Re: [GOAL] Help ensure vital Open Science/Scholarship infrastructure

[Mann, Paige]

Hi Vanessa,

How do individuals or libraries contribute to "SCOSS co-ordinated funding"? I 
don't see a mechanism on the SCOSS website. Does SCOSS serve more as a 
recommender of initiatives than a coordinating body to fund these initiatives?

Thanks for clarifying,
Paige


Paige Mann
STEM Librarian | Scholarly Communications Librarian
University of Redland

-Original Message-
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:53:07 +0100
From: Vanessa Proudman 
Subject: [GOAL] Help ensure vital Open Science/Scholarship
infrastructure remains open and free
To: 
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


Dear colleagues,


Last month, SCOSS 

 , a crowd-funding style initiative intent on helping secure the services that 
comprise our vital Open Science / Scholarship infrastructure, launched our 
second funding cycle.
As a new year begins, we are working hard to continue spreading the word of 
this latest appeal to the international library community.


SCOSS was formed in early 2017 with the purpose of providing a new co-ordinated 
cost-sharing framework for enabling the broader OA and OS community to support 
the non-commercial services on which it depends. It is committed to helping 
provide funding for the operation and development of key services.


For this funding round, SCOSS thoroughly vetted four services that we are 
presenting to the international community for community funding:

* The Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB 

 ), a digital directory of peer-reviewed Open Access books and Open Access book 
publishers; and Open Access Publishing in European Networks (OAPEN 

 ), a growing repository of freely accessible academic books;
*
* The Public Knowledge Project (PKP 

 ), a university initiative that creates open-source software and services, 
including Open Journal Systems (OJS), which is used to publish more than 9,000 
OA journals worldwide.
*
* OpenCitations 

 , a scholarly infrastructure service that provides open bibliographic and 
citation data;


With your help, we can help ensure that these services have the chance to 
continue to be free and open to us all.


More than 200 of your fellow academic institutions around the world have 
collectively pledged more than 1.6 million Euros during the first funding 
cycle. This support provides essential bridge funding to the Directory of Open 
Access Journals and Sherpa/RoMEO while they work to achieve more secure, 
long-term financial footing.


As a member of the community that relies on these services, we are asking that 
your institution consider becoming part of a voluntary endowment network 
supporting them.


For more details about the services and how they were evaluated, to see the 
suggested fee structure, and more background about this initiative, see 
scoss.org 

 .


With best regards,
Vanessa Proudman

***
Vanessa Proudman
Director, SPARC Europe

skype: vanessaproudman
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sparceurope.orgdata=02%7C01%7CPaige_Mann%40redlands.edu%7Cc2e3ae4045944f40e6d208d7a0c50224%7C496b6d7d089e431889efd9fdf760aafd%7C0%7C0%7C637154640338673191sdata=tCLpLefRAu6Lfd1wMK7uJwI%2FuReN16IugdmVI%2FhUDC8%3Dreserved=0



-- next part --
An HTML attachment was 

Re: [GOAL] DOAJ: handmaiden to despots? or, OA, let's talk

[Mann, Paige]

While I fully appreciate concerns that "DOAJ does what it can with the 
resources it has (and it does all this very well", applaud, and benefit from 
DOAJ, I also appreciate Heather Morrison's thoughtful reflections that raise 
questions and concerns. Others may share her thoughts, but may be less likely 
to raise them in such a public forum. DOAJ and others can address these 
challenges (as they are able to do so) and perhaps raise a stronger base of 
support. 

In response to Jean-Claude question, "Are these the most important questions 
presently facing open access and open science?" There is no right answers to 
this question and I've been finding Heather Morrison's posts thought-provoking 
as they draw attention to the impacts of our work on people and policies. I'm 
sure I'm not alone in this as critical reflections should inform our work and 
our communities of practice. I am also curious to learn more about Heather's 
statement that "the open access movement has developed a habit of viewing all 
feedback / critique as anti-open access and reacting defensively, as if every 
critic were an enemy." Would you mind saying more about this?

As for Heather's questions, "Why is DOAJ asking question about preservation 
services?" and "Why is DOAJ asking about technical matters such as article 
download statistics and time from submission to publication?" If these 
responses are included as search facets, I can see these fields being rather 
valuable to researchers looking to publish their work OA. 

At the very least, speaking as someone with a lot less experience and knowledge 
(about DOAJ and schol comm in general) than Morrison, Guédon and others, I do 
appreciate constructive contributions, though they may get contentious at 
times. 

