Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

I also wish that Kathleen had answered this part of my question: “How many members of COAR are also members of cOAlition S?" There is a public list of COAR members and a public list of signatories to Plan S. I would have thought that if somebody want to know the level of overlap they could

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

I was on the Advisory Board at the time and so my comments may be discounted. But my feeling is that the history of the DOAJ over the past few years has been that it has responded positively to very robust criticism, worked closely with the wider community in an interactive and engaged way to

Re: [GOAL] SpringerOpen, Egypt and academic freedom

.@uottawa.ca<mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>> on behalf of David Prosser mailto:david.pros...@rluk.ac

Re: [GOAL] SpringerOpen, Egypt and academic freedom

Dr Morrison’s arguments against the CC-BY licence are well known to readers of this list and I acknowledge her sincerely held, and consistent, views on this. But I’m afraid that I find using the murder of students to further, however tangentially, that argument quite sickening. David On 7

Re: [GOAL] Results of OA article data collection from OASPA members

Houghton et al. conducted an economic analysis of the potential transition for the UK using 3 models (gold, green, transformative system building peer review on archives) and found the transformative approach the most cost-effective by far. This work used to be open access, but today this

Re: [GOAL] North, South, and Open Access: The view from Egypt with Mahmoud Khalifa

As somebody who lives and works in the global north I can’t claim to have any particular insight into this issue, but I do wonder whether the way we treat access to content and access to publishing routes as symmetrical problems is helpful. Say I am a reader and I want to have read a paper

Re: [GOAL] FW: [SCHOLCOMM] On sponsorship, transparency, scholarly publishing, and open access

tel:(206)%20417-3607> | ghamp...@nationalscience.org<mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> | nationalscience.org<http://nationalscience.org/> From: David Prosser [mailto:david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 3:27 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successo

Re: [GOAL] FW: [SCHOLCOMM] On sponsorship, transparency, scholarly publishing, and open access

OSI is very transparent about it’s funding and that transparency shows clearly what Richard has stated - that the contribution from commercial, legacy publishers has increased and now makes up a larger proportion of the total than it did previously. Can I also confirm the the organisation with

Re: [GOAL] Embargoes, evidence and all that jazz

So it is the responsibility of libraries to prove the harm to publishers? Odd On 21 Jun 2017, at 18:58, Hersh, Gemma (ELS-CAM) > wrote: Hi Danny I agree it would be helpful if we all had (additional) evidence all parties felt confident in.

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

I rather like the ‘How open is it?’ tool that approaches this as a spectrum: http://sparcopen.org/our-work/howopenisit/ I may be quite ‘hard line’, but I acknowledge that by moving along the spectrum a paper, monograph, piece of data (or whatever) becomes more open - and more open is better

Re: [GOAL] Open access strategy and political change: a question

Around the time of the Finch Report in the UK one of the arguments one heard against the UK attempting to be a first mover towards total open access was that it we would ‘give away’ our research to competitors (especially the Chinese - the whiff of xenophobia in the argument was always a

Re: [GOAL] Beall's list is removed

Let us not forget that Beall was as well versed in supplying FUD as anybody else. Remember that he wrote that open access (in all it’s forms) was a plot by European socialists and an existential threat to the scholarly process. Let’s also not forget that for every false-positive Beall casually

Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

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

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

is? What can it do right now to mitigate the effects of these developments? Richard Poynder From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of David Prosser Sent: 30 December 2015 10:24 To: Global Open Access List (Successo

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

While we huff and puff about Berlin 12 and ridiculous suggestions that the entire open access movement is slipping ‘into closed mode’, Elsevier is having confidential meetings with UK Government Ministers of State. Meetings that are apparently not covered by the Freedom of Information Act:

[GOAL] Re: ?spam? Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'

ls in a > larger package, or a combination of these. > > Perhaps David would take a look the 30 titles and provide some additional > data? > > Dana L. Roth > Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32 > 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125 > 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540 > dzr..

