[GOAL] Fwd: Institutions: Ignore Elsevier Take-Down Notices (and Mandate Immediate-Deposit)
Elsevier's (or at least Tom Reller's) response is as expected, though it does
show an apparent – mistaken IMO – belief in the idea that a 'final' manuscript
is inferior to the published version of an article. Much inferior, actually,
given that the published version purports to justify the difference in cost to
the reader wishing to access the article. My experience – though by definition
limited, of course – is that the difference between final manuscript and
published article is mostly minor in terms of content, and mainly one of
appearance. If we look beyond content, there is often a difference in
findability, usability (e.g. for TDM) and functionality (e.g. links and
enhancements). For the professional end-user, my contention is that those
differences in usability and functionality are much more important than any
slight differences in content (which, if present at all, are mostly of a
linguistic nature, not a scientific one).
So why don't subscription publishers use that distinction in their policies and
provide a simple, human-readable-only version freely, on their own web sites
(findability, transparency as regards usage), while keeping the fully
functional, machine-readable version for the professional scientist
(power-user) covered by subscription pay-walls? Not quite the same as true open
access, clearly. That is, not as good as 'gold' (be it supported by APCs or
subsidies). But neither is 'green' with its fragmented nature, often low
functionality (only simple PDFs, no TDM), often embargoed, etc. Making a
distinction with regard to access on the real basis of functionality
differences instead of the illusory basis of content differences may be a
compromise more meaningful for authors on the one hand (visibility) and
incidental readers outside of academia on the other ('ocular' access).
I see 'green' open access as an awkward compromise (providing open access while
keeping subscriptions in place), and what I'm proposing here would take away at
least some of that awkwardness (the fragmented nature of 'green'). It should
not hurt the publisher more than free access to the accepted final manuscript
in repositories does, which they seem to accept.
Obviously, publishing systems that provide immediate and full open access to
fully functional versions at the point of publication ('gold') don't need this
compromise, and are to be preferred.
Some more thoughts on this here:
http://theparachute.blogspot.nl/2013/12/lo-fun-and-hi-fun.html
Jan Velterop
Begin forwarded message:
From: Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com
Subject: Institutions: Ignore Elsevier Take-Down Notices (and Mandate
Immediate-Deposit)
Date: 20 December 2013 07:17:37 CET
To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
Reply-To: Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com
Re: http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/19/elsevier/ (Elsevier Take-Down Notice to
Harvard)
See Exchange on Elsevier Website:
http://www.elsevier.com/connect/a-comment-on-takedown-notices
December 17, 2013 at 9:05 pm
Stevan Harnad: Tom, I wonder if it would be possible to drop the double-talk
and answer a simple question: Do or do not Elsevier authors retain the right
to make their peer-reviewed final drafts on their own institutional websites
immediately, with no embargo? Just a Yes or No, please… Stevan
December 18, 2013 at 2:36 pm
Tom Reller: Hello Dr. Harnad. I don’t agree with your characterization of our
explanation here, but nevertheless as requested, there is a simple answer to
your question – yes. Thank you.
December 20, 2013
Stevan Harnad: Tom, thank you. Then I suggest that the institutions of
Elsevier authors ignore the Elsevier take-down notices (and also adopt an
immediate-deposit mandate that is immune to all publisher take-down notices
by requiring immediate deposit, whether or not access to the
immediate-deposit is made immediately OA)… Stevan
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: new platinum open access
Thanks for posting this Donat, I am curious as to how much the Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin is paying Pensoft to publish these journals, and I would think others on the list might be too. Unfortunately, when I asked Pensoft for the information I was told that it was confidential. Since the data would help other journals/organisations looking to pursue the so-called platinum road it seems a shame. Would you agree? Richard Poynder -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Donat Agosti Sent: 19 December 2013 09:35 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] new platinum open access Below a success story for our (taxonomists) goal to not only provide open access but also create semantically enhanced journals based on Taxpub JATS. In this case two old prestigious journals are now published this way. Donat http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-12/pp-tot121813.php 2 of the oldest German journals in Zoology go for 'platinum' open access Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift and Zoosystematics and Evolution join the family of Pensoft journals Enough has been written and said about platinum open access as a step beyond the green and gold open access models. However, comparatively little has been seen of its practical implementation. On 1 January 2014, two of the oldest German journals in Zoology - Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift and Zoosystematics and Evolution - make a step right into the future by joining the journal publishing platform of Pensoft Publishers and adopting platinum open access For Pensoft, platinum open access means not just that the articles and all associated materials are free to download and that there are no author-side fees but even more so that novel approaches are used in the dissemination and reuse of published content. This publishing model includes: Free to read, reuse, revise, remix, redistribute Easy to discover and harvest by both humans and computers Content automatically harvested by aggregators Data and narrative integrated to the widest extent possible Community peer-review and rapid publication Easy and efficient communication with authors and reviewers No author-side fees Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift and Zoosystematics and Evolution are titles of the Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, founded in 1857 as Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift, is one of the oldest entomological journals worldwide, and the oldest one in Germany. It publishes original research papers in English on the systematics, taxonomy, phylogeny, comparative morphology, and biogeography of insects. Having long been indexed by Thomson Reuters's Web of Science, now the journal will go on the route of innovation with Pensoft. Zoosystematics and Evolution, formerly Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin, Zoologische Reihe - is an international, peer-reviewed life science journal devoted to whole-organism biology, that also has a rich history behind itself (established in 1898). It publishes original research and review articles in the field of zoosystematics, evolution, morphology, development and biogeography at all taxonomic levels. ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: new platinum open access
