[GOAL] Re: UK Research Councils plan to strengthen OA policy

[Kiley, Robert]

Peter

The RCUK policy on this is very clear - OA means CC-BY.

The existing policy will be clarified by specifically stating that Open Access 
includes unrestricted use of manual and automated text and data mining tools. 
Also, that it
allows unrestricted re-use of content with proper attribution - as defined by 
the Creative Commons CC-BY licence.

Robert

From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf 
Of Peter Murray-Rust
Sent: 13 March 2012 11:11
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: UK Research Councils plan to strengthen OA policy


On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Richard Poynder ricky at 
richardpoynder.co.ukmailto:ricky at richardpoynder.co.uk wrote:


The UK's Research Councils have proposed a revised policy on Open Access which 
further clarifies RCUK's definition of OA and strengthens some of the criteria 
that must be satisfied. In particular, the policy commits to libre Open Access 
as the agreed RCUK definition, ...

Please can you clarify what is the RCUK's definition of OA and libre.  I 
hope that libre means consistent with BOAI/BBB or else it is operationally 
useless for anything other than human eyeballs. (See Wiley's definition of 
fully open access - I review this in 
http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2012/03/04/wiley%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cfully-open-access%E2%80%9D-chemistry-open-my-review-if-this-is-%E2%80%9Cgold-oa%E2%80%9D-i-don%E2%80%99t-want-it/
 )  For example do the members of this list really believe that this is libre?


--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069


This message has been scanned for viruses by Websense Hosted Email Security - 
www.websense.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120313/72c944ce/attachment.html
 

Re: On Paid Gold OA, Central Repositories, and Re-Use Rights

[Kiley ,Robert]

On behalf of the Wellcome Trust - one of the funders behind the UKPMC
Publishers Panel Statement of Principle - let me respond to this
posting and state that we do not believe that the re-use statement is
stating the obvious in terms of re-use.  

There are many publishers who currently offer a gold open access
option - but do **NOT** allow researchers to build upon and re-use such
content.  Hence the need to make it clear that when an OA fee is paid,
it covers both free to read and free to re-use.

The Statement of Principle - which is endorsed by funders and publisher
trade associations - asserts the principle that it is in the interests
of fostering and promoting research that such documents may be freely
copied and used for text and data mining purposes...and that other
re-use of the content, including but not limited to further
redistribution, adaptation and translation, is encouraged..

Readers of this list may be interested in learn that the Elsevier OA
licence (available at:
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/supplementalterms)
explicitly allows users to access, download, copy, display and
redistribute documents as well as adapt, translate, text and data mine
content contained in documents for non-commercial purposes.

If we are going to enjoy the benefits of text mining, semantic web etc
(which may result in the creation of derivative works) then it is
essential that articles are licensed in ways which explicitly allows
re-use.  By way of example, all articles for which the Wellcome Trust
pays an OA fee not only appear in PMC and UKPMC, but also are made
available (in XML format) through the OAI/FTP interface
(http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/about/oai.html) - thereby facilitating
text and data mining.

Open access has always been far more than the right to read published
research.  The right to build upon and re-use this content is equally
important.

I'd also like to re-state that publication fees are a legitimate
research cost and as such are available from grant funds expended by
most of the main funders, including charities and Government --and of
course the NIH.

Regards

Robert Kiley
Head of e-Strategy
Wellcome Library
183, Euston Road, London. NW1 2BE
Tel: 020 7611 8338; Fax: 020 7611 8703; mailto:r.ki...@wellcome.ac.uk
Library Web site: http://library.wellcome.ac.uk

For information about Wellcome Collection go to:
http://www.wellcomecollection.org.uk

The Wellcome Trust is a charity, registered in England, no. 210183. Its
sole Trustee is the Wellcome Trust Limited, a company registered in
England, no 2711000, whose registered office is 215 Euston Road, London,
NW1 2BE.

