Send GOAL mailing list submissions to
goal@eprints.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
goal-requ...@eprints.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
goal-ow...@eprints.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of GOAL digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'
(Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF))
2. Open Access Week at Cambridge - Wednesday (Danny Kingsley)
3. Re: ?spam? Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half
the story' (David Prosser)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:05:40 +0000
From: "Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)" <a.w...@elsevier.com>
Subject: [GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the
story'
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org>
Message-ID:
<by2pr08mb255852dcedac9e0013e8bd4e5...@by2pr08mb255.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi there -
Great to see engagement on this topic which is of shared strategic interest for
librarians and publishers! My original posting was to push back on the idea
that there is 'no evidence', and I'm pleased to see acknowledgment that there
is evidence and some discussion about whether or not it is sufficient or if
more is needed.
Publishers, including Elsevier, have c. 20 years of usage data and c. 10 years of
experience of setting embargos and looking at the impact of various sharing
behaviors. We're not guessing or crying wolf or 'ignoring reality' when we set
embargo periods. Some impacts of short embargos can take time to be felt. An
interesting perspective on why that might be the cases is implicit in a study the
AAP commissioned from Phil Davis. You can see the full study for yourself at
http://publishers.org/sites/default/files/uploads/PSP/journalusagehalflife.pdf but
let me quote the first two sentences of the abstract for everyone here: "An
analysis of article downloads from 2,812 academic and professional journals
published by 13 presses in the sciences, social sciences, and the humanities reveals
extensive usage of articles years after publication. Measuring usage half-life - the
median age of articles downloaded from a publisher's website - just 3% of journals
had a half-lives shorter!
than 12-months".
It is also a fact that libraries look at usage figures, and this is one factor in
their purchasing decisions. Why else would services such as COUNTER exist? See
http://www.projectcounter.org/ Again, to quote from the COUNTER website:
"Launched in March 2002, COUNTER (Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic
Resources) is an international initiative serving librarians, publishers and
intermediaries by setting standards that facilitate the recording and reporting of
online usage statistics in a consistent, credible and compatible way. Later on that
page the benefits of COUNTER to librarians and publishers are explained in this way:
"Librarians are able to compare usage statistics from different vendors; derive
useful metrics such as cost-per-use; make better-informed purchasing decisions; plan
infrastructure more effectively.
Publishers and intermediaries are able to: provide data to customers in a format
they want; compare the relative usage of different delivery channels; aggregate data
for customers using multiple delivery channels; learn more about genuine usage
patterns."
Might these data on usage be leveraged in some way to shed light? I don't know
if someone from COUNTER is on this listserv, but if so would be interested to
hear their perspective.
Anyway, green OA is important for us all and good to see more discussion.
There is not a simple interplay between usage and embargo setting and
subscription decisions. A publisher who sets a 6 month embargo period will not
necessarily lose subscriptions, or at least not lose them quickly. There are
at least a couple of reasons for this. First, for exceptional (not typical!)
journals a six month embargo can be made to work. We have around 10 titles
with 6 month embargo periods, in really fast moving areas of science where
there is a lot of news-breaking content, and we believe these are sustainable
(but of course we will continue to monitor and review). Second, the impact on
subscriptions can be rather slow - some of the specific examples cited in my
original posts are titles that lost their subscriptions over 5 or 10 years and
where the publishers with hindsight understood the long term impact of their
embargo decisions.
With kind wishes,
Alicia
P.S. I am struck by how little discussion there has been (at least so far!) on
this list about the review of the UK national OA policy implementation which
was commissioned by Universities UK on behalf of the Open Access Coordination
Group. It covers both gold and green OA:
http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/aboutus/whatwedo/PolicyAnalysis/ResearchInnovation/Pages/UUKOpenAccessCoordinationGroup.aspx
-----Original Message-----
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
Dana Roth
Sent: 18 October 2015 20:50
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'
There could be a problem trying to extrapolate from unverified data ...
I suspect that many of the 'freely available after 6 months' journals are either
very low cost <$1K/year, non-profit society journals, journals 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...@library.caltech.edu
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 List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [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 less than
12 months. For example, almost 30 journals hosted by HighWire make papers
freely available after 6 months:
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl
If it was true that almost half of subscribers will cancel if the embargo is
less than 12 months then how are these 6-month journals surviving? Their
subscription base should be massively reduced. If they really are
haemorrhaging subscribers surely we would now about it.
So we have surveys telling us one thing, reality telling us something else.
Alicia would have us focus on the surveys and ignore reality. I would rather
we worked with real behaviour.
David
On 16 Oct 2015, at 16:30, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)
<a.w...@elsevier.com<mailto:a.w...@elsevier.com>> wrote:
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<mailto:a.w...@elsevier.com>
Twitter: @wisealic
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Danny Kingsley
Sent: 16 October 2015 12:29
To: goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>
Subject: [GOAL] BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'
<apologies for cross posting>
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
<snip>
This week the STM Frankfurt
Conference<http://www.stm-assoc.org/events/frankfurt-conference-2015/> was told that
a shift away from gold Open Access towards green would mean some publishers would not be
'viable' according to a story in The
Bookseller<http://www.thebookseller.com/news/green-oa-will-hit-publishers-314667>.
