[GOAL] [EIFL-all] Celebrating 15 years
Annual Report Learn how EIFL made a difference in 2014 Dear friends of EIFL, I am pleased to share with you that the 2014 edition of our Annual Report is now online. This report celebrates our 15th anniversary by sharing with you stories from some of the people whose lives have changed as a result of our work. In this report, we also profile a groundbreaking EIFL project that is transforming teaching and learning for faculty and students in Myanmar. Thank you for your continued support. Kind regards, Rima Kupryte, Director of EIFL We hope you will enjoy reading our *Annual Report* low-resolution http://www.eifl.net/sites/default/files/eifl_ar_2014_web.pdf?utm_source=EIFLallutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=annualreport2014 | high-resolution http://www.eifl.net/sites/default/files/eifl_ar_2014_hr.pdf?utm_source=EIFLallutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=annualreport2014 https://www.facebook.com/eIFL.net Facebook https://www.facebook.com/eIFL.net https://twitter.com/eiflnet Twitter https://twitter.com/eiflnet http://www.eifl.net?utm_source=EIFLallutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=annualreport2014 Website http://www.eifl.net?utm_source=EIFLallutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=annualreport2014 *Our mailing address:* EIFL, c/o ADN Kronos, Piazza Mastai 9, 00153 Rome, Italy www.eifl.net http://www.eifl.net?utm_source=EIFLallutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=annualreport2014 unsubscribe from this list http://www.eifl.net/unsubscribe?utm_source=EIFLallutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=annualreport2014 EIFL Annual Report 2014 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences: good model for noncommercial
This journal has some language that strikes me as a good model for commercial / noncommercial: For commercial use no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of the Publisher. For non-commercial use, with a proper citation, any part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of the Publisher. from: http://www.bjbms.org/ojs/index.php/bjbms/about/submissions#copyrightNotice Comment: with respect to institutional repositories, this kind of differentiation between non-commercial and commercial use would be helpful to protect the non-commercial status of the repositories themselves. One of the dangers for repositories filled with commercializable content is that the owners of the repositories are free to commercialize / monetize the repository and/or sell rights to others to monetize the works. Many of us work in university systems under considerable financial pressure, where administrators are strongly encouraged to raise money however they can and cut costs however they can. A repository full of non-commercial content that raises the profile and prestige of the university and provides a needed service (e.g. for theses and other grey literature a repository is an institutional necessity) is likely to be supported. A repository full of CC-BY works could be sold off to pay down the latest deficit. best, -- Dr. Heather Morrison Assistant Professor École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies University of Ottawa http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/ heather.morri...@uottawa.ca ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: More RE: Positive example: Springer ... is the Royal Society a better example?
Hi Dana My point wasn't that Springer was a saint, nor the best. That said, thanks for sharing this. It's useful to mention best practices, alongside bad practices. Eric Archambault Science-Metrix +1-514-495-6505 x111 On May 27, 2015, at 17:44, Dana Roth dzr...@library.caltech.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu wrote: The Royal Society has had a 'transparent-pricing' policy, since 2012, that accounts for income, from 'author-pays' open access articles, in setting future subscription rates. See: http://royalsocietypublishing.org/librarians/transparent-pricing Dana L. Roth Caltech 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.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of brent...@ulg.ac.bemailto:brent...@ulg.ac.be Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 10:41 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Positive example: Springer Eric, What is the significance of 0.8% (83/10,429) ? What useful metrics can you draw from that ? Why would Springer deserve a kudo ? Just for transparency? What's new if it becomes clear that double-dipping means taking underfunded academic institutions for a ride ? Greetings, Bernard _ BernardRentier Hon. Rector, Université de Liège, Belgium Le 27 mai 2015 à 00:53, Éric Archambault eric.archamba...@science-metrix.commailto:eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com a écrit : Dear all Yesterday I was complaining about the fact that journals were not transparent about their gold à la pièce. Here is an example of a positive step in the right direction: http://link.springer.com/journal/10645 Here, one can see clearly what the OA papers are, and one can calculate the proportion of Gold to locked papers. The stats for this journal reveals that 83/10,429 papers are gold à la pièce (aka hybrid). This helps library determine if they are taken for a ride (i.e. with double dipping). I'll see whether and how Science-Metrix could start monitoring these journals to see how much more they get cited (or less, as this is a hypothesis!) - this would show the golden benefits to scientific publishers. Well, Kudo to Springer! The company should definitely be congratulated for leading the way among the big three, it is the least afraid of embracing OA, the most transparent, and likely to be coming out on top following the transition to OA (which certainly won't be a simple flip, as Stevan said, rather a Escher impossible-figure, an evolutionarily unstable strategy. As Schumpeter said, these are certainly gales of creative destruction, and let's hope that more progressive publishers such as Springer destroy the market share of dinosaurs!). Éric Archambault ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.orgmailto:GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ 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] Re: In Defence of Elsevier