*
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
Date:Tue, 9 Oct 2007 19:20:11 +0100
From:Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Subject: On Paid Gold OA, Central Repositories, and Re-Use Rights

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Albanese, Andrew (Library Journal) wrote:

 Hello Stevan: just writing to see if you have any thoughts on the 
 UKPMC statement on re-use...seems a little unnecessary to me. Stating 
 the obvious? Rather than say copyright still applies, would it not 
 have been more useful to issues guidelines on, say, how to craft a 
 copyright clause that facilitates open access? Do these broad 
 statements help anyone?
 http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTX041316.html

Yes, Andrew, I too think the UKPMC re-use statement is unnecessary and
stating the obvious. (Even advice on amending copyright clauses to
facilitate Green OA self-archiving is not necessary as a precondition
for self-archiving, or for mandating self-archiving, although it is a
good idea to try to amend copyright where feasible and desired -- hence
good advice is always welcome.)

(1) To begin with, the UKPMC statement is about paid Gold OA, and (for
reasons I have adduced many times before) I believe that -- except for
those researchers and funders who are so well off that money is no
object
-- paying for Gold OA at this time is unnecessary and a waste of money
(until and unless most or all of the institutional money that is
currently being spent on subscriptions is released to pay for Gold OA).
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/
399we152.htm

(2) Successfully establishing a credible, high-quality fleet of paid
Gold OA journals was definitely useful to demonstrate the principle of
paid Gold OA as a feasible one (especially under the current financially
straitened circumstance, with most of the potential Gold OA funds still
tied up in subscriptions); but that does not change the fact that Gold
OA is far from being either the fastest or surest way to scale up to
100% OA today.
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/

(3) The fastest and surest way to scale up to 100% OA today is for
authors to self-archive their articles (Green OA) in their own
Institutional Repositories [IRs] (not in Central Repositories [CRs] like
PubMed Central: CRs should harvest from IRs) -- and for their
institutions 

Fair use is not enough

[Kiley ,Robert]

At the Wellcome Trust we also believe that fair use is not enough if
the benefits of text and data-mining - with its promise of discovering
new knowledge - are to be fully realised.

Consequently, as a condition of paying an open access fee, the Trust
requires publishers to licence these articles such that they may be
freely copied, distributed, displayed, performed and modified into
derivative works by any user. Publishers may impose conditions on users
in relation to attribution (i.e. users must attribute the work in the
manner specified by the author or licensor) and commercial use (i.e.
specify that the work must not be used for commercial purposes.

All publishers which offer a Wellcome compliant OA option - which
includes, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, OUP etc - now include
this licence information in the XML they deposit in PMC.  Some
publishers (e.g. Springer, OUP) use the CC-BY-NC, and others (e.g.
Elsevier, TF, Society for Endocrinology) have defined their own
licences, but again they explicitly allow text-mining and the creation
of derivative works. 

These articles are also made available through PMC's OAI interface, and
as such can be downloaded and exposed to text and data-mining services.

Conscious that this licence only extends to gold OA articles, the
Trust is continuing to work with publishers to explore the possibility
of developing a similar licence for author manuscripts.

Regards

Robert Kiley
Head of e-Strategy
Wellcome Library
183, Euston Road, London. NW1 2BE
Tel: 020 7611 8338; Fax: 020 7611 8703; mailto:r.ki...@wellcome.ac.uk
Library Web site: http://library.wellcome.ac.uk

The Wellcome Trust is a charity, registered in England, no. 210183. Its
sole Trustee is the Wellcome Trust Limited, a company registered in
England, no 2711000, whose registered office is 215 Euston Road, London,
NW1 2BE.




