Re: [GOAL] North, South, and Open Access: The view from Egypt with Mahmoud Khalifa

[Jan Velterop]

Chris, 
Your first point in particular is a valid one, of course, but the question is 
whether publication in academic journals do indeed reach beyond the confines of 
the ivory tower. It is my impression that it only does in rare instances, or 
via journalistic ‘translations’ in non-academic media and the general press. OA 
is probably  better than subscription, in that those outside academia can get 
the full articles without hitting paywalls (though savvy people are aware of 
SciHub), but again, in the overwhelming number of cases there is a cost 
associated with journal/publisher-mediated peer reviewed publication. If you’d 
want to reach those outside the ivory tower whose opinions matter via journals, 
and you believe that is an effective route, the cost of APCs might be seen in a 
way similar to the cost of advertising. 
Best,
Jan

Johannes (Jan) J M Velterop
velte...@protonmail.com

Sent from Jan Velterop's iPhone. Please excuse for brevity and typos. 

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 13:41, Chris Zielinski <ch...@chriszielinski.com> wrote:
> 
> Regarding the comments of David Prosser and Jan Velterop, I would note that 
> for researchers working on health services or health systems research in a 
> developing country, the purpose of publishing in an international journal can 
> be twofold: 1) to solicit an international eye on what they are doing - 
> feedback, consensus, validation etc. - which can help in subsequently using 
> the research to establish new protocols and new administrative procedures in 
> their local health systems, and 2) to score some academic brownie points.
> 
> Let me stress that this is an observation only related to research covering 
> health systems and health services, and that it implies a step beyond the 
> ivory towers into the dizzying (to some academics) world of applying research 
> results to real life - which is the main point of health systems/service 
> research.
> 
> You can publish anywhere of course - but will you be seen there by everyone 
> whose opinions matter?
> 
> 
> Chris Zielinski
> ch...@chriszielinski.com
> Blogs: http://ziggytheblue.wordpress.com and http://ziggytheblue.tumblr.com 
> Research publications: http://www.researchgate.net
> 
>> On 25 April 2018 at 11:18 Velterop <velte...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> 
>> The thing is, Chris, that payments, be they APCs or subscription charges, 
>> are for the 'service' of publisher-mediated peer review (plus 'prestige 
>> ribbons') and access to publisher-mediated peer-reviewed (and 'ribboned') 
>> articles. They are not for publishing one's research results per se. That 
>> can be done at no cost or at very low, often negligible, cost. For instance 
>> via 'preprint' facilities or other repositories. I realise that for many a 
>> researcher having 'ribbons' pinned on their articles is important for career 
>> advancement and possibly also for reputation, but that is where the real 
>> problem lies. As long as the scholarly culture expects and demands 
>> publisher-mediated peer review and the 'prestige ribbons' associated with 
>> that, there will be a cost beyond the generally (very, or negligibly) low 
>> cost of just making one's articles publicly and freely available – open – to 
>> be reviewed, commented on, assessed, etc. by the community at large. The 
>> process of proper scientific discourse, in other words. That's where 
>> scicomm/scholcomm should be headed. I hope you agree.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Jan 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Jan Velterop
>> 
>> velte...@protonmail.com
>> 
>> 
>>> On 25/04/2018 12:17, Chris Zielinski wrote: 
>>> Richard,
>>> 
>>> In this context, you may be interested in a post I recently submitted to 
>>> the Healthcare Information for All (HIFA) list in the context of a HIFA 
>>> discussion of this topic:
>>> 
>>> -- Original Message -- 
>>> To: HIFA - Healthcare Information For All <h...@dgroups.org> 
>>> Date: 18 April 2018 at 19:33 
>>> Subject: Re: [hifa] Open Access Author Processing Charges (3) 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In the bad old days before Open Access (OA), a developing country author 
>>> wrote a paper and submitted it to a journal and, if the paper was good 
>>> enough, the generous people at the journal organized peer review, 
>>> redid/redesigned the tables and most of the graphics, and maybe even did 
>>> some language editing - at no cost to the author. Then they published the 
>>> journal, charging for access to the paper version and pay-walling any 
>>> online version. From the author's perspective, thus, there was no barrier 
>

[GOAL] Re: Quo vadere?

[Jan Velterop]

This is most interesting, Arthur. Is this a unique case, as far as you know? Is 
there anything that makes this possible at the U of Tasmania but not elsewhere?

You say that the economics stack up. Intuitively I feel that must be right. I 
also think pay-per-view as substitute for subscriptions is what many publishers 
fear most. Of course, if the idea of pay-per-view instead of subscriptions 
gains traction, you may see article viewing fees go up. 

Jan Velterop


Sent from Jan Velterop's iPhone. Please excuse for brevity and typos. 

> On 4 Jan 2016, at 23:19, Arthur Sale <a...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> 
> I don’t have access to the raw data now apart from knowing that we fulfill 
> 13,000+ requests a year, but the University of Tasmania has operated a free 
> unlimited-quantity service for 15 years, funded pay-per-view centrally (ie in 
> replacement for subscriptions). It is very much used, and regarded as a 
> keystone of library research support. It simply is not true that academics 
> are devoted to instant access, and they are prepared to wait a day or two to 
> read the papers they think are relevant. Of course they use alert services, 
> metadata, etc in making the judgment, but if they think a paper is worth 
> reading in full (it may not be after they have read it but nobody cares) they 
> have no hesitation in using the university’s service. The economics do stack 
> up, and I am proud to have introduced it in about 1998.
> See http://www.utas.edu.au/library/research/document-delivery and 
> http://www.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/65611/Document-Delivery-Service-online-guide-v10.7.12.pdf.
> For context, the University is in the top ten Australian universities for 
> research, and in student size modest (27,000 students, 18% of whom are from 
> outside Australia).
> If someone wants to mine the data, contact the University Librarian.
>  
> Arthur Sale
> University of Tasmania, Australia
>  
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
> Stevan Harnad
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 January 2016 02:24 AM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Quo vadere?
>  
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Christian Gutknecht 
> <christian.gutkne...@bluewin.ch> wrote:
> Stevan, 
>  
> [ahjs] …
>  
> But I really like the idea to let researchers feel that subscription is an 
> outdated model. And an easy way to do that without upsetting them too much, 
> is to cancel subscriptions and get rid of the Big Deals. With the free money 
> the library then can create two kind of funds: One is the Gold OA fund (incl. 
> hybrid options but with a cap) and one is the fund for costs resulting 
> getting access to documents that are not longer available via subscription 
> (like costs for pay-per-view, document delivery, individual subscription of a 
> really important journal).. Because librarians constantly overestimate the 
> importance of their subscriptions and especially the Big Deals where they 
> buy/rent a lot of stuff that is never used by their community. I think most 
> libraries would find out that researchers would get along quite well with 
> this option
>  
> Christian, I strongly suggest that you look into the actual costs of such a 
> proposal (replacing subscriptions by pay-to-view costs, per paper). 
>  
> We are in the online era, when scholars are accustomed to reaching content 
> immediately with one click, and browsing it to see whether it's even worth 
> reading. A scholar may look at dozens of papers a day this way. That's what 
> they do with their institutional licensed content. You are imagining (without 
> any data at all) that the cost of doing this via pay-per-view, at the usual 
> $30 or so per paper, would amount to less cost for an institution than its 
> current licensing costs.
>  
> Please repeat this proposal once you have done the arithmetic and have the 
> evidence. (It won't be enough to find out the license costs and the 
> pay-per-view costs. You will also have to monitor the daily usage, per 
> discipline, of a sufficient representative sample of researchers. 
> Until then, subscription cancellation is not an option for institutions 
> today. (But with universal immediate-deposit it will be.)
>  
> As Thomas mentioned it’s really easy these days to get to the papers by 
> simply asking the author. Also Researchgate and academia.edu close the gap 
> where IRs fail to provide access. 
>  
> The ease and immediacy of online access to which institutional authors are 
> now accustomed is for licensed (+ OA) content. Find the actual  user data for 
> unlicensed, non-OA content. And prepare to discover that copy-requests -- for 
> which you have expressed pessimism when they are Butto

[GOAL] Re: Need for a new beginning

[Jan Velterop]

All I want to say is that I agree wholeheartedly with Chris. He definitely 
isn't the only one to be outraged. 

Johannes (Jan) J M Velterop

Sent from Jan Velterop's iPhone. Please excuse for brevity and typos. 

> On 3 Oct 2015, at 11:32, Chris Zielinski  wrote:
> 
> I have no personal involvement in this issue (other than being aghast when 
> SciELO appeared on the List of Predatory Journals recently - it now seems to 
> have been removed, after multiple protests) and don't know any of the 
> participants personally, but I can't be the only one who finds this post from 
> Beall outrageous, with its insinuations that Archambault has a financial 
> motive for his post, and may be racist. Archambault's reply is far, far too 
> polite!
> 
> Chris
> Chris Zielinski
> ch...@chriszielinski.com
> Blogs: http://ziggytheblue.wordpress.com and http://ziggytheblue.tumblr.com 
> Research publications: http://www.researchgate.net
> 
>> On 2 October 2015 at 15:55, Beall, Jeffrey  
>> wrote:
>> Eric:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I have two questions.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 1. For the record, does your for-profit business or do you personally have 
>> any business relationship with any of the publishers or journals on my 
>> lists? If so, which ones?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 2. In your email you refer to a recently-published article, and you name and 
>> discuss the second author, but you fail to mention or credit the lead and 
>> corresponding author, Cenyu Shen. Was this because of his race?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Jeffrey Beall
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf 
>> Of Éric Archambault
>> Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 7:38 AM
>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci 
>> Subject: [GOAL] Need for a new beginning
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Dear list members:
>> 
>> What started as a one-man, useful list that identified “Potential, possible, 
>> or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers”, which Jeffrey 
>> himself further qualifies as a “list of questionable, scholarly open-access 
>> publishers”, has now overshot its usefulness. We need a new beginning.
>> 
>> If these publishers are questionable, let’s find a mechanism to question 
>> them, and let’s, at the very least, document their answers. Currently, this 
>> list of
>> 
>> Release Date: 10/01/15
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> GOAL mailing list
>> GOAL@eprints.org
>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
> 
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: [BOAI] Re: a chronology about open access

[Jan Velterop]

This sort of insistence on One Special License is exactly what is limiting the 
adoption of open access.

Really? Any evidence? I'd welcome it if your definition of open access found 
universal acceptance. Would be a great step forward. 

Jan Velterop


 On 22 Jun 2015, at 12:34, Stephen Downes step...@downes.ca wrote:
 
  as I would define it
  
 And I would define it as *more* free than licenses thatg allow people to 
 charge money for access to the document.
  
 This sort of insistence on One Special License is exactly what is limiting 
 the adoption of open access.
  
 -- Stephen
  
 From: boai-forum-boun...@ecs.soton.ac.uk 
 [mailto:boai-forum-boun...@ecs.soton.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Jan Velterop
 Sent: June-22-15 7:48 AM
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Cc: boai-fo...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
 Subject: [BOAI] Re: [GOAL] a chronology about open access
  
 Nice chronology of open access. Unfortunately CC-BY-NC-SA, so itself not full 
 open access as I would define it (though better than pay-walled, obviously). 
 
 Jan Velterop
 
 On 22 Jun 2015, at 10:32, marie lebert marie.leb...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Dear all:
  
 https://marielebert.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/openaccesschronology/
  
 Best regards from France,
  
 Marie
  
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals

[Jan Velterop]

Listening to authors, the main purpose of a traditional journal seems to be 
serving as a (very expensive) career advancement device (‘cad’, for short, if 
you permit me). This is exemplified by the phenomenon that many authors of 
articles made openly available to anyone via so-called ‘preprint servers’ (such 
as arXiv), often in multiple versions, up until a ‘final’ one (and so fulfil 
the need to communicate their results), nonetheless submit their articles to 
journals for what can only be described as obtaining ‘public approbation’ 
(often expressed in terms of the journal’s impact factor), which they hope will 
increase their promotion and funding chances.

It is academia itself, specifically in its reward and award systems, that 
maintains this situation. It needs to change and the habit of resources made 
available for research being wasted to prop up the publishing system needs to 
stop.

Jan Velterop


 On 1 May 2015, at 13:47, Jacinto Dávila jacinto.dav...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Thank you Éric. Very nice examples.
 
 However, I still wonder if there is some intrinsic value in the concept of 
 journal that one may miss. A journal is not just a collection of papers. 
 Maybe when we count journals we somehow measure their review processes.
 
 El 30/4/2015 1:07, Éric Archambault eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com 
 mailto:eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com escribió:
 If one wants to see how excluding foreign references can have adverse effects 
 on citation analysis, here the list of references for a randomly picked up 
 Japanese paper.
 
  
 
 Most, if not all, Japanese language references are currently ignored in 
 citation analysis, this science is considered non-existent. The paper, and 
 the references.
 
  
 
 https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jssp/30/1/30_30.1/_article/references 
 https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jssp/30/1/30_30.1/_article/references
  
 
 Gibb, R., Ercoline, B.,  Scharff, L. (2011). Spatial disorientation: Decades 
 of pilot fatalities. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 82, 
 717–724. 
 https://jlc.jst.go.jp/DN/JALC/10007449771?type=listlang=enfrom=J-STAGEdispptn=1
 Howard, I. P. (1982). Human visual orientation. John Wiley  Sons.
 乾　敏郎・小川健二（2010）．認知発達の神経基盤―生後8ヶ月まで―　心理学評論，52, 576–608.
 石井正則（1998）．神経・前庭系・空間識について　宇宙開発事業団（編）　宇宙医学・生理学（III-A）　社会保険出版社　pp. 29–41.
 Kanas, N.  Manzey, D. (2008). Space psychology and psychiatry (2nd ed.). 
 Springer.
 木下冨雄（1993）．相対判断の理論―意味、基準系、動き―　京都大学定年退官記念講演録
 木下冨雄（2009）．宇宙問題への人文・社会科学からのアプローチ―高等研報告書0804―　国際高等研究所・宇宙航空研究開発機構（編）　国際高等研究所
 古賀一男（2011）．知覚の正体　河出書房新社
 Leonov, A.  Scott, D. (2006). Two sides of the moon. St. Marti's Griffin.
 中川久定（2009）．第3回インタビュー（対話）　木下冨雄（編著）　宇宙問題への人文・社会科学からのアプローチ―高等研報告書0804―　
 国際高等研究所・宇宙航空研究開発機構　pp. 376–378.
 牧野達郎・下條信輔・古賀一男（1998）．知覚の可塑性と行動適応　ブレーン出版
 宮辻和貴・田辺　智・金子公宥（2005）．宇宙船内「体操」のエネルギー消費量に関する研究　体育学研究，50, 201–206.
 Oman, C. M. (2003). Human visual orientation in weightlessness. In L. Harris 
  M. Jenkin, (Eds.), Levels of Perception. New York, Springer Verlag. pp. 
 375–398.
 Ross, H. E. (1974). Behaviour and perception in strange environments. Allen 
 and Unwin.
 Small, R. L., Oman, C. M.,  Jones, T. D. (2012). Space shuttle flight crew 
 spatial orientation survey results. Aviation, Space, and Environmental 
 Medicine, 83, 383–387. 
 https://jlc.jst.go.jp/DN/JALC/10011723096?type=listlang=enfrom=J-STAGEdispptn=1
 立花正一（2009）．人類が宇宙に居住するための医学・精神心理の課題　木下冨雄（編著）宇宙問題への人文・社会科学からのアプローチ―高等研報告書0804―　
 国際高等研究所・宇宙航空研究開発機構　pp. 258–259.
 立花　隆（1983）．宇宙からの帰還　中央公論社
 Vakoch, D. A. (Ed.) (2011). Psychology of space exploration, contemporary 
 research in historical perspective. National Aeronautics and Space 
 Administration. pp. 85–86.
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
 [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf 
 Of Éric Archambault
 Sent: April-29-15 5:40 PM
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals
 
  
 
 Paul
 
  
 
 I think librarians are still highly concerned about journals, as opposed to 
 papers. The reason is that this is how their invoices are structured – they 
 buy journals and now bunches of journals. But this is changing because 
 end-users increasingly do not see journals, they see results in the Web of 
 Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and universities’ discovery systems. These 
 results are usually smaller, more atomistic units -  they are papers, 
 conference papers, book chapters, etc.
 
  
 
 Thus, the use of search engines, as opposed to browsing on the shelves of 
 libraries is progressively shifting the relevant unit towards papers as 
 opposed to journals. Still, journals will continue to play a very important 
 role as they confer prestige to papers, and guide authors’ and readers’ 
 decisions.  
 
  
 
  
 
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
 [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org

[GOAL] Re: Elsevier (and other traditional publishers) and PLOS

[Jan Velterop]

The cost of properly and robustly preparing articles for preservation, 
archiving, machine-reading (TDM) etc. is more essential in my view, given the 
mess many authors (and, it has to be said, many publishers) make of that. That 
cost is but a fraction of the cost of arranging peer review by publishers. 
Prepublication peer review can perfectly well be arranged by academics 
themselves. See this: 
http://blog.scienceopen.com/2015/04/welcome-jan-velterop-peer-review-by-endorsement/
 

Jan Velterop

Sent from Jan Velterop's iPhone. Please excuse for brevity and typos. 

 On 1 May 2015, at 10:10, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 The only essential cost in peer-reviewed research publication in the online 
 (PostGutenberg) era is the cost of managing peer review.
 
 Harnad, S (2014) The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions 
 unsustainable: Mandate Green Open Access. LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog 
 4/28 
 http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/
 Harnad, S. (2014) Crowd-Sourced Peer Review: Substitute or supplement for the 
 current outdated system? LSE Impact Blog 8/21 August 21 2014 
 http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/08/21/crowd-sourced-peer-review-substitute-or-supplement/
 
 Harnad, S. (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity Need 
 Not Be Access Denied or Delayed. D-Lib Magazine 16 (7/8). 
 http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/
 
 
 
 On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Éric Archambault 
 eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com wrote:
 Heather
 
 I think using the term toll when what we mean is subscription is quite 
 limiting. There is always a toll charged or taken whatever the model used to 
 diffuse scientific knowledge. The important question is not about toll or 
 profit, it is about seeking an effective knowledge delivery system that is 
 as close as possible to universal access to academic and scientific 
 knowledge, while doing this relatively efficiently at the system level. Like 
 anything else in our money-mediated society, there is a cost associated with 
 achieving this objective. Several models are available, all with their own 
 tolls.
 
 PLoS charges tolls at the entry point in the form of Article Processing 
 Charge while Elsevier charges tolls in the form of subscription. Both limit 
 access at one end of the communication pipeline (to publish, or to read), 
 both charge money. Hence, Elsevier and PLoS both are toll access publishers.
 
 Everything being equal, between the two, the APC model is inherently more 
 efficient as it more largely unleashes the $450 billion spent annually by 
 governments the world over to support public research. However, it presents 
 its own problems of equal access (that is, equal access to the capacity to 
 publish equal quality papers) and is likely to perpetuate the North-South 
 divide if no steps are taken.
 
 Gold with no APC is certainly also associated with large tolls, including 
 resource allocation inefficiencies, and lack of sustainability which reduces 
 the value of the published output (it takes a long time to build a 
 reputation for a publication venue and papers in abandoned journals are less 
 likely to be read over time). Individuals in the top 5% income bracket (e.g. 
 university professors) producing journals is not a model of efficient 
 allocation of public money. Finding long term sustainable income to pay for 
 the rest of the personnel involved in APC-less gold also present some 
 definitive challenges, sustainability being the toughest.
 
 Hybrid, à la pièce, gold probably present the worse of all worlds as it is 
 expensive, paid twice for, and very difficult to discover considering that 
 publishers are packaging these papers among the restricted access material. 
 These should be duplicated on separate parts of the publishers' website and 
 their metadata freely harvestable by anyone, and the papers themselves mass 
 downloadable. This would increase their value, and facilitate oversight.
 
 Green alas does not seem to save it all. On the Southampton repository, 
 there are only some 7000-8000 peer-reviewed published papers which are 
 available for download out of about 57,000 claimed peer-reviewed papers in 
 the repository. For most of these 57,000 items, there is only fairly unequal 
 quality and often incomplete metadata (what is the purpose of putting 
 varying quality metadata in a repo if no associated paper is available is 
 something I still have to understand), and frequently, when there is a 
 paper, access is restricted to Southampton. Postscript files (.ps) are nice 
 for technically inclined users but most ordinary users do not what to do 
 with them and having PDF presenting only a cover page is only a loss of 
 time. Sifting through this is time consuming, presents a huge toll in time, 
 as the signal to noise ratio really is poor. This model takes its toll on 
 the those who depose

[GOAL] Re: The Life and Death of an Open Access Journal: QA with Librarian Marcus Banks

[Jan Velterop]

An ideal candidate for this approach, I woud have thought: 
http://theparachute.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/journals-of-nature-and-science.html 
http://theparachute.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/journals-of-nature-and-science.html

Jan Velterop

 On 31 Mar 2015, at 13:20, Richard Poynder richard.poyn...@cantab.net wrote:
 
 Despite their high profile advocacy for open access, many librarians have 
 proved strangely reluctant to practice what they preach. As late as last year 
 calls were still being made for the profession to start “walking the talk”.  
  
 On the other hand, many librarians have embraced OA, particularly medical 
 librarians. In 2001, for instance, the Journal of the Medical Library 
 Association (JMLA) began to make its content freely available on the 
 Internet. And in 2003 Charles Greenberg, then at the Yale University Medical 
 Library, launched an open access journal with BioMed Central called 
 Biomedical Digital Libraries (BDL). One of the first to join the editorial 
 board (and later to take over as Editor-in-Chief) was Marcus Banks, who was 
 then working at the US National Library of Medicine.
  
 Four years later, however, BDL became a victim of BMC’s decision to increase 
 the cost of the article-processing charges (APCs) it levies. This meant that 
 few librarians were able to afford to publish in the journal any longer, and 
 submissions began to dry up. Despite several attempts to move BDL to a 
 different publishing platform, in 2008 Banks had to make the hard decision to 
 cease publishing the journal.
  
 What do we learn from BDL’s short life? In advocating for pay-to-publish gold 
 OA did open access advocates underestimate how much it costs to publish a 
 journal? Or have publishers simply been able to capture open access and use 
 it to further ramp up what many believe to be their excessive profits? Why 
 has JMLA continued to prosper under open access while BDL has withered and 
 died? Was BDL unable to compete with JMLA on a level playing field? Could the 
 demise of BDL have been avoided?  What, if anything, does the journal’s fate 
 tell us about the future of open access?
  
 These and other questions are discussed with Banks in a QA interview here:
  
 http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-life-and-death-of-open-access.html 
 http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-life-and-death-of-open-access.html
  
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org mailto:GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal 
 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: Scopus and gold OA: open2closed, is this what we want?

[Jan Velterop]

On 13 Oct 2014, at 15:29, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote:

 Elsevier's for-pay Scopus service includes More than 20,000 peer-reviewed 
 journals, including 2,800 gold open access journals from: 
 http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/scopus/content-overview
 
 14% of the journal content for this commercial toll access service comes from 
 gold OA.
 
 When OA advocates insist on granting blanket commercial rights downstream, is 
 this the kind of future for scholarly communication that is envisaged, one 
 that takes free content licensed CC-BY or CC-BY-SA and locks it up in service 
 packages for sale for those who can pay?

I'm not defending their pricing, but you're wrong, Heather, in saying that they 
lock it up in service packages for sale for those who can pay. 'Locking up'? 
That would mean that nobody would be able to get to the articles anymore 
without paying. None of that is the case, whatsoever. And CC-BY would even make 
locking up – if it were possible at all – illegal.

 
 One of the visions of the original Budapest Open Access Initiative is that OA 
 will  share the learning of the rich with the poor and the poor with the 
 rich. I argue that if the poor are convinced or coerced to give away their 
 work for blanket commercial rights downstream and the result is services like 
 Scopus, this is a much more straightforward sharing of the poor with the rich.

Giving away their work for blanket commercial rights is exactly what happens 
in the toll-access subscription system! In OA it's sharing with everybody. 
EVERYBODY. And that naturally includes commercial entities. And if you want to 
proscribe commercial use, don't focus on the large publishers, but rather on 
the small-time entities who sell cheap printed versions for use in the 
classroom in areas where there's no meaningful internet. Profit-spite will hurt 
them, and students dependent on that material, immeasurably more than it could 
ever hurt large publishers.

 A researcher in a developing country giving away their work as CC-BY gets the 
 benefit of wider dissemination of their own work, but may be shut out of 
 services like Scopus, the next generation of tools designed to advance 
 research. 

Shut out of? How so? Scopus is not in the business of delivering journal 
content. It delivers a reference service. OA articles are included. Those who 
sell compressed air in cylinders don't 'lock up' or 'shut out' the atmosphere 
and prevent you from breathing freely. OA is the 'knowledge-sphere' 
(noösphere). Nobody is excluded. Not even those who capture the noösphere in 
cannisters, and sell those for easy ingestion.

 BOAI: http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read
 
 Thanks very much to Elsevier, Scopus, and participating gold OA publishers 
 for a great example of the downside of granting blanket commercial rights 
 downstream.
 
 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 mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Paperity launched. The 1st multidisciplinary aggregator of OA journals papers

[Jan Velterop]

On 12 Oct 2014, at 12:51, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:

 Harvesting Gold OA journal articles is a piece of cake.

Indeed. Not just for Paperity, but for anybody else. It's one of the 
attractions and benefits of open access via the 'gold' route. Another is that 
most articles can be harvested in XML-format, which enables sophisticated and 
worthwhile services to be added to aggregations. And aggregations enable 
researchers to conveniently make large-scale pattern- and meta-analyses without 
first having to gather all the material from different and disparate sources. 
Few 'green' repositories that I'm aware of have XML-versions (correct me if I'm 
wrong – and should I be wrong, is there a list of such repositories?). 
Aggregations, by the way, cannot be made without clarity about rights and 
licences, since they are a form of re-use. Those rights are clear, and properly 
included in metadata, for proper 'gold', but often not for 'green' versions of 
paywalled articles in repositories.

 How will Paperity/redex harvest
 Green OA articles published in non-OA journals but made OA somewhere on the
 Web — via Google Scholar?

Indeed, how will they. Or anybody else?

JV

 
 Sounds like a splendid idea if it can be done… But not if it is just 
 Gold-biassed,
 because most refereed research is not Gold, and the fastest growing form of
 OA is Green (because of mandates, and absence of extra cost).
 
 SH
 
 On Oct 11, 2014, at 9:08 PM, Dana Roth dzr...@library.caltech.edu wrote:
 
 It would be nice if 'Paperity' would maintain a listing of the publishers of 
 the journals they index.
 T-R does this for Web of Science Journal Citation Reports, and it is very 
 helpful.
 
 Dana L. Roth
 Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
 dzr...@library.caltech.edu
 http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of BAUIN 
 Serge [serge.ba...@cnrs.fr]
 Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 12:07 PM
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Paperity launched. The 1st multidisciplinary aggregator 
 of OA journals  papers
 
 Marcin,
 
 May I ask what is the economic model of Paperity?
 I didn't find any information about that on your web site.
 
 Cheers
 
 Serge
 
 Envoyé d'un téléphone portable, désolé pour le caractère inélégant...
 
 Le 10 oct. 2014 à 08:22, Marcin Wojnarski mwojn...@ns.onet.pl a écrit :
 
 Jeroen,
 
 Thanks, it's great to hear that you like Paperity!
 
 True peer-reviewed means published in a peer-reviewed journal, in 
 contrast to a pdf just posted somewhere on the web (think Google Scholar), 
 which can be anything: a peer-reviewed paper or not, published or not, even 
 randomly generated to resemble a scholarly article, for example to pump up 
 G Scholar citations (http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0638).
 
 The new technology is called REgular Document EXpressions (redex). It is a 
 computer language for analyzing long and complex documents, particularly 
 written in a markup, like HTML or XML. It facilitates analysis of web 
 context where the paper occured, which is critical for maintaining the link 
 between the paper and its journal. Redex builds on top of the very 
 fundamental technology of regular expressions (regex), but redefines the 
 language entirely to make it suitable for large structured texts.
 
 Best,
 Marcin
 
 On 10/09/2014 05:02 PM, Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) wrote:
 Marcin,
  
 This is a great initiative. I had been hoping BASEsearch would take on 
 this task, but it is good to see others are stepping in.
  
 Congrats on the initiative. Still, a long way to go
  
 Could you elaborate on how your technology is able to recognize “true peer 
 reviewed papers” and what you consider to be “ true peer reviewed papers”?
  
 Best,
 Jeroen Bosman
 @jeroenbosman
 Utrecht University Library
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf 
 Of Marcin Wojnarski
 Sent: donderdag 9 oktober 2014 14:51
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Paperity launched. The 1st multidisciplinary aggregator of 
 OA journals  papers
  
 (press release, apologies for cross-posting)
 
 With the beginning of the new academic year, Paperity, the first 
 multidisciplinary aggregator of Open Access journals and papers, has been 
 launched. Paperity will connect authors with readers, boost dissemination 
 of new discoveries and consolidate academia around open literature.
 Right now, Paperity (http://paperity.org/) includes over 160,000 open 
 articles, gold and hybrid, from 2,000 scholarly journals, and growing. 
 The goal of the team is to cover - with the support of journal editors and 
 publishers - 100% of Open Access literature in 3 years from now. In order 
 to achieve this, Paperity utilizes an original technology for article 
 indexing, designed by Marcin Wojnarski, a data geek from Poland 

[GOAL] Re: The dramatic growth of BioMedCentral's open access article processing charges

[Jan Velterop]

A big flaw in the way journals are financially sustained — true for Article 
Processing Charges (APCs) of OA journals as well as for subscriptions to 
pay-walled journals — is that the entire cost of publication is loaded solely 
on the published articles. That may seem logical, but a large proportion of a 
journal's cost is proportional with the number of submissions, not with the 
number of published articles. It follows that the rejection/acceptance ratio 
has a major effect on the cost. If the submissions rise, and the published 
articles don't, e.g. because a journal becomes more selective, the costs per 
accepted/published article increase. All the work done on a submitted paper 
that is eventually rejected will have to be paid out of income in respect of 
published articles, be it via APCs or subscriptions. In the case of APCs it 
means they would have to rise, unless they were too high to begin with.

There are two possibilities that I can think of here, at least for OA journals 
sustained by APCs:
1) Set the level of APCs according to rejection rates of the journal (e.g. of 
the previous year; there is bound to be a lag). This would logically mean 
increasing APCs for increasingly more selective journals;
2) Charge an APC per submission, irrespective of whether the article will be 
accepted or not (a bit like exam fees; you pay also if you fail).

In my view, 2) is logically the right solution, but perhaps not 
psycho-logically (and it has unintended consequences, too, which I won't go 
into right now). However, without submission fees, APCs that vary with 
selectiveness of the journal are pretty much inevitable. The differences may 
well become greater than they currently are.

Jan Velterop

On 28 Feb 2014, at 13:50, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote:

 hi Jan,
 
 Good question! No, I have not looked into whether BMC's rejection rates have 
 increased.
 
 Whether this would be an acceptable reason for increasing prices at all, or 
 at a particular rate, is a different question.
 
 For example, unlike a print-based journal with size constraints imposed by 
 the need to bundle articles into mailable issues, an online open access 
 journal can easily increase in scale with more submissions. PLOS ONE has 
 demonstrated the potential for translating rapid growth in submissions to 
 rapid journal growth, with no price increase, technological innovations, and 
 a more than healthy surplus.
 
 Best,
 
 Heather Morrison
 
 
 On Feb 28, 2014, at 7:08 AM, Frantsvåg Jan Erik jan.e.frants...@uit.no 
 wrote:
 
 Interesting numbers!
  
 Have you investigated if some of this increase could be explained by an 
 increased rejection rate? – this would be an acceptable explanation, in my 
 opinion.
  
 The suspicion is, of course, that this could be one result of e.g. the RCUK 
 OA policy, which creates a less competitive market and better conditions for 
 generating super-profits.
  
 I think it was Guédon who asked why currency fluctuations always led to 
 price increases … J
  
 Best,
 Jan Erik
  
 Jan Erik Frantsvåg
 Open Access adviser
 The University Library of Tromsø
 phone +47 77 64 49 50
 e-mail jan.e.frants...@uit.no
 http://en.uit.no/ansatte/organisasjon/ansatte/person?p_document_id=43618p_dimension_id=88187
 Publications: http://tinyurl.com/6rycjns
  
  
  
  
 Fra: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] På vegne av 
 Heather Morrison
 Sendt: 28. februar 2014 00:54
 Til: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Emne: [GOAL] The dramatic growth of BioMedCentral's open access article 
 processing charges
  
 Thanks to the University of Ottawa's open sharing of their author fund data, 
 I've been able to calculate that over the past few years there is evidence 
 that BMC is raising prices at rates far beyond inflation (and far beyond 
 what could be accounted for through currency fluctuations). 
  
 Details are posted here:
 http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2014/02/the-dramatic-growth-of-biomedcentral.html
  
 Note that this data reflects BMC practices and cannot be generalized to open 
 access publishing as a whole. Public Library of Science, for example, has 
 achieved a 23% surplus in the same time frame without increasing their OA 
 article processing charges at all.
  
 best,
  
 -- 
 Dr. Heather Morrison
 Assistant Professor
 École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
 University of Ottawa
 Desmarais 111-02
 613-562-5800 ext. 7634
 http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
 heather.morri...@uottawa.ca
 
  
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: The dramatic growth of BioMedCentral's open access article processing charges

[Jan Velterop]

Bo-Christer,

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on the issue of costs due to higher 
rejection rates, or rather the non-existent costs of the process around peer 
review (which are everything but). It depends on the journal. In some cases, 
all that work is done outside the purview of the publisher, and the latter is 
just someone who maintains a delivery platform (and possibly procures mark-up 
and copy-editing, and for traditional journals, takes care of the typesetting, 
printing and distribution). In many cases I have been involved in, though, and 
am aware of, the process of peer review is quite a lot of work for the 
publisher, even while the peer review itself is not. It is often difficult to 
identify appropriate reviewers and it often takes many invitations to 
appropriate potential reviewers before enough can be found who accept the 
invitation. Then there is follow-up (you might think reviewers deliver their 
reports in good time, but reality is all too often different, I'm afraid). And 
then there is the moderation of reviews for communication back to the authors 
(you might think reviewers are always clear yet civil, but reality is all too 
often different, I'm afraid), and then in a considerable number of cases the 
cycle repeats, sometimes several times, before an acceptance or rejection 
decision.

Even when the whole process takes place under the supervision of a journal's 
academic editor, outside of the purview of the publisher, that editor and his 
or her support staff is usually offered financial support, the amount of which 
is likely more a reflection of the number of submissions dealt with than of the 
number of articles accepted. The latter would introduce perverse incentives to 
accept, anyway. You could argue that that incentive is already there (though in 
general thankfully resisted), and you would be right, because publisher income 
is dependent on published material. This is as true for APC-funded OA 
publishers as of subscription-funded traditional ones, the subscription fees 
typically rising with the amount published.

In many ways, it would be better if publishers stayed out of the peer review 
process altogether, as I have argued here: 
http://theparachute.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/essence-of-academic-publishing.html

Best,

Jan Velterop

On 28 Feb 2014, at 14:35, Bo-Christer Björk bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi wrote:

 Hi all,
 
 An interesting discussion. My perspective is not a moral one. The APC charged 
 should as far as possible reflect the quality and services of the journal. 
 The current full OA market (for APC journals) is a relatively competive 
 microeconomic market where customers(=authors) decide where to submit in a 
 situation where they usually have several journals (some OA, most not ) to 
 choose from. Quite in contrast to the oligopolistic subscription market or 
 the strange hybrid OA market. So if BMC have in fact managed to establish 
 their better journals as high quality outlets there is no problem in rising 
 prices. The authors dedice. I don't think the UK funders decisions have yet 
 had much impact on the funding. 
 
 I've personally paid APCs (or my department) for two articles in PLoS and two 
 in BMC journals nd I've found the benefit/cost ratio to be excellent in all 
 cases. In contrast I've made several grave mistakes in the choice of where to 
 submit to in subscription journals. Those journals don't charge but there are 
 high opportunity costs in delayed publication, low visibility etc.
 
 As to the question of rising costs due to higher rejection rates I find this 
 to be a largely unsubstantiated claim. The IT infra is already paid for, copy 
 editing and invoicing costs only depend on the published papers. Almost all 
 of the costs of desk rejected manuscripts and manuscripts rejected after long 
 review processes are born by unpaid academic editors and reviewers, that is 
 the global scholarly community. 
 
 Best regards
 
 Bo-Christer
 
 On 2/28/14 3:50 PM, Heather Morrison wrote:
 hi Jan,
 
 Good question! No, I have not looked into whether BMC's rejection rates have 
 increased.
 
 Whether this would be an acceptable reason for increasing prices at all, or 
 at a particular rate, is a different question.
 
 For example, unlike a print-based journal with size constraints imposed by 
 the need to bundle articles into mailable issues, an online open access 
 journal can easily increase in scale with more submissions. PLOS ONE has 
 demonstrated the potential for translating rapid growth in submissions to 
 rapid journal growth, with no price increase, technological innovations, and 
 a more than healthy surplus.
 