[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/ One of the aims of PEER was to discover the effect of Green OA on journal viability - for the journals that took part

[GOAL] Re: ?spam? Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'

> http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm > > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of David > Prosser [david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk] > Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 5:38 AM > To: Global Open Access Li

[GOAL] Re: ?spam? Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'

It is well known that what people do and what they say they will do can be different. If you find that real-life behaviour and reported behaviour are different then you have to look at where the problems lie with the surveys. There are a number of journals that make papers freely available in

[GOAL] Re: Predatory Publishing: A Modest Proposal

To get an idea of the size of the problem of ‘predatory' publishers, does anybody know: a) the proportion of papers published each year in ‘predatory’ publishers compared to the total number of papers published worldwide; or even b) the proportion of papers published each year in ‘predatory’

[GOAL] Re: Predatory Publishing: A Modest Proposal

ailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of David Prosser Sent: 09 September 2015 11:25 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Predatory Publishing: A Modest Proposal To get an i

[GOAL] Re: Predatory Publishing: A Modest Proposal

in paid Gold then it is tiny! (And I don’t see why your preferred ratio is any more ‘correct’ than mine.) David On 9 Sep 2015, at 13:23, Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com<mailto:amscifo...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:24 AM, David Prosser <david.pro

[GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

Ever since ‘Open Access’ was first defined there have been people who have wanted to redefine it. Heather is the latest of these. The trouble is, by broadening the definition of ‘Open Access’ it is in danger of becoming meaningless. So, Heather wants to include journals who make their

[GOAL] Re: COAR-recting the record

Heather has mentioned in her posts a couple of times the fact that in the Review of RCUK Open Access Policy, ‘Scholars and scholarly societies noted that the RCUK preference for CC-BY was problematic with respect to third party works’. In the interests of balance it is worth remembering, and

[GOAL] Re: correction re: How an apparent small price decrease may actually be a large price increase, or why it is important to understand currencies

I no financial wizard, but I naively think that if the price I pay for a service is less than the price I paid for that service last year then that counts as a price reduction. David On 23 May 2015, at 00:14, Dana Roth dzr...@library.caltech.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu wrote: One

[GOAL] Re: Elsevier: Trying to squeeze the virtual genie back into the physical bottle

I remember severn or eight years ago a prominent publisher saying that allowing green self-archiving was a massive tactical mistake on the part of publishers. They only allowed it because they believed it would never gain any traction. This is why Elsevier is back-paddling furiously and we

[GOAL] Re: Has the OA movement over-reacted to challenges on peer review?

In defending Jeffrey Beall, Michael Schwartz writes: Gratuitous insulting comments about [] character are inappropriate, to say the least.” I assume that Michael hasn’t read much of Mr Beall’s writings. Or is he being ironic? David On 14 May 2015, at 15:14, Michael Schwartz

[GOAL] Re: A case for strong fair use / fair dealing with restrictive licenses

It is unlikely that many authors have contracts with publishers requiring a particular license even at the time of publication. When an author submits a paper to a journal they often get a selection of licenses to choose from. Surely that’s part of the contract to publish? David On 29 Apr

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY and open access question: who is the Licensor?

On the publicly-accessible PLoS website we find (http://www.plosone.org/static/editorial#copyright): 3. Copyright and Licensing Open Access Agreement Upon submitting an article, authors are asked to indicate their agreement to abide by an open access Creative Commons license (CC-BY).

[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?

in agreement on all of the details. I hope this discussion is useful for those interested in developing best practices for OA implementation. best, Heather Morrison On Apr 8, 2015, at 9:14 AM, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.ukmailto:david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk wrote: Jeroen - CC-BY license

[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?

Jeroen - CC-BY license Heather - NO!!! the CC-BY license is a major strategic error of the open access movement. Allowing downstream commercial use to anyone opens up the possibility of re-enclosure. The temptation towards perpetual copyright for profit-taking should not be

[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?