List-Post: goal@eprints.org
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
Date:Wed, 9 Apr 2008 23:40:54 +0200
From:Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com
Subject: We do NOT need to update the BBB definition

http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/386-Dont-Risk-Getting-
Les=
s-By-Needlessly-Demanding-More.html

Peter Suber has answered at
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/price-and-permission-barriers
-ag=
ain.html

Peter Murray-Rust (and I) have often argued that permission barriers
must be removed. See e.g.

http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/4409408/
http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/4356023/ (and earlyer posts)

See also
MacCallum CJ (2007) When Is Open Access Not Open Access? PLoS Biol
5(10): e285 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050285

On the recent discussion on textmining and PubMedCentral:
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/text-mining-licensed-non-oa-l
ite=
rature.html
http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/non-oa-full-text-for-text-
min=
ing/
http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust/?p=3D1026

Harnad writes: OA is free online access. With that comes,
automatically, the individual capability of linking, reading,
downloading, storing, printing off, and data-mining (locally).

Data-mining (locally) is nonsense. If I have to mine 1000 articles and
are allowed to downlad automatically 10 articles/day I have to wait 100
days.

Harnad repeats his ideas as mantras. We can do the same:

FAIR USE IS NOT ENOUGH.

There are scholars and scientists outside the U.S. under more rigid
copyright regimes without Fair Use.

Let's have a closer look on the German Copyright law:

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__53.html

It is allowed to make copies for scholarly use if and only if
(i) there are good reasons
and
(ii) there is no commercial goal (keinen gewerblichen Zwecken dient).

In my humble opinion medical research in a pharma business is
(i) research according BBB
(ii) commercial.

A scientist in this company may according German law (since January 1,
2008=
) NOT
(i) make copies of scholarly articles (=A7 53 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 UrhG) for
schola= rly use
(ii) data-mining.

On the problems of the new commercial clausula for universities
(Drittmittelforschung) see (in German) the position of the
Urheberrechtsb=FCndnis:
http://www.dfn.de/fileadmin/3Beratung/Recht/Expertise-3-korb-urhg.pdf

=A7 53 Abs. 2 Nr. 4 allows him making copies (of some articles in a
journal issue) on paper or for non-digital use only. Because data mining
needs digital use our German pharma scientist has only a chance to mine
the CC-BY subset of OA publications (most hybrid journals have AFAIK
CC-BY-NC).

(i) OA is important for all researchers (including commercial research).
(ii) Commercial medical research is important for world's health
problems.
(iii) Data-mining is a new scientific way to solve medical problems.
(iii) Business companies engaged in commercial research cannot and will
not afford journal licenses for large-scale data-mining.

(SCNR: How many people must die because an OA guru says There is a need
to update BBB and denies the need of re-use?)

There is a simple solution (I will 

[GOAL] Re: UK Research Councils plan to strengthen OA policy

[Kiley, Robert]

Peter

 

The RCUK policy on this is very clear – OA means CC-BY.

 

“The existing policy will be clarified by specifically stating that Open 
Access
includes unrestricted use of manual and automated text and data mining tools.
Also, that it

allows unrestricted re-use of content with proper attribution – as defined by
the Creative Commons CC-BY licence.

 

Robert

 

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
Peter Murray-Rust
Sent: 13 March 2012 11:11
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: UK Research Councils plan to strengthen OA policy

 

 

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk
wrote:

 

The UK's Research Councils have proposed a revised policy on Open Access which
further clarifies RCUK's definition of OA and strengthens some of the criteria
that must be satisfied. In particular, the policy commits to libre Open Access
as the agreed RCUK definition, ...


Please can you clarify what is the RCUK's definition of OA and libre.  I
hope that libre means consistent with BOAI/BBB or else it is operationally
useless for anything other than human eyeballs. (See Wiley's definition of
fully open access - I review this 
inhttp://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2012/03/04/wiley%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cfully-open-ac
cess%E2%80%9D-chemistry-open-my-review-if-this-is-%E2%80%9Cgold-oa%E2%80%9D-i-d
on%E2%80%99t-want-it/ )  For example do the members of this list really believe
that this is libre?



--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069



This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl





[ Part 2: Attached Text ]

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

[GOAL] Re: Chemistry and the Green Door

[Kiley, Robert]

Peter

These 1059 articles were deposited via the ACS open choice option.

There will be other ACS papers, funded by NIH authors, which are in PMC but 
were not routed through the open choice route.  These papers will be made 
available after 12 months, and will not have re-use permissions.  These papers 
are what NIH call public access.