 Best,
 
 Heather Morrison
 
 
 On Feb 28, 2014, at 7:08 AM, Frantsvåg Jan Erik jan.e.frants...@uit.no 
 wrote:
 
 Interesting numbers!
 
  
 Have you investigated if some of this increase could be explained by an 
 increased rejection rate? – this would be an acceptable explanation, in my 
 opinion

[GOAL] Re: A reply to Professor Carroll

[Jan Velterop]

It would be understandable, yet a pity if authorities like Charles Oppenheim 
and Michael Carroll were to stop adding to this debate, since we learn a lot 
from their exchanges. Tant pis.

Charles uses the word 'pragmatics' in his response. Pragmatism is an important 
notion here. I think that legally, publishers would indeed have the right to 
demand that theses that are published and for which the author has transferred 
copyright to a publisher and the publisher hasn't explicitly allowed that the 
informal copy be made available on an open web site, be taken down. So yes, 
there is a risk of infringement action. Given that this sort of copyright 
infringement by authors is mostly a civil and not a criminal matter (as long as 
it is not done for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain), 
only the copyright holder can take legal action. Correct me please if I'm 
wrong. That means that it is up to the publisher to take that legal action. But 
publishers are pragmatic. Though they could legally require that informal 
copies of the theses and journal articles that they published be removed from 
public sites, they know that they will just harvest opprobrium and extremely 
negative PR, and gain next to nothing. They are not stupid. So they (at least 
some of them) just require the officially published version ('F' in Charles' 
lexicon) to be taken down. It may well be that from this 
'pragma-as-opposed-to-dogma' attitude on the part of the publishers the notion 
arose that earlier, informal copies ('D' in Charles' lexicon) would not be 
covered by copyright.

The conclusion that I drew quite some time ago didn't have to be changed as a 
result of these recent discussions, I feel. Namely that in order to sustain a 
robust system of scholarly (particularly journal) publishing that's fit for 
purpose, monetising copyright is the wrong method.

Jan Velterop

On 8 Feb 2014, at 14:05, CHARLES OPPENHEIM c.oppenh...@btinternet.com wrote:

 Professor Carroll has withdrawn his misinterpretation of what I said. I thank 
 him for that.
 
 He argues that if, say, 50% of words in a Final Article (F)  also appear in a 
 draft (D), then assignment has been given in D as well to the publisher.  So 
 how come so many theses are available in OA repositories when I suspect in 
 many cases, at least 50% of the words in an article based on a thesis also 
 appear in the thesis?  This says institutions that post theses into a 
 repository are infringing the publisher's rights. Does Prof Carroll agree 
 that such theses should be withdrawn because of the risk of an infringement 
 action?  
 
 We differ to a degree only. In my view, if the peer reviewers request only 
 trivial changes (The correct year for Smith's reference in 2005, not 2006), 
 then D is sufficiently similar to F to not enjoy separate copyright owned by 
 the author.  But if it has major changes (you have completely missed Jones' 
 major work on the topic and need to refer to it at length in your 
 introduction, you must explain how you chose the sample, you must justify 
 in rigorous way why you think the correlation means a causal relationship - 
 or else withdraw that statement, then F is sufficiently different from D to 
 justify my position (and indeed, explains why some peer reviewers are arguing 
 that inn such cases they should be identified as joint authors of F, but of 
 course they wouldn't dream of arguing that they are joint authors of D).
 
 But what really disappoints me about this debate is the failure to address 
 the pragmatics, which is what I am primarily interested in:
 
 1.  No publisher has ever claimed that the Harnad-Oppenheim (HO) solution is 
 illegal.  Instead, they have (rightly) said it is impractical - which, by 
 implication, means they accept it may well be legal. Publishers have access 
 to some pretty good IP lawyers…..
 
 2.  I don't recommend the HO solution for the reasons publishers gave.  I 
 regard the solution as a desperate poor quality last resort.  There are much 
 better ways to ensure OA thrives in the scholarly environment. 
 
 3. I hope  Prof Carroll agrees with me that authors are foolish to assign (or 
 sign an exclusive licence) copyright to publishers and that they should adopt 
 one of the tactics I mentioned, or Mike Taylor's idea of putting F into an OA 
 repository and then telling the publisher they cannot sign the 
 assignment/exclusive licence because F is already out there.
 
 Like Prof Carroll, I don't expect to add further this debate.
 
 Professor Charles Oppenheim
 
 From: Michael Carroll mcarr...@wcl.american.edu
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) goal@eprints.org 
 Cc: charlesoppenheim c.oppenh...@btinternet.com 
 Sent: Friday, 7 February 2014, 21:42
 Subject: Re: [GOAL] A reply to Professor Carroll
 
 I'm afraid there's an option (d), which is that I did read Professor 
 Oppenheim's post, and I think it misstates the legal situation in both the 
 United States

[GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly articles

[Jan Velterop]

Sally,

Percentages, unfortunately, don't always mean much. I haven't read the Cox  
Cox report, but it would be interesting to know if the four largest publishers 
– less than half a percent of publishers, yet together having a market share of 
perhaps as much as two thirds of the scholarly literature – are in the 53% 
mentioned, or not (or even in the 6.6% not requiring any written agreement, 
albeit most unlikely). It would make all the difference.

Jan

On 5 Feb 2014, at 13:17, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote:

 I find Andrew's experience surprising.  When Cox  Cox last looked into this
 (in 2008), 53% of publishers requested a copyright transfer, 20.8% asked for
 a licence to publish instead, and 6.6% did not require any written
 agreement.  A further 19.6%, though initially asking for transfer of
 copyright, would on request provide a licence document instead.  There had
 been a steady move away from transfer of copyright since 2003.
 
 Sally
 
 
 
 Sally Morris
 South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
 Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
 Email:  sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
 
 -Original Message-
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf
 Of Andrew A. Adams
 Sent: 05 February 2014 00:04
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly
 articles
 
 Chris Zielinski ziggytheb...@gmail.com wrote:
 But even more prudent authors simply shouldn't sign the copyright 
 assignment form - publishers don't need anything more than a licence 
 to publish.
 
 Good luck with that if you're anything other than a tenured professor with a
 track record that means where your recent papers are published won't effect
 funding decisions (individually or for your univesity). I tried to apply
 this rule myself a few years ago and after a couple of occasions of getting
 nowhere with the publishers decided that doing this individually was just
 harming my career and not having any impact on the journals.
 
 Now, I just archive and be damnedposting the author's final text (not the
 publisher PDF) in open depot ignoring any embargoes. If any publisher
 bothered to issue a take-down I'd reset to closed access (and always respond
 to button requests). None have so far.
 
 -- 
 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
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal


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

[GOAL] Re: ROARMAP: Microsoft Research Adopts Green Open Access Self-Archiving and Copyright Reservation Policy

[Jan Velterop]

At least some articles with Microsoft Research affiliated authors are covered 
under a CC-BY licence, so could be called true open access (BOAI-compliant OA). 
Example: 
http://www.plosone.org/article/authors/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0072200

Jan Velterop
 
On 21 Jan 2014, at 13:37, Jacinto Dávila jacinto.dav...@gmail.com wrote:

 Sorry If i sound over skeptic (believe me, I have reasons), but shouldn't we 
 know the text of that licence (or licences) before we actually call this Open 
 Access?
 
 
 On 20 January 2014 17:42, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote:
 http://roarmap.eprints.org/998/ 
 
 Microsoft Research (20 Jan 2014)
 
 INSTITUTION or FUNDER URL: http://research.microsoft.com
 MANDATE URL and TEXT
 
 Microsoft Research Open Access Policy
 Microsoft Research is committed to disseminating the fruits of its research 
 and scholarship as widely as possible because we recognize the benefits that 
 accrue to scholarly enterprises from such wide dissemination, including more 
 thorough review, consideration and critique, and general increase in 
 scientific, scholarly and critical knowledge.
 
 To advance this commitment, Microsoft Research has adopted the following 
 policy:
 
 RETENTION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS
 
 In connection with our open-access goals, for Microsoft Research-authored 
 scholarly publications (“Works”) submitted to third-party conferences and 
 publishing houses (“Publishers”) for publication, Microsoft Research retains 
 a license to make our Works available to the research community in our online 
 Microsoft Research open-access repository.
 
 AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO PUBLISHER AGREEMENTS
 
 Microsoft researchers are authorized to enter into standard publication 
 agreements with Publishers on behalf of Microsoft in order to assign or 
 license the copyrights in their Works (but no other rights) to Publishers for 
 publication purposes subject to the rights retained by Microsoft as per the 
 previous paragraph. This applies to all scholarly articles authored or 
 co-authored by a researcher while employed by Microsoft.
 
 DEPOSIT
 
 To assist in disseminating and archiving its scholarly work, Microsoft 
 researchers commit to helping Microsoft Research obtain copies of their 
 articles by providing an electronic copy of each article for inclusion in a 
 Microsoft Research open-access repository. Microsoft Research will endeavor 
 to make every Microsoft Research-authored article available to the public in 
 an open-access repository, though in rare cases, certain publisher-imposed 
 conditions may not allow such availability.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 Jacinto Dávila
 http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/ingenieria/jacinto
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: [SCHOLCOMM] More Skulduggery from the Scholarly Scullery: Sore Losers

[Jan Velterop]

On 29 Dec 2013, at 01:18, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote:

 (2) And once they become big and successful one is also struck by how the 
 differences between the OA publishers and the subscription publishers shrink 
 (both for for-profit OA publishers like Springer/BMC and not-for-profits like 
 PLoS).

In what way, Stevan? Isn't the only difference that truly counts for open 
access that they publish only 'born' open access articles? (PLOS and BMC; not 
the other Springer divisions). Or is it success itself you have something 
against? Or that they provide a 'gold' route to open access?

By the way, their 'gold' OA publishing is completely compatible with 'green', 
in that the final articles they publish can be deposited in any repository, 
very easily, without embargo or any other restrictions. And that they can be 
text- and data-mined without having to ask prior permission. And re-used 
otherwise, even commercially, without having to ask prior permission. 

So what's your beef? (Sorry, I know you're a vegetarian, to which I am 
sympathetic.)

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

[GOAL] Fwd: Institutions: Ignore Elsevier Take-Down Notices (and Mandate Immediate-Deposit)

[Jan Velterop]

Elsevier's (or at least Tom Reller's) response is as expected, though it does 
show an apparent – mistaken IMO – belief in the idea that a 'final' manuscript 
is inferior to the published version of an article. Much inferior, actually, 
given that the published version purports to justify the difference in cost to 
the reader wishing to access the article. My experience – though by definition 
limited, of course – is that the difference between final manuscript and 
published article is mostly minor in terms of content, and mainly one of 
appearance.  If we look beyond content, there is often a difference in 
findability, usability (e.g. for TDM) and functionality (e.g. links and 
enhancements). For the professional end-user, my contention is that those 
differences in usability and functionality are much more important than any 
slight differences in content (which, if present at all, are mostly of a 
linguistic nature, not a scientific one). 

So why don't subscription publishers use that distinction in their policies and 
provide a simple, human-readable-only version freely, on their own web sites 
(findability, transparency as regards usage), while keeping the fully 
functional, machine-readable version for the professional scientist 
(power-user) covered by subscription pay-walls? Not quite the same as true open 
access, clearly. That is, not as good as 'gold' (be it supported by APCs or 
subsidies). But neither is 'green' with its fragmented nature, often low 
functionality (only simple PDFs, no TDM), often embargoed, etc. Making a 
distinction with regard to access on the real basis of functionality 
differences instead of the illusory basis of content differences may be a 
compromise more meaningful for authors on the one hand (visibility) and 
incidental readers outside of academia on the other ('ocular' access). 

I see 'green' open access as an awkward compromise (providing open access while 
keeping subscriptions in place), and what I'm proposing here would take away at 
least some of that awkwardness (the fragmented nature of 'green'). It should 
not hurt the publisher more than free access to the accepted final manuscript 
in repositories does, which they seem to accept.

Obviously, publishing systems that provide immediate and full open access to 
fully functional versions at the point of publication ('gold') don't need this 
compromise, and are to be preferred.

Some more thoughts on this here: 
http://theparachute.blogspot.nl/2013/12/lo-fun-and-hi-fun.html

Jan Velterop


Begin forwarded message:

 From: Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com
 Subject: Institutions: Ignore Elsevier Take-Down Notices (and Mandate 
 Immediate-Deposit)
 Date: 20 December 2013 07:17:37 CET
 To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
 Reply-To: Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com
 
 Re: http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/19/elsevier/ (Elsevier Take-Down Notice to 
 Harvard)  
 
 See Exchange on Elsevier Website: 
 http://www.elsevier.com/connect/a-comment-on-takedown-notices
 
 December 17, 2013 at 9:05 pm
 Stevan Harnad: Tom, I wonder if it would be possible to drop the double-talk 
 and answer a simple question: Do or do not Elsevier authors retain the right 
 to make their peer-reviewed final drafts on their own institutional websites 
 immediately, with no embargo? Just a Yes or No, please… Stevan
 
 December 18, 2013 at 2:36 pm
 Tom Reller: Hello Dr. Harnad. I don’t agree with your characterization of our 
 explanation here, but nevertheless as requested, there is a simple answer to 
 your question – yes. Thank you.
 
 December 20, 2013
 Stevan Harnad: Tom, thank you. Then I suggest that the institutions of 
 Elsevier authors ignore the Elsevier take-down notices (and also adopt an 
 immediate-deposit mandate that is immune to all publisher take-down notices 
 by requiring immediate deposit, whether or not access to the 
 immediate-deposit is made immediately OA)… Stevan 

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

[GOAL] Re: Fwd: Institutions: Ignore Elsevier Take-Down Notices (and Mandate Immediate-Deposit)

[Jan Velterop]

On 20 Dec 2013, at 18:12, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

 There are two separate issues here. 
 
 On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:
 Elsevier's (or at least Tom Reller's) response is as expected, though it does 
 show an apparent – mistaken IMO – belief in the idea that a 'final' 
 manuscript is inferior to the published version of an article. Much inferior, 
 actually, given that the published version purports to justify the difference 
 in cost to the reader wishing to access the article. My experience – though 
 by definition limited, of course – is that the difference between final 
 manuscript and published article is mostly minor in terms of content, and 
 mainly one of appearance.  If we look beyond content, there is often a 
 difference in findability, usability (e.g. for TDM) and functionality (e.g. 
 links and enhancements). For the professional end-user, my contention is that 
 those differences in usability and functionality are much more important than 
 any slight differences in content (which, if present at all, are mostly of a 
 linguistic nature, not a scientific one). 
 
  
 In many cases publishers seriously detract from the quality of a publication. 
 Reformatting can destroy readability - I have fought one major chemical 
 publisher who reformatted computer code as proportional font and refused to 
 change and even when we corrected the proofs they changed it back because it 
 wasn't house style. By coincidence I heard a tale at lunch where a publishers 
 had changed the units in a diagram to make them consistent. The diagram now 
 has Resistance (Gigahertz). Even a non-scientist knows that Hertz is 
 frequency and Ohm is resistance but the technical editors didn't. Turning 
 vector diagrams (EPS) into bitmaps - very common - makes me cringe. 

Publishers who do these things should not be considered at all anymore, of 
course. If the published version is actively made worse than the manuscript, 
then paying by means of copyright transfer (or by any other means) for such a 
disservice is plainly absurd.

  
 So why don't subscription publishers use that distinction in their policies 
 and provide a simple, human-readable-only version freely, on their own web 
 sites (findability, transparency as regards usage), while keeping the fully 
 functional, machine-readable version for the professional scientist 
 (power-user) covered by subscription pay-walls? Not quite the same as true 
 open access, clearly. That is, not as good as 'gold' (be it supported by APCs 
 or subsidies). But neither is 'green' with its fragmented nature, often low 
 functionality (only simple PDFs, no TDM), often embargoed, etc. Making a 
 distinction with regard to access on the real basis of functionality 
 differences instead of the illusory basis of content differences may be a 
 compromise more meaningful for authors on the one hand (visibility) and 
 incidental readers outside of academia on the other ('ocular' access). 
 
 
 No, Jan, PLEASE NOT.
 
 Publishers would love to be able to offer an enhanced version of XML for 
 which they could charge more (added value). I have asserted The Right to 
 Read is the Right to Mine 

If The Right to Read is the Right to Mine  is taken without any 
qualification, then you can forget subscription publishers cooperating with any 
form of free access to the published version. My proposal does provide an 
incentive to add value to what publishers get paid for via subscriptions. The 
slogan could be Paying to read is paying to mine. 

 and a number of organizations (e.g. BL, JISC, Wellcome, OKFN, Ubiquity, etc. 
 ) have argued in Brussels for the right to carry out TDM on material they 
 have the right to read.

That right to read doesn't exist as far as subscription content is concerned 
unless the subscription is paid for. If it is paid for, one should be able to 
read 'ocularly' as well as with machines, and TDM the content. I fully agree. 
But a free published version with just 'ocular' rights should exist 
simultaneously, instead of just relying on the fragmented, cumbersome access, 
and variable quality and functionality 'green' offers. 

 The TA publishers fought this, we walked out, and Neelie Kroes has declared 
 we should start afresh and have a different non-licence approach. 

I'd love to hear Neelie Kroes's views on my proposal. And for the avoidance of 
doubt: if one has paid for subscription content, one should have the right to 
TDM.

J.

 
 P.
 
 
 
 -- 
 Peter Murray-Rust
 Reader in Molecular Informatics
 Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
 University of Cambridge
 CB2 1EW, UK
 +44-1223-763069
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises CredibilityofBeall's List

[Jan Velterop]

But Sally, so-called 'green' and 'gold' are the means. The BOAI definition is 
an articulation of the end, the goal. Of course, if you navigate the ocean of 
politics and vested interests of science publishing, you need to tack sometimes 
to make progress against the wind. That's permissible, even necessary. But it 
doesn't change the intended destination on which a good sailor keeps his focus. 
If that's religion, anything is. (Which may be the case :-)). 

One mistake made by some OA advocates is to elevate the means to the goal. 
Another one is to confuse the temporary course of tacking with the overall 
course needed to reach the destination. 

In the larger picture, OA itself is but a means, of course. To the goal of 
optimal scholarly knowledge exchange. And so on, Russian doll like. But that's 
a different discussion, I think

Jan Velterop


 On 12 Dec 2013, at 12:03, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk 
 wrote:
 
 What I'm saying is that OA may have done itself a disservice by adhering so 
 rigidly to tight definitions.  A more relaxed focus on the end rather than 
 the means might prove more appealing to the scholars for whose benefit it is 
 supposed to exist
  
 Sally
  
 Sally Morris
 South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
 Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
 Email:  sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
  
 
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
 David Prosser
 Sent: 12 December 2013 08:37
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises CredibilityofBeall's 
 List
 
 Let me get this right, Jean-Claude mentioning the Budapest Open Access 
 Initiative to show that re-use was an integral part of the original 
 definition of open access and not some later ('quasi-religeous') addition as 
 Sally avers.  And by doing so he is betraying some type of religious zeal? 
 