/Considerations_for_licensors_and_licensees. David On 8 Apr 2015, at 19:26, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: hi David, On 2015-04-08, at 12:47 PM, David Prosser wrote: Hi Heather OK, so let’s take your specific example. Every open access paper in PMC is mirrored

[GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on Predatory Journals

/publishers/ I suspect that David Prosser grossly underestimates the problems these publishers cause for researchers in less developed countries. Dana L. Roth Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540 dzr

[GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on Predatory Journals

://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/authors-update/authors-update/warning-re.-fraudulent-call-for-papers or the necessity of Jeffrey Beall's extensive listing of predatory publishers at: http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ I suspect that David Prosser grossly underestimates the problems these publishers

[GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on Predatory Journals

Quote: Predatory publishing has damaged the very foundations of scholarly and academic publishing, No it hasn’t. It’s a minor annoyance, at most. David On 23 Sep 2014, at 07:47, anup kumar das anupdas2...@gmail.commailto:anupdas2...@gmail.com wrote: Predatory Journals and Indian

[GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex

I’m not sure that Dr Weckowska has thought through the full implications of the HEFCE policy: In addition, she says: “Under the new HEFCE policy, researchers have incentives to make their best 4 papers accessible through the gold or green OA route (assuming that the REF again requires 4

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

. David On 16 Dec 2013, at 22:14, Sally Morris wrote: Actually, as far as I can recall, the idea of 'hybrid journals' was first proposed by David Prosser of SPARC Europe in 2003, as a way for publishers to move towards 100% conversion to OA David will no doubt say if this is not so

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

Who introduced hybrid journals? I'm not 100% sure, but that may have been me! It seemed like a good idea at the time... David On 16 Dec 2013, at 20:28, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote: Le lundi 16 décembre 2013 à 14:34 +, Graham Triggs a écrit : On 14 December 2013 20:53, Jean-Claude

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of David Prosser Sent: 12 December 2013 08:37 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises CredibilityofBeall's List Let me get this right, Jean-Claude mentioning the Budapest Open Access

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility ofBeall's List

: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of David Prosser Sent: 09 December 2013 22:10 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility ofBeall's List 'Lackeys'? This is going beyond parody

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

'Lackeys'? This is going beyond parody. David On 9 Dec 2013, at 21:45, Beall, Jeffrey wrote: Wouter, Hello, yes, I wrote the article, I stand by it, and I take responsibility for it. I would ask Prof. Harnad to clarify one thing in his email below, namely this statement, OA is

[GOAL] Re: Bohannon study: No damage

, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk wrote: I don't follow the logic of this. [1] Authors want to get the prestige of publication in journals. [2] Authors of very poor papers know they can only get published in journals where the peer review is lax (perhaps to the point of non

[GOAL] Re: Scholars jobs not publisher profits

correct this. It's basically 30% of $4000 On 3 Oct 2013, at 23:04, Beall, Jeffrey wrote: David, Thank you for your ignoratio elenchi. --Jeffrey From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of David Prosser Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 3:03 PM

[GOAL] Re: Scholars jobs not publisher profits

Jeffrey in the comment section to your post Ahmed Hindawi points out that the average revenue per paper published by Hindawi is about $600. For people like Elsevier it is in excess of $4000 per paper. I think it is clear which publisher is taking (significantly) more money out of the system.

[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

Rick I don't know if there is a way of getting a list, but I think you are conflating two things. I assume you are saying you would cancel if all of the content of the journal was available without embargo. Sherpa/Romeo doesn't tell you that - it just tells you whether or not the publisher

[GOAL] Re: FW: [SCHOLCOMM] Message from Emerald for Librarians

There is a lot to object to in this. But what struck me as odd was: Due to the recognized half-life of social science research, Emerald has followed guidance in reviewing its approach, and has requested that authors wait 24 months before depositing their post-prints if a mandate is in

[GOAL] Re: Comparing Revenues for OA and Subscription Publishing

of averaging the price per arti= cle of Gold today -- but we can be sure that the post-Green cost will be su= bstantially lower than the average publisher revenue per article for subscr= iptions today, pre-Green. Stevan Harnad On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:18 AM, David Prosser david.pros

[GOAL] Re: Comparing Revenues for OA and Subscription Publishing

indulges in it cannot be described as on the side of the angels. For reasons I don't understand Steven wants to give Elsevier that title, despite all the evidence of their policy. David On 5 May 2013, at 14:07, Stevan Harnad wrote: On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 5:32 AM, David Prosser david.pros

[GOAL] Re: Elsevier Still Onside of Angels on Immediate, Unembargoed Green OA Self-Archiving By Its Authors

, Stevan Harnad wrote: On 2013-05-03, at 2:57 AM, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk wrote: I agree with Andras and I cannot see how any publisher who has a policy along the lines of: You may make your author version freely available without embargo unless you are mandated (by funder