By way of example this article published in Organic Letters is an NIH author 
manuscript.   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3253247  This article 
would NOT have been included in the 1059 figure quoted above.
R


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Peter Murray-Rust
Sent: 13 July 2012 08:57
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Chemistry and the Green Door


On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Kiley, Robert 
r.ki...@wellcome.ac.ukmailto:r.ki...@wellcome.ac.uk wrote:

Peter

Just done a quick search on PMC. There are 1059 full text articles in this 
repository

this = PMC, not Liege I assume

which were published by the ACS. These are also all OA -- in the sense they can 
all be freely accessed and reused for non commercial use.

Was this through APC / or US waiver (Gold/hybrid);  or self-archiving Green?

And, as you are aware, from early 2013 Wellcome will be requiring that when we 
fund an APC that article must be published under the CC-BY licence.

Absolutely - and I support you 110% and I know that author compliance is awful 
and I know you (and I) are angry about this and that we need measures to detect 
non-compliance. I am keen to help provide tools that will detect non-compliance 
because without drastic action (which you and I support) it will continue.

P.


--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069


This message has been scanned for viruses by Websense Hosted Email Security - 
www.websense.com
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: RCUK EC Did Not Follow Finch/Willets, They Rejected It, Promptly and Prominently!

[Kiley, Robert]

My reading of the RCUK policy is somewhat different to Stevan's.  In short, I 
see clear parallels between what Finch recommended (disclosure - I sat on the 
Finch Working Group) and the RCUK policy.

Specifically:


· Finch recommended gold OA and flexible funding arrangements to cover 
OA gold costs.  RCUK have released a policy that allows for gold publishing, 
and provides flexible funding (via block grants to HEI's) to support these aims.

· Finch said when publishers didn't offer a mechanism to pay for OA 
gold, it was reasonable for funders to demand an embargo period of less than 12 
months.  [See paragraph 9.10 of the Finch Report].  The RCUK have followed this.



· Finch said that support of OA publications should be supported by 
policies to minimise restrictions on the rights of use and re-use.  RCUK have 
followed this, and indeed pushed further to require than when an APC is levied 
the article must be published under a CC-BY licence.  This is identical to the 
policy change the Wellcome Trust announced at the end of June.

There were a long string of posts on this forum at the end of last week calling 
for an end to the counter-productive squabbling over the minutiae of 
differences between green and gold, the obsession with costing models, etc.  
The RCUK policy is entirely compatible with the recommendations of the Finch 
Report, and continually rubbishing Finch seems counter-productive on many 
levels.

Regards
Robert

Robert Kiley
Head of Digital Services
Wellcome Library
183, Euston Road, London. NW1 2BE
Tel: 020 7611 8338; Fax: 020 7611 8703; mailto:r.ki...@wellcome.ac.uk
Library Web site: http://library.wellcome.ac.uk
The Wellcome Trust is a charity, registered in England, no. 210183. Its sole 
Trustee is the Wellcome Trust Limited, a company registered in England, no 
2711000, whose registered office is 215 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BE.



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Stevan Harnad
Sent: 17 July 2012 21:33
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum
Subject: [GOAL] RCUK  EC Did Not Follow Finch/Willets, They Rejected It, 
Promptly and Prominently!

**Cross-posted*

RCUK  EC DID NOT FOLLOW FINCH/WILLETS,
THEY REJECTED IT, PROMPTLY AND PROMINENTLY!

Irony of ironies, that it should now appear (to some who are not paying 
attention)
as if the the RCUK  EC were following the recommendations of Finch/Willets
when in point of fact they are pointedly rejecting them!

RCUK and EC were already leading the world in providing and mandating Green OA.

Finch/Willets, under the influence of the publisher lobby, have recommended
abandoning cost-free Green OA and instead spending scarce research money
on paying publishers extra for Gold OA.