Respectfully,
Paige


Paige Mann
Scholarly Communications Librarian | STEM Librarian
University of Redlands, USA
--

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 16:54:32 +
From: Gu?don Jean-Claude 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] DOAJ: handmaiden to despots? or, OA, let's talk
To: "goal@eprints.org" 
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

Some responses in the body of the text, in blue

Jean_Claude Gu?don

On 2019-08-21 11:41 a.m., Heather Morrison wrote:
[snip]

Some examples, given that both DOAJ and small independent journals have limited 
resources:

  *   Why is DOAJ building a searchable article database if it is not clear 
that this makes any sense as a discovery tool for content?

To me, this makes a lot of sense and looks pretty clear.

  *   Why is DOAJ asking question about preservation services e.g. LOCKSS, 
National Archives? Academic libraries have been at the forefront of the open 
access movement - shouldn't this be their responsibility rather than the 
journals / DOAJ? Why not ask countries about National Archives rather than DOAJ 
and the journals? IFLA has advocated for OA; this seems a good fit for IFLA.

DOAJ may well want to limit itself to journals that seem to have a clear idea 
of how they should be preserved over the medium to long term. It is a mark of 
professionalism.

  *   Why is DOAJ asking about technical matters such as article download 
statistics and time from submission to publication?

If you want to make sure that you are dealing with legitimate journals, it may 
be useful to know that its articles are downloaded fairly regularly and at some 
significant level. The same is true about delays in publishing. And, finally, 
what is wrong with DOAJ asking for a few more details to gain a better 
understanding of the set of journals they deal with?

[snip]

My main question remains: why take on DOAJ modus operandi (not to mention its 
handling of Egyptian journals)? Are these the most important questions 
presently facing open access and open science? I think not!




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

Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

[Mann, Paige]

Hi Bernhardt,

My understanding is that compliance with the NC restriction is (1) not clearly 
defined and (2) does more than restrict someone from profiting from sharing a 
file on a commercial platform.

From 
http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/2013/06/13/cc-by-what-does-it-mean-for-scholarly-articles-3/:
"When choosing a CC BY-NC licence you might think that you only prevent use 
within the for-profit sector. This is not entirely true: you may actually 
prevent use within the public and non-profit sectors as well (Friesen 2013, p. 
83). For example, CC BY-NC prohibits someone from using a figure or table from 
your paper on any website (even a scholarly blog) that carries advertisements. 
Since the definition of non-commercial is ambiguous, the CC BY-NC licence can 
therefore lead to confusion."

Perhaps Elsevier is trying to clear up some of that confusion through a policy 
that may be more restrictive than what is legally permissible.

Paige


Paige Mann
Scholarly Communications Librarian
Armacost Library
University of Redlands



Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 11:24:36 +
From: "Mittermaier, Bernhard" 
>
Subject: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND
To: "goal@eprints.org" 
>
Message-ID:
   
>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Dear colleagues,



on sharing in file-sharing networks, Creatice Commons explain:



?Can I share CC-licensed material on file-sharing networks?

Yes. All CC licenses allow redistribution of the unmodified material by any
means, including distribution via file-sharing networks. Note that
file-trading is expressly considered to be noncommercial for purposes of
compliance with the NC licenses. Barter of NC-licensed material for other
items of value is not permitted.?

https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-share-cc-licensed-material-on-file-sh
aring-networks



The ?Elsevier Sharing Rules? say

?CC-BY-NC-ND licensed articles may be shared on non-commercial platforms
only.?

http://help.sciencedirect.com/flare/sdhelp_Left.htm#CSHID=password.htm|Start
Topic=Content%2Fsharing_pubs.htm|SkinName=svs_SD



and again in the table at the bottom of that webpage: ?Public posting on
commercial platforms (e.g., www.researchgate.net, 
www.academia.edu
 )? :not allowed



I?ve been asking Alicia Wise, on what grounds why Elsevier takes that
position. She replied:

?Both ResearchGate & academia.edu use content commercially 
to sell
advertising & services around the content they disseminate? and ?Both
ResearchGate &   academia.edu are 
problems in
Germany as they go beyond private use to make NC content publicly available?
( 
https://twitter.com/wisealic/status/874284792275140609 and
https://twitter.com/wisealic/status/874284916644696066 )



My interpretation of the CC licence is that sharing of CC BY-NC-ND article
by commercial platforms is OK as long as they don?t sell the articles (which
they don?t do).

But apart from that - what authors are doing is IMHO definitely not
prohibited because they have no commercial gain whatsoever.



What do you think?



Kind regards

Bernhard

###



Dr. Bernhard Mittermaier

Forschungszentrum J?lich GmbH

Leiter der Zentralbibliothek / Head of the Central Library

52425 J?lich

Tel  ++49-2461-613013

Fax ++49-2461-616103



Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich
Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Wolfgang Marquardt (Vorsitzender),
Karsten Beneke (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt,
Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal