is that model... And then, my own personal favourites: JB: Open access advocates think they know better than everyone else and want to impose their policies on others. Thus, the open access movement has the serious side-effect of taking away other's freedom from them. We observe this tendency in institutional mandates. Harnad (2013) goes so far as to propose [an]…Orwellian system of mandates… documented [in a] table of mandate strength, with the most restrictive pegged at level 12, with the designation immediate deposit + performance evaluation (no waiver option). This Orwellian system of mandates is documented in Table 1... JB: A social movement that needs mandates to work is doomed to fail. A social movement that uses mandates is abusive and tantamount to academic slavery. Researchers need more freedom in their decisions not less. How can we expect and demand academic freedom from our universities when we impose oppressive mandates upon ourselves?... Stay tuned!… Stevan Harnad ___ 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 Laurent Romary INRIA HUB-IDSL laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier Keeps Revising Its Double-Talk (But Remains Fully Green)
With all respect, Stevan, I am not sure it is worth answering publishers' policy tricks with deposit hacks. The core question is: does Elsevier fulfills, by making such statements, its duties as service provider in the domain of scholarly communication. If not, we, as institutions, have to be clear as to what we want, enforce the corresponding policy (i.e. we determine what and in which way we want our publications to be disseminated) and inform the communities accordingly. Such statements encourage us to increase our communication towards researchers concerning predatory behaviours. And this is one for sure. Laurent Le 25 sept. 2013 à 07:56, Stevan Harnad a écrit : Here's Elsevier's latest revision of the wording of its author rights agreement stating what rights Elsevier authors retain for their Accepted Author Manuscript [AAM]. Elsevier believes that individual authors should be able to distribute their AAMs [Accepted Author Manuscripts] for their personal voluntary needs and interests, e.g. posting to their websites or their institution’s repository, e-mailing to colleagues. However, our policies differ regarding the systematic aggregation or distribution of AAMs... Therefore, deposit in, or posting to, subject-oriented or centralized repositories (such as PubMed Central), or institutional repositories with systematic posting mandates is permitted only under specific agreements between Elsevier and the repository, agency or institution, and only consistent with the publisher’s policies concerning such repositories. Voluntary posting of AAMs in the arXiv subject repository is permitted. Please see my prior analyses of this Elsevier double-talk about authors retaining the right to make their AAMs OA in their institutional repositories voluntarily, but not if their institutions mandate it systematically. Here's a summary: 1. The author-side distinction between an author's self-archiving voluntarily and mandatorily is pseudo-legal nonsense: Authors can truthfully safely assert that whatever they do, they do voluntarily. 2. The institution-side distinction between voluntary and systematic self-archiving by authors has nothing to do with rights agreements between the author and Elsevier: It is an attempt by Elsevier to create a contingency between (a) its Big Deal journal pricing negotiations with an institution and (b) that institution's self-archiving policies. Institutions should of course decline to discuss their self-archiving policies in any way in their pricing negotiations with any publisher. 3. Systematicity (if it means anything at all) means systematically collecting, reconstructing and republishing the contents of a journal -- presumably on the part of a rival, free-riding publisher, hurting the original publisher's revenues; this would constitute a copyright violation on the part of the rival systematic, free-riding publisher, not the author: An institution does nothing of the sort (any more than an individual self-archiving author does). The institutional repository contains only the institution's own tiny random fragment of any individual journal's annual contents. All of the above is in any case completely mooted if an institution adopts the ID/OA mandate, because that mandate only requires that the deposit be made immediately, not that it be made OA immediately. (If the author wishes to comply with a publisher OA embargo policy --which Elsevier does not have -- the repository's Almost-OA eprint-request Button can tide over researcher needs during any OA embargo with one click from the requestor and one click from the author.) Stevan Harnad ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal Laurent Romary INRIA HUB-IDSL laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Paid Gold vs. Free Gold