Both RCUKhttp://www.rcuk.ac.uk/media/news/2012news/Pages/120716.aspx  
EChttp://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/recommendation-access-and-preservation-scientific-information_en.pdf
 immediately announced that, no, they would stay the course
in which they were already leading -- mandatory Green OA. (They even shored it 
up,
shortening the maximum allowable embargo period, again directly contrary to 
Finch/Willets!)

What Finch/Willets have mandated is that £50,000,000.00 of the UK's scarce 
research
budget is taken away annually from UK research and redirected instead to paying
publishers for Gold OA.

The UK government is free to squander its public funds as it sees fit.

But as long as cost-free Green OA mandates remain in effect, that's just a 
waste of money,
not of progress in the global growth in OA.
(A lot of hard, unsung work had to be done to fend off the concerted efforts of
the publisher lobby, so brilliantly successful in duping Finch/Willets, to dupe 
the
RCUK and EC too. They failed. And they will fail with the US too. And the UK
will maintain its leadership in the worldwide OA movement, despite 
Finch/Willets,
not because of it.)

Stevan Harnad


This message has been scanned for viruses by Websense Hosted Email Security - 
www.websense.com
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: US Presidential Open Access Directive: 3 Cheers and 8 Suggestions

[Kiley, Robert]

Andrew

Even if deposit locally and then harvest centrally is easy (and I would argue 
that it makes far more sense to do it the other way round, not least as a 
central repository like Europe PMC would have to harvest content from 
potentially hundreds of repositories) the real problem is this content 
typically cannot be harvested (and made available) for legal reasons.

So, by way of example, if you look at the Elsevier archiving policy 
(http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/green-open-access) you will see that 
archiving of the Accepted Author Manuscripts **is** permissible in IR's (and 
somewhat curiously in Arxiv), but not elsewhere, like PMC or Europe PMC.   So, 
if we set out about harvesting content and then making it available, we would 
receive take-down notices, which we would be obligated to comply with.  I use 
Elsevier in this example, but other publishers also monitor PMC/Europe PMC 
and issue take-down notices as they deem appropriate.

A better approach, in my opinion, is to encourage deposit centrally, where, not 
only can we convert the document into a more preservation-friendly, XML format, 
but we can also have clarity as to whether we can subsequently distribute the 
document to the relevant IR.  From April 2012, all Wellcome funded content that 
is published under a gold model will be licenced using CC-BY, and as such, 
suitable for redistribution to an IR (or indeed anywhere, subject to proper 
attribution).

Regards
Robert


-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Andrew A. Adams
Sent: 24 February 2013 12:18
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); Murray-Rust, Peter
Subject: [GOAL] Re: US Presidential Open Access Directive: 3 Cheers and 8 
Suggestions


Peter,

Thank you for the correction. I mis-remembered the mandate from these (I think 
a bit confusingly named) systems. Too late to send a correction to an 
organisation like the White House. Hopefully if anyone who understand it well 
enough for it to be useful actually reads it, they will also spot and discount 
the error.

On your point on central deposit, I beg to differ, as you know. Deposit locally 
then harvest centrally is far more sensible than trying to mandate different 
deposit loci for the various authors in an institution. It's easy enough to 
automatically harvest/cross-deposit, and then one gets the best of all worlds. 
Central deposit and then local harvest is the wrong workflow. 
It's trying to make a river flow upstream. Sure, you can do it, but why bother 
if all you need is a connection one way or the other. ALl the benefits you 
claim simply come from deposit, not direct deposit, in central repositories. 
Which would you recommend for medical physics, by the way? 
ArXiv or PMC? Both surely, but that's much more easily achieved if the workflow 
is to deposit locally then automatically upload/harvest to both, than two 
central deposits or trying to set up cross-harvesting from ArXiv to PMC.


-- 
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


This message has been scanned for viruses by Websense Hosted Email Security - 
www.websense.com

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

[GOAL] Re: Hybrid Open Access

[Kiley, Robert]

Laura

It is not difficult to find an example of RightLink (and probably others) 
quoting re-use fees for CC-BY articles.