Ultimately you might be right. But I see OA as a process to get open access to our research results. It is even not clear what OA means in itself, nor whether the way to it has to follow a certain path, beyond producing results or content that is literally free, unrestricted and open access to the content of the article (in the sense and standards of scientific publishing). What I hope though is that the business models will be sustainable enough, and a particular kind of OA is not done with a malicious intention (like Ford who the LA tramways system only to shut it down to sell their cars instead). What's more important is the commitment of the MfN to continue publish, and publish in OA. That means there will be enough financial resources to maintain their inhouse journals, send a signal to other similar institutions to follow suit (which they want to do not because of the journals but because the results are instantaneously distributed to Encyclopedia of Life, Species-ID, Plazi, GBIF, institutions that multiply the distribution effects). Another aspect is the commitment of Pensoft to innovate, to develop new ways of publishing scientific results, like the most recent creation of the Biodiversity Data Journal. http://biodiversitydatajournal.com/articles.php?id=995 Even though the profit margin of Pensoft is not public, the prices to publish are and they are well below what Elsevier and others ask for a technically inferior product. Despite not being Cell or another high profile journal, 43,000 visits for an article about spiders shows a potential impact (http://tinyurl.com/pnozq7p ) , though not resulting necessarily in high impact factors. Taxonomy is notorious for having low impact factors, but very long shelf life of their publications - where else are publications from 1758 regularly cited?! I also think that publishing in taxonomy is different than the SMT publishers that make the big buck. Traditionally, we have an estimated 2000 journals where the discovery of new species is recorded, some of them are very small covering one taxon, are published in one of the big and not so big natural history museums, not even primarily to sell but to exchange with other museums. For all of us it is only an advantage if we have a publisher that is willing to tackle this market. It is the only way we finally might be able what is running and flying around out there. Interestingly enough it is Pensoft that pioneered together with Plazi (my institution) and NLM the development of TaxPub JATS, the first domain specific flavor of NLM's JATS used to archive biomedical journals at PubMed Central - taxonomists have been the first for once in the life sciences and medical world. We have discussions with Pensoft about open source etc., but what for us counts more is the trust in Pensoft to work for the distribution of scientific results to the best of the scientist, and actually do deliver: the results are their increasing number of journals, a robust publishing environment, helping solving longstanding issues in our domain, like identifiers for scientific names, treatments etc, and actually deploy them in their journals. This is the only way to get over what seemed until very recently un insurmountable barrier. Sorry for providing neither a black and white, no or yes answer All the best Donat -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] Im Auftrag von Richard Poynder Gesendet: Friday, December 20, 2013 3:35 PM An: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' Betreff: [GOAL] Re: new platinum open access Thanks for posting this Donat, I am curious as to how much the Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin is paying Pensoft to publish these journals, and I would think others on the list might be too. Unfortunately, when I asked Pensoft for the information I was told that it was confidential. Since the data would help other journals/organisations looking to pursue the so-called platinum road it seems a shame. Would you agree? Richard Poynder -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Donat Agosti Sent: 19 December 2013 09:35 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] new platinum open access Below a success story for our (taxonomists) goal to not only provide open access but also create semantically enhanced journals based on Taxpub JATS. In this case two old prestigious journals are now published this way. Donat http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-12/pp-tot121813.php 2 of the oldest German journals in Zoology go for 'platinum' open access Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift and Zoosystematics and Evolution join the family of Pensoft journals Enough has been written and said about platinum open access as a step beyond the green and gold open access models. However, comparatively
[GOAL] Re: Institutions: Ignore Elsevier Take-Down Notices (and Mandate Immediate-Deposit)
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:
Elsevier's (or at least Tom Reller's) response is as expected, though it
does show an apparent – mistaken IMO – belief in the idea that a 'final'
manuscript is inferior to the published version of an article. Much
inferior, actually, given that the published version purports to justify
the difference in cost to the reader wishing to access the article. My
experience – though by definition limited, of course – is that the
difference between final manuscript and published article is mostly minor
in terms of content, and mainly one of appearance. If we look beyond
content, there is often a difference in findability, usability (e.g. for
TDM) and functionality (e.g. links and enhancements). For the professional
end-user, my contention is that those differences in usability and
functionality are much more important than any slight differences in
content (which, if present at all, are mostly of a linguistic nature, not a
scientific one).