This corresponds for instance to the Freemium scheme of OpenEdition. Under this scheme, papers are freely available in HTML and additional services are offered to libraries that have taken a subscription (ePub, pdf, cataloguing facilities, etc.) Laurent Le 19 avr. 2013 à 07:52, Jan Velterop a écrit : Are there examples of such subscription journals that make their online version freely accessible online (immediately upon publication). Who would subscribe, and what would a subscription entail? Jan Velterop On 19 Apr 2013, at 05:16, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: The reference to free Gold journals covered by subscriptions is not clear to me. Is this a reference to SCOAP3? It's a reference to all subscription journals that make their online version freely accessible online (immediately upon publication). (No, SCOAP3 is a premature and unnecessary post-hoc consortial membership scheme that I think will not prove sustainable. The HEP fields have already provided near 100% (Green) OA for 20 years, un-mandated. What's needed next is for institutions and funders to mandate that all other disciplines do likewise.) Stevan Harnad Le jeudi 18 avril 2013 à 07:45 +0100, Stevan Harnad a écrit : 1. The Green/Gold Open Access (OA) distinction concerns whether it is the author or the publisher that provides the OA. 2. This distinction was important to mark with clear terms because the conflation of the two roads to OA has practical implications and has been holding up OA progress for a decade and a half. 3. The distinction between paid Gold and free Gold is very far from being a straightforward one. 4. Free Gold can be free (to the author) because the expenses of the Gold journal are covered by subscriptions, subsidies or volunteerism. 5. The funds for Paid Gold can come from the author's pocket, the author's research grant, the author's institution or the author's funder. 6. It would be both absurd and gratuitously confusing to mark each of these economic-model differences with a color-code. 7. Superfluous extra colors would also obscure the role that the colour-code was invented to perform: distinguishing author-side OA provision from publisher-side OA provision. 8. So, please, let's not have diamond, platinum and titanium OA, despite the metallurgical temptations. 9. They amplify noise instead of pinpointing the signal, just as SHERPA/Romeo's parti-colored Blue/Yellow/Green spectrum (mercifully ignored by almost everyone) does. 10. OA is about providing Open Access to peer-reviewed journal articles, not about cost-recovery models for OA publishing (Gold OA). 11. The Gold that publishers are fighting for and that researcher funders are subsidizing (whether pure or hybrid) is paid Gold, not free Gold. 12. No one knows whether or how free Gold will be sustainable, any more than they know whether or how long subscription publishing can co-exist viably with mandatory Green OA. 13. So please leave the economic ideology and speculation out of the pragmatics of OA policy making by the research community (institutions and funders). 14. Cost-recovery models are the province of publishers (Gold OA). 15. What the research community needs to do is mandate OA provision. 16. The only OA provision that is entirely in the research community's hands is Green OA. And, before you ask, please let's not play into the publishers' hands by colour-coding OA also in terms of the length of the publisher embargo: 3-month OA, 6-month OA, 12-month-OA, 24-month-OA, millennial OA: OA means immediate online access. Anything else is delayed access. (The only quasi-exception is the Almost-OA provided by the author via the institutional repository's email-eprint-request Button when complying with publisher embargoes -- but that too is clearly not OA, which is immediate, free online access.) And on no account should the genuine, substantive distinction between Gratis OA (free online access) and Libre OA (free online access plus various re-use rights) be color-coded (with a different shade for every variety of CC license)! Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y, Oppenheim, C., Stamerjohanns, H., Hilf, E. (2004) The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access. Serials Review 30. Shorter version: The green and the gold roads to Open Access. Nature Web Focus. ___ 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 Laurent Romary INRIA HUB-IDSL laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL
[GOAL] Re: Open access /France : Scientific work and public debate in the Humanities and Social Sciences
Thanks Ghislaine for making me think that an even stronger support to open access from the SSH community followed a tribune in the French nemspaper Le monde: Qui a peur de l'open access ? Arguments pour l’accès ouvert aux résultats de la recherche http://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2013/03/15/qui-a-peur-de-l-open-acces_1848930_1650684.html If you are not afraid, you can all help us energize the (not so much) sleeping French academic space by signing the text (do your best to understand it ;-)) I love Open Access I love open access http://iloveopenaccess.org Laurent Le 18 mars 2013 à 17:02, Ghislaine Chartron a écrit : For information: Open access: Scientific work and public debate in the Humanities and Social Sciences, threatened by measures recommended by the European Commission Open letter from the editors of French language journals in the humanities and social sciences to the Minister of Higher Education and Research, the Minister of Culture and Communication, the presidents of universities and grandes écoles, and heads of major research institutions Motion and List of the first 110 signatories (last updated on March 18, 2013) : http://www.openaccess-shs.info/motion-en/ -- ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal Laurent Romary INRIA HUB-IDSL laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Fwd: OA event - Academy of Social Sciences/ SAGE
With the sponsoring I see for this event, my euphemistic feelings is that there seems to be strong conflicts of interest for the scholar on the program. Interesting. Laurent Le 16 nov. 2012 à 18:04, Stevan Harnad a écrit : If there was any residual doubt as to the degree to which the Finch policy recommendations are dominated by and oriented toward the needs of the publishing community and not the needs of the research community, here's an announcement from Sage publications... SH -- Forwarded message -- From: Peter Suber peter.su...@gmail.com Date: Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:26 AM Subject: [sparc-oaforum] Fwd: OA event - Academy of Social Sciences/ SAGE To: SOAF post sparc-oafo...@arl.org, BOAI Forum post boai-fo...@ecs.soton.ac.uk [Forwarding with permission from Katie Baker at Sage Publications. --Peter Suber.] Invitation to important conference on Open Access Publishing, 29 and 30 November You are invited to a major two-day conference to look at how implementing the Finch Review on Open Access Publishing will affect researchers and learned societies in the arts, humanities and social sciences. Dame Janet Finch will co-chair the event, which takes place at the Royal Statistical Society, 12 Errol Street, London EC1Y 8LX on 29 and 30 November. It is sponsored by the Times Higher Education magazine and the publishers SAGE, Routledge, and Wiley Blackwell, The Academy of Social Sciences is running the event in the wake of questions about the switch to open access. Non-science disciplines are unsure there will be sufficient funding to pay for papers to be published in journals under the new ‘gold option’ system, and learned societies are concerned that their journal income will fall. The first day of the conference is for researchers, both within and outside of universities, and senior university managers. It looks at the implications of the review for individual academics, for the 2020 Research Excellence Framework exercise, and for authors’ rights and intellectual property. Speakers include: Professor Dame Lynne Brindley, Member of AHRC Council and former Chief Executive of the British Library; Professor Tim Blackman, Pro Vice Chancellor, The Open University; Professor Robert Dingwall, who will bring an independent perspective; Paul Hubbard, Head of Research Policy, HEFCE; Maureen Duffy, President of Honour, British Copyright Council; Professor Charlotte Waelde, Professor of Intellectual Property, Law, University of Exeter; and Jude England, Head of Social Sciences, The British Library. The second day is for senior managers of learned societies and is chaired by Professor Martin Hall, Vice-Chancellor, University of Salford, a member of the Finch Committee. It looks at the implications of the review for journals and the business models of learned societies in the UK and US. It includes a panel discussion on the future of journals with senior managers at Routledge, SAGE and Wiley Blackwell. Other speakers include Sally Hardy, Chief Executive of the Regional Studies Association; Professor Stephen Bailey, Professor of Public Law, University of Nottingham; Dr Rita Gardner, Director of the Royal Geographical Society; and Dr Felice J Levine, Executive Director, American Educational Research Association. For more details of the event, see: www.acss.org.uk To book a free place, please contact Tony Trueman, Academy Press Officer, at t.true...@acss.org.uk or on 07964 023392. -- 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 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal Laurent Romary INRIA HUB-IDSL laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories
I would definitely support this. Laurent Le 9 oct. 2012 à 23:28, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit : On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote: There is an inconsistency here, either way. We've always heard, from Stevan Harnad, that the author was the one who intrinsically had copyright on the manuscript version, so could deposit it, as an open access article, in an open repository irrespective of the publisher's views. If that is correct, then the author could also attach a CC-BY licence to the manuscript version. If it is incorrect, the author can't deposit the manuscript with open access without the explicit permission of the publisher of his final, published version, and the argument advanced for more than a decade by Stevan Harnad is invalid. Which is it? I think Stevan was right, and a manuscript can be deposited with open access whether or not the publisher likes it. Whence his U-turn, I don't know. But if he was right at first, and I believe that's the case, that also means that it can be covered by a CC-BY licence. Repositories can't attach the licence, but 'gold' OA publishers can't either. It's always the author, as copyright holder by default. All repositories and OA publishers can do is require it as a condition of acceptance (to be included in the repository or to be published). What the publisher can do if he doesn't like the author making available the manuscript with open access, is apply the Ingelfinger rule or simply refuse to publish the article. Jan, I think this is very important. If we can establish the idea of Green-CC-BY as the norm for deposition in repositories then I would embrace it enthusiastically. I can see no downside other than that some publishers will fight it. But they fight anyway It also clairfies the difference between the final author ms and the publisher version of record. It would resolve all the apparent problems of the Finch reoprt etc. It is only because Green licences are undefined that we have this problem at all. And if we all agreed it could be launched for Open Access Week -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal Laurent Romary INRIA HUB-IDSL laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories
Maybe some publication repositories who would be ready to play the game, at institutional, national or thematic level, backed up by eminent and open (!) champions of the cause. Laurent Le 10 oct. 2012 à 13:15, Jan Velterop a écrit : The only thing I'm not clear about is who the we all are who'd have to agree to launch this for Open Access week :-) Laurent Romary INRIA HUB-IDSL laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Publications managed by scholarly communities/institutions (was: Re: Planning for the Open Access Era)
Dear all, As an echo to the fourth option mentioned by Peter, I would like to gather references to journals and initiatives which are notoriously community based. Could members of the list point to what they would be aware of? Thanks in advance, Laurent Le 7 août 2012 à 16:11, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit : On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: We should not delude ourselves; journals can only be 'free' if someone pays the costs. All the work involved in creating and running a journal has to be paid for somehow - they don't magically go away if a journal is e-only (in fact, there are some new costs, even though some of the old ones disappear). I can only see three options for who pays: reader-side (e.g. the library); author-side (e.g. publication fees); or 'fairy godmother' (e.g. sponsor). There is a fourth option, which works: the scholarly community manage publication through contributed labour and resources and the net amount of cash is near-zero. This is described in http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/ where the J. Machine Learning Research is among the highest regarded journals in the area (top 7%) and free-to-authors and free-to-readers. There is an enlightening debate (on this URL) between those who run the journal and Kent Anderson of the Scholarly Kitchen who cannot believe that people will run and work for journals for the good of the community. There is no law of physics that says this doesn't scale. It is simply that most scholars would rather the taxpayer and students paid for the administration publishing (either as author-side or reader-side) so the scholars don't have to do the work. And they've managed ot get 10 B USD per year. If scholars regarded publishing as part of their role, of if they were prepared to involved the wider community (as Wikipedia has done) we could have a much more C21 type of activity - innovative and valuable to the whole world rather than just academia. It would cost zero, but it would be much cheaper than any current model. And of course we now have a complete free map of the whole world (openstreetmap.org) which is so much better than other alternatives that many people and organizations are switching to it. And, for many years, it didn't have a bank account and existed on marginal resources from UCL (and probably still does). But most people will regard this as another fairy tale. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal Laurent Romary INRIA HUB-IDSL laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Publications managed by scholarly communities/institutions
Thanks. Are these all managed on their own? Laurent Le 9 août 2012 à 11:42, Bo-Christer Björk a écrit : Good idea, Here are four such journals, all of which have been there since the 1990s: Information Research Journal of Information Technology in Construction Journal of Electronic Publishing First Monday best regards Bo-Christer Björk Journal of On 8/9/12 11:35 AM, Laurent Romary wrote: Dear all, As an echo to the fourth option mentioned by Peter, I would like to gather references to journals and initiatives which are notoriously community based. Could members of the list point to what they would be aware of? Thanks in advance, Laurent Le 7 août 2012 à 16:11, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit : On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: We should not delude ourselves; journals can only be 'free' if someone pays the costs. All the work involved in creating and running a journal has to be paid for somehow - they don't magically go away if a journal is e-only (in fact, there are some new costs, even though some of the old ones disappear). I can only see three options for who pays: reader-side (e.g. the library); author-side (e.g. publication fees); or 'fairy godmother' (e.g. sponsor). There is a fourth option, which works: the scholarly community manage publication through contributed labour and resources and the net amount of cash is near-zero. This is described in http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/ where the J. Machine Learning Research is among the highest regarded journals in the area (top 7%) and free-to-authors and free-to-readers. There is an enlightening debate (on this URL) between those who run the journal and Kent Anderson of the Scholarly Kitchen who cannot believe that people will run and work for journals for the good of the community. There is no law of physics that says this doesn't scale. It is simply that most scholars