Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

[Éric Archambault]

Eric

At 1science, we have developed a robust solution to address some of the 
problems you are mentioning. In contrast to the optimistic view of the 
repositories that Stevan has, in our efforts to locate all the contents which 
is available in green and gold (including hybrid), we are finding that most of 
the IRs have only about 5-8% of the papers published by authors at the 
universities hosting these repositories. Another contrast, the latest data we 
have compiled at 1science shows that we are fast approaching 60% of the papers 
indexed the Thomson Reuters Web of Science which can be found in gratis OA form 
somewhere on the internet. Given the law of large numbers, on average, there is 
a gap of more than 50% between what is available somewhere on the net, and what 
is available in local IR. It’s clear tat a solution that fills that gap quickly 
can remove a huge pain point in the filling of IR with full-text (or links to 
full-text) and proper metadata.

We have developed a product called oaFoldr which basically repatriates these 
papers to the IRs. Our privileged model is to feed the IRs with good quality 
metadata (and when institutions are subscribing to the Web of Science, we can 
install the WoS API and populate the repository with very high quality metadata 
and this removes a lot of the pain of entering data manually) and then place 
URLs that points to locations (other IR, publishers’ websites, arXiv, Scielo, 
PMC,…) where a gratis OA version is located. This turns empty IRs into 
institutional knowledge hubs. Of course, many librarians are also actively 
examining these links and copying a physical version of the paper in the IR 
(where possible considering licencing and rights issues). If the uptake is good 
for this product (which we think it will as we developed this solution because 
we kept hearing from tens of university librarians that something of the kind 
was really needed), IRs are going to be way more populated, way faster, and 
librarians and researchers will be able to spend more time archiving and 
self-archiving pre-prints and post-prints that do not exist anywhere else. For 
libraries to spend time looking at what is uniquely missing makes sense, this 
is an exercise in search engine optimization as the Bing and Google bots will 
see unique content. This solution will help move universities towards 100% OA 
availability at the institutional level. Take Caltech – they already have a 
stunningly good IR but using 1science’s data it’ll be every better – we can 
find close to 80% of Caltech’s paper in Gratis OA somewhere on the internet. Of 
course, this solution is not a silver bullet and some problems will remain but 
it will help creating a more robust, distributed architecture.

Éric


Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
President and CEO | Président-directeur général
Science-Metrix & 1science
[http://1science.com/images/LinkedIn_sign.png]
T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
C. 1.514.518.0823
F. 1.514.495.6523

[http://1science.com/images/Logo_SM_horizontal_small.png]
   [http://1science.com/images/1science.png] 





From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Eric F. Van de Velde
Sent: May 18, 2016 4:39 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

Stevan:
Yes,
distributed management of Institutional Repositories spread the costs and 
immunize them against a take-over. That is why advocated for them as early as 
the 1999 UPS meeting in Santa Fe.

But,
it is now also increasingly clear that this distributed management comes with 
significant downsides. Any successes of the OA movement have been in recruiting 
content for IRs and in enacting OA mandates. Unfortunately, the network of IRs 
federated through OAI-PMH is simply not good enough for professional-level 
research. If IRs fail at this task, they'll simply disappear into obscurity. 
Distributed management does not immunize IRs against becoming irrelevant.

Each IR is managed to accommodate idiosyncratic local concerns and not the 
broader interests of the world. There is no consistent access to the full text 
(many records contain only metadata). Many records just contain bad scans. Many 
IRs prohibit/discourage data mining. With globally inconsistent metadata, it is 
impossible to search and find anything with consistent reliability. Moreover, 
in its institutionalized form, the supposedly-cheap IR has become rather 
expensive.

The distributed nature has led to a paralysis in development. To put it 
bluntly: Today's institutional repositories are run with software of the early 
2000s and managed with the cataloging mindset of the 1980s.

Frankly, I have no solution to offer. The crowdsourced alternatives like 
figshare, academia.edu, etc. look increasingly better in 
comparison.

--Eric.

Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

[Stevan Harnad]

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde <
eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Stevan:
> Yes,
> distributed management of Institutional Repositories spread the costs and
> immunize them against a take-over. That is why advocated for them as early
> as the 1999 UPS meeting in Santa Fe.
>
> But,
> it is now also increasingly clear that this distributed management comes
> with significant downsides. Any successes of the OA movement have been in
> recruiting content for IRs and in enacting OA mandates. Unfortunately, the
> network of IRs federated through OAI-PMH is simply not good enough for
> professional-level research. If IRs fail at this task, they'll simply
> disappear into obscurity. Distributed management does not immunize IRs
> against becoming irrelevant.
>
> Each IR is managed to accommodate idiosyncratic local concerns and not the
> broader interests of the world. There is no consistent access to the full
> text (many records contain only metadata). Many records just contain bad
> scans. Many IRs prohibit/discourage data mining. With globally inconsistent
> metadata, it is impossible to search and find anything with consistent
> reliability. Moreover, in its institutionalized form, the supposedly-cheap
> IR has become rather expensive.
>
> The distributed nature has led to a paralysis in development. To put it
> bluntly: Today's institutional repositories are run with software of the
> early 2000s and managed with the cataloging mindset of the 1980s.
>
> Frankly, I have no solution to offer. The crowdsourced alternatives like
> figshare, academia.edu, etc. look increasingly better in comparison.
>

Eric, this is yet another reason why the funders should have mandated
institutional deposit (rather than central, or fool's gold): so they could
then dictate uniform interoperability conditions to all their institutions,
including full text and maximized google scholar discoverability. The
funders can still dictate it. It's not too late.

Yes, a liability of distributed warehousing is divergent and incompatible
local practices. It would be good to upgrade the Harvard model policy model
that many US institutions are adopting, to include the interoperable
features all institutions would benefit from.

In the UK, HEFCE, with the REF, has gone a good way toward this, though the
UK too could use some collective shoring up. HEFCE will need to wisely and
firmly ignore the short-sighted and blinkered local bickering and
particularism and simply insist on the common features that all
institutions need to implement in order to make their holdings useful not
just locally but globally.

No fundamental obstacles here, just a little more mental interoperability
called for too...

Stevan

http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @evdvelde
> E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Stevan Harnad 
> wrote:
>
>> The worldwide distributed network of Green Institutional Repositories
>>  is by far the best prophylactic against
>> Elsevier predation. I hope universities and research funders will be awake
>> enough to realize this rather than falling for quick "solutions" that
>> continue to hold their research output hostage to the increasingly
>> predatory publishing industry.
>>
>> "We have nothing to lose but our chains..."
>>
>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Paul Walk  wrote:
>>
>>> "The software may change, but you can't sell off a distributed network
>>> of independent repositories.”
>>>
>>> I agree, and I think that this is the crucial point. The software
>>> doesn’t matter (well, it does matter, but it doesn’t affect this
>>> principle). It’s about the distribution of *control*.
>>>
>>> We are truly fortunate to have a global, distributed infrastructure of
>>> institutional repositories which are (mostly) under institutional control.
>>> This is quite an unusual arrangement these days - and I think we should
>>> regard it as precious and inherently powerful in its denial of the
>>> possibility of “ownership” by one party.
>>>
>>> We should do what we can to both hang on to this infrastructure, and to
>>> exploit it more fully, in pursuit of a better scholarly communications
>>> system.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> > On 17 May 2016, at 22:06, Leslie Carr  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > The software may change, but you can't sell off a distributed network
>>> of independent repositories.
>>> >
>>> > Prof Leslie Carr
>>> > Web Science institute
>>> > #⃣ webscience #⃣ openaccess
>>> >
>>> > On 17 May 2016, at 21:35, Joachim SCHOPFEL <
>>> joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories
>>> worldwide is not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional
>>> repositories can be replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better
>>> solutions, more functionalities, more added value, more 