 One of the interesting aspect of the open access debate has been the 
 language.  Those who argue against OA have been keen to paint OA advocates as 
 'zealots', extremists, and impractical idealists.  I've always felt that such 
 characterisation was an attempt to mask the paucity of argument.
 
 David
 
 
 
 
 On 11 Dec 2013, at 22:30, Sally Morris wrote:
 
 I actually think that J-C's response illustrates very clearly how OA has 
 been mistaken for a religion, with its very own 'gospel'.  This, IMHO, is 
 part of its problem!
  
 Sally
  
 Sally Morris
 South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
 Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
 Email:  sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
  
 
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf 
 Of Jean-Claude Guédon
 Sent: 10 December 2013 15:26
 To: goal@eprints.org
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility 
 ofBeall's List
 
 In response to Sally, I would remind her that re-use was part of the 
 original BOAI declaration. Scholars and teachers need more than eye-contact 
 with articles. So, this is not a secondary point. 
 
 The immediacy issue concerns deposit; it is simply a pragmatic and obvious 
 point: capturing an article at time of acceptance is optimal for exposure 
 and circulation of information. If the publisher does not allow public 
 exposure and imposes an embargo - thus slowing down the circulation of 
 knowledge -, the private request button allows for eye contact, at least. 
 This button solution is not optimal, but it will do on a pragmatic scale so 
 long as it is needed to circumvent publishers' tactics.
 
 Cost savings are not part of BOAI; it is a request by administrators of 
 research centres and their libraries. This said, costs of OA publishing 
 achieved by a platform such as Scielo are way beneath the prices practised 
 by commercial publishers (including non-profit ones). And it should become 
 obvious that if you avoid 45% profit rates, you should benefit.
 
 The distinction between nice and nasty publishers is of unknown origin 
 and I would not subscribe to it. More fundamentally,  we should ask and ask 
 again whether scientific publishing is meant to help scientific research, or 
 the reverse. Seen from the former perspective, embargoes appear downright 
 absurd.
 
 As for why OA has not been widely accepted now, the answer is not difficult 
 to find: researchers are evaluated; the evaluation, strangely enough, rests 
 on journal reputations rather than on the intrinsic quality of articles. 
 Researchers simply adapt to this weird competitive environment as best they 
 can, and do not want to endanger their career prospects in any way. As a 
 result, what counts for them is not how good their work is, but rather where 
 they can publish it. Open Access, by stressing a return to intrinsic quality 
 of work, implicitly challenges the present competition rules. As such, it 
 appears at best uncertain or even threatening to researchers under career 
 stress. So long

[GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu

[Jan Velterop]

On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:05, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

 Elsevier are the worst offender that I have investigated, followed by 
 Springer who took all my Open Access images, badged them as (C) 
 SpringerImages and offered them for resale at 60 USD per image. Just because 
 OA is only 5% of your business doesn't mean practice can be substandard.

Peter, what licence did you publish your OA images under? CC-BY? If so, 
re-labelling them as © Springer is a form of copyright breach (actionable?), 
but selling them isn't, of course.

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

[GOAL] Re: Pre-publication peer review (was: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List)

[Jan Velterop]

Sally,

May I join you in the ranks of those who risk being pilloried or branded 
heretics? I think the solution is clear. We should get rid of pre-publication 
peer review (PPPR) and publish results in open repositories. PPPR is the one 
thing that keeps the whole publishing system standing, and expensive – in 
monetary terms, but also in terms of effort expended. It may have some 
benefits, but we pay very dearly for those. Where are the non-peer-reviewed 
articles that have caused damage? They may have to public understanding, of 
course (there's a lot of rubbish on the internet), but to scientific 
understanding? On the other hand, I can point to peer-reviewed articles that 
clearly have done damage, particularly to public understanding. Take the 
Wakefield MMR paper. Had it just been published without peer-review, the damage 
would likely have been no greater than that of any other drivel on the 
internet. Its peer-reviewed status, however, gave it far more credibility than 
it deserved. There are more examples.

My assertion: pre-publication peer review is dangerous since it is too easily 
used as an excuse to absolve scientists – and science journalists – from 
applying sufficient professional skepticism and critical appraisal.

Doing away with PPPR will do little damage – if any at all – to science, but 
removes most barriers to open access and saves the scientific community a hell 
of a lot of money.

The 'heavy lifting is that of cultural change' (crediting William Gunn for that 
phrase), so I won't hold my breath.

Jan Velterop

On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:36, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote:

 At the risk (nay, certainty) of being pilloried by OA conformists, let me say 
 that – whatever ithe failings of his article – I thank Jeffrey Beall for 
 raising some fundamental questions which are rarely, if ever, addressed.
  
 I would put them under two general headings:
  
 1) What is the objective of OA?
  
 I originally understood the objective to be to make scholarly research 
 articles, in some form, accessible to all those who needed to read them.   
 Subsequent refinements such as 'immediately', 'published version' and 'free 
 to reuse' may have acquired quasi-religious status, but are surely secondary 
 to this main objective.
  
 However, two other, financial, objectives (linked to each other, but not to 
 the above) have gained increasing prominence.  The first is the alleged cost 
 saving (or at least cost shifting).  The second - more malicious, and 
 originally (but no longer) denied by OA's main proponents - is the 
 undermining of publishers' businesses.  If this were to work, we may be sure 
 the effects would not be choosy about 'nice' or 'nasty' publishers.
  
 2) Why hasn't OA been widely adopted by now?
  
 If – as we have been repetitively assured over many years – OA is 
 self-evidently the right thing for scholars to do, why have so few of them 
 done so voluntarily?  As Jeffrey Beall points out, it seems very curious that 
 scholars have to be forced, by mandates, to adopt a model which is supposedly 
 preferable to the existing one.
  
 Could it be that the monotonous rantings of the few and the tiresome debates 
 about the fine detail are actually confusing scholars, and may even be 
 putting them off?  Just asking ;-)
  
 I don't disagree that the subscription model is not going to be able to 
 address the problems we face in making the growing volume of research 
 available to those who need it;  but I'm not convinced that OA (whether 
 Green, Gold or any combination) will either.  I think the solution, if there 
 is one, still eludes us.
  
 Merry Christmas!
  
 Sally
  
 Sally Morris
 South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
 Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
 Email:  sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
  
 
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
 David Prosser
 Sent: 09 December 2013 22:10
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility 
 ofBeall's List
 
 'Lackeys'? This is going beyond parody.
 
 David
 
 
 
 On 9 Dec 2013, at 21:45, Beall, Jeffrey wrote:
 
 Wouter,
 Hello, yes, I wrote the article, I stand by it, and I take responsibility 
 for it.
 I would ask Prof. Harnad to clarify one thing in his email below, namely 
 this statement, OA is all an anti-capitlist plot.
 This statement's appearance in quotation marks makes it look like I wrote it 
 in the article. The fact is that this statement does not appear in the 
 article, and I have never written such a statement.
 Prof. Harnad and his lackeys are responding just as my article predicts.
 Jeffrey Beall
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf 
 Of Gerritsma, Wouter
 Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 2:14 PM
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

[Jan Velterop]

Indeed, Jeffrey is not calling OA an anti-capitlist plot [sic] — not even an 
anti-capitalist one. But he does use the term anti-corporatist movement. 
What surprises me is that he nevertheless chose to publish his article in an 
open access journal, albeit under a CC-BY-NC-ND licence. (That is not made 
clear in the article itself, where it only mentions CC: Creative Commons 
License 2013, but on the journal's web site it mentions the most restrictive 
CC licence, CC-BY-NC-ND: 
http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514).

I have to admit, I only skim-read the article, so perhaps he explained his 
choice and have I missed that passage. On the other hand, perhaps he chose open 
access in order to reach the widest possible audience. Just like open access 
advocates would. It may be his first (subconscious?) step on the path to join 
the 'movement'.

Jan Velterop

On 9 Dec 2013, at 21:45, Beall, Jeffrey jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu wrote:

 Wouter,
  
 Hello, yes, I wrote the article, I stand by it, and I take responsibility for 
 it.
  
 I would ask Prof. Harnad to clarify one thing in his email below, namely this 
 statement, OA is all an anti-capitlist plot.
  
 This statement's appearance in quotation marks makes it look like I wrote it 
 in the article. The fact is that this statement does not appear in the 
 article, and I have never written such a statement.
  
 Prof. Harnad and his lackeys are responding just as my article predicts.
  
 Jeffrey Beall
  
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
 Gerritsma, Wouter
 Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 2:14 PM
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of 
 Beall's List
  
 Dear all.
  
 Has this article really been written by Jeffrey Beall?
 He has been victim of a smear campaign before!
  
 I don’t see he has claimed this article on his blog http://scholarlyoa.com/ 
 or his tweet stream @Jeffrey_Beall (which actually functions as his RSS feed).
  
 I really like to hear from the man himself on his own turf.
  
 Wouter
  
  
  
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
 Stevan Harnad
 Sent: maandag 9 december 2013 16:04
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's 
 List
  
 Beall, Jeffrey (2013) The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open 
 Access. TripleC Communication, Capitalism  Critique Journal. 11(2): 
 589-597http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514
  
 This wacky article is going to be fun to review. I still think Jeff Beall is 
 doing something useful with his naming and shaming of junk OA journals, but I 
 now realize that he is driven by some sort of fanciful conspiracy theory! OA 
 is all an anti-capitlist plot. (Even on a quick skim it is evident that 
 Jeff's article is rife with half-truths, errors and downright nonsense. Pity. 
 It will diminish the credibility of his valid exposés, but maybe this is a 
 good thing, if the judgment and motivation behind Beall's list is as kooky as 
 this article! But alas it will now also give the genuine predatory 
 junk-journals some specious arguments for discrediting Jeff's work 
 altogether. Of course it will also give the publishing lobby some good 
 sound-bites, but they use them at their peril, because of all the other 
 nonsense in which they are nested!) 
  
 Before I do a critique later today), I want to post some tidbits to set the 
 stage:
  
 JB: ABSTRACT: While the open-access (OA) movement purports to be about 
 making scholarly content open-access, its true motives are much different. 
 The OA movement is an anti-corporatist movement that wants to deny the 
 freedom of the press to companies it disagrees with. The movement is also 
 actively imposing onerous mandates on researchers, mandates that restrict 
 individual freedom. To boost the open-access movement, its leaders sacrifice 
 the academic futures of young scholars and those from developing countries, 
 pressuring them to publish in lower-quality open-access journals.  The 
 open-access movement has fostered the creation of numerous predatory 
 publishers and standalone journals, increasing the amount of research 
 misconduct in scholarly publications and the amount of pseudo-science that is 
 published as if it were authentic science.
  
 JB: [F]rom their high-salaried comfortable positions…OA advocates... demand 
 that for-profit, scholarly journal publishers not be involved in scholarly 
 publishing and devise ways (such as green open-access) to defeat and 
 eliminate them...
  
 JB: OA advocates use specious arguments to lobby for mandates, focusing only 
 on the supposed economic benefits of open access and ignoring the value 
 additions provided by professional publishers. The arguments imply that 
 publishers are not really needed; all researchers need

[GOAL] Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Unanimity (Re: Monographs)

[Jan Velterop]

Open Access is NOT a publishing model

Exactly right. OA is a characteristic of an item of scholarly literature. Not 
even of a journal or publisher (though all items/articles they publish may of 
course be OA, in which case the terms 'OA journal' and 'OA publisher' are 
shorthand for that).

This is also why mandates should require open access, and not get into how that 
open access is obtained (via a 'gold' or 'green' – or any other – route), as 
the latter only serves to cloud the issue and causes unnecessary confusion and 
conflation with financial issues that may be legitimate in their own right, but 
are different from the open access issue.

Furthermore, 'libre open access' is a tautology. Open access *is* libre access 
(and in French often referred to as such). And 'gratis open access' implies too 
much. What is called 'gratis open access' is just 'gratis access'. At the first 
BOAI meeting, the term 'open access' was advisedly chosen to describe something 
more than just gratis access. The term 'free access' was rejected because of 
the ambiguity in the English language of the word 'free', since it could be 
read to mean just 'gratis'. The word 'open', since it implies 'free', but could 
be read to be more encompassing, was deemed to be more suitable as shorthand 
for scholarly literature's free availability on the public internet, 
permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or 
link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as 
data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, 
legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access 
to the internet itself.

Jan Velterop
 
On 26 Nov 2013, at 06:50, Andrew A. Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp wrote:

 Rick Anderson wrote:
 Researchers tend to see OA models as presenting a mixed bag of upsides
 and downsides (as any publishing model does).
 
 Open Access is NOT a publishing model. It is a descriptive binary property of 
 an article: is it available electronically, without fee, from an easily 
 locatable source (gratis OA; and with a suitable license for libre OA)?
 
 Green OA is not 8directly) about publishing models (though if we reach close 
 to 100% Green gratis OA there may be consequences for some business models of 
 publishing).
 
 There are many routes to OA, some involving new publishing models, but OA is 
 a description not a model.
 
 
 -- 
 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

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

[GOAL] Re: Paid Gold vs. Free Gold

[Jan Velterop]

Are there examples of such subscription journals that make their online 
version freely accessible online (immediately upon publication).

Who would subscribe, and what would a subscription entail?

Jan Velterop

On 19 Apr 2013, at 05:16, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon 
 jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote:
 
 The reference to free Gold journals covered by subscriptions is not clear to 
 me. Is this a reference to SCOAP3?
 
 It's a reference to all subscription journals that make their online version 
 freely accessible online (immediately upon publication).
 
 (No, SCOAP3 is a premature and unnecessary post-hoc consortial membership 
 scheme that I think will not prove sustainable. The HEP fields have already 
 provided near 100% (Green) OA for 20 years, un-mandated. What's needed next 
 is for institutions and funders to mandate that all other disciplines do 
 likewise.)
 
  Stevan Harnad
 
 Le jeudi 18 avril 2013 à 07:45 +0100, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
 
 1. The Green/Gold Open Access (OA) distinction concerns whether it is the 
 author or the publisher that provides the OA.
 2. This distinction was important to mark with clear terms because the 
 conflation of the two roads to OA has practical implications and has been 
 holding up OA progress for a decade and a half.
 3. The distinction between paid Gold and free Gold is very far from being a 
 straightforward one.
 4. Free Gold can be free (to the author) because the expenses of the Gold 
 journal are covered by subscriptions, subsidies or volunteerism.
 5. The funds for Paid Gold can come from the author's pocket, the author's 
 research grant, the author's institution or the author's funder.
 6. It would be both absurd and gratuitously confusing to mark each of these 
 economic-model differences with a color-code.
 7. Superfluous extra colors would also obscure the role that the colour-code 
 was invented to perform: distinguishing author-side OA provision from 
 publisher-side OA provision.
 8. So, please, let's not have diamond, platinum and titanium OA, 
 despite the metallurgical temptations.
 9. They amplify noise instead of pinpointing the signal, just as 
 SHERPA/Romeo's parti-colored Blue/Yellow/Green spectrum (mercifully ignored 
 by almost everyone) does.
 10. OA is about providing Open Access to peer-reviewed journal articles, not 
 about cost-recovery models for OA publishing (Gold OA).
 11. The Gold that publishers are fighting for and that researcher funders 
 are subsidizing (whether pure or hybrid) is paid Gold, not free Gold.
 12. No one knows whether or how free Gold will be sustainable, any more than 
 they know whether or how long subscription publishing can co-exist viably 
 with mandatory Green OA. 
 13. So please leave the economic ideology and speculation out of the 
 pragmatics of OA policy making by the research community (institutions and 
 funders).
 14. Cost-recovery models are the province of publishers (Gold OA).
 15. What the research community needs to do is mandate OA provision.
 16. The only OA provision that is entirely in the research community's hands 
 is Green OA.
 And, before you ask, please let's not play into the publishers' hands by 
 colour-coding OA also in terms of the length of the publisher embargo: 
 3-month OA, 6-month OA, 12-month-OA, 24-month-OA, millennial OA: OA means 
 immediate online access. Anything else is delayed access. (The only 
 quasi-exception is the Almost-OA provided by the author via the 
 institutional repository's email-eprint-request Button when complying with 
 publisher embargoes -- but that too is clearly not OA, which is immediate, 
 free online access.)
 And on no account should the genuine, substantive distinction between Gratis 
 OA (free online access) and Libre OA (free online access plus various re-use 
 rights) be color-coded (with a different shade for every variety of CC 
 license)!
 Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y, 
 Oppenheim, C., Stamerjohanns, H.,  Hilf, E. (2004) The Access/Impact 
 Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access. Serials Review 30. 
 Shorter version: The green and the gold roads to Open Access. Nature Web 
 Focus. 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: Paid Gold vs. Free Gold

[Jan Velterop]

From the Wiley Online Library site:

Policy  Internet — http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/poi3.20/full

Options for accessing this content:
If you have access to this content through a society membership, please first 
log in to your society website.
If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the 
title to your librarian.
Login via other institutional login options 
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/login-options.
You can purchase online access to this Article for a 24-hour period (price 
varies by title)
If you already have a Wiley Online Library or Wiley InterScience user account: 
login above and proceed to purchase the article.
New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.
No indication at all of it being a journal that makes its online version 
freely accessible online immediately upon publication.

Jan Velterop


On 19 Apr 2013, at 08:39, Andrew A. Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp wrote:

 Are there examples of such subscription journals that make their
 online version freely accessible online (immediately upon publication).
 
 Policy and Internet, which used to be published by BEPress (and annoyingly, 
 links to their site are now dead, without them telling authors) but since 
 moved to Wiley Online Library. The subscription is online only and 
 institutional only. BEPress used to have a nag-wall in the way of access 
 (they requested but didn't require that you recommend institutional 
 subscription to your librarian to help fund the journal). The annual 
 institutional subscription rate is $327 pa. I'm not sure what, other than 
 helping to ensure the viability of the journal, this subscription gets the 
 institution since both the HTML and PDF versions of all the papers seem to be 
 open (I don't think we have an institutional subscription that's invisible to 
 me, though I haven't checked from home).
 
 
 -- 
 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

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY-NC (was: Is $99 per article realistic and compatible with, profits - or too high a price?)

[Jan Velterop]

This seems like trading off the potential for minor revenues/royalties — even 
no more than hypothetical in most instances — against the benefit of 
unrestricted open access for science and scholarship.

In my view this amounts to profit spite. With a CC-BY-NC licence, why would 
the OA publisher be exempted from the NC clause?