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Michael Eisen mbei...@gmail.com wrote: I could rewrite that entire plea substituting CC-BY-NC-ND with posting in institutional repositories with an embargo. Just because you don't care about something does not mean that the rest of the OA community should stop caring about it. To me the use of CC-BY-NC-ND is not a step it in the right direction - it is an explicit effort on the part of publishers like Elsevier to define open access down - to reify a limited license in a way that will be difficult to change in the future. Now - before the use of CC-BY-NC-ND becomes widespread - is the time to stop it. Later will be too late. On the road from subscription access to Fair-Gold CC-BY, (1) posting with an embargo and no license is getting almost nowhere, (2) posting with no embargo and no license is getting further ahead, and (3) posting with CC-BY-NC-ND is getting still further. Don't insist on what is not yet within reach, dismissing what already is within practical reach as not enough. Advocating a practical transitional strategy does not mean not caring. (And it's already late for OA, but no step forward now makes it too late for any later step forward.) On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: I beg the OA community to remain reasonable and realistic. *Please don't demand that Elsevier agree to immediate CC-BY. *If Elsevier did that, I could immediately start up a rival free-riding publishing operation and sell all Elsevier articles immediately at cut rate, for any purpose at all that I could get people to pay for. Elsevier could no longer make a penny from selling the content it invested in. CC-BY-NC-ND https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ is enough for now. It allows immediate harvesting for data-mining. The OA movement must stop shooting itself in the foot by over-reaching, insisting on having it all, immediately, thus instead ending up with next to nothing, as now. As I pointed out in a previous posting, *the fact that Elsevier requires all authors to adopt **CC-BY-NC-ND license is a positive step*. Please don't force them to back-pedal! Please read the terms, and reflect. SH Accepted Manuscript http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-posting-policy#accepted-manuscript Authors can share their accepted manuscript: *Immediately * - via their non-commercial personal homepage or blog. - by updating a preprint http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-policies/preprint_lightbox in arXiv or RePEc with the accepted manuscript. - via their research institute or institutional repository for internal institutional uses or as part of an invitation-only research collaboration work-group. - directly by providing copies to their students or to research collaborators for their personal use. - for private scholarly sharing as part of an invitation-only work group on commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement. *After the embargo period * - via non-commercial hosting platforms such as their institutional repository. - via commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement. *In all cases accepted manuscripts should:* - Link to the formal publication via its DOI http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/lightbox-doi. - Bear a CC-BY-NC-ND license – this is easy to do, click here http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/lightbox_attach-a-user-license to find out how. - If aggregated with other manuscripts, for example in a repository or other site, be shared in alignment with our hosting policy http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/hosting. - Not be added to or enhanced in any way to appear more like, or to substitute for, the published journal article. How to attach a user license http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/lightbox_attach-a-user-license Elsevier requires authors posting their accepted manuscript to attach a non-commercial Creative Commons user license (CC-BY-NC-ND). This is easy to do. On your accepted manuscript add the following to the title page, copyright information page, or header /footer: © YEAR, NAME. Licensed under the Creative Commons [insert license details and URL]. For example: © 2015, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ You can also include the license badges available from the Creative Commons website http://creativecommons.org/about/downloads to provide visual recognition. If you are hosting your manuscript as a webpage you will also find the correct HTML code to add to your page On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Kathleen Shearer m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com wrote: (sorry for any cross-posting) In its recently