[GOAL] Postdoc in data and policy: tracking the impact of open at QUT

[Nic Suzor]

[ Apologies for cross-posts. We are hiring a postdoc in sunny Brisbane.
We are looking for a data scientist who is interested in developing new
methods for tracking the impact of open publishing. ]
The QUT Digital Media Research Centre and Faculty of Law are hiring a
postdoc in Data and Policy. This is an exciting opportunity to work
within a vibrant trans-disciplinary research environment. The position
is designed to develop new research agendas, methods, and collaborations
in data-driven policy analysis. The research will specifically focus on
two related themes: Data-driven policy: develop new methodological
approaches to combine open data, big social data, computational tools,
and visualisations to better inform the development of public policy and
public debate. Tracking the impact of open access publishing and open
data: work with industry and scholarly partners to develop new methods
and metrics to extend and augment traditional measures of impact of open
data and open access scholarly works and public communications. The
position is for one year, renewable for another year. The salary range
is $AUD62,490 to $AUD84,793. We are looking for candidates with a PhD in
any relevant field, including law, information, media communications, or
social science. Applicants should have experience in one or more of:
data analysis, visualisation or data-journalism, or computational
methods, and candidates who can move across fields and methods are
strongly preferred. The full position description is available here:
https://goo.gl/KJCpfs If you have any questions, please contact Nic
Suzor: n.su...@qut.edu.au . Application form
here: https://goo.gl/1qRDJ6
-- Nicolas Suzor >
@nicsuzor http://nic.suzor.net  QUT School of Law
http://staff.qut.edu.au/staff/suzor QUT Digital Media Research Centre
http://qut.edu.au/research/dmrc Creative Commons Australia
http://creativecommons.org.au  Digital
Rights Watch http://digitalrightswatch.org.au

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

[Eric F. Van de Velde]

Stevan:
Yes,
distributed management of Institutional Repositories spread the costs and
immunize them against a take-over. That is why advocated for them as early
as the 1999 UPS meeting in Santa Fe.

But,
it is now also increasingly clear that this distributed management comes
with significant downsides. Any successes of the OA movement have been in
recruiting content for IRs and in enacting OA mandates. Unfortunately, the
network of IRs federated through OAI-PMH is simply not good enough for
professional-level research. If IRs fail at this task, they'll simply
disappear into obscurity. Distributed management does not immunize IRs
against becoming irrelevant.

Each IR is managed to accommodate idiosyncratic local concerns and not the
broader interests of the world. There is no consistent access to the full
text (many records contain only metadata). Many records just contain bad
scans. Many IRs prohibit/discourage data mining. With globally inconsistent
metadata, it is impossible to search and find anything with consistent
reliability. Moreover, in its institutionalized form, the supposedly-cheap
IR has become rather expensive.

The distributed nature has led to a paralysis in development. To put it
bluntly: Today's institutional repositories are run with software of the
early 2000s and managed with the cataloging mindset of the 1980s.

Frankly, I have no solution to offer. The crowdsourced alternatives like
figshare, academia.edu, etc. look increasingly better in comparison.

--Eric.



http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
Twitter: @evdvelde
E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Stevan Harnad  wrote:

> The worldwide distributed network of Green Institutional Repositories
>  is by far the best prophylactic against
> Elsevier predation. I hope universities and research funders will be awake
> enough to realize this rather than falling for quick "solutions" that
> continue to hold their research output hostage to the increasingly
> predatory publishing industry.
>
> "We have nothing to lose but our chains..."
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Paul Walk  wrote:
>
>> "The software may change, but you can't sell off a distributed network of
>> independent repositories.”
>>
>> I agree, and I think that this is the crucial point. The software doesn’t
>> matter (well, it does matter, but it doesn’t affect this principle). It’s
>> about the distribution of *control*.
>>
>> We are truly fortunate to have a global, distributed infrastructure of
>> institutional repositories which are (mostly) under institutional control.
>> This is quite an unusual arrangement these days - and I think we should
>> regard it as precious and inherently powerful in its denial of the
>> possibility of “ownership” by one party.
>>
>> We should do what we can to both hang on to this infrastructure, and to
>> exploit it more fully, in pursuit of a better scholarly communications
>> system.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> > On 17 May 2016, at 22:06, Leslie Carr  wrote:
>> >
>> > The software may change, but you can't sell off a distributed network
>> of independent repositories.
>> >
>> > Prof Leslie Carr
>> > Web Science institute
>> > #⃣ webscience #⃣ openaccess
>> >
>> > On 17 May 2016, at 21:35, Joachim SCHOPFEL <
>> joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories
>> worldwide is not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional
>> repositories can be replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better
>> solutions, more functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better
>> connected to databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.
>> >
>> > - Mail d'origine -
>> > De: Stevan Harnad >
>> > À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > >
>> > Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
>> > Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
>> >
>> > Shame on SSRN.
>> >
>> > Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):
>> >
>> > It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed
>> scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer
>> needed, and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as
>> a foothold if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a
>> legacy from an obsolete Gutenberg era.
>> >
>> > I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated
>> expenses are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is
>> that the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide
>> is not for sale, and that is their strength...
>> >
>> > Stevan Harnad
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk <
>> bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi> 

Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Peter Murray-Rust]

Maintaining organizations against being taken over or pwned is critical. I
believe in ThomasK and PaulG, but no human is immortal. The inevitable
outcome of useful public innovation is privatization, unless formal steps
are taken to protect it. This can be done by a trusted organization (I
would trust most Scientific Unions but not most scientific societies, for
example).

The most powerful mechanism , which I would promote , is legal constraints
in the organization. One of the best known is the GPL.  In the Shuttleworth
Foundation (which funds ContentMine) we have been discussing this in depth
and we are now integrating legal tools such as OpenLock, MissionLock and
AssetLock. These are formal phrases, enforceable by courts, which prevent
certain change of direction. These tools would have prevented SSRN from
this disaster.

You can trust that ContentMine cannot be taken over by Mendeley because we
have a clause in the Articles of Association. I think arXiv and RePeC
should consider protection like this.

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Ted Bergstrom  wrote:

> Hooray for RePEc!
> Thomas, Is there a short answer to the question:
> "How do we know RePEc can't be bought?"
> Do you have any advice  to offer economists who are wary of
> the SSRN sellout?
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Thomas Krichel 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>   Stevan Harnad writes
>>
>> > Shame on SSRN.
>>
>>   Why? I am certainly looking forward to SSRN becoming as undynamic as
>>   Mendeley after an Elsevier takeover.
>>
>> > I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated
>> > expenses are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's
>> sure is
>> > that the distributed network of Green institutional repositories
>> worldwide
>> > is not for sale, and that is their strength...
>>
>>   RePEc can not be bought either. I created it before institutional
>>   repositories came along. It is based on the same principles as
>>   institutional repositories.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>   Cheers,
>>
>>   Thomas Krichel  http://openlib.org/home/krichel
>>   skype:thomaskrichel
>> ___
>> 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
>
>


-- 
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] Aaron Swartz Open Access Fellowship

[Istvan Rev]

Please find attached and circulate the announcement of the Aaron Swartz 
Fellowship.
Istvan Rev
Open Society Archives



aaron_fellowship-final.pdf
Description: aaron_fellowship-final.pdf
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Policy to make sure open access works stay open access (was SSRN sellout to Elsevier)

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

I agree with Heather on this point: Focusing on the "purpose of open
dissemination" is important. 