The argument was that support for green OA in the US and China would mean some publishers
will collapse and the community will 'regret it'.
It is not surprising that the publishing industry is worried about a move away from gold OA
policies. They have proved extraordinarily lucrative in the UK with Wiley and Elsevier each
pocketing an extra ?2
million<https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/publishers-share-10m-in-apc-payments/2019685.article>
thanks to the RCUK block grant funds to support the RCUK policy on Open
Access<http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/openaccess/>.
But let's get something straight. There is no evidence that permitting
researchers to make a copy of their work available in a repository results in
journal subscriptions being cancelled. None.
</snip>
--
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head of Scholarly Communications
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: da...@cam.ac.uk<mailto:da...@cam.ac.uk>
T: @dannykay68
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939
________________________________
Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington,
Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, Registered in
England and Wales.
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org>
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
________________________________
Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington,
Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, Registered in
England and Wales.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 19:49:29 +0100
From: Danny Kingsley <da...@cam.ac.uk>
Subject: [GOAL] Open Access Week at Cambridge - Wednesday
To: goal@eprints.org
Message-ID: <c9d59169-8e1e-404f-9a49-796f2b5f1...@cam.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hello all,
Half way through Open Access Week and we are powering along...
Discussion: 'How open access can help you'
Today Dr Danny Kingsley accepted an invitation from Dr Rupert Gatti, one of the
Directors of the Open Book Publishers
http://www.openbookpublishers.com/section/14/1/about
<http://www.openbookpublishers.com/section/14/1/about> to attend a discussion
hosted by Professor Steve Connor, the Head of English about open access and the
future of academic publishing. Some very powerful statements were addressed including
'The world of academic publishing is over? and 'The monograph as an entity is very
powerful thing ? for the author not for the reader?. Issues around the readership of
the legacy publishing model compared to those of open publishing models were explored
in the context of the current reward system. These are profound questions for the
Arts and Humanities in a time of drastic funding cuts. New ?publishing? models were
discussed in light of the types of online and digital research now being conducted in
the Humanities, and the challenges associated with maintaining the !
integrity of the links into the long term. This is likely to be the first of
a series of discussions about this important topic.
Blog: Software Licensing and Open Access
The third in our Open Access Week series is written by Dr Marta Teperek and addresses some of the uncertainties
surrounding making software open access. https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=345
<https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=345> <snip> If the questions that the Research Data Service
Team have been asked during data sharing information sessions with over 1000 researchers at the University of Cambridge
are any indicator, then there is a great deal of confusion about sharing source code
<http://www.data.cam.ac.uk/faq-0/source-code>. ? We decided to call in expert help. Shoaib Sufi
<http://www.software.ac.uk/about/people/shoaib-sufi> and Neil Chue Hong
<http://www.software.ac.uk/about/people/neil-chue-hong>* from the Software Sustainability Institute
<http://www.software.ac.uk/> agreed to lead a workshop on Software Licensing in September, at the Computer Lab in
Cambridge. </snip>
Danny
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head of Scholarly Communications
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: da...@cam.ac.uk
T: @dannykay68
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20151021/6bfedfd4/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 09:59:10 +0000
From: David Prosser <david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk>
Subject: [GOAL] Re: ?spam? Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is
half the story'
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org>
Message-ID: <55eaf255-22f4-425f-aae9-5268df419...@bham.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
If the question is ?Is there any evidence showing a correlation between embargo
length and subscription cancellations?? then the answer is clearly ?no?.
If the question is ?Is there a disconnect between library behaviour and survey
results?? then the answer is clearly ?yes?.
Yes different journals have different usage half-lives and yes journal usage is
a factor in libraries? purchasing decisions but nobody has shown any evidence
that links usage, half-lives, and cancellations. This despite the ten years of
experience of setting embargoes that Alicia tells us about - if they evidence
exists then show it to us.
Let?s remind ourselves of how this discussion started - Danny wrote 'There is
no evidence that permitting researchers to make a copy of their work available
in a repository results in journal subscriptions being cancelled. None.?
Despite Alicia?s intervention that statement still stands.
David
On 21 Oct 2015, at 16:05, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) <a.w...@elsevier.com> wrote:
Hi there -
Great to see engagement on this topic which is of shared strategic interest for
librarians and publishers! My original posting was to push back on the idea
that there is 'no evidence', and I'm pleased to see acknowledgment that there
is evidence and some discussion about whether or not it is sufficient or if
more is needed.