[GOAL] Re: In Defence of Elsevier
I think it's reasonable and realistic to frame this latest policy shift as part of the ongoing efforts of Elsevier to define Open Access on its own terms. This is yet another example of a series of successful policy tacks and canny acquisitions that consolidate existing market share while laying the foundation for future service expansion. The obvious intent to further undermine the effectiveness of institutional repository services by showing a preference toward fragmented dissemination via 'personal homepage or blog' or the Janus-faced endorsement of subject repository deposit is very illuminating. The institutional Open Access mandate has been in Elsevier's cross-hairs for some time now and this will undermine it further. Regards, Garret McMahon - University College Dublin On 28 May 2015 at 00:30, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Michael Eisen mbei...@gmail.com wrote: I could rewrite that entire plea substituting CC-BY-NC-ND with posting in institutional repositories with an embargo. Just because you don't care about something does not mean that the rest of the OA community should stop caring about it. To me the use of CC-BY-NC-ND is not a step it in the right direction - it is an explicit effort on the part of publishers like Elsevier to define open access down - to reify a limited license in a way that will be difficult to change in the future. Now - before the use of CC-BY-NC-ND becomes widespread - is the time to stop it. Later will be too late. On the road from subscription access to Fair-Gold CC-BY, (1) posting with an embargo and no license is getting almost nowhere, (2) posting with no embargo and no license is getting further ahead, and (3) posting with CC-BY-NC-ND is getting still further. Don't insist on what is not yet within reach, dismissing what already is within practical reach as not enough. Advocating a practical transitional strategy does not mean not caring. (And it's already late for OA, but no step forward now makes it too late for any later step forward.) On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: I beg the OA community to remain reasonable and realistic. *Please don't demand that Elsevier agree to immediate CC-BY. *If Elsevier did that, I could immediately start up a rival free-riding publishing operation and sell all Elsevier articles immediately at cut rate, for any purpose at all that I could get people to pay for. Elsevier could no longer make a penny from selling the content it invested in. CC-BY-NC-ND https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ is enough for now. It allows immediate harvesting for data-mining. The OA movement must stop shooting itself in the foot by over-reaching, insisting on having it all, immediately, thus instead ending up with next to nothing, as now. As I pointed out in a previous posting, *the fact that Elsevier requires all authors to adopt **CC-BY-NC-ND license is a positive step*. Please don't force them to back-pedal! Please read the terms, and reflect. SH Accepted Manuscript http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-posting-policy#accepted-manuscript Authors can share their accepted manuscript: *Immediately * - via their non-commercial personal homepage or blog. - by updating a preprint http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-policies/preprint_lightbox in arXiv or RePEc with the accepted manuscript. - via their research institute or institutional repository for internal institutional uses or as part of an invitation-only research collaboration work-group. - directly by providing copies to their students or to research collaborators for their personal use. - for private scholarly sharing as part of an invitation-only work group on commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement. *After the embargo period * - via non-commercial hosting platforms such as their institutional repository. - via commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement. *In all cases accepted manuscripts should:* - Link to the formal publication via its DOI http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/lightbox-doi. - Bear a CC-BY-NC-ND license – this is easy to do, click here http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/lightbox_attach-a-user-license to find out how. - If aggregated with other manuscripts, for example in a repository or other site, be shared in alignment with our hosting policy http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/hosting. - Not be added to or enhanced in any way to appear more like, or to substitute for, the published journal article. How to attach a user license http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/lightbox_attach-a-user-license Elsevier requires authors posting their accepted manuscript to attach a
[GOAL] Gold not green: Academy Publisher
The fully old OA Journal of Computers, listed in DOAJ, requires a copyright transfer and the author rights listed in the copyright transfer with respect to self-archiving are: The right to make copies of the Work for internal distribution within the institution which employes the author. from: http://www.jcomputers.us/JCP_Copyright.pdf Many subscription-based journals and publishers are far more generous with author self-archiving rights. best, -- Dr. Heather Morrison Assistant Professor École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies University of Ottawa http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/ heather.morri...@uottawa.ca ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