Heather's last suggestion regarding whole repositories being downloaded
by other repositories can be improved by conceiving all of this within a
general LOCKSS context. In other words, the question of distributed
robustness also touches upon the preservation issue. 

All of this should probably be handled by dark archives.

OpenAIRE and La Referencia are the perfect institutions to begin
experimenting with this.

-- 
Jean-Claude Guédon 

Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal




Le mardi 17 mai 2016 à 21:55 +, Heather Morrison a écrit :

> Open access is in the process of transition from a toll access system that 
> continues to yield enormous profits to a very few publishers at the expense 
> of the rest of us. OA gains have been significant, but I do not think we 
> should underestimate the temptation to revert to toll access. The SSRN 
> sellout to Elsevier might be a good opportunity to consider how to develop 
> open access policy to ensure that works that are made open access remain open 
> access. Every potential approach has both strengths and weaknesses. I argue 
> that a sustainable open access ecosystem needs to have redundancy built in. 
> Copies of OA works should be in the institutional repository, every possible 
> subject repository, as well as many research and national libraries around 
> the world for safeguarding.
> 
> One of the potential vulnerabilities of institutional repositories is that 
> institutions facing a budgetary crisis could be tempted to charge for access 
> or to sell off the repository (or even the institution). 
> 
> The best policy to date to minimize this potential, in my mind, is the MIT 
> faculty open access policy (acknowledging Harvard as the pioneer of this 
> style of policy). Following is the relevant part of the text of the policy:
> 
> "Each Faculty member grants to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
> nonexclusive permission to make available his or her scholarly articles and 
> to exercise the copyright in those articles for the purpose of open 
> dissemination. In legal terms, each Faculty member grants to MIT a 
> nonexclusive, irrevocable, paid-up, worldwide license to exercise any and all 
> rights under copyright relating to each of his or her scholarly articles, in 
> any medium, provided that the articles are not sold for a profit, and to 
> authorize others to do the same”. 
> from: 
> https://libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/mit-open-access/open-access-at-mit/mit-open-access-policy/
> 
> The improvement over the Harvard policy is the specification that the 
> articles are to be made available for the purpose of open dissemination. The 
> reason that this is important is because specifying that the articles not be 
> “sold for a profit” leads the door open for cost-recovery charges. 
> Institutional cost-recovery could include paying a company that provides the 
> service, e.g. Elsevier. If anyone is considering similar policy I recommend 
> adding a clause stating “free of charge for the user” which is much clearer.
> 
> If even a few large research libraries around the world were to regularly 
> download and make accessible a mirror of the whole MIT open access 
> repository, making good use of their downstream user rights, I submit that 
> that would be a very robust system indeed to secure open access into the 
> future.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] ETD2016 early bird registration

[Joachim SCHOPFEL]

ETD2016, the 19th International Symposium on Electronic Theses and 
Dissertations, will take place from July 11 to July 13, 2016, at Lille. 

The theme of the conference is "Data and Dissertations", with a focus on the 
handling of research data produced by PhD students. 

The conference language is English.

The program is available on the conference website 
http://etd2016.sciencesconf.org/

These are the last days of early bird registration.

Please register before May 22 at 
http://etd2016.sciencesconf.org/registration/index

The conference abstracts and proceedings will be published as a collection on 
the open access repository HAL https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[Stevan Harnad]

The reason people deposit in ResearchGate is because it keeps going after
them, with impact data and incentives.

That's what institutional repositories ought to be doing, with their own
institutional researchers: alerts, notifications, tracking their own output
weekly in WoK and SCOPUS and contacting their authors, just as
ResearchIndex does.

There is no reason whatsoever why an arXiv deposit or a ResearchGate
posting should have greater visibility or impact than depositing in one's
own Green IR. (IRs should also make sure they are maximally discoverable by
Google Scholar.)

All obvious stuff. Just a matter of doing it.

Ceding to the siren call of predators like Elsevier and its predatory
products and services is an easy and thoughtless institutional cop-out that
just keeps their research in bondage -- and leaves them the loser in the
end.

SH

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Isidro F. Aguillo <
isidro.agui...@cchs.csic.es> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Jessica is right, the number of PURE instances as PUBLIC repositories are
> still low, but probably the number of them as CLOSED CRIS managers is
> probably higher (although still not very large). The problem is there is a
> tendency to use CRIS (managed by burocrats) instead of OA IRs (managed by
> librarians) as commercial people is selling systems like PURE also as good
> repository managers. In my personal view PURE design is greenOA killer as
> deposit it is not its primary aim (not required).
>
> Why authors are supporting the move to PURE? Probably the same reason they
> are depositing far more in ResearchGate or Academia than in the GreenOA
> IRs: Ugly interfaces, no profiles, useless metrics, ...
>
> Your turn,
>
>
> On 18/05/2016 15:01, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:
>
> Thank you for checking this.
>
> However, numbers do not tell the whole story. Elsevier, Thomson-Reuters,
> Springer, etc... behave strategically. Like good military leaders, they
> constantly try and test to see what sticks and works. For the moment,
> Pure's presence is small, but the parent company learns through this
> limited presence, and it obviously studies ways to make it more appealing
> to the repository community.
>
> This reminds me of ScholarOne as deployed by Thomson-Reuters.
> Scielo-Brazil had trouble marking its articles in a suitable XML format,
> and did it largely by hand. When Scielo did all it could to be included in
> the Web of Science, they were also "offered" the use of Scholar One. Now
> their work flow is dependent upon this software tool to such an extent that
> moving out of Scholar One will be very costly.
>
> This reminds me also of the recent report by the NSF which, for the first
> time, relies on Scopus rather than the Web of Science. Elsevier is getting
> closer to the the old dream first entertained by Robert Maxwell when he
> tried to coax the Science Citation Index out of Eugene Garfield's hands, so
> as to be both judge and party in the evaluation of journals. Reading how
> they gloat about this is also instructive:
> https://www.elsevier.com/connect/tracking-progress-in-us-science-and-engineering
> .
>
> We, in the OA community, have been rather naive about the ways in which
> power works and how it it is wielded. We had better wise up, and fast.
>
> But thank you again, Jessica, for doing the checking.
>
> --
> Jean-Claude Guédon
>
> Professeur titulaire
> Littérature comparée
> Université de Montréal
>
> Le mercredi 18 mai 2016 à 12:08 +, Jessica Lindholm a écrit :
>
> Hi Ross (et al.), Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure
> instances as you mentioned that many institutional repositories run on
> Pure.   Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories (
> http://www.opendoar.org/) I find 16 PURE-repositories listed, whereas
> e.g. Eprints has +400 instances and DSpace has +1300 instances. However I
> am not at all sure to what degree openDOAR is containing exhaustive data
> (or rather I am quite sure it doesn’t) -it is either lacking data about
> PURE instances – or if not, I do not agree that they are many..   Regards
> Jessica  Lindholm *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [
> mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org ] *On Behalf Of
> *Ross Mounce *Sent:* den 17 maj 2016 22:54 *To:* Global Open Access List
> (Successor of AmSci)   *Subject:* Re:
> [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
>
> Elsevier have actually done a really good job of
> infiltrating institutional repositories too:
>
>
> http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/
>
>
>
> They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the software
> that many of world's institutional repositories run on.
>
> I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can further
> monetise academic IP.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Ross
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL 
> wrote:
>
> Uh - "the distributed network of 

Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[WALK Paul]

Yes - this is exactly the point.