'Non-commercial' is terribly ambiguous (what's 'commercial', and how far 
downstream does it apply?), and for that reason subject to potential unintended 
infringement and the ©-trolling that comes with that. In effect, that means 
that due to sensible self-censorship, any re-use is best avoided. That in turn 
means that the article with a CC-BY-NC licence is not truly BOAI-compliant open 
access, but merely 'ocular access' instead. Unsatisfactory for modern research 
and scholarship.

Jan Velterop


On 29 Jan 2013, at 09:55, Editor Living Reviews wrote:

 
 I'd just like to add the point of view of the Living Reviews OA journals 
 with an example why we currently argue in favor of CC-BY-NC.
 
 First, since not only Marcin Wojnarski doubts that
 
 anyone want to pay for a paper which is elsewhere available for free?
 
 Our long review articles would make perfect (text-)books if anyone could 
 sell them without asking for publisher's or the author's permission. 
 Example:
 
 The open access review The Post-Newtonian Approximation for 
 Relativistic Compact Binaries (http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2007-2) 
 was republished by Oxford UP as a major part of Equations of Motion in 
 General Relativity 
 (http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199584109.001.0001) 
 in 2011.
 
 Original price at amazon.com: $98.50 for 156 pages!
 
 Of course, this example does not completely illustrate the possible 
 misuse of CC-BY: here, the author agreed to the commercial reprint, and 
 the original review was extended by other authors' contributions. 
 However, they could have easily sold only the Futamase part as a book.
 
 With CC-BY, the publisher would not even have to ask the authors or 
 original OA publisher for reprint permission. Moreover, the authors (who 
 usually write time-consuming reviews in addition to their publicly 
 funded research) would not financially benefit from this commercial 
 reuse in any way. Therefore, our authors would object to Peter 
 Murray-Rust, who has
 
 never met a scientist who has argued for CC-NC over CC-BY.
 
 In short, in a world where companies collate wikipedia articles and sell 
 them on amazon, why wouldn't there be a marked for commercial OA reprints?
 
 (And, if someone wants to sell them, e.g., as book-on-demand, at least 
 it should be the OA publishers and authors themselves...)
 
 
 Frank
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 
 ==
 Frank Schulz | Managing Editor
 Living Reviews BackOffice
 
 MPI for Gravitational Physics
 (Albert Einstein Institute)
 Am Muehlenberg 1
 14476 Potsdam | Germany
 
 email: edito...@aei.mpg.de
 tel: +49 (0)331 567 7115
 
 http://www.livingreviews.org
 ==
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal


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

[GOAL] Re: Further Fallout From Finch Folly

[Jan Velterop]

...they [start-up subscription journals, or as Stevan calls them bottom-rung 
journals] were not subscribed to by institutions if there was no empty subject 
 niche they were filling, nor before they had established their track-records 
for quality.

Where has Stevan been the last 4 decades?

The niche for new subscription journals always was (and for new journals in any 
model probably still is) defined by a surfeit of articles looking for a journal 
to submit to, not by an empty subject niche. There are sooo many subscription 
journals occupying the same niche — sometimes partially, but often enough 
completely — and yet they are all subscribed to, widely or narrowly, but 
economically sufficiently, on the strength of the adage that you can't afford 
to miss anything in your discipline. And 'quality' has never been more than a 
vague and nebulous concept with little predictive value when applied to the 
vast majority of journals. (Not that I think that matters. Articles of true 
significance, in whichever journals, mostly drift to the surface anyway. A 
good, and citable, article in a low Impact Factor journal is not so much 
dragged down by that low IF, but pushes the IF up, if IFs are what tickle your 
'quality' fancy.)

In the 'green' scenario, a move to 'gold' is supposed to happen only after 
everything is 'green' OA and subscriptions are not possible anymore. The then 
sudden need for OA journals is, in that scenario, only to be satisfied by a 
veritable avalanche of start-up 'gold' journals, the credibility of which won't 
be assessable. And they will all feature on Beall's list.

How much better to gradually build up a 'gold' OA infrastructure, while suspect 
new OA journals can be caught, or while Darwinian selection to weed them out 
can take place. That can be — fortunately, is being — done alongside 'green'. 
Remember, while 'green' doesn't include 'gold', 'gold' *does* include 'green'.

I regard a Darwinian 'weeding' of non-credible journals (including those who 
Beall classifies as 'predatory') a wholly realistic scenario. Authors 
submitting to — and paying for — journals without duly checking the journals' 
credentials are probably too gullible to expect to produce much worthwhile 
publishable science anyway. It's a harsh world, the scientific one. 

Jan Velterop


On 19 Dec 2012, at 05:51, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 On 2012-12-18, at 8:26 PM, Roddy Macleod macleod.ro...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Editors with publishing and library experience, available to do the 
 background work, and backed up with scholarly reviewers - sounds OK to me. 
 
 Please support us in our efforts. We need submissions and we need volunteers 
 to review them in their areas of expertise. Both can be done by registering 
 with Social Sciences Directory as a User. 
 http://www.socialsciencesdirectory.com/index.php/socscidir/article/view/32/69
 
 (1) Is this what was meant by peer review at Heriot-Watt University?
 
 (2) Is this how Heriot-Watt University would have assessed whether there is a 
 niche or need for a new peer-reviewed journal?
 
 (3) Is this how Heriot-Watt University would have assessed a new journal's 
 quality in deciding whether to subscribe to it?
 
 (4) Would Heriot-Watt University consider it OK for journals to be selected 
 (by authors, subscribers, or members) on the basis of their economic model 
 rather than their quality?  
 
 No question that there are and always were bottom-rung journals among 
 subscription journals too:
 
 Difference was that they did not have the extra allure of OA and Gold Fever; 
 they were not subscribed to by institutions if there was no empty subject  
 niche they were filling, nor before they had established their track-records 
 for quality. And journals could not cover their start-up costs by tempting 
 authors to publish with them by paying for it, again seasoned with the extra 
 allure of OA and Gold Fever, and perhaps of quick and easy acceptance for 
 publication.  
 
 (Needy start-up subscription journals lowering quality standards to fill the 
 need for submissions would simply reduce their chances of getting 
 subscriptions -- but this does not necessarily lower the chances of tempting 
 needy authors to pay-to-publish in OA start-up  journals -- and especially 
 before the journal's quality record is established, when all a fool's gold 
 start-up needs for legitimacy is to wrap itself in the mantle of OA and 
 righteous indignation against the tyranny of the impact factor unfairly 
 favouring established journals…) 
 
 As I have said many times, institutions are free to part themselves from 
 their spare money in any way they like. But if they claim they're doing it 
 for the sake of OA, they had better mandate Green OA (effectively) first -- 
 otherwise  (as long as they are double-paying, over and above their 
 uncancelable subscriptions) they are in the iron pyrite market. (And 
 encouraging this, blindly, is one of the perverse effects of Finch Folly

[GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber

[Jan Velterop]

Alma, the 60% of green journals without embargoes you mention, what percentage 
of annual green published articles do they represent (not counting gold 
articles, which are of course also green by definition)?

Best,

Jan

Johannes (Jan) J M Velterop
AQnowledge - Concept Web Alliance
M +44 7525 026991

Sent from Jan Velterop's iPhone. Please excuse for brevity and typos. 

On 12 Dec 2012, at 07:28, Alma Swan a.s...@talk21.com wrote:

 David Prosser wrote:
 
 APCs make up just one business model that can be used to support Gold OA.  
 Gold is OA through journals - it makes no assumption about how the costs of 
 publication are paid for.  I think it is helpful to ensure that we do not 
 equate Gold with APCs.
 
 Seconded. And there is also an inclination in some quarters to call Green OA 
 ‘delayed OA’, even though 60+% of journals allow immediate OA by 
 self-archiving. We should also ensure that Green OA is not equated with 
 embargoes.
 
 Alma Swan
 
 
 
 
 On 3 Dec 2012, at 18:51, Richard Poynder wrote:
 
 Stuart Shieber is the Welch Professor of Computer Science at Harvard 
 University, Faculty Co-Director 
 http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/sshieber of the Berkman Center for 
 Internet and Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/sshieber , 
 Director of Harvard’s Office for Scholarly Communication (OSC 
 http://osc.hul.harvard.edu/ ),  and chief architect of the Harvard Open 
 Access (OA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access ) Policy — a 2008 
 initiative that has seen Harvard become a major force in the OA movement.
  
 http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/the-oa-interviews-harvards-stuart.html
 
 ATT1..txt
 
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Squashing the brand? Re: Interview with the Scholarly Kitchen's Kent Anderson

[Jan Velterop]

Very few journals are indeed 'journals' (in the sense of presenting 'daily' 
updates on the state of knowledge), except perhaps the likes of PLOS One and 
arXiv. So what we traditionally think of as journals have had their heyday. 
They functioned as an organising mechanism in the time that that was useful and 
necessary. That function has been taken over, and become far more 
sophisticated, by computer and web technology. That doesn't mean journals, as 
an organising concept, will disappear anytime soon. I give them a few decades 
at least. To be sure, their print-on-paper manifestations are likely to go much 
earlier, but that's not a conceptual, but just a practical thing.

'Journals' are already for the largest part virtual — just concepts, like 
'papers'. Skeuologues from a bygone era. Perhaps the likes of PLOS One and 
arXiv should be called 'courant' and 'papers' should be referred to as 
'articles'.

By the way, I see articles also change in the way they are being used and 
perceived. They will more and more be 'the record' and less and less a means of 
communication. That, by the way, establishing and curating the permanent 
record, is no sinecure. I used to call the scientific literature the minutes 
of science (http://opendepot.org/1291). They need to be taken, but after 
they've been approved, most minutes are only ever read in case of doubt or 
problems. One reason is of course the 'overwhelm' of literature (see e.g. 
Fraser  Dunstan, On the impossibility of being expert, BMJ 2010, 
http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6815). 'Reading' in order to 'ingest' 
knowledge will be replaced by large-scale machine-assisted analysis of, and 
reasoning with, data and assertions found in the literature. Organisation of 
the literature in the current prolific number of journals — and the concomitant 
fragmentation it entails — will be more of a hindrance than a help.

Initiatives such as nanopublications (http://nanopub.org) and, in the field of 
pharmacology, OpenPHACTS (http://www.openphacts.org), are the harbingers of 
change.

Jan Velterop

 
On 9 Nov 2012, at 12:03, Ross Mounce wrote:

 
 
 On 9 November 2012 11:09, Steve Hitchcock sh...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
 Ross,In your view, but in this case what would be the point of any 
 journal?
 
 
 Steve, you've got it in one here: what is the point of journals? 
 Many have asked this question before e.g. Decoupling the scholarly journal 
 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00019 , but here's my take:
 
 They're a vestigial concept in modern research. 
 
 Journals made sense from 1665-200X? (a fuzzy endpoint as the usefulness fades 
 out at a different rate in different subjects depending upon web-technology 
 uptake in different research communities). Research is digital now. Even most 
 of the ancient legacy literature in my domain (Biology) has been digitized 
 via initiatives such as http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/ 
 
 An example: Do any practicing Bioinformaticians read paper (deadtree) 
 journals to keep up with the latest research? I would think not. Paper 
 journals, and thus the 'journal concept' are useless to me - journals were 
 just a way of economically distributing physical copies of similar research 
 papers to interested recipients, and along way became a significant way of 
 generating income  profit for Learned Societies  commercial publishers (you 
 know the rest...).
 
 Admittedly, I gather many in the humanities are still reliant on the deadtree 
 format to keep up with new research - but perhaps by 2020 even this will 
 change as the benefits of the digital medium are fully realised - when all 
 academics have either a Kindle, iPad, smartphone, laptop... and those that 
 have eschewed technology in favour of paper journals quietly retire? I'm not 
 even against paper copies either, if people want them a) for short papers I 
 suggest printing a copy oneself might be more efficient b) for very long 
 papers POD services might be better than 'journals' all things considered 
 IMO. 
 
 I don't need 'journals'. I just need effective filters to find the content I 
 want amongst the ~2million papers that are published this year, and the 
 ~48million from all years previously (basing my figures on 
 http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20100308 ).
 
 Perhaps we need standardized metadata tags, MeSH terms, keywords, and most 
 importantly the ability to index, query  mine the *full* text to find what 
 we want and Open Bibliographic Data to clearly see who cites who. But we 
 don't need journals for any of that. All of the functions of the journal can 
 be better done independently of the integrated-package of functions we called 
 'the journal'.
 
 Is there any function I've missed that we do need 'journals' for? Journals 
 are just an additional metadata tag to me with little or no added information 
 content that can't be found in the fulltext or metadata of the paper.
 
 
 I hope this provokes some thought...
 
 
 Best,
 
 
 Ross
 
 PS

[GOAL] Re: Squashing the brand? Re: Interview with the Scholarly Kitchen's Kent Anderson

[Jan Velterop]

Anything other than CC-BY (or CC-zero) cannot really be regarded as open 
access. Ajar, maybe, with the chain still on, for a peek, but strictly no 
touch. The idea of colours and flavours and pigeon-holing OA advocates in 
'gold-OA packs' or 'green-OA' packs is best ignored. 

As regards Nature, brand value is clear. But if the brand value has indeed 
value, why does that value possibly vary with the licence? This kind of 
shadow-boxing shows that the thinking about what open access really means 
hasn't quite matured yet. 

Oh, and 'hybrid OA' doesn't exist. It's just OA in the company of content 
that's not OA, but under the same 'brand', which stands for a level of 
credibility of the peer-review and publication practice. The value of brands is 
often overrated, though.

Jan Velterop


On 8 Nov 2012, at 12:06, Steve Hitchcock wrote:

 Having feasted on Kent Anderson's anti-OA, anti-eLife and anti-PMC views, 
 thanks to Richard Poynder's interview, the gold OA pack are now descending on 
 Nature for having the temerity to charge a higher price for CC-BY OA than 
 for, say, CC-BY-NC-ND
 http://www.nature.com/press_releases/cc-licenses.html
 
 what’s really outrageous about this: they’re explicitly charging MORE for 
 applying/allowing a CC BY license relative to the more restrictive licenses. 
 Applying a license to a digital work costs nothing. By charging £100-400 more 
 for CC BY they’re really taking the piss – charging more for ABSOLUTELY NO 
 ADDITIONAL EFFORT on their part. Horrid. Other than greed what is the 
 justification for this?
 http://rossmounce.co.uk/2012/11/07/gold-oa-pricewatch/
 
 Apparently Nature has a brand value it is ready to exploit, and we haven't 
 yet learned that it's rights we are paying for with gold OA, not OA itself.
 
 Or perhaps we have learned that lesson, and the new game is to squash brand 
 value. A PLOS representative apparently says at #berlin10sa it's not about 
 where you publish it's about who you reach. In other words, make the venue 
 irrelevant?
 
 @PLOSBiology The @wellcometrust values the merits of the article over the 
 journal it is published in - Chris Bird at #berlin10sa
 
 Another anti-OA cook had already spotted, and applauded, this strategy (see 
 penultimate paragraph)
 http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/11/06/why-did-publishers-get-so-big/
 
 Meanwhile, the #altmetrics movement gathers steam with the idea that we can 
 measure some new things even if we don't yet know what those things might 
 mean. But one goal is clear: disconnect the impact calculation from the venue 
 and reconnect it to the paper. Actually, it is about time that we moved on 
 from the journal impact factor, but is that the simple agenda here?
 
 I suspect this is not where Finch and its publishers, and RCUK, think they 
 are heading with their vision of hybrid gold OA. That approach is going to 
 price some authors out of their familiar, favourite journals; the emerging 
 alternative is those journals may not be there for them at all, to be 
 replaced with faceless collections like (name your publisher) OPEN.
 
 Straws in the wind, or connected?
 
 Steve Hitchcock
 WAIS Group, Building 32
 School of Electronics and Computer Science
 University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
 Email: sh...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
 Twitter: @stevehit
 Connotea: http://www.connotea.org/user/stevehit
 Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 9379Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 9379
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal


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

[GOAL] Re: [Open-access] Re: Hitler, Mother Teresa, and Coke

[Jan Velterop]

Sally,

The possibilities for communication with peers have changed — increased — 
substantially in the last decade, so these figures may well have changed. 
Results of 14 years ago seem antediluvian in the context of the developments we 
have witnessed in STM in the mean time, and would have to be tested against the 
current situation before being considered still valid.

Jan Velterop

On 7 Nov 2012, at 10:17, Sally Morris wrote:

 It's along time ago now, but Alma Swan and Sheridan Brown surveyed nearly 
 11,000 scholarly authors for ALPSP in 1998/9 and received 3 218 replies.
  
 33% put communication with peers as their primary reason for publishing; 
 career advancement was next (22%). Personal prestige (8%), funding (7%) and 
 financial reward (1%) were way behind.
  
 Sally
  
 Sally Morris
 South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
 Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
 Email:  sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
  
 
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
 Marcin Wojnarski
 Sent: 06 November 2012 21:57
 To: open-acc...@lists.okfn.org; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); 
 Peter Murray-Rust
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: [Open-access] Re: Hitler, Mother Teresa, and Coke
 
 Eric's distinction between publishing for communication or for prestige is 
 quite thought-provoking, if not provocative. Does anyone have an idea how 
 many authors fall to each group? What's more important for majority of 
 academics: communication or prestige? ...
 
 I think there's a misconception regarding prestige and its real significance. 
 This issue has been raised many times recently in discussions about OA: the 
 frequently repeated claim, expressed also by Eric in his blog post, is that 
 scholars publish for prestige (and for: high metrics, tenure, exposition, 
 benefits, rewards, incentives, ...) - that's why adoption of OA is slow and 
 costs of traditional journals are high. Do you think this claim is true?
 
 I don't.
 
 The statement that scholars publish for prestige is an euphemism for 
 scholars are careerists who care more about tenure than quality and 
 meaningfulness of their research. I don't believe this. I don't believe that 
 majority of academics are careerists who don't care if their papers are read 
 by anybody. Suggesting that entire academic communication is nothing else but 
 a PR bubble (prestige! prestige!) driven by primitive rules of social 
 darwinism - is not just totally wrong, but also offending to academia. Maybe 
 5% of academics are careerists, the other 95% are extremely interested in 
 whether their papers have real impact or not (real in contrast to measured 
 by IF). I mean: they have a deep hope that their research will ultimately 
 have an impact. I'm convinced that this hope accounts for at least 90% of 
 motivation of those people for becoming a scientist and doing laborious 
 research job that's compensated with a half or 1/3 of what's paid for similar 
 skills outside academia.
 
 The key problem is that prestige of the journal and size+quality of potential 
 audience for the paper - are correlated. Every author who respects his own 
 work seeks as large and reputable audience as possible - not for prestige (!) 
 but for the ability to communicate own discoveries to people who are able to 
 understand, appreciate and make use of them. That's why authors must rely on 
 prestiguous journals even if prestige itself has no value for them! (BTW, 
 looking at the society as a whole, I think scientists are the people with 
 least respect for prestige, compared to any other community).
 