Publishers, including Elsevier, have c. 20 years of usage data and c. 10 years of
experience of setting embargos and looking at the impact of various sharing
behaviors. We're not guessing or crying wolf or 'ignoring reality' when we set
embargo periods. Some impacts of short embargos can take time to be felt. An
interesting perspective on why that might be the cases is implicit in a study the
AAP commissioned from Phil Davis. You can see the full study for yourself at
http://publishers.org/sites/default/files/uploads/PSP/journalusagehalflife.pdf but
let me quote the first two sentences of the abstract for everyone here: "An
analysis of article downloads from 2,812 academic and professional journals
published by 13 presses in the sciences, social sciences, and the humanities reveals
extensive usage of articles years after publication. Measuring usage half-life - the
median age of articles downloaded from a publisher's website - just 3% of journals
had a half-lives short!
er than 12-months".
It is also a fact that libraries look at usage figures, and this is one factor in
their purchasing decisions. Why else would services such as COUNTER exist? See
http://www.projectcounter.org/ Again, to quote from the COUNTER website:
"Launched in March 2002, COUNTER (Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic
Resources) is an international initiative serving librarians, publishers and
intermediaries by setting standards that facilitate the recording and reporting of
online usage statistics in a consistent, credible and compatible way. Later on that
page the benefits of COUNTER to librarians and publishers are explained in this way:
"Librarians are able to compare usage statistics from different vendors; derive
useful metrics such as cost-per-use; make better-informed purchasing decisions; plan
infrastructure more effectively.
Publishers and intermediaries are able to: provide data to customers in a format
they want; compare the relative usage of different delivery channels; aggregate data
for customers using multiple delivery channels; learn more about genuine usage
patterns."
Might these data on usage be leveraged in some way to shed light? I don't know
if someone from COUNTER is on this listserv, but if so would be interested to
hear their perspective.
Anyway, green OA is important for us all and good to see more discussion.
There is not a simple interplay between usage and embargo setting and
subscription decisions. A publisher who sets a 6 month embargo period will not
necessarily lose subscriptions, or at least not lose them quickly. There are
at least a couple of reasons for this. First, for exceptional (not typical!)
journals a six month embargo can be made to work. We have around 10 titles
with 6 month embargo periods, in really fast moving areas of science where
there is a lot of news-breaking content, and we believe these are sustainable
(but of course we will continue to monitor and review). Second, the impact on
subscriptions can be rather slow - some of the specific examples cited in my
original posts are titles that lost their subscriptions over 5 or 10 years and
where the publishers with hindsight understood the long term impact of their
embargo decisions.
With kind wishes,
Alicia
P.S. I am struck by how little discussion there has been (at least so far!) on
this list about the review of the UK national OA policy implementation which
was commissioned by Universities UK on behalf of the Open Access Coordination
Group. It covers both gold and green OA:
http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/aboutus/whatwedo/PolicyAnalysis/ResearchInnovation/Pages/UUKOpenAccessCoordinationGroup.aspx
-----Original Message-----
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
Dana Roth
Sent: 18 October 2015 20:50
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'
There could be a problem trying to extrapolate from unverified data ...
I suspect that many of the 'freely available after 6 months' journals are either
very low cost <$1K/year, non-profit society journals, journals 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...@library.caltech.edu
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 List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [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 less than
12 months. For example, almost 30 journals hosted by HighWire make papers
freely available after 6 months:
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl
If it was true that almost half of subscribers will cancel if the embargo is
less than 12 months then how are these 6-month journals surviving? Their
subscription base should be massively reduced. If they really are
haemorrhaging subscribers surely we would now about it.
So we have surveys telling us one thing, reality telling us something else.
Alicia would have us focus on the surveys and ignore reality. I would rather
we worked with real behaviour.
David
On 16 Oct 2015, at 16:30, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)
<a.w...@elsevier.com<mailto:a.w...@elsevier.com>> wrote:
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<mailto:a.w...@elsevier.com>
Twitter: @wisealic
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Danny Kingsley
Sent: 16 October 2015 12:29
To: goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>
Subject: [GOAL] BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'
<apologies for cross posting>
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
<snip>
This week the STM Frankfurt
Conference<http://www.stm-assoc.org/events/frankfurt-conference-2015/> was told that
a shift away from gold Open Access towards green would mean some publishers would not be
'viable' according to a story in The
Bookseller<http://www.thebookseller.com/news/green-oa-will-hit-publishers-314667>.
The argument was that support for green OA in the US and China would mean some publishers
will collapse and the community will 'regret it'.
It is not surprising that the publishing industry is worried about a move away from gold OA
policies. They have proved extraordinarily lucrative in the UK with Wiley and Elsevier each
pocketing an extra ?2
million<https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/publishers-share-10m-in-apc-payments/2019685.article>
thanks to the RCUK block grant funds to support the RCUK policy on Open
Access<http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/openaccess/>.
But let's get something straight. There is no evidence that permitting
researchers to make a copy of their work available in a repository results in
journal subscriptions being cancelled. None.
</snip>
--
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head of Scholarly Communications
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: da...@cam.ac.uk<mailto:da...@cam.ac.uk>
T: @dannykay68
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939
________________________________
Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington,
Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, Registered in
England and Wales.
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org>
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
________________________________
Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington,
Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, Registered in
England and Wales.
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
End of GOAL Digest, Vol 47, Issue 34
************************************