For example, the fact that the University of Bath has a Pure instance is 
mentioned by Ross below - but I believe that Bath also operates an ePrints 
service as its institutional repository.

I did hear recently that the only institution in the UK which actually uses 
Pure as it main institutional repository is my own institution, the University 
of Edinburgh.

Paul

> On 18 May 2016, at 14:37, David Prosser  wrote:
> 
> Isn’t there a distinction between the use of PURE as a CRIS system and PURE 
> as a repository.  I get the feeling the former is much more common than the 
> latter and only the latter will appear in OpenDOAR.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 18 May 2016, at 15:20, Ross Mounce  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Jessica (et al.),
>> 
>> I guess it depends which list you read. 
>> 
>> Elsevier's own list boasts over 200 PURE implementations at different 
>> institutions including 28 in the UK: 
>> https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/pure/who-uses-pure/clients
>> 
>> Even Elsevier's list isn't complete. I know for a fact that for instance 
>> that the University of Bath uses PURE http://www.bath.ac.uk/ris/pure/ and 
>> yet this doesnt appear on Elsevier's list, nor OpenDOAR.
>> 
>> OpenDOAR is a registry run by people with close links to EPrints & DSpace. 
>> It's no surprise then that EPrints and DSpace are well registered within 
>> OpenDOAR.
>> 
>> Time to remove the blinkers. PURE is much more prevalent than you'd think 
>> from a glance at OpenDOAR.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 18 May 2016 at 13:08, Jessica Lindholm  
>> wrote:
>> Hi Ross (et al.),
>> 
>> Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure instances as you 
>> mentioned that many institutional repositories run on Pure.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories (http://www.opendoar.org/) I 
>> find 16 PURE-repositories listed, whereas e.g. Eprints has +400 instances 
>> and DSpace has +1300 instances. However I am not at all sure to what degree 
>> openDOAR is containing exhaustive data (or rather I am quite sure it 
>> doesn’t) -it is either lacking data about PURE instances – or if not, I do 
>> not agree that they are many..
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Jessica  Lindholm
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf 
>> Of Ross Mounce
>> Sent: den 17 maj 2016 22:54
>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Elsevier have actually done a really good job of infiltrating institutional 
>> repositories too:
>> 
>> http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the software that 
>> many of world's institutional repositories run on.
>> 
>> I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can further 
>> monetise academic IP.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Ross
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide 
>> is not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional repositories can be 
>> replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better solutions, more 
>> functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better connected to 
>> databases and gold/hybrid journals etc. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> - Mail d'origine -
>> De: Stevan Harnad 
>> À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
>> Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
>> Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Shame on SSRN.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed 
>> scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer 
>> needed, and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as a 
>> foothold if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a legacy 
>> from an obsolete Gutenberg era.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated 
>> expenses are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is 
>> that the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide  
>> is not for sale, and that is their strength...
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Stevan Harnad
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> This is an interesting news item which should interest the
>> readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.
>> 
>> Bo-Christer Björk
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>>  Forwarded Message 
>> 
>> Subject:
>> 
>> Message from Mike Jensen, 

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

[Leslie Carr]

PURE does provide an optional repository function, which hasn't been as well 
developed as other bespoke repository platforms (as you can imagine).

One of the interesting issues of PURE-as-CRIS is that it is often run from the 
Research Management Office, which has a business administration function. Their 
goals in running the system may be significantly at variance with those of the 
library - particularly regarding scholarly support and open access.

Prof Leslie Carr
Web Science institute
#⃣ webscience #⃣ openaccess

On 18 May 2016, at 14:44, David Prosser 
> wrote:

Isn’t there a distinction between the use of PURE as a CRIS system and PURE as 
a repository.  I get the feeling the former is much more common than the latter 
and only the latter will appear in OpenDOAR.

David




On 18 May 2016, at 15:20, Ross Mounce 
> wrote:

Hi Jessica (et al.),

I guess it depends which list you read.

Elsevier's own list boasts over 200 PURE implementations at different 
institutions including 28 in the UK: 
https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/pure/who-uses-pure/clients

Even Elsevier's list isn't complete. I know for a fact that for instance that 
the University of Bath uses PURE http://www.bath.ac.uk/ris/pure/ and yet this 
doesnt appear on Elsevier's list, nor OpenDOAR.

OpenDOAR is a registry run by people with close links to EPrints & DSpace. It's 
no surprise then that EPrints and DSpace are well registered within OpenDOAR.

Time to remove the blinkers. PURE is much more prevalent than you'd think from 
a glance at OpenDOAR.




On 18 May 2016 at 13:08, Jessica Lindholm 
> wrote:
Hi Ross (et al.),
Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure instances as you mentioned 
that many institutional repositories run on Pure.

Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories (http://www.opendoar.org/) I find 
16 PURE-repositories listed, whereas e.g. Eprints has +400 instances and DSpace 
has +1300 instances. However I am not at all sure to what degree openDOAR is 
containing exhaustive data (or rather I am quite sure it doesn’t) -it is either 
lacking data about PURE instances – or if not, I do not agree that they are 
many..

Regards
Jessica  Lindholm


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Ross Mounce
Sent: den 17 maj 2016 22:54
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Elsevier have actually done a really good job of infiltrating institutional 
repositories too:
http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/

They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the software that 
many of world's institutional repositories run on.
I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can further 
monetise academic IP.

Best,

Ross




On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL 
> wrote:
Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide is 
not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional repositories can be 
replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better solutions, more 
functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better connected to 
databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.

- Mail d'origine -
De: Stevan Harnad >
À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
>
Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Shame on SSRN.

Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):

It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed 
scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer needed, 
and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as a foothold 
if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a legacy from an 
obsolete Gutenberg era.

I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated expenses 
are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is that the 
distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide  is not for 
sale, and that is their strength...

Stevan Harnad



On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk 
> wrote:

This is an interesting news item which should interest the
readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.

Bo-Christer Björk



 Forwarded Message 
Subject:

Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman

Date:

Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)

From:

Michael C. Jensen 

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

[Ulrich Herb]

Dear all,


thanks a lot to Ross for pointing us to PURE. Of course (by now!) most 
institutions are using PURE as a CRIS not as a repository. But in the end it is 
the same as it is with dropbox, googledocs or mendeley: they all are offering 
seductive functionalities needed by scholars or people from university 
administrations. Facing declining budegts it may only be a matter of time until 
university administrations will start to question the sense of running a CRS 
*and* a repository - especially if the CRIS (as PURE does) offers 
IR-functionalities.  


Best regards


Ulrich Herb

- Ursprüngliche Mail -
Hi Jessica (et al.),

I guess it depends which list you read.

Elsevier's own list boasts over 200 PURE implementations at different
institutions including 28 in the UK:
https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/pure/who-uses-pure/clients

Even Elsevier's list isn't complete. I know for a fact that for instance
that the University of Bath uses PURE http://www.bath.ac.uk/ris/pure/ and
yet this doesnt appear on Elsevier's list, nor OpenDOAR.

OpenDOAR is a registry run by people with close links to EPrints & DSpace.
It's no surprise then that EPrints and DSpace are well registered within
OpenDOAR.

Time to remove the blinkers. PURE is much more prevalent than you'd think
from a glance at OpenDOAR.