Let me give you an example.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0898656813002489 is an 
article funded by Wellcome, and made available under a CC-BY licence.  This is 
made clear at ScienceDirect (albeit in a footnote).

However, if you follow the link to Gets rights and content you get redirected 
to the Rightslink site where there is a form you can complete to get a quick 
quote for re-use.  So, for arguments sake I selected that I wanted to use this 
single article:


· In a CD-ROM/DVD

· I was a pharmaceutical company

· I wanted to make 12000 copies

· And translate it into two languages

..and RightsLink gave me a quick price of 375,438.35 GBP [I love the accuracy 
of this price.]

Of course for a CC-BY article, there is no need for anyone to pay anything to 
use this content. Attribution is all that is required.

I don't know what would have happened if I had continued with the transaction, 
but I hope that a user would not really end up getting charged.

As the CC-BY licence information is in the ScienceDirect metadata I'm not sure 
why RightsLink can't read  this and for whatever use the user selects, the 
fee is calculated to be £0.00.  Better still would be for CC-BY articles NOT to 
contain a link to RightsLink.

Regards
Robert




From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Laura Quilter
Sent: 17 December 2013 14:53
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Hybrid Open Access

Can you clarify regarding instances of CCC RightsLink demanding payments for OA 
reuse?  I'd really like to know details.

--
Laura Markstein Quilter / lquil...@lquilter.netmailto:lquil...@lquilter.net
Attorney, Geek, Militant Librarian, Teacher

Copyright and Information Policy Librarian
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
lquil...@library.umass.edumailto:lquil...@library.umass.edu

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


On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Peter Murray-Rust 
pm...@cam.ac.ukmailto:pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
Moving the discussion to a new title...




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

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

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

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


There are several other concerns about hybrid:
* the unacceptable labelling and licensing of many TA publishers. Many hybrid 
papers are not identified as OA of any sort, others are labelled with confusing 
words Free content. Many do not have licences, some have incompatible rights.
* many are linked to RightsLink which demand payment (often huge) for Open 
Access reuse
* many deliberately use Non-BOAI compliant licences. One editor mailed me today 
and said the the publisher was urging them to use NC-ND as it protected authors 
from exploitation.
* they are not easily discoverable. I mailed the Director of Universal Access 
at Elsevier asking for a complete list of OA articles and she couldn't give it 
to me. I had to use some complex database query - I have no idea how reliable 
that was.
Leaving aside the costing of hybrid, if someone has paid for Open Access then 
it should be:
* clearly licensed on splash page, HTML, and PDFs.
* the XML should be available
* there should be a complete list of all OA articles from that publisher.
Currently I am indexing and extracting facts from PLoSONE and BMC on a daily 
basis. Each of these does exactly what I need:
* lists all new articles every day
* has a complete list of all articles ever published
* collaborates with scientists like me to make it easy to iterate over all the 
content.
It is easy to get the impression that TA publishers don't care about these 
issues. BMC and PLoS (and the OASPAs) do it 

[GOAL] Developing an effective market for OA APCs: Björk and Solomon study

[Kiley, Robert]

A new report published today identifies options through which funders can help 
ensure that the rapidly growing open access market delivers high quality 
services and value-for-money for the research community.

The report, which was commissioned by a consortium of major research funders*, 
is intended to stimulate discussion and debate among funders and other 
stakeholders who are committed to ensuring free and open access to the 
published outputs of research.

Over recent years, a growing number of funders across the world have introduced 
open access policies requiring that peer-reviewed articles resulting from the 
research that they support are made freely available to access and re-use. In 
turn, an increasing number of journals are providing an option to authors 
whereby, in return for a fee known as an article processing charge (APC), 
papers are made openly available immediately on publication. Some journals 
(known as 'full open access journals') operate exclusively through this model, 
whereas other journals ('hybrids') allow individual papers to be made open 
access while other papers are only accessible through subscription. Several 
funders have started to make dedicated funds available to pay APCs.

However, these developments have sparked some concerns over rising costs during 
a transitional period in which both APCs and subscriptions are paid, and 
whether the future market for APCs would be transparent and functional.

