Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Thomas Krichel]

  Ted Bergstrom writes

> Hooray for RePEc!

  Thank you.

> Thomas, Is there a short answer to the question:
> "How do we know RePEc can't be bought?"

  I have two answers.

  For younger people, tell them that RePEc is just data distributed on
  over 1800 different servers. It belongs to the organisations running
  the servers. It would be very hard to buy these organisations.

  For older people, tell them that RePEc is basically the electronic
  version of the old printed working papers publishing practice.  Of
  course it's more than that but understanding the printed world
  analogy is sufficient for starters. It would have been very hard to
  buy the printed working papers system.

> Do you have any advice  to offer economists who are wary of
> the SSRN sellout?

  Well if your institution does not have a RePEc archive, make sure
  you put your papers up at the MPRA

https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/

  And get in touch with re...@repec.org if you want to sponsor us.


-- 

  Cheers,

  Thomas Krichel  http://openlib.org/home/krichel
  skype:thomaskrichel
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Peter Murray-Rust]

Maintaining organizations against being taken over or pwned is critical. I
believe in ThomasK and PaulG, but no human is immortal. The inevitable
outcome of useful public innovation is privatization, unless formal steps
are taken to protect it. This can be done by a trusted organization (I
would trust most Scientific Unions but not most scientific societies, for
example).

The most powerful mechanism , which I would promote , is legal constraints
in the organization. One of the best known is the GPL.  In the Shuttleworth
Foundation (which funds ContentMine) we have been discussing this in depth
and we are now integrating legal tools such as OpenLock, MissionLock and
AssetLock. These are formal phrases, enforceable by courts, which prevent
certain change of direction. These tools would have prevented SSRN from
this disaster.

You can trust that ContentMine cannot be taken over by Mendeley because we
have a clause in the Articles of Association. I think arXiv and RePeC
should consider protection like this.

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Ted Bergstrom  wrote:

> Hooray for RePEc!
> Thomas, Is there a short answer to the question:
> "How do we know RePEc can't be bought?"
> Do you have any advice  to offer economists who are wary of
> the SSRN sellout?
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Thomas Krichel 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>   Stevan Harnad writes
>>
>> > Shame on SSRN.
>>
>>   Why? I am certainly looking forward to SSRN becoming as undynamic as
>>   Mendeley after an Elsevier takeover.
>>
>> > I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated
>> > expenses are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's
>> sure is
>> > that the distributed network of Green institutional repositories
>> worldwide
>> > is not for sale, and that is their strength...
>>
>>   RePEc can not be bought either. I created it before institutional
>>   repositories came along. It is based on the same principles as
>>   institutional repositories.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>   Cheers,
>>
>>   Thomas Krichel  http://openlib.org/home/krichel
>>   skype:thomaskrichel
>> ___
>> 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
>
>


-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[WALK Paul]

Yes - this is exactly the point.

For example, the fact that the University of Bath has a Pure instance is 
mentioned by Ross below - but I believe that Bath also operates an ePrints 
service as its institutional repository.

I did hear recently that the only institution in the UK which actually uses 
Pure as it main institutional repository is my own institution, the University 
of Edinburgh.

Paul

> On 18 May 2016, at 14:37, David Prosser <david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> Isn’t there a distinction between the use of PURE as a CRIS system and PURE 
> as a repository.  I get the feeling the former is much more common than the 
> latter and only the latter will appear in OpenDOAR.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 18 May 2016, at 15:20, Ross Mounce <ross.mou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Jessica (et al.),
>> 
>> I guess it depends which list you read. 
>> 
>> Elsevier's own list boasts over 200 PURE implementations at different 
>> institutions including 28 in the UK: 
>> https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/pure/who-uses-pure/clients
>> 
>> Even Elsevier's list isn't complete. I know for a fact that for instance 
>> that the University of Bath uses PURE http://www.bath.ac.uk/ris/pure/ and 
>> yet this doesnt appear on Elsevier's list, nor OpenDOAR.
>> 
>> OpenDOAR is a registry run by people with close links to EPrints & DSpace. 
>> It's no surprise then that EPrints and DSpace are well registered within 
>> OpenDOAR.
>> 
>> Time to remove the blinkers. PURE is much more prevalent than you'd think 
>> from a glance at OpenDOAR.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 18 May 2016 at 13:08, Jessica Lindholm <jessica.lindh...@chalmers.se> 
>> wrote:
>> Hi Ross (et al.),
>> 
>> Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure instances as you 
>> mentioned that many institutional repositories run on Pure.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories (http://www.opendoar.org/) I 
>> find 16 PURE-repositories listed, whereas e.g. Eprints has +400 instances 
>> and DSpace has +1300 instances. However I am not at all sure to what degree 
>> openDOAR is containing exhaustive data (or rather I am quite sure it 
>> doesn’t) -it is either lacking data about PURE instances – or if not, I do 
>> not agree that they are many..
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Jessica  Lindholm
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf 
>> Of Ross Mounce
>> Sent: den 17 maj 2016 22:54
>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Elsevier have actually done a really good job of infiltrating institutional 
>> repositories too:
>> 
>> http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the software that 
>> many of world's institutional repositories run on.
>> 
>> I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can further 
>> monetise academic IP.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Ross
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL <joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide 
>> is not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional repositories can be 
>> replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better solutions, more 
>> functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better connected to 
>> databases and gold/hybrid journals etc. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> - Mail d'origine -
>> De: Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com>
>> À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
>> Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
>> Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Shame on SSRN.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed 
>> scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer 
>> needed, and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as a 
>> foothold if it had been born dig

Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Andrew A. Adams]

> "The software may change, but you can't sell off a distributed network of 
> independent repositories.”
> 
> I agree, and I think that this is the crucial point. The software doesn’t 
> matter (well, it does matter, but it doesn’t affect this principle). It’s 
> about the distribution of *control*.
> 
> We are truly fortunate to have a global, distributed infrastructure of 
> institutional repositories which are (mostly) under institutional control. 
> This is quite an unusual arrangement these days - and I think we should 
> regard it as precious and inherently powerful in its denial of the 
> possibility of “ownership” by one party.
> 
> We should do what we can to both hang on to this infrastructure, and to 
> exploit it more fully, in pursuit of a better scholarly communications system.

We used to have a distributed system of email and file storage in 
universities, mostly under the control of the institution. In recent years, 
however, a large proportion of universities have purchased loud email and 
file storage services (mostly from Google and Microsoft).


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



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

Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Paul Walk]

"The software may change, but you can't sell off a distributed network of 
independent repositories.”

I agree, and I think that this is the crucial point. The software doesn’t 
matter (well, it does matter, but it doesn’t affect this principle). It’s about 
the distribution of *control*.

We are truly fortunate to have a global, distributed infrastructure of 
institutional repositories which are (mostly) under institutional control. This 
is quite an unusual arrangement these days - and I think we should regard it as 
precious and inherently powerful in its denial of the possibility of 
“ownership” by one party.

We should do what we can to both hang on to this infrastructure, and to exploit 
it more fully, in pursuit of a better scholarly communications system.

Paul

> On 17 May 2016, at 22:06, Leslie Carr <l...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> The software may change, but you can't sell off a distributed network of 
> independent repositories.
> 
> Prof Leslie Carr
> Web Science institute
> #⃣ webscience #⃣ openaccess
> 
> On 17 May 2016, at 21:35, Joachim SCHOPFEL 
> <joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr<mailto:joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr>> 
> wrote:
> 
> Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide 
> is not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional repositories can be 
> replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better solutions, more 
> functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better connected to 
> databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.
> 
> - Mail d'origine -
> De: Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com<mailto:amscifo...@gmail.com>>
> À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
> <goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
> Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
> Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
> 
> Shame on SSRN.
> 
> Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):
> 
> It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed 
> scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer needed, 
> and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as a foothold 
> if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a legacy from an 
> obsolete Gutenberg era.
> 
> I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated 
> expenses are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is 
> that the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide  
> is not for sale, and that is their strength...
> 
> Stevan Harnad
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk 
> <bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi<mailto:bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi>> wrote:
> 
> This is an interesting news item which should interest the
> readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.
> 
> Bo-Christer Björk
> 
> 
> 
>  Forwarded Message 
> Subject:
>Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman
> Date:   Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)
> From:   Michael C. Jensen <ad...@ssrn.com><mailto:ad...@ssrn.com>
> Reply-To:
>supp...@ssrn.com<mailto:supp...@ssrn.com>
> To: bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi<mailto:bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi>
> 
> 
> 
> [http://papers.ssrn.com/Organizations/images/ihp_ssrnlogo.png]<http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740=http://www.ssrn.com>
>[http://static.ssrn.com/Images/Header/socialnew.gif]
> 
> 
> Dear SSRN Authors,
> 
> 
> SSRN announced today that it has changed ownership. SSRN is
> joining Mendeley<https://www.mendeley.com/?signout> and 
> Elsevier<https://www.elsevier.com>
> to coordinate our development and delivery of new products and
> services, and we look forward to our new access to data, products,
> and additional resources that this change facilitates. (See Gregg
> Gordon’s Elsevier
> Connect<https://www.elsevier.com/connect/ssrn-the-leading-social-science-and-humanities-repository-and-online-community-joins-elsevier>
>  post)
> 
> 
> Like SSRN, Mendeley and Elsevier are focused on creating tools
> that enhance researcher workflow and productivity. SSRN has been
> at the forefront of on-line sharing of working papers. We are
> committed to continue our innovation and this change will enable
> that to happen more quickly. SSRN will benefit from access to the
> vast new data and resources available, including Mendeley’s
> reference management and personal library management tools, their
> new researcher profile capabilities, and social networking
> features. Importantly, we will also have new access for SSRN
> members to authorita

Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Thomas Krichel]

  Stevan Harnad writes

> Shame on SSRN.

  Why? I am certainly looking forward to SSRN becoming as undynamic as
  Mendeley after an Elsevier takeover.

> I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated
> expenses are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is
> that the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide
> is not for sale, and that is their strength...

  RePEc can not be bought either. I created it before institutional
  repositories came along. It is based on the same principles as
  institutional repositories.


-- 

  Cheers,

  Thomas Krichel  http://openlib.org/home/krichel
  skype:thomaskrichel
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Stevan Harnad]

Shame on SSRN.

Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):

It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed
scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer
needed, and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as
a foothold if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a
legacy from an obsolete Gutenberg era.

I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated
expenses are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is
that the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide
 is not for sale, and that is their strength...

Stevan Harnad



On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk <
bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi> wrote:

> This is an interesting news item which should interest the readers of this
> list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.
>
> Bo-Christer Björk
>
>
>  Forwarded Message 
> Subject: Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman
> Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Michael C. Jensen  
> Reply-To: supp...@ssrn.com
> To: bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi
>
> [image: Web Bug from
> http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/TrackEmailOpening.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740]
>
> 
> Dear SSRN Authors,
>
> SSRN announced today that it has changed ownership. SSRN is joining
> Mendeley  and Elsevier
>  to coordinate our development and delivery of
> new products and services, and we look forward to our new access to data,
> products, and additional resources that this change facilitates. (See Gregg
> Gordon’s Elsevier Connect
> 
> post)
>
> Like SSRN, Mendeley and Elsevier are focused on creating tools that
> enhance researcher workflow and productivity. SSRN has been at the
> forefront of on-line sharing of working papers. We are committed to
> continue our innovation and this change will enable that to happen more
> quickly. SSRN will benefit from access to the vast new data and resources
> available, including Mendeley’s reference management and personal library
> management tools, their new researcher profile capabilities, and social
> networking features. Importantly, we will also have new access for SSRN
> members to authoritative performance measurement tools such as those
> powered by Scopus  and Newsflo
> 
> (a global media tracking tool). In addition, SSRN, Mendeley and Elsevier
> together can cooperatively build bridges to close the divide between the
> previously separate worlds and workflows of working papers and published
> papers.
>
> We realize that this change may create some concerns about the intentions
> of a legacy publisher acquiring an open-access working paper repository. I
> shared this concern. But after much discussion about this matter and others
> in determining if Mendeley and Elsevier would be a good home for SSRN, I am
> convinced that they would be good stewards of our mission. And our
> copyright policies are not in conflict -- our policy has always been to
> host only papers that do not infringe on copyrights. I expect we will have
> some conflicts as we align our interests, but I believe those will be
> surmountable.
>
> Until recently I was convinced that the SSRN community was best served
> being a stand-alone entity. But in evaluating our future in the evolving
> landscape, I came to believe that SSRN would benefit from being more
> interconnected and with the resources available from a larger organization.
> For example, there is scale in systems administration and security, and
> SSRN can provide more value to users with access to more data and resources.
>
> On a personal note, it has been an honor to be involved over the past 25
> years in the founding and growth of the SSRN website and the incredible
> community of authors, researchers and institutions that has made this all
> possible. I consider it one of my great accomplishments in life. The
> community would not have been successful without the commitment of so many
> of you who have contributed in so many ways. I am proud of the community we
> have created, and I invite you to continue your involvement and support in
> this effort.
>
> The staff at SSRN are all staying (including Gregg Gordon, CEO and
> myself), the Rochester office is still in place, it will still be free to
> upload and download papers, and we remain committed to “Tomorrow’s Research
> Today”. I look forward to and am committed to a successful transition and
> to another great 25 years for the SSRN community that