[GOAL] Comparing Revenues for OA and Subscription Publishing

(Cross-posted) The Economist has published another piece on open access publishing: http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21577035-open-access-scientific-publishing-gaining-ground-free-all I was struck by one paragraph in particular: Outsell, a Californian consultancy, estimates

[GOAL] Re: Comparing Revenues for OA and Subscription Publishing

-assocs.demon.co.uk From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of David Prosser Sent: 03 May 2013 15:18 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); boai-fo...@ecs.soton.ac.uk post Subject: [GOAL] Comparing Revenues for OA and Subscription Publishing

[GOAL] Fwd: Re: Is CC-BY analogous to toll access?

@eprints.org On 2013-03-14, at 12:09 PM, David Prosser wrote: Surely this is a red herring. Open access is about making the papers freely available, not about making any services that can be built on top of them freely (or 'cheaply', however we want to define 'cheaply') available. If somebody

[GOAL] Re: Is CC-BY analogous to toll access?

Surely this is a red herring. Open access is about making the papers freely available, not about making any services that can be built on top of them freely (or 'cheaply', however we want to define 'cheaply') available. If somebody can make a lot of money mining the literature and identifying

[GOAL] Re: OASPA CC-BY chart: where's the data?

As the chart has data going back to 2000 and OASPA was only formed in 2008 I'm finding it difficult to see how the figures can be influenced by growing OASPA membership! David On 11 Mar 2013, at 20:57, Heather Morrison wrote: OASPA has posted a picture of a chart of CC-BY growth on their

[GOAL] Re: OASPA CC-BY chart: where's the data?

growth of open access. During this time frame, there has been dramatic growth not only in OA journals, but also in repositories and their contents. - the OASPA chart shows a significant upswing in 2008, the year OASPA was formed as David Prosser points out. In order to properly assess

[GOAL] Re: OASPA's ironic demonstration of the inadequacy of CC-BY for data mining

This is a slightly odd argument. I don't think that anybody has ever claimed that a CC-BY license is all that you need to data mine. Obviously, if the data are not in a format that can be mined then the license is almost irrelevant. The claim by CC-BY supporters is that it is the optimal

[GOAL] OAI8: Call for Posters

With apologies for cross-posting. Dear colleagues, OAI8, the 8th Workshop on Innovations in Scholarly Communication will be held in Geneva, Switzerland, from Wednesday 19th to Friday 21st June 2013. Program details, registration and the call for posters are now available at

[GOAL] OAI8 - opening of registration

Apologies for cross-posting Please note the early-bird registration date of 27 March David Dear colleagues, OAI8, the 8th Workshop on Innovations in Scholarly Communication will be

[GOAL] Fwd: Business, Innovation and Skills Committee announces inquiry into Open Access

Apologies, as ever, for cross positing. A new Inquiry on Open Access in the UK Parliament. This is a committee of MPs who scrutinise the workings of our Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). Universities and research funding sit under this department.David Begin forwarded

[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] New Year's challenge for repository developers and managers: awesome cross-search

I would echo Fred's comments, but would urge respondents not to avoid the issue of embargo periods for green OA. You may have a view as to how long embargoes should be, whether they should be lengthened, and whether there is any evidence that embargoes harm subscriptions. David On 11

[GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of David Prosser Sent: 11 December 2012 19:53 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber As ever, Richard has put together a fascinating

[GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber

Actually, I find it very easy not to conclude with Beall's sentiments. I think 'predatory' publishers are, and will continue to be, a small unpleasant corner of the publishing landscape. And are we really saying that the average cost of APCs is artificially lowered by including 'predatory'

[GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber

As ever, Richard has put together a fascinating and entertaining interview, and augmented it with a really useful essay on the current state of OA policies. I have a small quibble. On page two, Richard writes: ...or by means of gold OA, in which researchers (or more usually their funders) pay

[GOAL] Re: Springer for sale - implications for open access?

business. David On 11 Oct 2012, at 02:32, Heather Morrison wrote: On 10-Oct-12, at 2:58 PM, David Prosser wrote: ...The simple fact is that the Springer OA articles published to date will remain OA whoever purchases the company Comment: This sounds very reassuring. However, I argue

[GOAL] Re: Springer for sale - implications for open access?