would rather the taxpayer and students paid for the administration publishing (either as author-side or reader-side) so the scholars don't have to do the work. And they've managed ot get 10 B USD per year. If scholars regarded publishing as part of their role, of if they were prepared to involved the wider community (as Wikipedia has done) we could have a much more C21 type of activity - innovative and valuable to the whole world rather than just academia. It would cost zero, but it would be much cheaper than any current model. And of course we now have a complete free map of the whole world (openstreetmap.org) which is so much better than other alternatives that many people and organizations are switching to it. And, for many years, it didn't have a bank account and existed on marginal resources from UCL (and probably still does). But most people will regard this as another fairy tale. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal Laurent Romary INRIA HUB-IDSL laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal Laurent Romary INRIA HUB-IDSL laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Publications managed by scholarly communities/institutions
So you know 27,995 which are working without any private publisher in the loop and no author/reader fee. Laurent Le 9 août 2012 à 11:55, Jan Velterop a écrit : It's a start. 27,995 or so to go. Jan On 9 Aug 2012, at 11:43, Laurent Romary wrote: Thanks. Are these all managed on their own? Laurent Le 9 août 2012 à 11:42, Bo-Christer Björk a écrit : Good idea, Here are four such journals, all of which have been there since the 1990s: Information Research Journal of Information Technology in Construction Journal of Electronic Publishing First Monday best regards Bo-Christer Björk Journal of On 8/9/12 11:35 AM, Laurent Romary wrote: Dear all, As an echo to the fourth option mentioned by Peter, I would like to gather references to journals and initiatives which are notoriously community based. Could members of the list point to what they would be aware of? Thanks in advance, Laurent Le 7 août 2012 à 16:11, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit : On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: We should not delude ourselves; journals can only be 'free' if someone pays the costs. All the work involved in creating and running a journal has to be paid for somehow - they don't magically go away if a journal is e-only (in fact, there are some new costs, even though some of the old ones disappear). I can only see three options for who pays: reader-side (e.g. the library); author-side (e.g. publication fees); or 'fairy godmother' (e.g. sponsor). There is a fourth option, which works: the scholarly community manage publication through contributed labour and resources and the net amount of cash is near-zero. This is described in http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/ where the J. Machine Learning Research is among the highest regarded journals in the area (top 7%) and free-to-authors and free-to-readers. There is an enlightening debate (on this URL) between those who run the journal and Kent Anderson of the Scholarly Kitchen who cannot believe that people will run and work for journals for the good of the community. There is no law of physics that says this doesn't scale. It is simply that most scholars would rather the taxpayer and students paid for the administration publishing (either as author-side or reader-side) so the scholars don't have to do the work. And they've managed ot get 10 B USD per year. If scholars regarded publishing as part of their role, of if they were prepared to involved the wider community (as Wikipedia has done) we could have a much more C21 type of activity - innovative and valuable to the whole world rather than just academia. It would cost zero, but it would be much cheaper than any current model. And of course we now have a complete free map of the whole world (openstreetmap.org) which is so much better than other alternatives that many people and organizations are switching to it. And, for many years, it didn't have a bank account and existed on marginal resources from UCL (and probably still does). But most people will regard this as another fairy tale. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal Laurent Romary INRIA HUB-IDSL laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal Laurent Romary INRIA HUB-IDSL laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ 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 Laurent Romary INRIA HUB-IDSL laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Publications managed by scholarly communities/institutions