So why don't subscription publishers use that distinction in their
policies and provide a simple, human-readable-only version freely, on their
own web sites (findability, transparency as regards usage), while keeping
the fully functional, machine-readable version for the professional
scientist (power-user) covered by subscription pay-walls?
Just to dispel all doubt, Green OA does not mean embargoed OA.
The ID/OA (immediate-deposit, optional-access) mandate (Liège/HEFCE model)
is just a compromise strategy, to make it possible for all institutions and
funders to adopt an effective, harmonized mandate that is immune to
publisher embargoes.
The length of the allowable OA embargo thus becomes a separate matter. The
automated copy-request Button provides Almost-OA during any embargo. And
universal mandatory ID/OA + the Button hasten the inevitable transitition
to immediate-OA (and then Fair Gold and CC-BY).
If publishers provided immediate read-only access, that would be very nice
-- but it would not diminish the need nor the momentum for immediate Green
OA (just as publishers providing delayed Gold after a year will not
diminish the need or the momentum for immediate Green OA).
It does not take a great deal of thought to realize that if access-denial
is a problem for research, then immediate access is the solution, not
access-delay. That is not a definitional matter. It is common sense.
And no matter how hard one tries to cite Holy Writ (BOAI 2002) by way of
justification, besides the definition of OA having subsequently been
refined, it is also a matter of common sense that Gratis OA (free online
access) is a component of Libre OA (free online access + re-use rights) and
already within reach of institutional and funder Green Gratis OA mandates
(but not yet grasped), beginning with ID/OA .
So over-reaching for Libre instead of grasping Gratis is not the way to get
either of them.
*Stevan Harnad*
Not quite the same as true open access, clearly. That is, not as good as
'gold' (be it supported by APCs or subsidies). But neither is 'green' with
its fragmented nature, often low functionality (only simple PDFs, no TDM),
often embargoed, etc. Making a distinction with regard to access on the
real basis of functionality differences instead of the illusory basis of
content differences may be a compromise more meaningful for authors on the
one hand (visibility) and incidental readers outside of academia on the
other ('ocular' access).
I see 'green' open access as an awkward compromise (providing open access
while keeping subscriptions in place), and what I'm proposing here would
take away at least some of that awkwardness (the fragmented nature of
'green'). It should not hurt the publisher more than free access to the
accepted final manuscript in repositories does, which they seem to accept.
Obviously, publishing systems that provide immediate and full open access
to fully functional versions at the point of publication ('gold') don't
need this compromise, and are to be preferred.
Some more thoughts on this here:
http://theparachute.blogspot.nl/2013/12/lo-fun-and-hi-fun.html
Jan Velterop
Begin forwarded message:
*From: *Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com
*Subject: **Institutions: Ignore Elsevier Take-Down Notices (and Mandate
Immediate-Deposit)*
*Date: *20 December 2013 07:17:37 CET
*To: *jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
*Reply-To: *Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com
Re: http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/19/elsevier/ (Elsevier Take-Down Notice
to Harvard)
See Exchange on Elsevier Website:
http://www.elsevier.com/connect/a-comment-on-takedown-notices
*December 17, 2013 at 9:05 pm*
*Stevan Harnad*: Tom, I wonder if it would be possible to drop the
double-talk and answer a simple question: Do or do not Elsevier authors
retain the right to make their peer-reviewed final drafts on their own
institutional websites immediately, with no embargo? Just a Yes
[GOAL] Re: new platinum open access
Link correction: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/993-.html (final l was missing from the URL) On 2013-12-20, at 11:10 AM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: The Green/Gold Distinction.The definition of Green and Gold OA is that Green OA is provided by the author and Gold OA is provided by the journal. This makes no reference to journal cost-recovery model. Although most of the top Gold OA journals charge APCs and are not subscription based, the majority of Gold OA journals do not charge APCs (as Peter Suber and others frequently point out). These Gold OA journals may cover their costs in one of several ways: (i) Gold OA journals may simply be subscription journals that make their online version OA (ii) Gold OA journals may be subsidized journals (iii) Gold OA journals may be volunteer journals where all parties contribute their resources and services gratis (iv) Gold OA journals may be hybrid subscription/Gold journals that continue to charge subscriptions for non-OA articles but offer the Gold option for an APC by the individual OA article. All of these are Gold OA (or hybrid) journals. It would perhaps be feasible to estimate the costs of each kind. But I think it would be a big mistake, and a source of great confusion, if one of these kinds (say, ii, or