Unless you believe that private companies should not be allowed to run scholarly publishing services (a position I don't hold) then I don't see any implications. I guess any new owner may feel that the OA business is not profitable enough, in which case they will either a) put prices up and

[GOAL] Re: Europe PubMed as a home for all RCUK research outputs?

Or you could ask your friendly local librarian if it is available on inter-library loan - there are at least two copies of the print version in UK libraries, plus there should be a copy in the BL. David On 9 Oct 2012, at 17:38, Pippa Smart wrote: Alternatively it might be an incentive to

[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

[GOAL] Re: Publications managed byscholarly communities/institutions

] 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

[GOAL] Re: Why should publishers agree to Green OA?

Laurent makes an important point. OA policies are between the funders or institutions and the researchers. These agreements come before any agreement regarding copyright assignment between authors and publishers. So, it is the job of publishers to decide if they are willing to live with the

[GOAL] Re: Effect of Green OA on Publishers

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

[GOAL] Re: Open Access Priorities: Peer Access and Public Access

Whenever I talk to university administrators, heads of school, individual researchers, or other library staff about Open Access I have to be strategic about it. I have to predict which of the many arguments in favour of Open Access will resonate most directly with the specific audience.

[GOAL] Re: RCUK Open Access Feedback

Say I wanted to data mine 10,000 articles. I'm at a university, but I am co-funded by a pharmaceutical company and there is a possibility that the research that I'm doing may result in a new drug discovery, which that company will want to take to market. The 10,000 articles are all 'open

[GOAL] Re: Nice blog post on OA

reviewing for free.) Mike's analogy suggests that the producers (authors) only need the quality control (peer review) for their careers (journal prestige). But they need it as consumers (users) too, so they know what is safe to eat (use, apply, build upon). [And (as David Prosser has been correctly

[GOAL] Re: op-ed on Research Works Act in today's NYT

Oh come on Thomas, I know you like to be provocative, but: It is not libraries that submit their papers to publishers and sign over exclusive rights, nor is it libraries that compel researchers to do so. It is not libraries that provide peer-review services to publishers for free It is not

[GOAL] Re: op-ed on Research Works Act in today's NYT

it because the researchers, administrators, and students at their institutions require them to do it. David On 11 Jan 2012, at 10:34, Thomas Krichel wrote: David Prosser writes Oh come on Thomas, I know you like to be provocative, but: I think it better to stick to the issues, rather

OAI7 Workshop on Innovations in Scholarly Communication

Colleagues Apologies for cross-postings OAI7, the 7th Cern Workshop on Innovations in Scholarly Communication, at http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?ovw=TrueconfId=103325, is being held on 22-24 June 2011 in the University of Geneva. OAI Workshops are THE Open Access event in Europe

Re: Organisation of Repository Managers?

Andrew In the UK we have the United Kingdom Council of Research Repositories (UKCoRR): http://www.ukcorr.org/index.php which supports and represents repository managers. Best wishes David   David C Prosser PhD Executive Director, RLUK On 30 Nov 2010, at 03:16, Stevan Harnad wrote:

OAI7 Call for Ideas - June 2011 Geneva

*Apologies for cross-posting* OAI7, the seventh CERN Workshop is meeting in the University of Geneva on 22 to 24 June 2011. The theme of the workshop is innovations in scholarly communication with particular attention to technical infrastructures and protocols, Open Access publishing, and

FW: OA in High Energy Physics Arxiv Yields Five-Fold Citation Advantage

Am I the only person who thinks this just isn't good enough? We need either a citation or a retraction. David -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Sally Morris (Morris

Re: Submission Fees (was: RE: Overlay Journals Over Again...)

