[GOAL] Re: Reaching for the Reachable
Stevan may well be right that the repository of the U of Liege (ORBi) contains 3,620 chemistry papers. But apart from posters, most deposits of articles published in peer-reviewed journals, and even theses, are marked restricted access and not accessible to me, and 'libre' access seems completely out of scope. So if this is the best example of a successful OA repository, Peter Murray-Rust can be forgiven for getting the impression that compliance is essentially zero, in terms of Open Access. Jan Velterop On 13 Jul 2012, at 00:11, Stevan Harnad wrote: On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: *** The faculty ignore the mandates. This is the reality - Wellcome, who have the sanction of withholding grants and put huge efforts into promoting, still only get 55% compliance. You have spent 10 years trying to get effective mandates and they are hardly working. The compliance in chemistry is 0%. ZERO. Really? You'll have to tell that to your colleagues at, for example, U. Liege: There seem to be 3,620 chemistry papers deposited there: http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/151 And that's the optimal ID/OA mandate (Liege model) that I recommended. Wellcome could raise their compliance rate to 100% if they were willing to listen to advice. (Admirably [indeed pioneeringly] early in adopting an OA mandate, they have nevertheless since been deaf to advice for years, insisting on institution-external deposit, allowing publisher deposit, and wasting scarce research money on paying for Gold OA instead of shoring up their Green OA mandate.) Other funders are listening, however, and integrating their mandates with institutional mandates, to make them mutually reinforcing: Integrating Institutional and Funder Open Access Mandates: Belgian Model http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/864-.html How to Maximize Compliance With Funder OA Mandates: Potentiate Institutional Mandates http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/891-.html There is no way in my or your liftetime that senior chemists will self-archive. And that goes for many other disciplines. What are the VCs going to do? Sack them ? they bring in grant money? No: draw their attention to the financial benefits, as Alma Swan John Houghton have been doing, for Green and Gold OA: http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/610/2/Modelling_Gold_Open_Access_for_institutions_-_final_draft3.pdf Yes - and probably 5% of VCs care about it. You are right that the mandate percentage is still far too small (and the effective mandate percentage is still smaller). But the benefits are large, and the costs are next to nothing: just effective policy-making and implementation. My argument - or fairy story - is that nothing will happen if we continue as we are. We have to get much tougher. And university mandates are seen as next to useless - universities can't police them and it alienates the faculty. The attraction of the fairy story is that it's vastly simpler and quicker to carry out. It even builds on the apathy of the faculty - the less they care, the easier it is. I am not against green OA - I am arguing that the OA community should unite and take decisive action. I'm for reality rather than fairy tales. And reaching for the reachable, now, rather than fulminating about the unreachable (especially when reaching for the reachable, now, is eventually likely to bring more of the unreachable within reach). Stevan Harnad ___ 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
[GOAL] Re: Chemistry and the Green Door
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.ukwrote: Sorry, part of my reply was about VCs below, not chemists! My reply about chemists should have been this: It is not chemists that oppose self-archiving, it's their publishers! (I've long predicted that as publishers go green, the last one out and shutting the door behind them will be the American Chemical Society!) But don't despair, Peter, the other disciplines are leading the way, and, as you will see if you look and count, chemists (even senior ones!) are already self-archiving, Show me the chemists and show me the numbers and percentages of papers self-archived. Without data I don't take qualitative statements seriously. Show me ten universities where 50% of the full-text of chemistry papers including ACS and RSC are publicly archived at time of publication in an official site or process. Then I will acknowledge that this has merit. Otherwise you are uttering political statements not facts. especially when their institutions or funders have effective Green OA mandates, like U. Liege's and FNRS's, with ID/OA and the Button to moot any say that their publishers have in the matter... What is the percentage of full-text ACS papers pubished by Liege which are visible at time of publication? See: http://blogs.nature.com/news/files/openaccessplos.jpg and http://openaccess.eprints.org/uploads/GreenGold11.png Stevan Harnad On 2012-07-12, at 6:11 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.ukwrote: There is no way in my or your liftetime that senior chemists will self-archive. And that goes for many other disciplines. What are the VCs going to do? Sack them ? they bring in grant money? No: draw their attention to the financial benefits, as Alma Swan John Houghton have been doing, for Green and Gold OA: http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/610/2/Modelling_Gold_Open_Access_for_institutions_-_final_draft3.pdf ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Chemistry and the Green Door