iii) were dubbed Platinum. That would either mean that it was both Gold and Platinum, or it would restrict the meaning of Gold to (i) and (iv), which would redefine terms in wide use for almost a decade now in terms of publication economics rather than in terms of the way they provide OA, as they had been. (And in that case we would need many more colours, one for each of (i) - (iv) and any other future cost-recovery model someone proposes (advertising?) -- and then perhaps also different colors for Green (institutional repository deposit, central deposit, home-page deposit, immediate deposit, delayed deposit, OAI-compliant, author-deposited, librarian-deposited, provost-deposited, 3rd-party-deposited, crowd-sourced, e.g. via Mendeley, which some have proposed calling this Titanium OA). I don't think this particoloured nomenclature would serve any purpose other than confusion. Green and Gold designate the means by which the OA is provided -- by the author or by the journal. The journal's cost-recovery model is another matter, and should not be colour-coded lest it obscure this fundamental distinction. Ditto for the deposit's locus and manner. Excerpted from: On Diamond OA, Platinum OA, Titanium OA, and Overlay-Journal OA, Again Stevan Harnad On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Donat Agosti ago...@amnh.org wrote: Ultimately you might be right. But I see OA as a process to get open access to our research results. It is even not clear what OA means in itself, nor whether the way to it has to follow a certain path, beyond producing results or content that is literally free, unrestricted and open access to the content of the article (in the sense and standards of scientific publishing). What I hope though is that the business models will be sustainable enough, and a particular kind of OA is not done with a malicious intention (like Ford who the LA tramways system only to shut it down to sell their cars instead). What's more important is the commitment of the MfN to continue publish, and publish in OA. That means there will be enough financial resources to maintain their inhouse journals, send a signal to other similar institutions to follow suit (which they want to do not because of the journals but because the results are instantaneously distributed to Encyclopedia of Life, Species-ID, Plazi, GBIF, institutions that multiply the distribution effects). Another aspect is the commitment of Pensoft to innovate, to develop new ways of publishing scientific results, like the most recent creation of the Biodiversity Data Journal. http://biodiversitydatajournal.com/articles.php?id=995 Even though the profit margin of Pensoft is not public, the prices to publish are and they are well below what Elsevier and others ask for a technically inferior product. Despite not being Cell or another high profile journal, 43,000 visits for an article about spiders shows a potential impact (http://tinyurl.com/pnozq7p ) , though not resulting necessarily in high impact factors. Taxonomy is notorious for having low impact factors, but very long shelf life of their publications - where else are publications from 1758 regularly cited?! I also think that publishing in taxonomy is different than the SMT publishers that make the big buck. Traditionally, we have an estimated 2000 journals where the discovery of new species is recorded, some of them are very small covering one taxon, are published in one of the big and not so big natural history museums, not even primarily to sell but to exchange with other
[GOAL] Re: Fwd: Institutions: Ignore Elsevier Take-Down Notices (and Mandate Immediate-Deposit)
There are two separate issues here.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:
Elsevier's (or at least Tom Reller's) response is as expected, though it
does show an apparent – mistaken IMO – belief in the idea that a 'final'
manuscript is inferior to the published version of an article. Much
inferior, actually, given that the published version purports to justify
the difference in cost to the reader wishing to access the article. My
experience – though by definition limited, of course – is that the
difference between final manuscript and published article is mostly minor
in terms of content, and mainly one of appearance. If we look beyond
content, there is often a difference in findability, usability (e.g. for
TDM) and functionality (e.g. links and enhancements). For the professional
end-user, my contention is that those differences in usability and
functionality are much more important than any slight differences in
content (which, if present at all, are mostly of a linguistic nature, not a
scientific one).
In many cases publishers seriously detract from the quality of a
publication. Reformatting can destroy readability - I have fought one major
chemical publisher who reformatted computer code as proportional font and
refused to change and even when we corrected the proofs they changed it
back because it wasn't house style. By coincidence I heard a tale at lunch
where a publishers had changed the units in a diagram to make them
consistent. The diagram now has Resistance (Gigahertz). Even a
non-scientist knows that Hertz is frequency and Ohm is resistance but the
technical editors didn't. Turning vector diagrams (EPS) into bitmaps - very
common - makes me cringe.