OUP has taken the proportion of OA content in it's journals into account when setting prices. For 2009 prices see: http://www.oxfordjournals.org/oxfordopen/charges David David Prosser Director, SPARC Europe -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american

Re: Funder Grant Conditions, Fundee/Institutional Compliance, and 3rd-Party Gobbledy-Gook

Hang on, deposit is not an `arbitrary hoop' that the publisher can jump through as and when they are bothered.  It is a condition of the contract between the Wellcome and the publisher.  If a publisher accepts Wellcome's money to make a paper Gold OA then one of the conditions of the contract

Re: Funder Grant Conditions, Fundee/Institutional Compliance, and 3rd-Party Gobbledy-Gook

`and I repeat: it is an arbitrary and counterproductive hoop that the publisher is being paid to jump through, for no good reason whatsoever, and to no genuine advantage, just disadvantage'   And I repeat that if you have taken money to jump through an arbitrary hoop then you can, and should,

Re: On Proportion and Strategy: OA, non-OA, Gold-OA, Paid-OA

So, there is little hard evidence as to whether discussion of Gold helps or hinders in an institution's attempt to implement a Green OA mandate. One of the few pieces of evidence that we have, from Harvard, suggests that it can help. However, this fails to fit in with Stevan's narrative and so

Re: On Proportion and Strategy: OA, non-OA, Gold-OA, Paid-OA

The implication is that it is far more productive (of OA) for universities and funders to mandate Green OA than to fund Gold OA. And if it was a case of either/or then you may well be right. But it's not and I still see no strategic benefit in pretending that it is. David David C Prosser PhD

Re: Gold Fever: Read and Weep

Interestingly, the main objection against the policy as reported was:   Open access will kill the journals you need during your career, women's studies professor and university senator Claire Moses said. It's as simple as that.   That is not a gold/green OA misunderstanding.  That's just a

SPARC Europe Award for Outstanding Achievements in Scholarly Communications - 2009

*Apologies for Cross Posting* Press Release SPARC Europe Announces Call-for-Nominations for the Fourth Award for Outstanding Achievements in Scholarly Communications   Award to Honour Leaders in Field of Scholarly Communications 17th March, 2009 For more information, contact: David Prosser

Re: [SOAF] Another Winning Article From OA's Chronicler and Conscience: Richard Poynder

I'm afraid that I still don't understand where this idea comes from that deposit mandates and open access journal deals are either/or propositions.  They are not and never will be.   I think some confusion is arising from a misunderstanding of how decisions are made in universities.  The

SPARC Europe Award for Outstanding Achievements in Scholarly Communications - 2008

(*Apologies for cross-posting*)     Press Release   Leo Waaijers Receives SPARC Europe Award for Outstanding Achievements in Scholarly Communications, 2008 April 22, 2008 For more information, contact: David Prosser, david.pros...@bodley.ox.ac.uk LUND, Sweden - As part of the Fourth

Re: OA in Europe suffers a setback

However, despite the six out of seven funding bodies requiring green OA, we do not yet see substantial compliance from academics as a result. One thing to remember is that most of these policies apply to papers resulting from new projects funded after 1 October 2006 (or 1 December 2006 for the

Re: [SOAF] PRISM doesn't speak for Rockefeller University Press (fwd)

It is extremely difficult to know who PRISM speaks for. On the website (http://www.prismcoalition.org/about.htm) they claim to be a partnership and coalition. The press release announcing the launch of PRISM talks of a 'coalition of scholarly societies and publishers'. However, I can't see

RE: : US University OA Resolutions Omit Most Important Component

In these discussions about authors doing, or being forced to do, what is 'good for them' we appear to forget that we already force authors to do 'what is good for them'. For example: In return for providing research grants we force researchers to deposit gene sequences, protein sequences, etc.

Re: Mandating OA around the corner?

Ensuring that the results of the research projects they fund are disseminated as widely as possible is surely a legitimate thing for the NIH to do and for the US Government to require the NIH to do. The current system does not maximise the dissemination of those results so resulting in reduced

Re: EPRINTS = PREPRINTS (unrefereed) + POSTPRINTS (refereed)

as Liber is toll-access; but perhaps David Prosser could explain the last sentence in the above summary: Authors can now self-archive their own work making it available to millions and new open access journals extend this by providing a peer-review service to ensure quality control Without

Re: Written evidence for UK Select Committee's Inquiry into Scientific Publications

The Press Release is now online at: http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_and_technology _committee/scitech111203a.cfm David David C Prosser PhD Director SPARC Europe E-mail: david.pros...@bodley.ox.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0) 1865 284 451 Mobile: +44 (0) 7974 673 888