Le 13 juil. 2012 à 09:32, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk a écrit : What is the percentage of full-text ACS papers pubished by Liege which are visible at time of publication? None, of course! Just ask for an e-print when you are in thé ORBi web site and we'll send it at once. It's Green, not Gold! ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Reaching for the Reachable
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote: Stevan may well be right that the repository of the U of Liege (ORBi) contains 3,620 chemistry papers. But apart from posters, most deposits of articles published in peer-reviewed journals, and even theses, are marked restricted access and not accessible to me, and 'libre' access seems completely out of scope. So if this is the best example of a successful OA repository, Peter Murray-Rust can be forgiven for getting the impression that compliance is essentially zero, in terms of Open Access. I am generalizing from a sample of one in Liege (ORBIS) . This says: *Reference: Ivanova, T. et al - (2012) - Preparation and characterisation of Ag incorporated Al2O3 nanocomposite films obtained by sol-gel method [ handle:2268/127219 http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/127219 ]* *Document(s) requested:* *Tanya-CRT47-579.pdf - Publisher postprint * *The desired document is not currently available on open access. Nevertheless you can request an offprint from the author(s) through the form below. If your request is accepted you will receive by email a link allowing you access to the document for 5 days, 5 download attempts maximum. * *... * *The University expressly draws your attention to the fact that the electronic copy can only be used for the strict purposes of illustration and teaching and academic and scientific research, as long as it is not for the purposes of financial gain, and that the source, including the authorâs name is indicated. * So If I am a small business creating science-based work I am not allowed the Open Access from Liege. If I represent a patient group I am not allowed this material. If I am in government making eveidence-based policy I am not allowed it. It is the pernicious model that only academics need and can have access to the results of scholarship. As I have said before University repositories seem to delight in the process of restricting access. No wonder that no-one will use this repo. All it seems to do is mail the author and I can do that anyway (presumably if the author leaves the uni then the email goes nowhere). In today's market any young reseacher will use #icanhazpdf instead. I am not condoning #icanhazpdf but I am far more sympathetic to it than repos. But I have been told to shut up and I will. I'm slightly disappointed that no-one is prepared to consider the possibility we should do something different. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Chemistry and the Green Door
If ever one needed an argument in favour of 'gold' OA, here it is. Jan On 13 Jul 2012, at 09:48, brent...@ulg.ac.be wrote: Le 13 juil. 2012 à 09:32, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk a écrit : What is the percentage of full-text ACS papers pubished by Liege which are visible at time of publication? None, of course! Just ask for an e-print when you are in thé ORBi web site and we'll send it at once. It's Green, not Gold! ___ 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
[GOAL] Re: Chemistry and the Green Door
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:48 AM, brent...@ulg.ac.be wrote: Thanks for answering Le 13 juil. 2012 à 09:32, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk a écrit : What is the percentage of full-text ACS papers pubished by Liege which are visible at time of publication? None, of course! And that's my concern. Just ask for an e-print when you are in thé ORBi web site and we'll send it at once. It's Green, not Gold! So first - to check my facts (from your site) - * I can request this if I am an academic and want it for teaching or research but not if I am not an academic and want it if I want it for any other purpose such as developing products, use in government or patient care. * It will take some days to arrive * I have to destroy it after 5 days Is this an agreement with the ACS - do they allow this for all university repos and authors? And why - in the C21 - do I have to mail your taff who spend valuable time and money verifying that I am an academic and then sending the paper. Why not simply expose the paper? P. ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Chemistry and the Green Door
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: Chemistry and the Green Door
So really, the only true deposited open access articles are published as 'gold'. At least that is the impression I get from this exchange. Jan On 13 Jul 2012, at 10:19, Kiley, Robert wrote: 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.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 BlackSpider MailControl ___ 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
[GOAL] Re: Chemistry and the Green Door