So why don't subscription publishers use that distinction in their
policies and provide a simple, human-readable-only version freely, on their
own web sites (findability, transparency as regards usage), while keeping
the fully functional, machine-readable version for the professional
scientist (power-user) covered by subscription pay-walls? Not quite the
same as true open access, clearly. That is, not as good as 'gold' (be it
supported by APCs or subsidies). But neither is 'green' with its fragmented
nature, often low functionality (only simple PDFs, no TDM), often
embargoed, etc. Making a distinction with regard to access on the real
basis of functionality differences instead of the illusory basis of content
differences may be a compromise more meaningful for authors on the one hand
(visibility) and incidental readers outside of academia on the other
('ocular' access).
No, Jan, PLEASE NOT.
Publishers would love to be able to offer an enhanced version of XML for
which they could charge more (added value). I have asserted The Right to
Read is the Right to Mine and a number of organizations (e.g. BL, JISC,
Wellcome, OKFN, Ubiquity, etc. ) have argued in Brussels for the right to
carry out TDM on material they have the right to read. The TA publishers
fought this, we walked out, and Neelie Kroes has declared we should start
afresh and have a different non-licence approach.
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: new platinum open access
These are all good points Stevan. Personally I dont mind what names people use. My point was that if the costs associated with subsidising OA journals were more transparent we might see more subscription journals flipped to OA. It might also lead to a more competitive environment for publishing services. Price transparency usually does. Richard Poynder From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 20 December 2013 16:11 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: new platinum open access The Green/Gold Distinction.The definition of Green and Gold OA is that Green OA is provided by the author and Gold OA is provided by the journal. This makes no reference to journal cost-recovery model. Although most of the top Gold OA journals charge APCs and are not subscription based, the majority of Gold OA journals do not charge APCs (as Peter Suber and others frequently point out). These Gold OA journals may cover their costs in one of several ways: (i) Gold OA journals may simply be subscription journals that make their online version OA (ii) Gold OA journals may be subsidized journals (iii) Gold OA journals may be volunteer journals where all parties contribute their resources and services gratis (iv) Gold OA journals may be hybrid subscription/Gold journals that continue to charge subscriptions for non-OA articles but offer the Gold option for an APC by the individual OA article. All of these are Gold OA (or hybrid) journals. It would perhaps be feasible to estimate the costs of each kind. But I think it would be a big mistake, and a source of great confusion, if one of these kinds (say, ii, or iii) were dubbed Platinum. That would either mean that it was both Gold and Platinum, or it would restrict the meaning of Gold to (i) and (iv), which would redefine terms in wide use for almost a decade now in terms of publication economics rather than in terms of the way they provide OA, as they had been. (And in that case we would need many more colours, one for each of (i) - (iv) and any other future cost-recovery model someone proposes (advertising?) -- and then perhaps also different colors for Green (institutional repository deposit, central deposit, home-page deposit, immediate deposit, delayed deposit, OAI-compliant, author-deposited, librarian-deposited, provost-deposited, 3rd-party-deposited, crowd-sourced, e.g. via Mendeley, which some have proposed calling this Titanium OA). I don't think this particoloured nomenclature would serve any purpose other than confusion. Green and Gold designate the means by which the OA is provided -- by the author or by the journal. The journal's cost-recovery model is another matter, and should not be colour-coded lest it obscure this fundamental distinction. Ditto for the deposit's locus and manner. Excerpted from: On http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/993-.htm Diamond OA, Platinum OA, Titanium OA, and Overlay-Journal OA, Again Stevan Harnad On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Donat Agosti ago...@amnh.org mailto:ago...@amnh.org wrote: Ultimately you might be right. But I see OA as a process to get open access to our research results. It is even not clear what OA means in itself, nor whether the way to it has to follow a certain path, beyond producing results or content that is literally free, unrestricted and open access to the content of the article (in the sense and standards of scientific publishing). What I hope though is that the business models will be sustainable enough, and a particular kind of OA is not done with a malicious intention (like Ford who the LA tramways system only to shut it down to sell their cars instead). What's more important is the commitment of the MfN to continue publish, and publish in OA. That means there will be enough financial resources to maintain their inhouse journals, send a signal to other similar institutions to follow suit (which they want to do not because of the journals but because the results are instantaneously distributed to Encyclopedia of Life, Species-ID, Plazi, GBIF, institutions that multiply the distribution effects). Another aspect is the commitment of Pensoft to innovate, to develop new ways of publishing scientific results, like the most recent creation of the Biodiversity Data Journal. http://biodiversitydatajournal.com/articles.php?id=995 Even though the profit margin of Pensoft is not public, the prices to publish are and they are well below what Elsevier and others ask for a technically inferior product. Despite not being Cell or another high profile journal, 43,000 visits for an article about spiders shows a potential impact (http://tinyurl.com/pnozq7p ) , though not resulting necessarily in high impact factors. Taxonomy is notorious for having low impact factors, but very long shelf life of their publications - where else are publications from 1758 regularly cited?! I also think