 The way to change the situation is by decoupling communication potential of 
 journals from their perceived prestige; and by enhancing visibility of small, 
 niche, low-prestige journals. The focus must be on communication, community 
 and readers; not on prestige.
 
 -Marcin
 
 -- 
 Marcin Wojnarski, Founder and CEO, TunedIT
 http://tunedit.org
 http://www.facebook.com/TunedIT
 http://twitter.com/wojnarski
 http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinwojnarski
 
 TunedIT - Online Laboratory for Intelligent Algorithms
 
 
 On 11/06/2012 09:58 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
 
 Copied only to the OKFN open-access list.
 
 It may be useful to consider the question: what can we do to change the 
 situation? - the OKF has a strong tradition of building things to change 
 the world. The distinction between publishing for communication and 
 publishing for reputation is valuable. Maybe by changing and improving the 
 former (which I think OKFN is well placed to do) we can separate them. 
 
 On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Leslie Carr l...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
 Publishers are capitalists - I don't think they'd argue the point.
 
 
 This is a generalization. Many learned societies and scientific unions are 
 not capitalists.  
 
 -- 
 Peter Murray-Rust
 Reader in Molecular Informatics
 Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
 University of Cambridge
 CB2 1EW, UK
 +44

[GOAL] Re: R Poynder Interviews I Gibson About 2004 UK Select Committee Green OA Mandate Recommendation

[Jan Velterop]

Stevan,

The link to the 'revolutionary core recommendation' is dead. (It's incomplete: 
http://openaccess.eprints.org/%3Ca%20href= )

Jan

On 28 Oct 2012, at 23:07, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 *Cross-Posted*
 
 Richard Poynder - The OA Interviews: Ian Gibson, former Chairman of the UK 
 House of Commons Science  Technology Committee
 
 Another brilliant OA whodunnit by Richard Poynder! 
 
 Yet the plot thickens, with the mystery of the outcome of the 2004 UK Select 
 Committee deliberations still not altogether dispelled.
 
 Ian Gibson is clearly brilliant, and his heart is clearly in the right place. 
 But although his 2004Gibson Committee Report clearly had (and continues to 
 have) enormous (positive) ramifications for OA worldwide, Ian himself just as 
 clearly does not fully grasp those ramifications! 
 
 Journal and Author Selectivity. Ian still thinks that OA is about somehow 
 weaning authors from their preferred highly selective journals (such as 
 Nature), even though the cost-free Green OA that his own Report recommended 
 mandating does not require authors to give up their preferred journals, 
 thereby mooting this issue (and even though the ominous new prospect of 
 double-paying publishers for hybrid Gold OA out of shrinking research funds 
 favoured by the Finch Committee Report does not require authors to give up 
 their preferred journals either). 
 
 Research access, assessment and affordability are being conflated here. Green 
 OA does not solve the affordability problem directly, but it sure makes it 
 much less of a life/death matter (since everyone has Green access, whether or 
 not they can afford subscription access). And of course that in turn makes 
 subscription cancelations, publisher cost-cutting, downsizing and conversion 
 to Gold much more likely -- while also releasing the institutional 
 subscription cancelation windfall savings to pay the much lower post-Green 
 Gold OA cost many times over. This leaves journals' peer-review standards and 
 selectivity up to the peers -- and journal choice up to the authors -- where 
 both belong.
 
 Giving up authors' preferred journals in favour of pure Gold OA journals was 
 what (I think) BMC's Vitek Tracz and Jan Velterop had been lobbying for at 
 the time (and that is not what the Gibson Report ended up recommending)!
 
 Emily Commander. So I think if you really want to get to the heart of the 
 mystery of how the Gibson Report crystallized into the epochal recommendation 
 for all UK universities and funders to mandate Green OA you will have to dig 
 deeper, Richard, and interview its author, Emily Commander, who -- as Ian 
 indicates -- was the one who crafted it out of the cacophony of conflicting 
 testimonials.
 
 Don't ask Emily about the bulk of the report, which is largely just ballast, 
 but about how she arrived at its revolutionary core recommendation. That's 
 what this is all about...
 
 Stevan Harnad ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: R Poynder Interviews I Gibson About 2004 UK Select Committee Green OA Mandate Recommendation

[Jan Velterop]

On 28 Oct 2012, at 23:07, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 Giving up authors' preferred journals in favour of pure Gold OA journals was 
 what (I think) BMC's Vitek Tracz and Jan Velterop had been lobbying for at 
 the time 

Stevan may think so, but that doesn't make it correct or accurate. What we 
advocated (lobbied for in Stevan's words) at the time, and what I still 
advocate now, is open access. Period. We argued that a system of open access 
publishing at source is better than a subscription system, and we realised that 
repositories would likely play an important role in achieving open access. 
That's why BMC offered assistance with establishing repositories, and the 
company still does: http://www.openrepository.com

There is also an object lesson in Poynder's interview. For OA advocates it is 
that they come together on open access per se, irrespective of green, gold, 
gratis, libre, etc. Subscriptioneers are as one, and their position is stronger 
as a result (even 'green' OA supporters advocate subscriptions as the way to 
pay for science publishing — until all research is open access in 
repositories, which, translated, means till kingdom come).

Jan Velterop

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

[GOAL] Re: R Poynder Interviews I Gibson About 2004 UK Select Committee Green OA Mandate Recommendation

[Jan Velterop]

In response to what we heard in the market, Richard. That our offering was 
launched so quickly after the Select Committee Report came out was more like a 
happy coincidence. 

Besides, should we have realised the importance of repositories as a result of 
the Inquiry, would there be a problem with actually offering concrete 
assistance to repositories some time *after* we realised the importance of 
repositories' role? Well, in our case the realisation came quite some time 
before we offered the service. These things take preparation, you know. 
Extraordinary, isn't it?

You may recall that we were convinced of the potential importance of 
repositories as evidenced already at the BOAI, and the Bethesda Statement on 
Open Access, both of which I signed on behalf of BMC.

The point I tried to make is that we argued for OA. And yes, we did try to 
convince authors to publish in the fully and immediately open BMC journals. 
Calling that Lobbying for giving up authors' preferred journals in favour of 
Gold OA journals is spin. Were I to use similar spin, I could say something 
like the Green OA advocates are lobbying for authors to be mandated to deposit 
their manuscripts in repositories, and be forced to accept sub-optimal OA, with 
access delays, technical and usage limitations, and problematic financing of 
publishing via subscriptions. 

But spin is not doing Open Access justice. It is Open Access I advocate. 
Immediate and with full re-use rights. If 'green' achieves that, too, great. 
Most repositories do have final, published, OA articles in their collections as 
well. Open from day one. With CC-BY licences. 'Gold' is not antithetical to 
repositories. I don't think it is good, though, to be satisfied with 
sub-optimal solutions just for reasons of expediency. 

Jan

On 29 Oct 2012, at 10:34, Richard Poynder wrote:

  
 On 28 Oct 2012, at 23:07, Stevan Harnad wrote:
 
 
 Giving up authors' preferred journals in favour of pure Gold OA journals was 
 what (I think) BMC's Vitek Tracz and Jan Velterop had been lobbying for at 
 the time 
  
 Stevan may think so, but that doesn't make it correct or accurate. What we 
 advocated (lobbied for in Stevan's words) at the time, and what I still 
 advocate now, is open access. Period. We argued that a system of open access 
 publishing at source is better than a subscription system, and we realised 
 that repositories would likely play an important role in achieving open 
 access. That's why BMC offered assistance with establishing repositories, and 
 the company still does: http://www.openrepository.com
  
 I think it would be true to say that BioMed Central launched its repository 
 service in response to the Select Committee Inquiry?
  
 http://www.biomedcentral.com/presscenter/pressreleases/20040913
  
  
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: R Poynder Interviews I Gibson About 2004 UK Select Committee Green OA Mandate Recommendation

[Jan Velterop]

Richard,

The best person to ask about Open Repository would be Matt Cockerill, director 
at BMC.

I think you use the right term when you say that publishers 'allow' 
self-archiving. Too often I see that interpreted as 'endorse', but that is a 
very different thing in my view (and theirs, too, I guess).

Jan

On 29 Oct 2012, at 13:40, Richard Poynder wrote:

 Thanks for the clarification Jan.
  
 I wonder if anyone from BMC could update the list on how popular the Open 
 Repository service has proved, whether users are currently growing or 
 decreasing, and how many users there are at the moment etc.?
  
 By the way, this is what BMC founder Vitek Tracz said to me in December 2004 
 (http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2006/05/interview-with-vitek-tracz.html).
  
 RP: One further complication that could perhaps retard progress is that the 
 OA movement has forked, with advocates disagreeing over the best way forward. 
 While OA publishers like you advocate OA publishing (the so-called “Gold 
 Road” to OA) supporters of the “Green Road” like Stevan Harnad argue that it 
 is sufficient for authors to continue publishing in traditional 
 subscription-based journals, but to then self-archive their papers. Does 
 Harnad have a point?
  
 VT: I do not think so. Self-archiving is of course very desirable, but the 
 issue is quite simple: publishers are not really going to allow authors to 
 self-archive in an easy way, and authors are not going to do it unless it is 
 completely painless.
  
 RP: I’m told that around 93% of journals currently do allow self-archiving? 
  
 VT: They say they allow it, but publishers have merely created the pretence 
 of allowing it. They don’t really. They say they allow self-archiving, but 
 authors can’t just take their published papers and archive them: they have to 
 use their original manuscript, without any of the corrections and changes 
 made by the publisher. They have to mark it up themselves, and they cannot 
 use the illustrations created or amended by the publisher. In practice it is 
 really quite difficult to reproduce the published paper. 
  
 If self-archiving were so easy why isn’t it happening? Because in practice 
 self-archiving is impractical. That said, for those who want it BioMed 
 Central supports self-archiving by offering to help institutions create 
 repositories for their researchers’ papers.
  
 Richard Poynder
  
  
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
 Jan Velterop
 Sent: 29 October 2012 11:07
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: R Poynder Interviews I Gibson About 2004 UK Select 
 Committee Green OA Mandate Recommendation
  
 In response to what we heard in the market, Richard. That our offering was 
 launched so quickly after the Select Committee Report came out was more like 
 a happy coincidence. 
  
 Besides, should we have realised the importance of repositories as a result 
 of the Inquiry, would there be a problem with actually offering concrete 
 assistance to repositories some time *after* we realised the importance of 
 repositories' role? Well, in our case the realisation came quite some time 
 before we offered the service. These things take preparation, you know. 
 Extraordinary, isn't it?
  
 You may recall that we were convinced of the potential importance of 
 repositories as evidenced already at the BOAI, and the Bethesda Statement on 
 Open Access, both of which I signed on behalf of BMC.
  
 The point I tried to make is that we argued for OA. And yes, we did try to 
 convince authors to publish in the fully and immediately open BMC journals. 
 Calling that Lobbying for giving up authors' preferred journals in favour of 
 Gold OA journals is spin. Were I to use similar spin, I could say something 
 like the Green OA advocates are lobbying for authors to be mandated to 
 deposit their manuscripts in repositories, and be forced to accept 
 sub-optimal OA, with access delays, technical and usage limitations, and 
 problematic financing of publishing via subscriptions. 
  
 But spin is not doing Open Access justice. It is Open Access I advocate. 
 Immediate and with full re-use rights. If 'green' achieves that, too, great. 
 Most repositories do have final, published, OA articles in their collections 
 as well. Open from day one. With CC-BY licences. 'Gold' is not antithetical 
 to repositories. I don't think it is good, though, to be satisfied with 
 sub-optimal solutions just for reasons of expediency. 
  
 Jan
  
 On 29 Oct 2012, at 10:34, Richard Poynder wrote:
 
 
  
 On 28 Oct 2012, at 23:07, Stevan Harnad wrote:
 
 
 
 Giving up authors' preferred journals in favour of pure Gold OA journals was 
 what (I think) BMC's Vitek Tracz and Jan Velterop had been lobbying for at 
 the time 
  
 Stevan may think so, but that doesn't make it correct or accurate. What we 
 advocated (lobbied for in Stevan's words) at the time, and what I still 
 advocate now, is open

[GOAL] Re: Gold OA: Publication costs and journal impact factors

[Jan Velterop]

The misleading potential of these figures is in the column Type (percentages). 
This refers to the percentage of journals with charges in a certain price 
range. The percentages of articles published for which these prices have been 
paid will likely show that the vast majority is in full OA journals.

A similar effect occurs in the oft-mentioned fact that the majority of 'gold' 
OA journals don't levy article charges. Undoubtedly true. But that 'majority' 
is unlikely to have published, in the aggregate, more than a tiny fraction of 
the total OA articles published. Or have any Impact Factor at all.

Jan Velterop


On 12 Oct 2012, at 16:30, ANDREW Theo wrote:

 Hi Ross and others,
  
 Apologies – friday afternoon gremlins have crept into our blogging platform 
 breaking the link. Here’s a sanitised extract of the data:
  
 Price range
 JIF Range
 JIF Mean
 JIF Median
 Number of articles
 Type
 £0-£999
 2.263 – 10.472
 4.849
 4.537
 41
 44% hybrid 56% full OA
 £1000-£1999
 0.856 -15.389
 6.328
 5.117
 108
 63% hybrid 37% full OA
 £2000-£2999
 0.986 – 12.594
 4.411
 3.441
 61
 100% hybrid
  £3000
 5.971 – 15.710
 12.363
 10.881
 17
 100% hybrid
  
  
 The hugely elevated costs for some high impact factor journals are plainly 
 not justified, and is another reason why the fascination with impact factors 
 is detrimental.
  
 Put simply, looking at the figures large research institutions cannot afford 
 Gold OA as it currently stands so Green OA will have to step up and be 
 counted.
  
 Theo
  
 From: Ross Mounce [mailto:ross.mou...@gmail.com] 
 Sent: 12 October 2012 15:39
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); ANDREW Theo
 Subject: Re: [GOAL] Gold OA: Publication costs and journal impact factors
  
 Dear Theo, 
  
 That link didn't work for me. I agree with those observations. I also find it 
 ludicrous that such 'high impact factor' journals feel they can charge much 
 higher prices for hybrid gold (even though they provide exactly the same 
 services) relative to the 'lower impact factor' journals who may even be of a 
 higher technical quality e.g. Pensoft Publishing journals  and their XML and 
 other additional services.
 
 Have you seen my plot of Gold OA prices by publisher/society? 
 http://rossmounce.co.uk/2012/09/04/the-gold-oa-plot-v0-2/
 and version 0.1 here 
 http://rossmounce.co.uk/2012/08/30/a-visualization-of-gold-open-access-options/
 
 The data behind this is also freely available here: 
 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtbO6mZEvieCdDFzdkVNQld6Mnc5NEpGWVlRUVhvM3c
  
 perhaps it might be nice to merge our data if there is any overlap?
  
 Best,
  
 Ross
 
 
 On 12 October 2012 15:11, ANDREW Theo theo.and...@ed.ac.uk wrote:
 Dear All,
 
 I'd like to draw your attention to a piece of work we have carried out which 
 looks at Gold OA fees and journal impact factors:
 
 http://libraryblogs.is.ed.ac.uk/openscholarship/2012/10/02/impact-cost/
 
 In short, it appears that 1) hybrid journals generally charge more than full 
 OA journals independent of journal impact factor, and 2) hybrid journals with 
 high impact factors charge significantly more than other types of journal for 
 gold open access.
 
 I find this apparent correlation between journal impact factor and cost 
 worrying and would welcome feedback. Is this something that other people are 
 seeing or have we got our facts wrong?
 
 Kind regards, Theo
 __
 Theo Andrew
 Research Publications Service
 Edinburgh University Library
 
 tel.  0131 651 3850
 web.   http://bit.ly/UoE-RPS
 post.   4 Buccleuch Place,
  Edinburgh, EH8 9LW.
 skype. theoandrew
 
 
 --
 The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
 Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
 
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
 
 
  
 -- 
 -- 
 -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
 Ross Mounce
 PhD Student  Open Knowledge Foundation Panton Fellow
 Fossils, Phylogeny and Macroevolution Research Group
 University of Bath, 4 South Building, Lab 1.07
 http://about.me/rossmounce
 -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: Springer for sale - implications for open access?

[Jan Velterop]

Heather,

1) Open access licences — of any kind, including all the CC-licences, not just 
CC-BY — cannot be revoked. Only replaced, by the licensor (the © holder), by a 
more liberal one. E.g. CC-BY-NC licences by CC-BY ones. Springer, or its 
successors and assigns, will not be able to make OA articles closed-access 
anymore.

2) Springer is in CLOCKSS

3) Springer's open access articles in the life sciences (90% of their OA 
material at present, I understand) are in PMC and UKPMC

4) Springer's output is deposited at the Dutch National Library and perhaps 
some others as well.

5) As for making OA, or any other, material available on their own platform in 
perpetuity, Springer's obligations are indeed limited. That is true for *all* 
publishers, for-profit or not-for-profit, in respect of *all* materials they 
publish, OA or not. The solution to that, ever since Alexandria in the 3rd 
century BC, has been libraries.

You seem to have an extraordinary lack of any trust in the publishing and legal 
system.

Jan Velterop


On 11 Oct 2012, at 02:32, Heather Morrison wrote:

 On 10-Oct-12, at 2:58 PM, David Prosser wrote:
 
 ...The simple fact is that the Springer OA articles published to date  
 will remain OA whoever purchases the company
 
 Comment:
 
 This sounds very reassuring. However, I argue that this is not a  
 simple fact at all. Please explain how this work and how you know this  
 work. For example, are you privy to inside knowledge about Springer  
 contracts? Are your Research Libraries copying the Springer OA content  
 and planning making this available? If the latter, are these concrete  
 plans with funding attached or tentative?
 
 If Springer went out of business altogether, that would constitute a  
 trigger event for CLOCKSS, but not if the business is transferred.
 
 At the very least, can we agree that something other than using a  
 particular CC license needs to happen to make works open access for  
 the long term, such as a library or archive storing, preserving, and  
 making the works OA?
 
 best,
 
 Heather Morrison
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal


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

[GOAL] Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY

[Jan Velterop]

On 10 Oct 2012, at 22:27, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
 
 Let's hypothesize that we could achieve 80% green (visible Green, not hidden 
 AlmostVisible) in 7 years' time. (I think that's optimistic). Are we then 
 allowed to initiate a CC-BY activity? And by that time the nature of 
 publication will have changed dramatically (because if it doesn't academia 
 will be seriously out of step with this the philosophy and practice of this 
 century). 
 