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Kiley, Robert r.ki...@wellcome.ac.ukwrote: Peter ** ** These 1059 articles were deposited via the ACS “open choice” option. Thanks - This is (I believe) hybrid Gold - author pays for MS to be Open in some definition of the term (but not yet CC-BY) ** ** 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. Thanks for the example. Again, to interpret: * This is mandated by NIH. NIH-funded Authors must publish their work openly. The ACS complies with extreme reluctance, fighting all the way. The only reason it works is because the US government has more power than the ACS (and they have been taking this approach for some time). They get very high compliance because the government is their employer and US government institutions (I am visiting a national lab next week) have huge investment in bureaucracy. They will lose their jobs if they don't comply. Can you confirm that there are no Green full text manuscripts in PMC? Wellcome (and some other funders) are taking a similar approach. Their hold is weaker, but still strong - non-compliance will lead to loss of future grants and possible forfeiture of final grant payments. As I said I support this. It's harder than the NIH employee scheme because (a) many Wellcome papers are multi-institution and (b) the formal hold ends at the end of the grant (and many publications are post-grant) and (c) it needs investment in policing. P. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Chemistry and the Green Door
In order to remove ambiguity from the discussion, I think we should make clear that: 1) it is about Open Access, not about deposit in repositories per se (though such deposit can well be one of the routes to open access as already established in Budapest over a decade ago) 2) any repositories worthy of being classified Open Access repositories must make their contents fully open, to human eyes and to computers, and enable comprehensive indexing by any search engine. As for 1), I'm afraid that 'green' has been watered down so much as to be practically useless in terms of open access, when it may be possible to get an article, as long as one waits a year (or when lucky, half a year), one can only see metadata and has to jump through hoops to ask the author for a copy (this was always possible, and doesn't constitute open access), and one has to forget about re-use or data mining. As for 2), we must realise that researchers won't turn to repositories to search the literature. They use search engines. So the relevant contents of repositories must be prominently visible in the search results of search engines. If articles in repositories cannot be easily found and used and re-used in a way that can reasonably be expected from true open access material, the exercise is useless, from a user's perspective. Jan On 13 Jul 2012, at 13:58, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote: The discussion presently going on is divisive and not useful. Both Gold and Green are useful. Every little bit helps. Everybody is doing as well as he/she can, and we all know it is not enough. Let us at least trust each others' motives, please. Let us, therefore, go back to the basic idea of Peter, regarding the possibility of convening a high-level group of administrators of universities and research institutions. I would add high-level people from granting agencies; researchers should also be involved, especially those who, like Stuart Shieber, have managed getting faculty-initiated mandates. Such a meeting has never been done before. The BIOAI10 meeting in Budapest last February focused on broad strategies rather than concrete strategic moves. Stevan has mentioned the group Enabling Open Scholarship led by Bernard Rentier. First, Bernard is the perfect person to start the move toward a meeting of the kind suggested by Peter by virtue of his institutional standing. Perhaps this group is the right anchor for such a move. How can we join this group, or how can we work with it? We hear about it episodically, but nothing much seems to have come out of it so far. Would this not be the best occasion to really get this organization off the ground? The goal: convene a limited but high-power group of administrators and researchers to develop a policy aiming at effective, immediate implementation of the green road, and do so in a unified manner. The implementation details should constitute a major part of this meeting: we seem to know broadly what we want, but we have not yet fully agreed on the the means to make it 100% effective. If researchers are evaluated only from what is in repositories, they will deposit. Now, why are so few institutions ready to implement such a policy? Are funders of research really ready to apply similar rules to the evaluation of applicants? Questions like these should be at the centre of this meeting. The green road will have succeeded when researchers spontaneously turn to repositories to search the literature. We are very far from this and mandates are only one step in the right direction. The goal of this meeting is to build decisive momentum. Anyone on board? Jean-Claude Le vendredi 13 juillet 2012 à 10:00 +0200, Jan Velterop a écrit : If ever one needed an argument in favour of 'gold' OA, here it is. Jan On 13 Jul 2012, at 09:48, brent...@ulg.ac.be wrote: Le 13 juil. 2012 à 09:32, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk a écrit : What is the percentage of full-text ACS papers pubished by Liege which are visible at time of publication? None, of course! Just ask for an e-print when you are in thé ORBi web site and we'll send it at once. It's Green, not Gold! ___ 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 ___ 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