[GOAL] ROARMAP: U St Louis Brussels adopts 332 Green OA mandate (Liege/HEFCE model)
ROARMAPUniversity Saint-Louis - Brussels http://roarmap.eprints.org/992/ University Saint-Louis - Brussels (20 Dec 2013) INSTITUTION or FUNDER URL: http://dial.academielouvain.be/vital/access/manager/Index?site_name=BOREAL MANDATE URL and TEXT Le Conseil de Recherche de l’Université Saint-Louis - Bruxelles rend obligatoire : - l’introduction dans le dépôt institutionnel DIAL 1 des références de toutes les publications scientifiques des membres scientifiques et académiques de l’USL-B ; - le dépôt de la version électronique intégrale des articles scientifiques publiés par les membres scientifiques et académiques de l’USL-B depuis 2003. Ces versions intégrales sont rendues accessibles à titre gratuit aussi rapidement que possible, en tenant compte des contraintes imposées dans certains cas par les éditeurs. Si une impossibilité de libre accès excède les 18 mois après la parution, l’auteur de l’article en informe le Président du Conseil de Recherche. Une telle incapacité à satisfaire aux exigences de libre accès ne dispense pas l’auteur concerné de transmettre au dépôt institutionnel l’ensemble de ses publications scientifiques, en particulier pour servir notamment lors de rapports ou évaluations scientifiques2. La version intégrale déposée concerne la copie sous format PDF du texte en version finale « auteur » avant publication. La copie déposée mentionnera les coordonnées de la version éditée. Dans les cas où un accord avec l’éditeur le prévoit, la version déposée peut être une version « éditeur ». Les membres scientifiques et académiques de l’USL-B devront s’être conformés à cette décision au plus tard pour le 30 septembre 2014. A partir du 1er octobre 2014, le dépôt institutionnel (selon les modalités définies ci-dessus) sera l’un des outils essentiels de l’évaluation des dossiers scientifiques et académiques au sein de l’USL-B. 1 La contrainte reste naturellement valable si le dépôt institutionnel, suite à la disparition des Académies, est nommé différemment à l’avenir. 2 Si un auteur rencontre un obstacle dans le dépôt de son Full Text par suite d’une opposition de l’éditeur, il en informe le Président du Conseil de Recherche. Download (58Kb) http://roarmap.eprints.org/992/1/DIAL%20et%20OA%20CR.pdf *Contributed by Van Eynde, Prof. Laurent (Vice-Rector)* ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier, Flip your journals to Gold OA and/or offer an acceptable Hybrid Model
One wonders if the dramatic decline, from 2001 to 2012, in both the number published articles (692 --288) the subscription price ($12598 -- $5931) had anything to do with Nuclear Physics B participating in SCOAP3? Dana L. Roth Caltech Library 1-32 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540 dzr...@library.caltech.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 5:51 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier, Flip your journals to Gold OA and/or offer an acceptable Hybrid Model SCOAP3 and the pre-emptive flip model for Gold OA conversionhttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/421-SCOAP3-and-the-pre-emptive-flip-model-for-Gold-OA-conversion.html Fool's Gold: Publisher Ransom for Freedom from Publisher Embargo?http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1066-Fools-Gold-Publisher-Ransom-for-Freedom-from-Publisher-Embargo.html On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Donat Agosti ago...@amnh.orgmailto:ago...@amnh.org wrote: Dear Wouter Though you refer to Wall Street Journal that infers journalistic scrutiny, it is in fact just a press release of Elsevier and thus, isn't this following all the discussion on GOAL only part of the reality? It might be interesting to the readers to link this press release to the publication of Elsevier's businesshttp://t.co/l3AHKTNU1Z figures. You could similarly add another press releasehttp://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-12/pp-tot121813.php that announces yet another deal regarding open access in a much more sophisticated way, providing through the domain specific semantic markup an even greater service to the society, and at a much lower rate. Similarly to SOAP3, it is free because the publisher and libraries got together to make if free. The publisher and editor is the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin who delegated the publishing to Pensoft . Why not compare these two business models, where a new publisher enters the field which has not the overhead and monopoly of Elsevier and thus can dictate the prize of the deal irrespective of the underlying real costs? http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-12/pp-tot121813.php In both cases time will tell - but at simple press release does certainly not provide a balanced reply needed at this moment. Donat Von: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] Im Auftrag von Gerritsma, Wouter Gesendet: Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:21 PM An: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' Betreff: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier, Flip your journals to Gold OA and/or offer an acceptable Hybrid Model Dear G. Elsevier is doing exactly what you ask for http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20131217-903941.html At least two of these are financed through SCOAP(3). That might be worth a discussion. Yours sincerely Wouter From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Graham Triggs Sent: donderdag 19 december 2013 16:05 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier, Flip your journals to Gold OA and/or offer an acceptable Hybrid Model On 18 December 2013 12:47, christian.gutkne...