 We have to proceed in parallel. No-one - not even SH - can predict the future 
 accurately. I believe that Green-CC-BY is possible and that if we do it on a 
 coherent positive basis it can work. There is no legal reason why we cannot 
 archive Green CC-BY and it is not currently explicitly prevented by any 
 publisher I know of.  Try it - rapidly - and see what happens. My guess is 
 that a lot of publishers will let it go forward.
 
 The publishers own the citation space. It is their manuscript which is the 
 citable one. Green-CC-BY doesn't remove that. Actually it makes it better 
 because it will increase citations through all the enhancements we can add to 
 re-usable manuscripts.

This is particularly relevant once mined data can be reliably attributed, not 
only to the author, but also to the journal from which they were mined. Several 
developments are well underway in that regard: http://www.openphacts.org/ and 
http://nanopub.org/wordpress/ are some examples.

Jan Velterop

 
 And I will state again that for my purposes (and those of many others) Green 
 CC-BY gives me everything I want without , I believe, destroying the 
 publishers' market.
 
 We are in a period of very rapid technical and social change and we need to 
 be actively changing the world of scholarship, not waiting for others to 
 constrain our future.
 
 P.
 
 
 -- 
 Peter Murray-Rust
 Reader in Molecular Informatics
 Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
 University of Cambridge
 CB2 1EW, UK
 +44-1223-763069
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal


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

[GOAL] Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY

[Jan Velterop]

I agree that portraying 'green' OA as not providing 'real' OA is to be avoided. 
Real OA has become a wholly meaningless term, due to the proliferation of 
different perceptions that has taken place, unintentionally or deliberately. 
Instead, using the unambiguous BOAI-compliant OA is to be recommended.

(i) Observing that Gratis Green OA and its mandates do not (necessarily) 
provide BOAI-compliant OA is just observing a fact; not deprecating Gratis 
Green OA. 
(ii) I'm not aware of anybody advocating mandates for BOAI-compliant 'green' 
OA. Advocating BOAI-compliant 'green' OA, emphatically yes. Mandating it, no.
(iii) I'm not aware of anybody advocating mandates for 'gold' OA. Examples, 
please, if you have them. Preferences, yes. Mandates, no.
(iv) See (iii).

Jan Velterop


On 10 Oct 2012, at 22:27, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Jean-Claude,
 
 I get that. But I have a question that I don't think has been answered yet. 
 I'll phrase the question differently: Do you think that going for libre 
 wherever we can, impedes the chances of achieving gratis where libre is not 
 currently realistically possible?
 
 If I may be permitted to venture a reply too:
 
 An author going for libre whenever he can and wants to is perfectly fine, 
 whether it means (1) negotiating with a subscription publisher for libre 
 Green or (2) paying a Gold publisher for libre Gold (if the author has the 
 funds and wants to).
 
 What's not fine is (i) deprecating Gratis Green OA or Gratis Green OA 
 mandates as not providing real OA -- or, equally, (ii) advocating 
 upgrading mandates to (impossible) Libre Green mandates. Or (iii) 
 advocating paying for Gold *instead of* mandating (Gratis) Green. Or (iv) 
 advocating mandating Gold instead of mandating (Gratis) Green.
 
 (i) - (iv) amount to passing over the better in the name of reaching the best 
 (when the better is within reach and the best is not)
 
 Stevan Harnad
 
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: RE : Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY

[Jan Velterop]

On 10 Oct 2012, at 23:37, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:

 Jan,
 
 I do not think it does, provided that the *wherever* quest for libre that you 
 suggest does not get confused with the *absolute need* to get libre and 
 nothing else.

That would be silly. But the *absolute need* is there, for data-intensive 
disciplines, or they can't do the research they need to do. By all means, 
mandate for the lowest common denominator, but don't frustrate efforts to reach 
further.

 What I think concerns Stevan is that some people get so hung up on libre as a 
 result of the systematic nature of the *wherever* that they downgrade gratis 
 to the level of an ugly, ultimately unacceptable, compromise.

Well, it *is* the lowest common OA denominator.

 At that point, perfection becomes the enemy of the good. Peter Suber has 
 written some good pages in his book on Open Access, by the way.

A bit of a platitude, Jean-Claude. If that were applied to science and 
knowledge discovery we wouldn't be anywhere near we are now.

 
 Also, if libre is not currently realistically possible, why go for it, except 
 to reassert a principle?

'Libre' (let's call it BOAI-compliant OA, for the avoidance of doubt) is 
certainly realistically possible. *Universal* BOAI-compliant OA may not be as 
yet.

 And going for gratis does not prevent reasserting the ultimate goal of libre, 
 while accepting the temporary gain of gratis.

Not just reasserting, but working actively on the spread of BOAI-compliant OA. 
'Green', ocular access is a way station; not the goal. What's wrong with that? 
Arguing that advocating BOAI-compliant OA should wait until everybody has 
arrived at the way station is not
sensible. That could take ages. The world, and science, moves on.

 
 Finally, there are negotiating situations where speaking only in terms of 
 gratis is probably wise to achieve at least gratis. Lawyer-style minds are 
 often concerned about the toe-into-the-door possibility. In such situations, 
 the libre imperative could indeed work against the gratis.

The Dutch expression for this is cold water fear. I think the term FUD 
approaches this in English. Of course, in negotiations it's easier still to go 
for minimal, ocular OA with a two-year embargo. But proper negotiations are 
about finding out what the important issues are for the other party. They often 
result in a win-win, at least to a degree. Making articles mineable and the 
mined results reusable may not be the biggest barrier for publishers. In fact, 
I suspect they are easier for publishers to 'give away' than ocular access, 
because they don't threaten their business models directly. Especially if mined 
data can be made attributable and 'link-backable' — sorry, I can't think of an 
appropriate proper English word here — to the author and the article/journal 
from which it was mined (see http://openphacts.org/ and http://nanopub.org/ for 
instance).

 I suspect may librarian/publisher negotiations would fall in this category 
 and I suspect many publishers approach the whole issue of open access with a 
 cautionary mind.
 
 That is the the best I can do on your question. It is a tough question 
 because each category of actors (researchers, librarians, publishers, 
 administrators) will have a different take on it.

I agree with you on it being a tough question. 

 
 Best,
 
 Jean-Claude
 

Best,

Jan Velterop
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Le mercredi 10 octobre 2012 à 21:53 +0100, Jan Velterop a écrit :
 
 Jean-Claude,
 
 I get that. But I have a question that I don't think has been answered yet. 
 I'll phrase the question differently: Do you think that going for libre 
 wherever we can, impedes the chances of achieving gratis where libre is not 
 currently realistically possible?
 
 Best,
 
 Jan
 
 On 10 Oct 2012, at 21:04, Guédon Jean-Claude wrote:
 
  Jan,
  
  Please read again what I wrote. I repeat:
  
  The only concern one should have in this kind of tactical choice is 
  whether the intermediate step may act against the ideal goal. In this 
  particular case, I do not see how going first for gratis, and then for 
  libre, would impede the goal of ultimately reaching libre.
  
  I believe that what I wrote is not ambiguous or difficult to understand.
  
  Ot, to put it differently: No, it does not mean... etc.
  
  Jean-Claude
  
  
   Message d'origine
  De: goal-boun...@eprints.org de la part de Jan Velterop
  Date: mer. 10/10/2012 13:51
  À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
  Cc: SPARC Open Access Forum; BOAI Forum
  Objet : [GOAL] Re: RE :  Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA 
  goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY
  
  Jean-Claude,
  
  Does this mean that you think trying for ideal OA and settling for Gratis 
  Ocular Access where ideal OA is not yet possible, is acting against the 
  ideal goal? If so, on what basis?
  
  Best,
  
  Jan
  
  On 10 Oct 2012, at 18:25, Guédon Jean-Claude wrote:
  
  I have been observing this discussion from afar. It has

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories

[Jan Velterop]

Peter,

It would simplify things a lot. 

So, the norm would be (mandated where needed) to deposit one's final 
manuscript, accepted for publication after peer-review, with a CC-BY licence, 
in a suitable repository, as soon as possible upon acceptance for publication. 
This has many similarities with deposit of preprints in arXiv. Publishers have 
not been concerned about arXiv. One reason is that versions of record are not 
deposited in arXiv.

Subsequent publication of the 'version of record' takes place in a journal. In 
case that journal is a 'gold' journal with CC-BY licences, authors may replace 
the manuscript in the repository by the published version. Or not deposit a 
manuscript version at all but simply wait until the open, CC-BY version of 
record is published and deposit that. Some automated arrangement to do so may 
be available for some 'gold' journals and some repositories, as is already the 
case here and there (e.g for UKPMC).

You may well be right that this very simple procedure would resolve most, 
perhaps all, problems of the Finch Report and RCUK policy plans. It also 
'de-conflates' money and cost concerns from open access and reuse concerns.

The only thing I'm not clear about is who the we all are who'd have to agree 
to launch this for Open Access week :-)

Jan Velterop


On 9 Oct 2012, at 22:28, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:

 
 
 On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:
 There is an inconsistency here, either way. We've always heard, from Stevan 
 Harnad, that the author was the one who intrinsically had copyright on the 
 manuscript version, so could deposit it, as an open access article, in an 
 open repository irrespective of the publisher's views. If that is correct, 
 then the author could also attach a CC-BY licence to the manuscript version. 
 If it is incorrect, the author can't deposit the manuscript with open access 
 without the explicit permission of the publisher of his final, published 
 version, and the argument advanced for more than a decade by Stevan Harnad is 
 invalid. Which is it? I think Stevan was right, and a manuscript can be 
 deposited with open access whether or not the publisher likes it. Whence his 
 U-turn, I don't know. But if he was right at first, and I believe that's the 
 case, that also means that it can be covered by a CC-BY licence. Repositories 
 can't attach the licence, but 'gold' OA publishers can't either. It's always 
 the author, as copyright holder by default. All repositories and OA 
 publishers can do is require it as a condition of acceptance (to be included 
 in the repository or to be published). What the publisher can do if he 
 doesn't like the author making available the manuscript with open access, is 
 apply the Ingelfinger rule or simply refuse to publish the article.
 
 
 Jan,
 I think this is very important.
 
 If we can establish the idea of Green-CC-BY as the norm for deposition in 
 repositories then I would embrace it enthusiastically. I can see no downside 
 other than that some publishers will fight it. But they fight anyway 
 
 It also clairfies the difference between the final author ms and the 
 publisher version of record.
 
 It would resolve all the apparent problems of the Finch reoprt etc. It is 
 only because Green licences are undefined that we have this problem at all.
 
 And if we all agreed it could be launched for Open Access Week
 
 -- 
 Peter Murray-Rust
 Reader in Molecular Informatics
 Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
 University of Cambridge
 CB2 1EW, UK
 +44-1223-763069
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories

[Jan Velterop]

Steve,

I wasn't clear. The 'similarity' refers to the idea of a repository for 
depositing preprints, as opposed to the published version of record. That's 
all. Don't read too much in the example. ArXiv allows CC-BY-NC-SA, which I 
don't advocate. But arXiv is just an example I had in mind. If Eprints is a 
clearer example, then fine. 

The essence is this:
Deposit final manuscripts, accepted for publication after peer-review, with a 
CC-BY licence, in a suitable repository, as soon as possible upon acceptance 
for publication.

It was called 'self-archiving' in the BOAI. Why we spent the last decade 
straying from the straightforward and conceptually simple path laid out in the 
BOAI, I don't know. The same thing happened with the definition of open access. 
Human — and especially academic — need and desire to complexify, I guess. Not 
everyone is born in Ockham.

Jan

On 10 Oct 2012, at 13:35, Steve Hitchcock wrote:

 Jan,  What similarities with arXiv are you referring to? Arxiv allows an 
 author to attach specific CC licences (two are allowable); EPrints presents 
 the author with this option at deposit. But it is not mandated, and how 
 commonly is this option taken by authors, in arXiv or any other repository?
 
 http://arxiv.org/help/license (note section: Licenses granted are irrevocable)
 http://publishing.mathforge.org/discussion/74/voluntary-posting-of-accepted-manuscripts-in-the-arxiv-subject-repository-is-permitted/
 
 Everyone loves arXiv, but I'm not sure it provides any precedent or lead in 
 this respect.
 
 Steve
 
 On 10 Oct 2012, at 12:15, Jan Velterop wrote:
 
 Peter,
 
 It would simplify things a lot. 
 
 So, the norm would be (mandated where needed) to deposit one's final 
 manuscript, accepted for publication after peer-review, with a CC-BY 
 licence, in a suitable repository, as soon as possible upon acceptance for 
 publication. This has many similarities with deposit of preprints in arXiv. 
 Publishers have not been concerned about arXiv. One reason is that versions 
 of record are not deposited in arXiv.
 
 Subsequent publication of the 'version of record' takes place in a journal. 
 In case that journal is a 'gold' journal with CC-BY licences, authors may 
 replace the manuscript in the repository by the published version. Or not 
 deposit a manuscript version at all but simply wait until the open, CC-BY 
 version of record is published and deposit that. Some automated arrangement 
 to do so may be available for some 'gold' journals and some repositories, as 
 is already the case here and there (e.g for UKPMC).
 
 You may well be right that this very simple procedure would resolve most, 
 perhaps all, problems of the Finch Report and RCUK policy plans. It also 
 'de-conflates' money and cost concerns from open access and reuse concerns.
 
 The only thing I'm not clear about is who the we all are who'd have to 
 agree to launch this for Open Access week :-)
 
 Jan Velterop
 
 
 On 9 Oct 2012, at 22:28, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
 
 
 
 On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:
 There is an inconsistency here, either way. We've always heard, from Stevan 
 Harnad, that the author was the one who intrinsically had copyright on the 
 manuscript version, so could deposit it, as an open access article, in an 
 open repository irrespective of the publisher's views. If that is correct, 
 then the author could also attach a CC-BY licence to the manuscript 
 version. If it is incorrect, the author can't deposit the manuscript with 
 open access without the explicit permission of the publisher of his final, 
 published version, and the argument advanced for more than a decade by 
 Stevan Harnad is invalid. Which is it? I think Stevan was right, and a 
 manuscript can be deposited with open access whether or not the publisher 
 likes it. Whence his U-turn, I don't know. But if he was right at first, 
 and I believe that's the case, that also means that it can be covered by a 
 CC-BY licence. Repositories can't attach the licence, but 'gold' OA 
 publishers can't either. It's always !
 the author, as copyright holder by default. All repositories and OA 
 publishers can do is require it as a condition of acceptance (to be included 
 in the repository or to be published). What the publisher can do if he 
 doesn't like the author making available the manuscript with open access, is 
 apply the Ingelfinger rule or simply refuse to publish the article.
 
 
 Jan,
 I think this is very important.
 
 If we can establish the idea of Green-CC-BY as the norm for deposition in 
 repositories then I would embrace it enthusiastically. I can see no 
 downside other than that some publishers will fight it. But they fight 
 anyway 
 
 It also clairfies the difference between the final author ms and the 
 publisher version of record.
 
 It would resolve all the apparent problems of the Finch reoprt etc. It is 
 only because Green licences are undefined that we have this problem

[GOAL] Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost from Gratis to CC-BY

[Jan Velterop]

Stevan is not trying to achieve open access. (Although, admittedly, the 
definition of open access is so much subject to revision, that it depends on 
the day you looked what it, or one of its flavours, actually means or can mean 
— for the avoidance of doubt, my anchor point is the definition found here). 

What Stevan is advocating is just gratis 'ocular' online access (no 
machine-access, no text- or data-mining, no reuse of any sort — cross). If that 
is the case, I have no beef with him. We're just on different ships to 
different destinations which makes travelling in convoy impossible. The 
destination of the ship I'm on was mapped out at the BOAI in December 2001. I 
find it important to stay on course. The trouble arises where he regards the 
course of the ship that I am on as a threat to the course of his ship. That is 
misguided.

Jan Velterop


On 10 Oct 2012, at 14:49, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 ** Cross-Posted **
 
 This is a response to a proposal (by some individuals in the researcher 
 community) to raise the goalposts of Green OA self-archiving and Green OA 
 mandates from where they are now (free online access) to CC-BY (free online 
 access plus unlimited re-use and re-publication rights):
 
 1. The goal-posts for Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates should on 
 no account be raised to CC-BY (free online access PLUS unlimited re-use and 
 re-publication rights). That would be an absolute disaster for Green OA 
 growth, Green OA mandate growth, and hence global OA growth (and hence 
 another triumph for the publisher lobby and double-paid hybrid-Gold CC-BY). 
 
 2. The fundamental practical reason why global Green Gratis OA (free online 
 access) is readily reachable is precisely because it requires only free 
 online access and not more.
 
 3. That is also why 60% of journals endorse immediate, un-embargoed Green OA 
 today.
 
 4. That is also why repositories' Almost-OA Button can tide over user needs 
 during any embargo for the remaining 40% of journals.
 
 5. Upgrading Green OA and Green OA mandates to requiring CC-BY would mean 
 that most journals would immediately adopt Green OA embargoes, and their 
 length would be years, not months.
 
 6. It would also mean that emailing (or mailing) eprints would become legally 
 actionable, if the eprint was tagged and treated as CC-BY, thereby doing in a 
 half-century's worth of established scholarly practice.
 
 7. And all because impatient ideology got the better of patient pragmatics 
 and realism, a few fields' urgent need for CC-BY was put ahead of all fields' 
 urgent need for free online access -- and another publisher lobby victory was 
 scored for double-paid hybrid Gold-CC-BY (hence simply prolonging the 
 worldwide status quo of mostly subscription publishing and little OA).
 
 8. The reason for all this is also absolutely transparent to anyone who is 
 not in the grip of an ideology, a single-minded impatience for CC-BY, or a 
 conflict of interest: If Green OA self-archiving meant CC-BY then any rival 
 publisher would immediately be licensed to free-ride on any subscription 
 journal's content, offering it at cut-rate price in any form, thereby 
 undercutting all chances of the original publisher recouping his costs: Hence 
 for all journal publishers that would amount to either ruin or a forced 
 immediate conversion to Gold CC-BY... 
 
 9. ...If publishers allowed Green CC-BY self-archiving by authors, and Green 
 CC-BY mandates by their institutions, without legal action.
 
 10. But of course publishers would not allow the assertion of CC-BY by its 
 authors without legal action (and it is the fear of legal action that 
 motivates the quest for CC-BY!): 
 
 11. And the very real threat of legal action facing Green CC-BY 
 self-archiving by authors and Green CC-BY mandates by institutions (unlike 
 the bogus threat of legal action against Gratis Green self-archiving and 
 Gratis Green mandates) would of course put an end to authors' providing Green 
 OA and institutions' mandating Green OA.
 
 12. In theory, funders, unlike institutions, can mandate whatever they like, 
 since they are paying for the research: But if a funder Gold OA mandate like 
 Finch/RCUK's -- that denies fundees the right to publish in any journal that 
 does not offer either Gold CC-BY or Gratis-Green with at most a 6-12 month 
 embargo, and that only allows authors to pick Green if the journal does not 
 offer Gold -- is already doomed to author resentment, resistance and 
 non-compliance, then adding the constraint that any Green must be CC-BY would 
 be to court outright researcher rebellion.
 