[GOAL] Re: Reaching for the Reachable
FOR THE PERPLEXED GOAL READER: For the perplexed reader who is wondering what on earth all this to and fro on GOAL is about: 1. Gratis Open Access (OA) means free online access to peer-reviewed journal articles. 2. Libre OA means free online access to peer-reviewed journal articles + certain re-use rights (often CC-BY). 3. Green OA means OA provided by authors self-archiving their peer-reviewed final drafts free for all online (either in the author's institutional repository or website or in an institution-external central repository) 4. Gold OA means OA provided by authors publishing in OA journals that provide free online access to their articles (Gratis or Libre), often at the cost of an author publication fee. 5. Global OA today stands at about 20% of yearly journal article output, though this varies by discipline, with some higher (particle physics near 100%) and some lower (chemistry among the lowest). 6. About two thirds of the global 20% OA is Green and one third is Gold. Almost all of it is Gratis rather than Libre. 7. Institutions and funders that mandate Green OA have much higher Green OA rates (70%+), but only if they have effective Green OA mandates -- and only a tiny proportion of the world's institutions and funders mandate OA as yet have Green OA mandates at all. 8. Ineffective Green OA mandates are the ones that require self-archiving only if and when the publisher endorses self-archiving: 60% of journals endorse immediate Green OA self-archiving; 40% ask for embargoes of varying in length from 6-12 months to 5 years or indefinitely. 9. Effective Green OA mandates (ID/OA: Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access) are the ones that require immediate deposit of all articles, but if the publisher has an OA embargo, access to the deposit can be set as Closed Access during the allowable embargo period (preferably no more than 6 months). 10. During any embargo, the institutional repository has an automated email-eprint-request button that allows users to request a copy for research purposes with one click, and allows the author to comply with one click. (This is not OA but Almost-OA.) 11. The rationale for ID/OA + the Almost-OA button is to ensure that 100% of papers are immediately deposited and accessible for research purposes, not just the 60% that have publisher endorsement. 12. The expectation is that once ID/OA is mandated globally by 100% of institutions and funders, not only will it provide 60% immediate-OA plus 40% Almost-OA, but it will hasten the end of OA embargoes, as the power and utility of OA become evident, familiar and indispensable to all researchers, as authors and users. There are additional details about optimal mandates. (Deposit should be designated the sole procedure for submitting publications for institutional performance review, and funders should mandate convergent institutional deposit rather than divergent institution-external deposit.) And the further expectation is that once Gratis Green OA is mandated by institutions and funders globally, it will hasten the advent of Libre OA (CC-BY) and Gold OA. All the frustration and complaints being vented in the recent GOAL postings are with the lack of OA. But frustration will not bring OA. Only mandates will. And the optimal mandate is ID/OA, even if it does not confer instant global OA. First things first. Don't let the unreachable best get in the way of the reachable better. Grasp what is already within reach. Stevan Harnad On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.ukwrote: On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote: Stevan may well be right that the repository of the U of Liege (ORBi) contains 3,620 chemistry papers. But apart from posters, most deposits of articles published in peer-reviewed journals, and even theses, are marked restricted access and not accessible to me, and 'libre' access seems completely out of scope. So if this is the best example of a successful OA repository, Peter Murray-Rust can be forgiven for getting the impression that compliance is essentially zero, in terms of Open Access. I am generalizing from a sample of one in Liege (ORBIS) . This says: *Reference: Ivanova, T. et al - (2012) - Preparation and characterisation of Ag incorporated Al2O3 nanocomposite films obtained by sol-gel method [ handle:2268/127219 http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/127219 ]* *Document(s) requested:* *Tanya-CRT47-579.pdf - Publisher postprint * *The desired document is not currently available on open access. Nevertheless you can request an offprint from the author(s) through the form below. If your request is accepted you will receive by email a link allowing you access to the document for 5 days, 5 download attempts maximum.* *... * *The University expressly draws your attention to the fact that the electronic copy can only be used for the
[GOAL] Google's role in sustaining the public good to research parallel to developments in open access?