On 18 May 2016 at 13:08, Jessica Lindholm 
wrote:

> Hi Ross (et al.),
>
> Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure instances as you
> mentioned that many institutional repositories run on Pure.
>
>
>
> Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories (http://www.opendoar.org/) I
> find 16 PURE-repositories listed, whereas e.g. Eprints has +400 instances
> and DSpace has +1300 instances. However I am not at all sure to what degree
> openDOAR is containing exhaustive data (or rather I am quite sure it
> doesn’t) -it is either lacking data about PURE instances – or if not, I do
> not agree that they are many..
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Jessica  Lindholm
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Ross Mounce
> *Sent:* den 17 maj 2016 22:54
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
> *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
>
>
>
> Elsevier have actually done a really good job of
> infiltrating institutional repositories too:
>
>
> http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/
>
>
>
> They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the software
> that many of world's institutional repositories run on.
>
> I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can further
> monetise academic IP.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Ross
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL 
> wrote:
>
> Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories
> worldwide is not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional
> repositories can be replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better
> solutions, more functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better
> connected to databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.
>
>
>
> - Mail d'origine -
> De: Stevan Harnad 
> À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
> Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
> Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
>
>
>
> Shame on SSRN.
>
>
>
> Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):
>
>
>
> It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed
> scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer
> needed, and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as
> a foothold if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a
> legacy from an obsolete Gutenberg era.
>
>
>
> I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated
> expenses are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is
> that the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide
>  is not for sale, and that is their strength...
>
>
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk <
> bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi> wrote:
>
> This is an interesting news item which should interest the
> readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.
>
> Bo-Christer Björk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Forwarded Message 
>
> *Subject:*
>
> Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman
>
> *Date:*
>
> Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)
>
> *From:*
>
> Michael C. Jensen  
>
> *Reply-To:*
>
> supp...@ssrn.com
>
> *To:*
>
> bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: Web Bug from
> http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/TrackEmailOpening.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740]
>
> [image: http://papers.ssrn.com/Organizations/images/ihp_ssrnlogo.png]
> 

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

[Isidro F. Aguillo]

Hi all,

Jessica is right, the number of PURE instances as PUBLIC repositories 
are still low, but probably the number of them as CLOSED CRIS managers 
is probably higher (although still not very large). The problem is there 
is a tendency to use CRIS (managed by burocrats) instead of OA IRs 
(managed by librarians) as commercial people is selling systems like 
PURE also as good repository managers. In my personal view PURE design 
is greenOA killer as deposit it is not its primary aim (not required).


Why authors are supporting the move to PURE? Probably the same reason 
they are depositing far more in ResearchGate or Academia than in the 
GreenOA IRs: Ugly interfaces, no profiles, useless metrics, ...


Your turn,


On 18/05/2016 15:01, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:

Thank you for checking this.

However, numbers do not tell the whole story. Elsevier, 
Thomson-Reuters, Springer, etc... behave strategically. Like good 
military leaders, they constantly try and test to see what sticks and 
works. For the moment, Pure's presence is small, but the parent 
company learns through this limited presence, and it obviously studies 
ways to make it more appealing to the repository community.


This reminds me of ScholarOne as deployed by Thomson-Reuters. 
Scielo-Brazil had trouble marking its articles in a suitable XML 
format, and did it largely by hand. When Scielo did all it could to be 
included in the Web of Science, they were also "offered" the use of 
Scholar One. Now their work flow is dependent upon this software tool 
to such an extent that moving out of Scholar One will be very costly.


This reminds me also of the recent report by the NSF which, for the 
first time, relies on Scopus rather than the Web of Science. Elsevier 
is getting closer to the the old dream first entertained by Robert 
Maxwell when he tried to coax the Science Citation Index out of Eugene 
Garfield's hands, so as to be both judge and party in the evaluation 
of journals. Reading how they gloat about this is also instructive: 
https://www.elsevier.com/connect/tracking-progress-in-us-science-and-engineering 
.


We, in the OA community, have been rather naive about the ways in 
which power works and how it it is wielded. We had better wise up, and 
fast.


But thank you again, Jessica, for doing the checking.

--
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal

Le mercredi 18 mai 2016 à 12:08 +, Jessica Lindholm a écrit :
Hi Ross (et al.), Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure 
instances as you mentioned that many institutional repositories run 
on Pure. Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories 
(http://www.opendoar.org/) I find 16 PURE-repositories listed, 
whereas e.g. Eprints has +400 instances and DSpace has +1300 
instances. However I am not at all sure to what degree openDOAR is 
containing exhaustive data (or rather I am quite sure it doesn’t) -it 
is either lacking data about PURE instances – or if not, I do not 
agree that they are many.. Regards Jessica  Lindholm *From:* 
goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On Behalf 
Of *Ross Mounce *Sent:* den 17 maj 2016 22:54 *To:* Global Open 
Access List (Successor of AmSci)  *Subject:* Re: 
[GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier 
Elsevier have actually done a really good job of 
infiltrating institutional repositories too: 
http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/ 


They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the 
software that many of world's institutional repositories run on. 
I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can 
further monetise academic IP. 
Best, 
Ross 
On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL 
> wrote: 


Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories
worldwide is not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional
repositories can be replaced by other solutions, can't they ?
Better solutions, more functionalities, more added value, more
efficient, better connected to databases and gold/hybrid journals
etc. 


- Mail d'origine - De: Stevan Harnad
> À: Global
Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18
+0200 (CEST) Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier 

Shame on SSRN. 

Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley): 


It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed
scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no
longer needed, and in which they would not even have been able to
gain as much as a foothold if it had been born digital, instead
of being inherited as a legacy from an obsolete Gutenberg era. 


I don't know about Arxiv (needless 

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

[David Prosser]

Isn’t there a distinction between the use of PURE as a CRIS system and PURE as 
a repository.  I get the feeling the former is much more common than the latter 
and only the latter will appear in OpenDOAR.

David




On 18 May 2016, at 15:20, Ross Mounce 
> wrote:

Hi Jessica (et al.),

I guess it depends which list you read.

Elsevier's own list boasts over 200 PURE implementations at different 
institutions including 28 in the UK: 
https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/pure/who-uses-pure/clients

Even Elsevier's list isn't complete. I know for a fact that for instance that 
the University of Bath uses PURE http://www.bath.ac.uk/ris/pure/ and yet this 
doesnt appear on Elsevier's list, nor OpenDOAR.

OpenDOAR is a registry run by people with close links to EPrints & DSpace. It's 
no surprise then that EPrints and DSpace are well registered within OpenDOAR.

Time to remove the blinkers. PURE is much more prevalent than you'd think from 
a glance at OpenDOAR.




On 18 May 2016 at 13:08, Jessica Lindholm 
> wrote:
Hi Ross (et al.),
Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure instances as you mentioned 
that many institutional repositories run on Pure.

Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories (http://www.opendoar.org/) I find 
16 PURE-repositories listed, whereas e.g. Eprints has +400 instances and DSpace 
has +1300 instances. However I am not at all sure to what degree openDOAR is 
containing exhaustive data (or rather I am quite sure it doesn’t) -it is either 
lacking data about PURE instances – or if not, I do not agree that they are 
many..

Regards
Jessica  Lindholm


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Ross Mounce
Sent: den 17 maj 2016 22:54
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Elsevier have actually done a really good job of infiltrating institutional 
repositories too:
http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/

They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the software that 
many of world's institutional repositories run on.
I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can further 
monetise academic IP.

Best,

Ross




On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL 
> wrote:
Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide is 
not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional repositories can be 
replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better solutions, more 
functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better connected to 
databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.

- Mail d'origine -
De: Stevan Harnad >
À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
>
Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Shame on SSRN.

Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):

It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed 
scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer needed, 
and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as a foothold 
if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a legacy from an 
obsolete Gutenberg era.

I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated expenses 
are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is that the 
distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide  is not for 
sale, and that is their strength...