This new report, authored by Professor Bo-Christer Björk of the Hanken School 
of Economics, Finland, and Professor David Solomon of Michigan State 
University, USA, sets out to examine the potential risks associated with the 
APC open access market, and begins to explore how they could be addressed.  It 
is important to acknowledge that there are other routes to open access (see 
below), but this study focused specifically on the APC market.

The economic analyses undertaken provided a strong indication that the full 
open access journal market was is functioning well in creating pressure for 
journals to moderate the price of APCs. On the other hand, however, the current 
hybrid market was found to be extremely dysfunctional, with significantly 
higher charges and low levels of uptake. Indeed, the average APC in a hybrid 
journal was almost twice that for a born-digital full open access journal 
($2,727 compared to $1,418).

Based on their findings, the authors developed a series of scenarios for the 
full open access and hybrid markets. They then undertook a more detailed 
analysis of the opportunities and risks associated with three scenarios which 
they judged to hold the greatest potential.

*   Scenario 1:  funders would only reimburse APCs for hybrid journals 
which had systems in place to ensure institutions which paid these received 
equivalent reductions on subscription payments.

*   Scenario 2:  funders could adopt a 'value-based pricing' model in which 
they would set tiered caps for the maximum payment they would contribute toward 
an APC for a particular journal based on the quality of the services it 
provides to authors.

*   Scenario 3:  funders would pay a set proportion of an APC if the price 
exceeded a certain threshold.

The report does not recommend a single approach, but rather that funders, 
universities and other stakeholders involved in open access consider and adapt 
these possible models depending on their individual needs and goals.

Robert Kiley, Head of Digital Services at the Wellcome Trust, said: We hope 
this report, which is both authoritative and innovative, will spark widespread 
discussion and debate. In supporting this work, we as funders have signalled 
our commitment to ensuring the future open access market delivers value for 
money and meets needs of the research community.

Tony Peatfield, RCUK Policy lead on open access, said: This report is a timely 
and valuable addition to the evidence base, as funders around the world push 
for free and unrestricted access to research publications. It will be a key 
input to the planned review of the implementation of RCUK's open access policy 
later this year.

The report (published under a CC-BY licence) can be downloaded from: 
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Policy/Spotlight-issues/Open-access/Guides/WTP054773.htm

*The report was commissioned by the Wellcome Trust, Research Councils UK, Jisc, 
Research Libraries UK, the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), the FNR (Luxembourg) 
and the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics.



Robert Kiley
Head of Digital Services
Wellcome Library
183, Euston Road, London. NW1 2BE
Tel: 020 7611 8338; Fax: 020 7611 8703; mailto:r.ki...@wellcome.ac.uk
Library Web site: http://wellcomelibrary.org
The Wellcome Trust is a charity, registered in England, no. 210183. Its sole 
Trustee is the Wellcome Trust Limited, a company registered in England, no 
2711000, whose registered office is 215 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BE.





This message 

[GOAL] Re: Any examples of journals charging non refundable fee for peer review?

[Kiley, Robert]

I don't think this quite addresses your question, but I note that PNAS charges 
an $1800 publication fee.  See http://www.pnas.org/site/authors/fees.xhtml .  
This is not an APC (that is a separate $1350 fee), or anything to do with 
colour and page charges (which are also charged separately).
Robert

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Danny Kingsley
Sent: 24 October 2014 01:08
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Any examples of journals charging non refundable fee for peer 
review?

Hi all,

I am passing on a question from a library in Australia:

I have recently become aware that some publishers and journals are charging 
authors a non-refundable fee to have their articles peer reviewed that is 
separate from the article processing charge.  I hadn't heard about this until 
one of our librarians mentioned it in passing.