But indeed, most reviewers +are+ paid. Reviewing is part of the academic day job and the activity is part of the reporting made to their institutions. This is the whole point here: how far may an institution go in acting as a fairy godmother to scholarly publishing. Laurent Le 9 août 2012 à 16:35, David Prosser a écrit : I didn't say they were paid or that they should be. I merely pointed out that each and ever scholarly journal has at least some of its costs covered by 'fairy godmothers'. They all benefit from massive subsidies. The journals we are talking about here just extend those subsidies a little. David On 9 Aug 2012, at 14:56, Sally Morris wrote: As far as I am aware, peer reviewers are almost never paid under any model (I am aware of one publisher that used to reward rapid responses). I believe there were surveys (sorry, no reference to hand) which indicated that everyone involved felt that it would be inappropriate to pay peer reviewers. 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 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of David Prosser Sent: 09 August 2012 12:08 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Publications managed byscholarly communities/institutions Of course, to a greater or lesser extent all journals are supported by the 'fairy godmother' model. With peer reviewers playing the part of the fairy godmothers! David Prosser On 9 Aug 2012, at 11:50, Sally Morris wrote: These are all examples of the 'fairy godmother' payment model 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 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Reckling, Falk, Dr. Sent: 09 August 2012 10:53 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: Laurent Romary Subject: [GOAL] Re: Publications managed byscholarly communities/institutions I would add some journal form economics: a) E-conomics (institutional funding): http://www.economics-ejournal.org/ b) Theoretical Economics (society based funding): http://econtheory.org/ c) 5x IZA journals published with SpringerOpen (institutional funding by IZA): http://journals.iza.org/ d) Journal of Economic Perspective (a former subscription journal but now society based funding): http://www.aeaweb.org/jep/index.php b) and d) have an impact factor, a) and c) are new ___ Falk Reckling, PhD Humanities Social Science Strategic Analysis, Open Access Department Head Austrian Science Fund Sensengasse 1 A-1090 Vienna Tel: +43-1-505 67 40-8301 Mobile: +43-699-19010147 Email: falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/contact/personen/reckling_falk.html image003.jpg Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] Im Auftrag von Bo-Christer Björk Gesendet: Donnerstag, 09. August 2012 11:43 An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: Laurent Romary Betreff: [GOAL] Re: Publications managed by scholarly communities/institutions Good idea, Here are four such journals, all of which have been there since the 1990s: Information Research Journal of Information Technology in Construction Journal of Electronic Publishing First Monday best regards Bo-Christer Björk Journal of On 8/9/12 11:35 AM, Laurent Romary wrote: Dear all, As an echo to the fourth option mentioned by Peter, I would like to gather references to journals and initiatives which are notoriously community based. Could members of the list point to what they would be aware of? Thanks in advance, Laurent Le 7 août 2012 à 16:11, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit : On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: We should not delude ourselves; journals can only be 'free' if someone pays the costs. All the work involved in creating and running a journal has to be paid for somehow - they don't magically go away if a journal is e-only (in fact, there are some new costs, even though some of the old ones disappear). I can only see three options for who pays: reader-side (e.g. the library); author-side (e.g. publication fees); or 'fairy godmother' (e.g. sponsor). There is a fourth option, which works: the scholarly community manage publication through contributed labour and resources and the net amount of cash is near-zero. This is described inhttp://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/ where the J. Machine Learning Research is among the highest regarded journals in the area (top 7%) and free-to-authors and free-to-readers. There is an enlightening debate
[GOAL] Re: Effect of Green OA on Publishers
We can also keep in mind that there are ways to reduce the cost of high rejection rate, cf. the Copernicus experience: http://www.ifla.org/files/hq/papers/ifla75/142-poschl-en.pdf Laurent Le 30 mai 2012 à 18:06, David Prosser a écrit : Peter I'm not going to argue the piblishers' case for them, but... 1. This is cost per submission, while the hybrid OA publication cost is per published paper. A journal that rejects a lot of papers will obviously rack-up a lot of multiples of $250. (This raises the whole issue of submission charges - if a journal can't go open access because of the cost of rejecting 95% of papers then could it consider a submission charge to cover it. Would people be willing to pay $250 to be considered by Nature and Science?) 2. I think the $250 was a direct cost and so something more should be added for overheads. 3. This is just organisation of peer review. The study did look at other costs, but as there were so many problems with getting comparable costs from publishers for online hosting the study was not able to provide a total cost-per-article. 4. Disappointingly, but not unsurprisingly, I think a lot of publishers set hybrid OA charges at a level to try to cover their current revenue per papers. That's why hybrid OA charges tend to be higher than those for 'born OA' journals. It's also why, I suspect, hybrid has never taken off (except in a few cases) - it's just too expensive. If you want OA there are cheaper - and often better - alternatives. David On 30 May 2012, at 16:46, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:36 PM, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk wrote: Dear All An economic analysis also suggested that the cost of organising peer review is $250 per submission - an interesting factoid. Thanks David - this is a very interesting fact(oid). I have always found it hard to understand why a hybrid OA publication should cost 5000 USD [*]. If the peer-review organization is the key thing and the monopoly that the publishers assert, then everything else can go to the market. Hey! I can create a PDF myself! I can create images. I can write an abstract. I put the paper on the web. I can do this myself or contract it out. This would lead to a better universal quality of publications. And all of this should be possible for a few hundred dollars - let's say anoth 250 USD on top. Limit of 500 USD. [*] So the rest of the 5000 USD is profit (and the ruinous cost in the UK of stamps for first class letters). P. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ATT1..txt ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal Laurent Romary INRIA HUB-IDSL laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers
could be doing research. If I have to do this with every publisher it will destroy this research. If I leave it to my librarians, then they may well agree to the awful and restrictive deal that Elsevier forced on Heather Piwowar at UBC where one researcher was given permission for one project. She is not allowed to publish the full research openly so it's of no use to me. So I reiterate: * a public statement that I can mine Elsevier journals in any amount for whatever purpose and in whatever form. * that I can publish the factual information extracted without restriction. I have no details of the negotiations you are transacting with my library - I am a scientist not a contract negotiator. I have made my wishes very clear to the library. P. With kind wishes, Alicia Dr Alicia Wise Director of Universal Access Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com I Twitter: @wisealic From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust Sent: 11 May 2012 23:47 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk wrote: Many thanks to Alicia Wise for starting a new conversation thread. Let’s recall that Alicia’s question was, “what positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized?” Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from me. The publishers show withdraw contractual restrictions on content-mining. That's all they need to do. My university has paid Elsevier for subscription to the content in Elsevier journals. I believe I have the right to mine the content. Elsevier has written a contract which forbids me to use this in any way other than reading with human eyeballs - I cannot crawl it, index it, extract content for whatever purpose. I have spent THREE years trying to deal with Elsevier and get a straight answer. See http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/11/27/textmining-my-years-negotiating-with-elsevier/ The most recent discussions ended with Alicia Wise suggesting that she and Cambridge librarians discuss my proposed research and see if they could agree to my carrying it out. I let the list decide whether this is a constructive offer or a delaying tactic. It certainly does not scale if all researchers have to get the permission of their librarians and every publisher before they can mine the content in the literature. And why should a publisher decide what research I may or may not do? All of this is blogged on http://blogs.cam.ac.uk/pmr Yes - I asked 6 toll-access publishers for permission to mine their content before I submitted my opinion to the Hargreaves enquiry. Of the 6 publishers (which we in the process of summarising - this is hard because of the wooliness of the language) the approximate answers were: 1 possibly 4 mumble (e.g. let's discuss it with your librarians) 1 no (good old ACS pulls no punches - I'd rather have a straight no than mumble) In no other market would vendors be allowed to get away with such awful customer service. A straight question deserves a straight answer, but not in scholarly publishing. Just in case anyone doesn't understand content mining, the technology is straightforward. The only reason it's not done is because Universities are afraid of publishers. I estimate that tens of billions of dollars worth of value is lost through being forbidden to mine the scholarly literature. If Alicia Wise can say yes to me unreservedly, I'll be happy. P. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 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 -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal Laurent Romary INRIA HUB-IDSL laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Re: Proposed update of BOAI definition of OA: Immediate and Permanent
Iwas not planning to answer this thread, but any statement that does not reflect the practices in communities such as computer science is not likely to be endorsed by multidisciplinary bodies such as CNRS. Laurent Romary Selon J.F.B.Rowland j.f.rowl...@lboro.ac.uk: Having spent all morning at a meeting discussing various academics' outputs and whether they are acceptable to the University's management for Research Assessment Exercise purposes, I heard this very argument from a computer scientist. The Pro Vice Chancellor for Research (an engineer, by the way) would have none of it. Journal articles only, please! Fytton Rowland, Loughborough University As a Computer Scientist, I automatically read peer reviewed journal as peer reviewed (journal/conference/workshop/symposium), because that's the convention of my discipline, where a conference/workshop/symposium is a peer review service provider.