Stevan Harnad



On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk 
> wrote:

This is an interesting news item which should interest the
readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.

Bo-Christer Björk



 Forwarded Message 
Subject:

Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman

Date:

Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)

From:

Michael C. Jensen 

Reply-To:

supp...@ssrn.com

To:

bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi




[http://papers.ssrn.com/Organizations/images/ihp_ssrnlogo.png]

[http://static.ssrn.com/Images/Header/socialnew.gif]



Dear SSRN Authors,


SSRN announced today that it has changed ownership. SSRN is
joining Mendeley and 
Elsevier
to coordinate our development and delivery of new products and
services, and we look forward to 

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

[Éric Archambault]

Hi

Not everyone who uses a CRIS uses it as a repository - few probably do actually 
as they have started a while back with their repository software. If I'm not 
wrong, Symplectic Elements facilitates the workflow from the CRIS to the IR.


Eric Archambault
1science.com
Science-Metrix.com
+1-514-495-6505 x111

On May 18, 2016, at 09:30, Ross Mounce 
> wrote:

Hi Jessica (et al.),

I guess it depends which list you read.

Elsevier's own list boasts over 200 PURE implementations at different 
institutions including 28 in the UK: 
https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/pure/who-uses-pure/clients

Even Elsevier's list isn't complete. I know for a fact that for instance that 
the University of Bath uses PURE http://www.bath.ac.uk/ris/pure/ and yet this 
doesnt appear on Elsevier's list, nor OpenDOAR.

OpenDOAR is a registry run by people with close links to EPrints & DSpace. It's 
no surprise then that EPrints and DSpace are well registered within OpenDOAR.

Time to remove the blinkers. PURE is much more prevalent than you'd think from 
a glance at OpenDOAR.




On 18 May 2016 at 13:08, Jessica Lindholm 
> wrote:
Hi Ross (et al.),
Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure instances as you mentioned 
that many institutional repositories run on Pure.

Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories (http://www.opendoar.org/) I find 
16 PURE-repositories listed, whereas e.g. Eprints has +400 instances and DSpace 
has +1300 instances. However I am not at all sure to what degree openDOAR is 
containing exhaustive data (or rather I am quite sure it doesn’t) -it is either 
lacking data about PURE instances – or if not, I do not agree that they are 
many..

Regards
Jessica  Lindholm


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Ross Mounce
Sent: den 17 maj 2016 22:54
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Elsevier have actually done a really good job of infiltrating institutional 
repositories too:
http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/

They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the software that 
many of world's institutional repositories run on.
I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can further 
monetise academic IP.

Best,

Ross




On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL 
> wrote:
Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide is 
not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional repositories can be 
replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better solutions, more 
functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better connected to 
databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.

- Mail d'origine -
De: Stevan Harnad >
À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
>
Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Shame on SSRN.

Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):

It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed 
scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer needed, 
and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as a foothold 
if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a legacy from an 
obsolete Gutenberg era.

I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated expenses 
are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is that the 
distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide  is not for 
sale, and that is their strength...

Stevan Harnad



On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk 
> wrote:

This is an interesting news item which should interest the
readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.

Bo-Christer Björk



 Forwarded Message 
Subject:

Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman

Date:

Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)

From:

Michael C. Jensen 

Reply-To:

supp...@ssrn.com

To:

bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi




[http://papers.ssrn.com/Organizations/images/ihp_ssrnlogo.png]

[http://static.ssrn.com/Images/Header/socialnew.gif]



Dear SSRN Authors,


SSRN announced today that it has changed ownership. SSRN is
joining 

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

[Ross-Hellauer, Anthony]

Hi,

I guess these numbers are just for where PURE is being used for IRs, but PURE 
is more commonly-used as CRIS software – which wouldn’t show in OpenDOAR.

Elsevier claims 200 PURE implementations: 
https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/pure/who-uses-pure

But with convergence/interoperability for CRISs and IRs big on institutional 
agendas, this remains an issue for OA advocates.

Best, Tony


Dr. Tony Ross-Hellauer

OpenAIRE Scientific Manager
University of Göttingen
Email: 
ross-hella...@sub.uni-goettingen.de
Tel: +49 551 39-31818
Twitter: @tonyR_H


Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] Im Auftrag von 
Jessica Lindholm
Gesendet: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 2:08 PM
An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Betreff: Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Hi Ross (et al.),
Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure instances as you mentioned 
that many institutional repositories run on Pure.

Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories (http://www.opendoar.org/) I find 
16 PURE-repositories listed, whereas e.g. Eprints has +400 instances and DSpace 
has +1300 instances. However I am not at all sure to what degree openDOAR is 
containing exhaustive data (or rather I am quite sure it doesn’t) -it is either 
lacking data about PURE instances – or if not, I do not agree that they are 
many..

Regards
Jessica  Lindholm


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Ross Mounce
Sent: den 17 maj 2016 22:54
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Elsevier have actually done a really good job of infiltrating institutional 
repositories too:
http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/

They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the software that 
many of world's institutional repositories run on.
I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can further 
monetise academic IP.

Best,

Ross




On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL 
> wrote:
Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide is 
not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional repositories can be 
replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better solutions, more 
functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better connected to 
databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.

- Mail d'origine -
De: Stevan Harnad >
À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
>
Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Shame on SSRN.

Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):

It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed 
scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer needed, 
and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as a foothold 
if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a legacy from an 
obsolete Gutenberg era.

I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated expenses 
are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is that the 
distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide  is not for 
sale, and that is their strength...

Stevan Harnad



On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk 
> wrote:

This is an interesting news item which should interest the
readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.

Bo-Christer Björk



 Forwarded Message 
Subject:

Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman

Date:

Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)

From:

Michael C. Jensen 

Reply-To:

supp...@ssrn.com

To:

bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi




[http://papers.ssrn.com/Organizations/images/ihp_ssrnlogo.png]

[http://static.ssrn.com/Images/Header/socialnew.gif]



Dear SSRN Authors,


SSRN announced today that it has changed ownership. SSRN is
joining Mendeley and 
Elsevier
to coordinate our development and delivery of new products and
services, and we look forward to our new access to data, products,
and additional resources that this change facilitates. (See Gregg
Gordon’s Elsevier
Connect
 post)


Like SSRN, 

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

[Ross Mounce]

Hi Jessica (et al.),

I guess it depends which list you read.

Elsevier's own list boasts over 200 PURE implementations at different
institutions including 28 in the UK:
https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/pure/who-uses-pure/clients

Even Elsevier's list isn't complete. I know for a fact that for instance
that the University of Bath uses PURE http://www.bath.ac.uk/ris/pure/ and
yet this doesnt appear on Elsevier's list, nor OpenDOAR.

OpenDOAR is a registry run by people with close links to EPrints & DSpace.
It's no surprise then that EPrints and DSpace are well registered within
OpenDOAR.

Time to remove the blinkers. PURE is much more prevalent than you'd think
from a glance at OpenDOAR.