I was wondering if anyone else had come across this (or whether I've just had 
my head in the sand and not noticed!), and if so, whether it is common.  Any 
examples would be great :)

Dr Danny Kingsley
Visting Fellow
Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science (CPAS)
p: +61 413 101 197
w: http://cpas.anu.edu.au/about-us/people/danny-kingsley
t: @openaccess_oz



This message has been scanned for viruses by Websense Hosted Email Security - 
www.websense.com
___
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'

[Kiley, Robert]

Colleagues

I think I have made this point before, but what for me is astonishing about the 
JCI data is that even after 13 years of making the version of record (VoR) 
content, free at the time of publication, on publisher site and PMC, they had 
ONLY lost 40% of subscriptions.  Why were 60% of subscribers still subscribing?

Of course, in this example, as everything was free at zero months, it is not 
especially relevant to the "green" debate.  In my experience "green" always 
comes with an embargo and invariably refers to the AAM (not the VoR).

Robert

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)
Sent: 16 October 2015 16:31
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc: Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'

Hi Danny -

Publishers support sustainable approaches to Green OA as well as Gold OA - 
indeed that was the focus of the panel discussion at the STM conference.

For articles that are published under the subscription business model, when and 
how they are made available for free (on a wide array of platforms - 
institutional repositories are one important example of these platforms) does 
make a difference.  In my experience publishers are both evidence-based and 
thoughtful about how they set embargo periods and so forth.

The evidence that is factored into decision-making currently includes:


1. Usage Evidence



In 2014 Phil Davis published a study commissioned by the Association of 
American Publishers which demonstrates that journal article usage varies widely 
within and across disciplines, and that only 3% of of journals have half-lives 
of 12 months or less. Health sciences articles have the shortest median 
half-life of the journals analyzed, but still more than 50% of health science 
journals have usage half-lives longer than 24 months. In fields with the 
longest usage half-lives, including mathematics and the humanities, more than 
50% of the journals have usage half-lives longer than 48 months. See 
http://publishers.org/sites/default/files/uploads/PSP/journalusagehalflife.pdf



2. Evidence for the link between embargos, usage and cancellations



A 2012 study by ALPSP was a simple one-question survey: "If the (majority of) 
content of research journals was freely available within 6 months of 
publication, would you continue to subscribe?" The results "indicate that only 
56% of those subscribing to journals in the STM field would definitely continue 
to subscribe. In AHSS, this drops to just 35%. See 
http://www.alpsp.org/ebusiness/AboutALPSP/ALPSPStatements/Statementdetails.aspx?ID=407
  This 2012 study builds on earlier, more nuanced, studies undertaken for ALPSP 
in 2009 and 2006. The 2009 ALPSP study (see the next to last bullet) found that 
"overall usage" is the prime factor that librarians use in making cancellation 
decisions. The 2006 ALPSP study (see points 7 and 8) found that "the length of 
any embargo" would be the most important factor in making cancellation 
decisions.



A 2006 PRC study (see pages 1-3) shows that a significant number of librarians 
are likely to substitute green OA materials for subscribed resources, given 
certain levels of reliability, peer review and currency of the information 
available. With a 24 month embargo, 50% of librarians would use the green OA 
material over paying for subscriptions, and 70% would use the green OA material 
if it is available after 6 months. See 
http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/115-prc-projects/research-reports/self-archiving-and-journal-subscriptions-research-report/145-self-archiving-and-journal-subscriptions-co-existence-or-competition-an-international-survey-of-librarians-preferences



3. Experiences of other journals



For example, the Journal of Clinical Investigation which went open access with 
a 0 month embargo in 1996 and lost c. 40% of institutional subscriptions over 
time. The journal was forced to return to the subscription model in 2009, see 
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/02/26/end-of-free-access/  Other 
examples that spring to mind are the Annals of Mathematics, the Journal of 
Dental Research, the American Journal of Pathology, and Genetics.

With kind wishes,
Alicia

Dr Alicia Wise
Director of Access and Policy
Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB
M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com
Twitter: @wisealic


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Danny Kingsley
Sent: 16 October 2015 12:29
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'



Hello all,

You may be interested in the latest Unlocking Research blog: 'Half-life is half 
the story' https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=331




This week the STM Frankfurt