@ub.unibe.chmailto:christian.gutkne...@ub.unibe.ch wrote: 1. Flip your journals to Gold OA. Start with high ranked journals, because as you know most researchers still care. Although the true cost of publishing remains unclear (http://doi.org/kxz), I think it's safe to say, that with an APC between $1500 and $3000 you still can make solid profit. Probably not as much as with the subscription model, but still reasonable. And if you really have a high ranked journal you can indeed increase the price to whatever the demand on researcher side will support. Others publisher are doing it: http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/PressRelease/pressReleaseId-109721.html Why not Elsevier? Every single one of those are association / society journals. So this wouldn't be a commercial decision by a publisher, but a political one by the association / society. After all, you can't really advocate open access, if your own journals aren't. Simply making a hybrid journal into open access only would not be sustainable, unless a significant proportion of the articles are already utilising the open access option. 2. Offer an acceptable hybrid model. Avoid double dipping on an institutional/consortium/national level (not on a global level as you do now). We explicitly requested Elsevier to do so in Switzerland. However Elsevier refused to come up with a solution that reduces our subscription price according the amount of paid hybrid of our authors. Elsevier argued, subscription and OA are two independent things and shouldn't be mixed
[GOAL] Re: Fwd: Institutions: Ignore Elsevier Take-Down Notices (and Mandate Immediate-Deposit)
On 20 Dec 2013, at 18:12, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
There are two separate issues here.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:
Elsevier's (or at least Tom Reller's) response is as expected, though it does
show an apparent – mistaken IMO – belief in the idea that a 'final'
manuscript is inferior to the published version of an article. Much inferior,
actually, given that the published version purports to justify the difference
in cost to the reader wishing to access the article. My experience – though
by definition limited, of course – is that the difference between final
manuscript and published article is mostly minor in terms of content, and
mainly one of appearance. If we look beyond content, there is often a
difference in findability, usability (e.g. for TDM) and functionality (e.g.
links and enhancements). For the professional end-user, my contention is that
those differences in usability and functionality are much more important than
any slight differences in content (which, if present at all, are mostly of a
linguistic nature, not a scientific one).
In many cases publishers seriously detract from the quality of a publication.
Reformatting can destroy readability - I have fought one major chemical
publisher who reformatted computer code as proportional font and refused to
change and even when we corrected the proofs they changed it back because it
wasn't house style. By coincidence I heard a tale at lunch where a publishers
had changed the units in a diagram to make them consistent. The diagram now
has Resistance (Gigahertz). Even a non-scientist knows that Hertz is
frequency and Ohm is resistance but the technical editors didn't. Turning
vector diagrams (EPS) into bitmaps - very common - makes me cringe.
Publishers who do these things should not be considered at all anymore, of
course. If the published version is actively made worse than the manuscript,
then paying by means of copyright transfer (or by any other means) for such a
disservice is plainly absurd.
So why don't subscription publishers use that distinction in their policies
and provide a simple, human-readable-only version freely, on their own web
sites (findability, transparency as regards usage), while keeping the fully
functional, machine-readable version for the professional scientist
(power-user) covered by subscription pay-walls? Not quite the same as true
open access, clearly. That is, not as good as 'gold' (be it supported by APCs
or subsidies). But neither is 'green' with its fragmented nature, often low
functionality (only simple PDFs, no TDM), often embargoed, etc. Making a
distinction with regard to access on the real basis of functionality
differences instead of the illusory basis of content differences may be a
compromise more meaningful for authors on the one hand (visibility) and
incidental readers outside of academia on the other ('ocular' access).
No, Jan, PLEASE NOT.
Publishers would love to be able to offer an enhanced version of XML for
which they could charge more (added value). I have asserted The Right to
Read is the Right to Mine
If The Right to Read is the Right to Mine is taken without any
qualification, then you can forget subscription publishers cooperating with any
form of free access to the published version. My proposal does provide an
incentive to add value to what publishers get paid for via subscriptions. The
slogan could be Paying to read is paying to mine.
and a number of organizations (e.g. BL, JISC, Wellcome, OKFN, Ubiquity, etc.