Greetings. I get the sense that Google Scholar is becoming the default indexer for open access research in STM with slower but also increasing uptake in the SS and humanities. Google is so nearly ubiquitous now it is easy to forget they are also a commercial company. At some point, a conversation surely needs to happen regarding Google’s role in sustaining the public good to research parallel to developments in open access. Is anyone aware of the status of such a conversation? Thanks. Gary F. Daught Omega Alpha | Open Access Advocate for open access academic publishing in religion and theology oa.openacc...@gmail.com http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Chemistry and the Green Door
I agree with Jan in the part of his intervention that I kept below. I should have said that researchers, in looking for literature, should find themselves naturally and quickly led to repositories (and OA journals). That is where the real OA advantage would begin to show up. We are far from this. In the case of repositories, how do we do this? I now go back to Peter's suggestion of a high-level meeting. Action, please! Jean-Claude Le vendredi 13 juillet 2012 à 15:28 +0200, Jan Velterop a écrit : [snip] As for 2), we must realise that researchers won't turn to repositories to search the literature. They use search engines. So the relevant contents of repositories must be prominently visible in the search results of search engines. If articles in repositories cannot be easily found and used and re-used in a way that can reasonably be expected from true open access material, the exercise is useless, from a user's perspective. Jan On 13 Jul 2012, at 13:58, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote: The discussion presently going on is divisive and not useful. Both Gold and Green are useful. Every little bit helps. Everybody is doing as well as he/she can, and we all know it is not enough. Let us at least trust each others' motives, please. Let us, therefore, go back to the basic idea of Peter, regarding the possibility of convening a high-level group of administrators of universities and research institutions. I would add high-level people from granting agencies; researchers should also be involved, especially those who, like Stuart Shieber, have managed getting faculty-initiated mandates. Such a meeting has never been done before. The BIOAI10 meeting in Budapest last February focused on broad strategies rather than concrete strategic moves. Stevan has mentioned the group Enabling Open Scholarship led by Bernard Rentier. First, Bernard is the perfect person to start the move toward a meeting of the kind suggested by Peter by virtue of his institutional standing. Perhaps this group is the right anchor for such a move. How can we join this group, or how can we work with it? We hear about it episodically, but nothing much seems to have come out of it so far. Would this not be the best occasion to really get this organization off the ground? The goal: convene a limited but high-power group of administrators and researchers to develop a policy aiming at effective, immediate implementation of the green road, and do so in a unified manner. The implementation details should constitute a major part of this meeting: we seem to know broadly what we want, but we have not yet fully agreed on the the means to make it 100% effective. If researchers are evaluated only from what is in repositories, they will deposit. Now, why are so few institutions ready to implement such a policy? Are funders of research really ready to apply similar rules to the evaluation of applicants? Questions like these should be at the centre of this meeting. The green road will have succeeded when researchers spontaneously turn to repositories to search the literature. We are very far from this and mandates are only one step in the right direction. The goal of this meeting is to build decisive momentum. Anyone on board? Jean-Claude Le vendredi 13 juillet 2012 à 10:00 +0200, Jan Velterop a écrit : If ever one needed an argument in favour of 'gold' OA, here it is. Jan On 13 Jul 2012, at 09:48, brent...@ulg.ac.be wrote: Le 13 juil. 2012 à 09:32, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk a écrit : What is the percentage of full-text ACS papers pubished by Liege which are visible at time of publication? None, of course! Just ask for an e-print when you are in thé ORBi web site and we'll send it at once. It's Green, not Gold! ___ 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 ___ 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 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Google's role in sustaining the public good to research parallel to developments in open access?