On 18 May 2016 at 13:08, Jessica Lindholm 
wrote:

> Hi Ross (et al.),
>
> Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure instances as you
> mentioned that many institutional repositories run on Pure.
>
>
>
> Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories (http://www.opendoar.org/) I
> find 16 PURE-repositories listed, whereas e.g. Eprints has +400 instances
> and DSpace has +1300 instances. However I am not at all sure to what degree
> openDOAR is containing exhaustive data (or rather I am quite sure it
> doesn’t) -it is either lacking data about PURE instances – or if not, I do
> not agree that they are many..
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Jessica  Lindholm
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Ross Mounce
> *Sent:* den 17 maj 2016 22:54
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
> *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
>
>
>
> Elsevier have actually done a really good job of
> infiltrating institutional repositories too:
>
>
> http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/
>
>
>
> They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the software
> that many of world's institutional repositories run on.
>
> I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can further
> monetise academic IP.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Ross
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL 
> wrote:
>
> Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories
> worldwide is not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional
> repositories can be replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better
> solutions, more functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better
> connected to databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.
>
>
>
> - Mail d'origine -
> De: Stevan Harnad 
> À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
> Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
> Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
>
>
>
> Shame on SSRN.
>
>
>
> Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):
>
>
>
> It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed
> scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer
> needed, and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as
> a foothold if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a
> legacy from an obsolete Gutenberg era.
>
>
>
> I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated
> expenses are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is
> that the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide
>  is not for sale, and that is their strength...
>
>
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk <
> bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi> wrote:
>
> This is an interesting news item which should interest the
> readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.
>
> Bo-Christer Björk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Forwarded Message 
>
> *Subject:*
>
> Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman
>
> *Date:*
>
> Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)
>
> *From:*
>
> Michael C. Jensen  
>
> *Reply-To:*
>
> supp...@ssrn.com
>
> *To:*
>
> bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: Web Bug from
> http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/TrackEmailOpening.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740]
>
> [image: http://papers.ssrn.com/Organizations/images/ihp_ssrnlogo.png]
> 
>
> [image: http://static.ssrn.com/Images/Header/socialnew.gif]
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear SSRN Authors,
>
>
>
>
> SSRN announced today that it has changed ownership. SSRN is
> joining Mendeley  and Elsevier
> 
> to coordinate our development and delivery of new products and
> services, and we look forward to our new access to data, products,
> and additional resources that this change facilitates. (See Gregg
> Gordon’s Elsevier
> Connect
> 

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

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

Thank you for checking this.

However, numbers do not tell the whole story. Elsevier, Thomson-Reuters,
Springer, etc... behave strategically. Like good military leaders, they
constantly try and test to see what sticks and works. For the moment,
Pure's presence is small, but the parent company learns through this
limited presence, and it obviously studies ways to make it more
appealing to the repository community.

This reminds me of ScholarOne as deployed by Thomson-Reuters.
Scielo-Brazil had trouble marking its articles in a suitable XML format,
and did it largely by hand. When Scielo did all it could to be included
in the Web of Science, they were also "offered" the use of Scholar One.
Now their work flow is dependent upon this software tool to such an
extent that moving out of Scholar One will be very costly.

This reminds me also of the recent report by the NSF which, for the
first time, relies on Scopus rather than the Web of Science. Elsevier is
getting closer to the the old dream first entertained by Robert Maxwell
when he tried to coax the Science Citation Index out of Eugene
Garfield's hands, so as to be both judge and party in the evaluation of
journals. Reading how they gloat about this is also instructive:
https://www.elsevier.com/connect/tracking-progress-in-us-science-and-engineering
 .

We, in the OA community, have been rather naive about the ways in which
power works and how it it is wielded. We had better wise up, and fast.

But thank you again, Jessica, for doing the checking.

-- 
Jean-Claude Guédon 

Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal




Le mercredi 18 mai 2016 à 12:08 +, Jessica Lindholm a écrit :
> Hi Ross (et al.),
> 
> Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure instances as you
> mentioned that many institutional repositories run on Pure. 
> 
>  
> 
> Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories
> (http://www.opendoar.org/) I find 16 PURE-repositories listed, whereas
> e.g. Eprints has +400 instances and DSpace has +1300 instances.
> However I am not at all sure to what degree openDOAR is containing
> exhaustive data (or rather I am quite sure it doesn’t) -it is either
> lacking data about PURE instances – or if not, I do not agree that
> they are many..
> 
>  
> 
> Regards
> 
> Jessica  Lindholm
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On
> Behalf Of Ross Mounce
> Sent: den 17 maj 2016 22:54
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
> Subject: Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Elsevier have actually done a really good job of
> infiltrating institutional repositories too:
> 
> 
> http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the
> software that many of world's institutional repositories run on.
> 
> 
> I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can
> further monetise academic IP.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Ross
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional
> repositories worldwide is not for sale"? Not so sure - the
> green institutional repositories can be replaced by other
> solutions, can't they ? Better solutions, more
> functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better
> connected to databases and gold/hybrid journals etc. 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> - Mail d'origine -
> De: Stevan Harnad 
> À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> 
> Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
> Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Shame on SSRN.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and
> Mendeley):
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed
> scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no
> longer needed, and in which they would not even have been able
> to gain as much as a foothold if it had been born digital,
> instead of being inherited as a legacy from an obsolete
> Gutenberg era.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its
> concentrated expenses are always vulnerabe to faux-benign
> take-overs) but what's sure is that the distributed network of
> Green institutional repositories worldwide  is not for sale,
> and that is their strength...
> 
> 

[GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

[Stevan Harnad]

The worldwide distributed network of Green Institutional Repositories
 is by far the best prophylactic against Elsevier
predation. I hope universities and research funders will be awake enough to
realize this rather than falling for quick "solutions" that continue to
hold their research output hostage to the increasingly predatory publishing
industry.

"We have nothing to lose but our chains..."

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Paul Walk  wrote:

> "The software may change, but you can't sell off a distributed network of
> independent repositories.”
>
> I agree, and I think that this is the crucial point. The software doesn’t
> matter (well, it does matter, but it doesn’t affect this principle). It’s
> about the distribution of *control*.
>
> We are truly fortunate to have a global, distributed infrastructure of
> institutional repositories which are (mostly) under institutional control.
> This is quite an unusual arrangement these days - and I think we should
> regard it as precious and inherently powerful in its denial of the
> possibility of “ownership” by one party.
>
> We should do what we can to both hang on to this infrastructure, and to
> exploit it more fully, in pursuit of a better scholarly communications
> system.
>
> Paul
>
> > On 17 May 2016, at 22:06, Leslie Carr  wrote:
> >
> > The software may change, but you can't sell off a distributed network of
> independent repositories.
> >
> > Prof Leslie Carr
> > Web Science institute
> > #⃣ webscience #⃣ openaccess
> >
> > On 17 May 2016, at 21:35, Joachim SCHOPFEL <
> joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr>
> wrote:
> >
> > Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories
> worldwide is not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional
> repositories can be replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better
> solutions, more functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better
> connected to databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.
> >
> > - Mail d'origine -
> > De: Stevan Harnad >
> > À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)  >
> > Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
> > Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
> >
> > Shame on SSRN.
> >
> > Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):
> >
> > It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed
> scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer
> needed, and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as
> a foothold if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a
> legacy from an obsolete Gutenberg era.
> >
> > I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated
> expenses are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is
> that the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide
> is not for sale, and that is their strength...
> >
> > Stevan Harnad
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk <
> bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi> wrote:
> >
> > This is an interesting news item which should interest the
> > readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.
> >
> > Bo-Christer Björk
> >
> >
> >
> >  Forwarded Message 
> > Subject:
> >Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman
> > Date:   Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)
> > From:   Michael C. Jensen 
> > Reply-To:
> >supp...@ssrn.com
> > To: bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi
> >
> >
> >
> > [http://papers.ssrn.com/Organizations/images/ihp_ssrnlogo.png]<
> http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740=http://www.ssrn.com>
>  [http://static.ssrn.com/Images/Header/socialnew.gif]
> >
> >
> > Dear SSRN Authors,
> >
> >
> > SSRN announced today that it has changed ownership. SSRN is
> > joining Mendeley and Elsevier<
> https://www.elsevier.com>
> > to coordinate our development and delivery of new products and
> > services, and we look forward to our new access to data, products,
> > and additional resources that this change facilitates. (See Gregg
> > Gordon’s Elsevier
> > Connect<
> https://www.elsevier.com/connect/ssrn-the-leading-social-science-and-humanities-repository-and-online-community-joins-elsevier>
> post)
> >
> >
> > Like SSRN, Mendeley and Elsevier are focused on creating tools
> > that enhance researcher workflow and productivity. SSRN has been
> > at the forefront of on-line sharing of working papers. We are
> > committed to continue our innovation and this change will enable
> > that to happen more quickly. SSRN will benefit from access to the
> > vast new data and resources available, including 

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

[Jessica Lindholm]

Hi Ross (et al.),
Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure instances as you mentioned 
that many institutional repositories run on Pure.

Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories (http://www.opendoar.org/) I find 
16 PURE-repositories listed, whereas e.g. Eprints has +400 instances and DSpace 
has +1300 instances. However I am not at all sure to what degree openDOAR is 
containing exhaustive data (or rather I am quite sure it doesn’t) -it is either 
lacking data about PURE instances – or if not, I do not agree that they are 
many..

Regards
Jessica  Lindholm


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Ross Mounce
Sent: den 17 maj 2016 22:54
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Elsevier have actually done a really good job of infiltrating institutional 
repositories too:
http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/

They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the software that 
many of world's institutional repositories run on.
I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can further 
monetise academic IP.

Best,

Ross




On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL 
> wrote:
Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide is 
not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional repositories can be 
replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better solutions, more 
functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better connected to 
databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.

- Mail d'origine -
De: Stevan Harnad >
À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
>
Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

Shame on SSRN.

Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):

It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed 
scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer needed, 
and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as a foothold 
if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a legacy from an 
obsolete Gutenberg era.

I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated expenses 
are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is that the 
distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide  is not for 
sale, and that is their strength...

Stevan Harnad



On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk 
> wrote:

This is an interesting news item which should interest the
readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.

Bo-Christer Björk



 Forwarded Message 
Subject:

Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman

Date:

Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)

From:

Michael C. Jensen 

Reply-To:

supp...@ssrn.com

To:

bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi




[http://papers.ssrn.com/Organizations/images/ihp_ssrnlogo.png]

[http://static.ssrn.com/Images/Header/socialnew.gif]



Dear SSRN Authors,


SSRN announced today that it has changed ownership. SSRN is
joining Mendeley and 
Elsevier
to coordinate our development and delivery of new products and
services, and we look forward to our new access to data, products,
and additional resources that this change facilitates. (See Gregg
Gordon’s Elsevier
Connect
 post)


Like SSRN, Mendeley and Elsevier are focused on creating tools
that enhance researcher workflow and productivity. SSRN has been
at the forefront of on-line sharing of working papers. We are
committed to continue our innovation and this change will enable
that to happen more quickly. SSRN will benefit from access to the
vast new data and resources available, including Mendeley’s
reference management and personal library management tools, their
new researcher profile capabilities, and social networking
features. Importantly, we will also have new access for SSRN
members to authoritative performance measurement tools such as
those powered by Scopus and
Newsflo
(a global media tracking tool). In addition, SSRN, Mendeley and
Elsevier together can cooperatively build bridges to close the
divide between the previously separate 

Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Andrew A. Adams]

> "The software may change, but you can't sell off a distributed network of 
> independent repositories.”
> 
> I agree, and I think that this is the crucial point. The software doesn’t 
> matter (well, it does matter, but it doesn’t affect this principle). It’s 
> about the distribution of *control*.
> 
> We are truly fortunate to have a global, distributed infrastructure of 
> institutional repositories which are (mostly) under institutional control. 
> This is quite an unusual arrangement these days - and I think we should 
> regard it as precious and inherently powerful in its denial of the 
> possibility of “ownership” by one party.
> 
> We should do what we can to both hang on to this infrastructure, and to 
> exploit it more fully, in pursuit of a better scholarly communications system.

We used to have a distributed system of email and file storage in 
universities, mostly under the control of the institution. In recent years, 
however, a large proportion of universities have purchased loud email and 
file storage services (mostly from Google and Microsoft).


-- 
Professor Andrew A Adams  a...@meiji.ac.jp
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan   http://www.a-cubed.info/



___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Paul Walk]

"The software may change, but you can't sell off a distributed network of 
independent repositories.”

I agree, and I think that this is the crucial point. The software doesn’t 
matter (well, it does matter, but it doesn’t affect this principle). It’s about 
the distribution of *control*.

We are truly fortunate to have a global, distributed infrastructure of 
institutional repositories which are (mostly) under institutional control. This 
is quite an unusual arrangement these days - and I think we should regard it as 
precious and inherently powerful in its denial of the possibility of 
“ownership” by one party.

We should do what we can to both hang on to this infrastructure, and to exploit 
it more fully, in pursuit of a better scholarly communications system.

Paul

> On 17 May 2016, at 22:06, Leslie Carr  wrote:
> 
> The software may change, but you can't sell off a distributed network of 
> independent repositories.
> 
> Prof Leslie Carr
> Web Science institute
> #⃣ webscience #⃣ openaccess
> 
> On 17 May 2016, at 21:35, Joachim SCHOPFEL 
> > 
> wrote:
> 
> Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide 
> is not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional repositories can be 
> replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better solutions, more 
> functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better connected to 
> databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.
> 
> - Mail d'origine -
> De: Stevan Harnad >
> À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
> >
> Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
> Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
> 
> Shame on SSRN.
> 
> Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):
> 
> It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed 
> scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer needed, 
> and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as a foothold 
> if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a legacy from an 
> obsolete Gutenberg era.
> 
> I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated 
> expenses are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is 
> that the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide  
> is not for sale, and that is their strength...
> 
> Stevan Harnad
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk 
> > wrote:
> 
> This is an interesting news item which should interest the
> readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.
> 
> Bo-Christer Björk
> 
> 
> 
>  Forwarded Message 
> Subject:
>Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman
> Date:   Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)
> From:   Michael C. Jensen 
> Reply-To:
>supp...@ssrn.com
> To: bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi
> 
> 
> 
> [http://papers.ssrn.com/Organizations/images/ihp_ssrnlogo.png]
>[http://static.ssrn.com/Images/Header/socialnew.gif]
> 
> 
> Dear SSRN Authors,
> 
> 
> SSRN announced today that it has changed ownership. SSRN is
> joining Mendeley and 
> Elsevier
> to coordinate our development and delivery of new products and
> services, and we look forward to our new access to data, products,
> and additional resources that this change facilitates. (See Gregg
> Gordon’s Elsevier
> Connect
>  post)
> 
> 
> Like SSRN, Mendeley and Elsevier are focused on creating tools
> that enhance researcher workflow and productivity. SSRN has been
> at the forefront of on-line sharing of working papers. We are
> committed to continue our innovation and this change will enable
> that to happen more quickly. SSRN will benefit from access to the
> vast new data and resources available, including Mendeley’s
> reference management and personal library management tools, their
> new researcher profile capabilities, and social networking
> features. Importantly, we will also have new access for SSRN
> members to authoritative performance measurement tools such as
> those powered by Scopus and
> Newsflo
> (a global media tracking tool). In addition, SSRN, Mendeley and
> Elsevier together can cooperatively build bridges to close the
> divide between the previously separate