) have argued in Brussels for the right to carry out TDM on material they
have the right to read.
That right to read doesn't exist as far as subscription content is concerned
unless the subscription is paid for. If it is paid for, one should be able to
read 'ocularly' as well as with machines, and TDM the content. I fully agree.
But a free published version with just 'ocular' rights should exist
simultaneously, instead of just relying on the fragmented, cumbersome access,
and variable quality and functionality 'green' offers.
The TA publishers fought this, we walked out, and Neelie Kroes has declared
we should start afresh and have a different non-licence approach.
I'd love to hear Neelie Kroes's views on my proposal. And for the avoidance of
doubt: if one has paid for subscription content, one should have the right to
TDM.
J.
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 mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: new platinum open access
Dear Stefan and Richard The MfN case is a journal that is not really subsidized but originally published also for exchange reasons between libraries, that is it has been used to get publications from other libraries. Thus this did not involve costs for purchasing subscriptions but could this sources cold be invested in the publication. I am not sure then, whether this is considered subsidized in your terminology. The other difference made is, that the journal is not a dumb pdf but a taxpub JATS semantically enhanced publication that allows much better access to content. The goal thus is not just to have a publication out but rather a piece of a bigger puzzle. If I am right there has been a study on the costs of publishing produced in the EU-EDIT program. I will try to find a copy - but this will be in the New Year. All the best Donat Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] Im Auftrag von Richard Poynder Gesendet: Friday, December 20, 2013 8:07 PM An: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' Betreff: [GOAL] Re: new platinum open access These are all good points Stevan. Personally I don't mind what names people use. My point was that if the costs associated with subsidising OA journals were more transparent we might see more subscription journals flipped to OA. It might also lead to a more competitive environment for publishing services. Price transparency usually does. Richard Poynder From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 20 December 2013 16:11 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: new platinum open access The Green/Gold Distinction.The definition of Green and Gold OA is that Green OA is provided by the author and Gold OA is provided by the journal. This makes no reference to journal cost-recovery model. Although most of the top Gold OA journals charge APCs and are not subscription based, the majority of Gold OA journals do not charge APCs (as Peter Suber and others frequently point out). These Gold OA journals may cover their costs in one of several ways: (i) Gold OA journals may simply be subscription journals that make their online version OA (ii) Gold OA journals may be subsidized journals (iii) Gold OA journals may be volunteer journals where all parties contribute their resources and services gratis (iv) Gold OA journals may be hybrid subscription/Gold journals that continue to charge subscriptions for non-OA articles but offer the Gold option for an APC by the individual OA article. All of these are Gold OA (or hybrid) journals. It would perhaps be feasible to estimate the costs of each kind. But I think it would be a big mistake, and a source of great confusion, if one of these kinds (say, ii, or iii) were dubbed Platinum. That would either mean that it was both Gold and Platinum, or it would restrict the meaning of Gold to (i) and (iv), which would redefine terms in wide use for almost a decade now in terms of publication economics rather than in terms of the way they provide OA, as they had been. (And in that case we would need many more colours, one for each of (i) - (iv) and any other future cost-recovery model someone proposes (advertising?) -- and then perhaps also different colors for Green (institutional repository deposit, central deposit, home-page deposit, immediate deposit, delayed deposit, OAI-compliant, author-deposited, librarian-deposited, provost-deposited, 3rd-party-deposited, crowd-sourced, e.g. via Mendeley, which some have proposed calling this Titanium OA). I don't think this particoloured nomenclature would serve any purpose other than confusion. Green and Gold designate the means by which the OA is provided -- by the author or by the journal. The journal's cost-recovery model is another matter, and should not be colour-coded lest it obscure this fundamental distinction. Ditto for the deposit's locus and manner. Excerpted from: On Diamond OA, Platinum OA, Titanium OA, and Overlay-Journal OA, Againhttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/993-.htm Stevan Harnad On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Donat Agosti ago...@amnh.orgmailto:ago...@amnh.org wrote: Ultimately you might be right. But I see OA as a process to get open access to our research results. It is even not clear what OA means in itself, nor whether the way to it has to follow a certain path, beyond producing results or content that is literally free, unrestricted and open access to the content of the article (in the sense and standards of scientific publishing). What I hope though is that the business models will be sustainable enough, and a particular kind of OA is not done with a malicious intention (like Ford who the LA tramways system only to shut it down to sell their cars instead). What's more important is the commitment of the MfN to continue publish, and publish in OA. That means