It is easy to forget that they are a commercial company and not an official part of the web architecture. However, they are only a commercial company, and just one of the myriad web indexers that account for about 50% of the visits to any OA repository. They have contributed significant public good to research (eg research findability, google scholar), and they would likely contribute vastly more if they weren't hampered by the lack of OA. Sent from my iPhone On 13 Jul 2012, at 15:25, Omega Alpha Open Access oa.openacc...@gmail.commailto:oa.openacc...@gmail.com wrote: Greetings. I get the sense that Google Scholar is becoming the default indexer for open access research in STM with slower but also increasing uptake in the SS and humanities. Google is so nearly ubiquitous now it is easy to forget they are also a commercial company. At some point, a conversation surely needs to happen regarding Google’s role in sustaining the public good to research parallel to developments in open access. Is anyone aware of the status of such a conversation? Thanks. Gary F. Daught Omega Alpha | Open Access Advocate for open access academic publishing in religion and theology oa.openacc...@gmail.commailto:oa.openacc...@gmail.com http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.orgmailto: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
[GOAL] Challenging the system [was Re: Re: Reaching for the Reachable]
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Alma Swan a.s...@talk21.com wrote: Yes, EOS is on board. -- *From:* Jean-Claude Guédon jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca *To:* goal@eprints.org *Sent:* Friday, 13 July 2012, 15:19 *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Reaching for the Reachable Thank you, Stevan, for this useful summary. Now remains the question: how do we multiply mandates and how do we implement them? Peter has suggested a high-level meeting to create momentum. I support the high-level meeting idea and provided some hypotheses about it that are aimed at boosting the green road. Keith, a member of the board on EOS, is on board.-- I seem to have catalyzed not only discussion but some action (though I am unclear what that is). I will try to be constructive. Preamble: The current situation is a mess, progress is slow and there is little unified action. We spend our time criticising each other rather than changing the world. We need to try something different. That does not mean that exhortations for mandates and sponsorship for Gold are not valuable, but simply repeating their value ritually doesn't gain massive change. Many scholars and librarians are scared of publishers and dramatically err on the side of excessive caution. We often forget that (a) we scholars and funders create the material and (b) pay for it (10 billion USD). That ought to give us serious bargaining rights, but we don't use them. It ought to mean *we* control the market, not the publishers. So my suggestion was for new, dramatic, brave action. I suggested that the Universities assert their rights to publish their output to the world (that is what *I* see as Open Access). My fairytale was based on a real case. In the early 1960's the UK obscenity laws prohited the use of everyday words and this restricted literature. So Penguin books challenged this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Chatterley%27s_Lover#British_obscenity_trial. They deliberately challenged the law by publishing the book and defended it as being of literary merit. They won, and the law was changed. IMO it was a really important step forward. So my proposal was to find 20 VCs who would challenge the *apparent* law forbidding them to publish their own output. They would simply publish their own work openly. They would have massive moral right on their side (the work is theirs, it was publicly funded and the public needs it). This might we come to trial, and IMO that would be beneficial. The tradition - at least in England (sic) is that bad laws can be challenged and the spirit rather than the letter will, from time to time, prevail. The reason for choosing VCs, not academics is that they can take action unilaterally. They can get the material and post it without any help from their authors and without publishers stopping them (at least if they all act simultaneously). It's morally and technically identical to LadyC. It requires 20 VCs who are prepared to be brave and are able to find some resources. That was my proposal. [I have changed the title of the subject to reflect it.] It was immediately changed by SH to why don't we lobby 20VCs to manadte Green Open Access. This has seriously confused the discussion. This may or may not be a useful thing to do but I have no interest in it and it is not my proposal. If J-C and EOS are supporting the SH proposal I will shut up. If the proposal is to have a discussion with 20 VCs that is nothing new and seems to be what EOS does anyway. But that's not me either. The fundamentals of my proposal were: * unilateral action by a small group of prominent universities * a challenge to the existing system based on moral grounds and very probably good legal grounds * high public visibility (this will show the non-ivory world that universities care about them, which is certainly not apparent at present. I am happy for the details of this proposal to be changed, but those aspects should remain. Something practical may emerge. And please, list members, refrain from shouting me down and asserting the Green agenda yet again. It is counterproductive. Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