 In short, the pre-emptive insistence upon CC-BY OA, if recklessly and 
 irrationally heeded, would bring the (already slow) progress toward OA, and 
 the promise of progress, to a grinding halt.
 
 Finch/RCUK's bias toward paid Gold over cost-free Green was clearly a result 
 of self-interested publisher lobbying. But if it were compounded

[GOAL] Re: RE : Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY

[Jan Velterop]

Jean-Claude,

Does this mean that you think trying for ideal OA and settling for Gratis 
Ocular Access where ideal OA is not yet possible, is acting against the ideal 
goal? If so, on what basis?

Best,

Jan

On 10 Oct 2012, at 18:25, Guédon Jean-Claude wrote:

 I have been observing this discussion from afar. It has always seemed to me 
 that Stevan was distinguishing between ideal OA and reachable OA. Gratis OA, 
 if I understand him right, is but the first step, and he argues (rightly in 
 my own opinion) that we should not forfeit gratis simply because we do not 
 reach the ideal solution right away.
 
 The only concern one should have in this kind of tactical choice is whether 
 the intermediate step may act against the ideal goal. In this particular 
 case, I do not see how going first for gratis, and then for libre, would 
 impede the goal of ultimately reaching libre.
 
 Jean-Claude Guédon
 
 
  Message d'origine
 De: goal-boun...@eprints.org de la part de Jan Velterop
 Date: mer. 10/10/2012 12:07
 À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Cc: SPARC Open Access Forum; BOAI Forum
 Objet : [GOAL] Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis 
 to CC-BY
 
 Stevan is not trying to achieve open access. (Although, admittedly, the 
 definition of open access is so much subject to revision, that it depends on 
 the day you looked what it, or one of its flavours, actually means or can 
 mean - for the avoidance of doubt, my anchor point is the definition found 
 here). 
 
 What Stevan is advocating is just gratis 'ocular' online access (no 
 machine-access, no text- or data-mining, no reuse of any sort - cross). If 
 that is the case, I have no beef with him. We're just on different ships to 
 different destinations which makes travelling in convoy impossible. The 
 destination of the ship I'm on was mapped out at the BOAI in December 2001. I 
 find it important to stay on course. The trouble arises where he regards the 
 course of the ship that I am on as a threat to the course of his ship. That 
 is misguided.
 
 Jan Velterop
 
 
 On 10 Oct 2012, at 14:49, Stevan Harnad wrote:
 
 ** Cross-Posted **
 
 This is a response to a proposal (by some individuals in the researcher 
 community) to raise the goalposts of Green OA self-archiving and Green OA 
 mandates from where they are now (free online access) to CC-BY (free online 
 access plus unlimited re-use and re-publication rights):
 
 1. The goal-posts for Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates should 
 on no account be raised to CC-BY (free online access PLUS unlimited re-use 
 and re-publication rights). That would be an absolute disaster for Green OA 
 growth, Green OA mandate growth, and hence global OA growth (and hence 
 another triumph for the publisher lobby and double-paid hybrid-Gold CC-BY). 
 
 2. The fundamental practical reason why global Green Gratis OA (free online 
 access) is readily reachable is precisely because it requires only free 
 online access and not more.
 
 3. That is also why 60% of journals endorse immediate, un-embargoed Green OA 
 today.
 
 4. That is also why repositories' Almost-OA Button can tide over user needs 
 during any embargo for the remaining 40% of journals.
 
 5. Upgrading Green OA and Green OA mandates to requiring CC-BY would mean 
 that most journals would immediately adopt Green OA embargoes, and their 
 length would be years, not months.
 
 6. It would also mean that emailing (or mailing) eprints would become 
 legally actionable, if the eprint was tagged and treated as CC-BY, thereby 
 doing in a half-century's worth of established scholarly practice.
 
 7. And all because impatient ideology got the better of patient pragmatics 
 and realism, a few fields' urgent need for CC-BY was put ahead of all 
 fields' urgent need for free online access -- and another publisher lobby 
 victory was scored for double-paid hybrid Gold-CC-BY (hence simply 
 prolonging the worldwide status quo of mostly subscription publishing and 
 little OA).
 
 8. The reason for all this is also absolutely transparent to anyone who is 
 not in the grip of an ideology, a single-minded impatience for CC-BY, or a 
 conflict of interest: If Green OA self-archiving meant CC-BY then any rival 
 publisher would immediately be licensed to free-ride on any subscription 
 journal's content, offering it at cut-rate price in any form, thereby 
 undercutting all chances of the original publisher recouping his costs: 
 Hence for all journal publishers that would amount to either ruin or a 
 forced immediate conversion to Gold CC-BY... 
 
 9. ...If publishers allowed Green CC-BY self-archiving by authors, and Green 
 CC-BY mandates by their institutions, without legal action.
 
 10. But of course publishers would not allow the assertion of CC-BY by its 
 authors without legal action (and it is the fear of legal action that 
 motivates the quest for CC-BY!): 
 
 11. And the very real threat of legal

[GOAL] Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY

[Jan Velterop]

Jean-Claude,

I get that. But I have a question that I don't think has been answered yet. 
I'll phrase the question differently: Do you think that going for libre 
wherever we can, impedes the chances of achieving gratis where libre is not 
currently realistically possible?

Best,

Jan

On 10 Oct 2012, at 21:04, Guédon Jean-Claude wrote:

 Jan,
 
 Please read again what I wrote. I repeat:
 
 The only concern one should have in this kind of tactical choice is whether 
 the intermediate step may act against the ideal goal. In this particular 
 case, I do not see how going first for gratis, and then for libre, would 
 impede the goal of ultimately reaching libre.
 
 I believe that what I wrote is not ambiguous or difficult to understand.
 
 Ot, to put it differently: No, it does not mean... etc.
 
 Jean-Claude
 
 
  Message d'origine
 De: goal-boun...@eprints.org de la part de Jan Velterop
 Date: mer. 10/10/2012 13:51
 À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Cc: SPARC Open Access Forum; BOAI Forum
 Objet : [GOAL] Re: RE :  Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost 
 fromGratis to CC-BY
 
 Jean-Claude,
 
 Does this mean that you think trying for ideal OA and settling for Gratis 
 Ocular Access where ideal OA is not yet possible, is acting against the ideal 
 goal? If so, on what basis?
 
 Best,
 
 Jan
 
 On 10 Oct 2012, at 18:25, Guédon Jean-Claude wrote:
 
 I have been observing this discussion from afar. It has always seemed to me 
 that Stevan was distinguishing between ideal OA and reachable OA. Gratis OA, 
 if I understand him right, is but the first step, and he argues (rightly in 
 my own opinion) that we should not forfeit gratis simply because we do not 
 reach the ideal solution right away.
 
 The only concern one should have in this kind of tactical choice is whether 
 the intermediate step may act against the ideal goal. In this particular 
 case, I do not see how going first for gratis, and then for libre, would 
 impede the goal of ultimately reaching libre.
 
 Jean-Claude Guédon
 
 
  Message d'origine
 De: goal-boun...@eprints.org de la part de Jan Velterop
 Date: mer. 10/10/2012 12:07
 À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Cc: SPARC Open Access Forum; BOAI Forum
 Objet : [GOAL] Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis 
 to CC-BY
 
 Stevan is not trying to achieve open access. (Although, admittedly, the 
 definition of open access is so much subject to revision, that it depends on 
 the day you looked what it, or one of its flavours, actually means or can 
 mean - for the avoidance of doubt, my anchor point is the definition found 
 here). 
 
 What Stevan is advocating is just gratis 'ocular' online access (no 
 machine-access, no text- or data-mining, no reuse of any sort - cross). If 
 that is the case, I have no beef with him. We're just on different ships to 
 different destinations which makes travelling in convoy impossible. The 
 destination of the ship I'm on was mapped out at the BOAI in December 2001. 
 I find it important to stay on course. The trouble arises where he regards 
 the course of the ship that I am on as a threat to the course of his ship. 
 That is misguided.
 
 Jan Velterop
 
 
 On 10 Oct 2012, at 14:49, Stevan Harnad wrote:
 
 ** Cross-Posted **
 
 This is a response to a proposal (by some individuals in the researcher 
 community) to raise the goalposts of Green OA self-archiving and Green OA 
 mandates from where they are now (free online access) to CC-BY (free online 
 access plus unlimited re-use and re-publication rights):
 
 1. The goal-posts for Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates should 
 on no account be raised to CC-BY (free online access PLUS unlimited re-use 
 and re-publication rights). That would be an absolute disaster for Green OA 
 growth, Green OA mandate growth, and hence global OA growth (and hence 
 another triumph for the publisher lobby and double-paid hybrid-Gold CC-BY). 
 
 2. The fundamental practical reason why global Green Gratis OA (free online 
 access) is readily reachable is precisely because it requires only free 
 online access and not more.
 
 3. That is also why 60% of journals endorse immediate, un-embargoed Green 
 OA today.
 
 4. That is also why repositories' Almost-OA Button can tide over user needs 
 during any embargo for the remaining 40% of journals.
 
 5. Upgrading Green OA and Green OA mandates to requiring CC-BY would mean 
 that most journals would immediately adopt Green OA embargoes, and their 
 length would be years, not months.
 
 6. It would also mean that emailing (or mailing) eprints would become 
 legally actionable, if the eprint was tagged and treated as CC-BY, thereby 
 doing in a half-century's worth of established scholarly practice.
 
 7. And all because impatient ideology got the better of patient pragmatics 
 and realism, a few fields' urgent need for CC-BY was put ahead of all 
 fields' urgent need for free

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories

[Jan Velterop]

On 9 Oct 2012, at 15:50, Ross Mounce wrote:

[snip]

 
 Repositories cannot attach CC-BY licenses because most publishers still 
 insist on copyright transfer. (Global Green OA will put an end to this, but 
 not if it waits for CC-BY first.) 
 
 I agree with the first half of the sentence BUT the second half your 
 assertion:  most publishers still insist on copyright transfer - where's 
 the evidence for this? I want hard numbers. If there are ~25 or ~28 thousand 
 active peer-reviewed journals (figures regularly touted, I won't vouch for 
 their accuracy it'll do) and vastly fewer publishers of these, data can be 
 sought to test this claim. For now I'm very unconvinced. I know of many many 
 publishers that allow the author to retain copyright. It is unclear to me 
 what the predominate system is with respect to this contra your assertion.

There is an inconsistency here, either way. We've always heard, from Stevan 
Harnad, that the author was the one who intrinsically had copyright on the 
manuscript version, so could deposit it, as an open access article, in an open 
repository irrespective of the publisher's views. If that is correct, then the 
author could also attach a CC-BY licence to the manuscript version. If it is 
incorrect, the author can't deposit the manuscript with open access without the 
explicit permission of the publisher of his final, published version, and the 
argument advanced for more than a decade by Stevan Harnad is invalid. Which is 
it? I think Stevan was right, and a manuscript can be deposited with open 
access whether or not the publisher likes it. Whence his U-turn, I don't know. 
But if he was right at first, and I believe that's the case, that also means 
that it can be covered by a CC-BY licence. Repositories can't attach the 
licence, but 'gold' OA publishers can't either. It's always the author, as 
copyright holder by default. All repositories and OA publishers can do is 
require it as a condition of acceptance (to be included in the repository or to 
be published). What the publisher can do if he doesn't like the author making 
available the manuscript with open access, is apply the Ingelfinger rule or 
simply refuse to publish the article.

Jan Velterop

 
  
 Finally:
 
 
 Green mandates don't exclude Gold: they simply allow but do not require Gold, 
 nor paying for Gold.
 
 Likewise RCUK policy as I understand it does not exclude Green, nor paying 
 for the associated costs of Green OA like institutional repositories, staff, 
 repo development and maintenance costs. Gold is preferred but Green is 
 allowed. Glad we've made that clear... 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 Jinha, A. E. 2010. Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of scholarly 
 articles in existence. Learned Publishing 23:258-263. 
 http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20100308
 
 Kell, D. 2009. Iron behaving badly: inappropriate iron chelation as a major 
 contributor to the aetiology of vascular and other progressive inflammatory 
 and degenerative diseases. BMC Medical Genomics 2:2+. 
 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1755-8794-2-2
 
 McDonald, D  Kelly, U 2012. The Value and Benefits of Text Mining. JISC 
 Report 
 http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2012/value-and-benefits-of-text-mining.aspx
 
 
 
 
 
  
 -- 
 -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
 Ross Mounce
 PhD Student  Panton Fellow
 Fossils, Phylogeny and Macroevolution Research Group
 University of Bath, 4 South Building, Lab 1.07
 http://about.me/rossmounce
 -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: Open Access in the UK: Reinventing the Big Deal

[Jan Velterop]

As is probably widely known by readers of this list, I do not too often 
disagree fundamentally with Stevan Harnad. There are exceptions. I disagree 
with him on a particular sentence in his message below (even though I suspect 
quite a few people are agreeing with him), where he says, about green OA: I 
can stop wasting my time and energy trying to get us there, as I have been 
doing for nearly 20 years now! It may be his perception, but I don't agree 
that he has wasted his time and energy on getting us to green OA. That doesn't 
mean he hasn't wasted his time. He has wasted his time and energy on portraying 
and insisting, ad nauseam, that green OA is the one and only – to the exclusion 
of any other – path to OA salvation, to reaching the Global Open Database 
(GOD). Instead of making the case for green OA in its own right, without slurs 
and imputations towards good-willing OA publishers and even towards those, such 
as funding bodies, who dare to take a position that doesn't include explicit 
hostility to gold OA.

And what a waste it was.

Jan Velterop

On 7 Oct 2012, at 13:29, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Sally Morris 
 sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote:
 
 Stevan overlooks the difference between 'publishing' an article in a 
 repository and in a journal.   As long as researchers prefer the latter (and 
 there are lots of reasons why they seem to, in addition to peer review) then 
 there will be a demand for journals in which to publish:  selection and 
 collecting together of articles of particular relevance to a given audience, 
 and of a certain range of quality;  'findability';  kudos of the journal's 
 title (and impact factor);  copy-editing;  linking;  quality of presentation; 
  etc etc...
  
 And peer review is in any case not a contextless operation.  The selection of 
 articles for publication in journal X is a relative matter;  not just 'is the 
 research soundly conducted and honestly reported?' but 'is it of sufficient 
 relevance, interest and value to our readers in particular?'
 
 I completely agree with Sally about peer review (it is a decision by 
 qualified specialists about whether a paper meets a journal's established 
 standards for quality as well as subject matter, as certified by the 
 journal's title and track-record), and I explicitly say so in the longer 
 commentaries of which I only posted an excerpt.
 
 But that, of course, does not change a thing about the fact that peer review 
 is merely a service, that can be unbundled from the many other products and 
 services with which it is currently co-bundled. It certainly does not imply 
 that in order for referees or editors to make a decision about journal 
 subject matter, there has to exist a set of articles co-bundled in a monthly 
 or quarterly collection, sold together as a product, online or on-paper!
 
 As to the rest of the co-bundled products and services Sally mentions: If 
 she's right, then journals have nothing to fear from Green OA mandates, since 
 those only apply to the author's peer-reviewed, revised, accepted final 
 draft. That's what's self-archived in the author's institutional repository. 
 If all those other products and services are so important, then reaching 100% 
 Green OA globally will not make subscriptions unsustainable, because the 
 need, and hence the market, for all those other co-bundled products and 
 services Sally mentioned will still be there.
 
 The only difference will be that all users -- not just subscribers -- will 
 have access to all peer-reviewed, revised, accepted final drafts. (That's 
 Green OA, and once we are there, I can stop wasting my time and energy trying 
 to get us there, as I have been doing for nearly 20 years now!) 
 
 But then can I ask Sally, please, to call off her fellow publishers who have 
 been relentlessly (and successfully) lobbying BIS not to mandate Green OA, 
 and have been imposing embargoes on Green OA, on the (rather incoherent) 
 argument that (1) Green OA is inadequate for researchers' needs and has 
 already proved to be a failure and (2) that if Green OA succeeded it would 
 destroy publishing, peer review, and research quality?
 
 Otherwise this (incoherent) argument becomes something of a self-fulfilling 
 prophecy, and we have the Finch/RCUK fiasco to show for it.
 
 Stevan Harnad
 
 
  
 Sally
  
 Sally Morris
 South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
 Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
 Email:  sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
  
 
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
 Stevan Harnad
 Sent: 06 October 2012 23:12
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Cc: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Open Access in the UK: Reinventing the Big Deal
 
 Publisher Wheeling and Dealing: Open Access Via National and Global McNopoly?
 
 Excerpted from more extensive comments on the Poynder/Velterop Interview here 
 and here.
 
 Jan

[GOAL] Re: Open Access in the UK: Reinventing the Big Deal

[Jan Velterop]

Ad hominem? Ad strategem!

Jan

On 7 Oct 2012, at 17:39, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 As is probably widely known by readers of this list, I do not too often 
 disagree fundamentally with Stevan Harnad. There are exceptions. I disagree 
 with him on a particular sentence in his message below (even though I suspect 
 quite a few people are agreeing with him), where he says, about green OA: I 
 can stop wasting my time and energy trying to get us there, as I have been 
 doing for nearly 20 years now! It may be his perception, but I don't agree 
 that he has wasted his time and energy on getting us to green OA. That 
 doesn't mean he hasn't wasted his time. He has wasted his time and energy on 
 portraying and insisting, ad nauseam, that green OA is the one and only – to 
 the exclusion of any other – path to OA salvation, to reaching the Global 
 Open Database (GOD). Instead of making the case for green OA in its own 
 right, without slurs and imputations towards good-willing OA publishers and 
 even towards those, such as funding bodies, who dare to take a position that 
 doesn't include explicit hostility to gold OA.
 
 And what a waste it was.
 
 As is probably widely known by readers of this list, I do not often respond 
 to Jan Velterop.
 
 The reason is that Jan Velterop posts ad hominem polemic instead of 
 responding to objective points of substance -- as he has once again done 
 here, instead of addressing the (many) reasons given (here and in my much 
 more extensive blog commentary on his interview with Richard Poynder) for why 
 Green OA needs to be given priority.
 
 Stevan Harnad
 
 
 Jan Velterop
 
 On 7 Oct 2012, at 13:29, Stevan Harnad wrote:
 
 On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Sally Morris 
 sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote:
 
 Stevan overlooks the difference between 'publishing' an article in a 
 repository and in a journal.   As long as researchers prefer the latter (and 
 there are lots of reasons why they seem to, in addition to peer review) then 
 there will be a demand for journals in which to publish:  selection and 
 collecting together of articles of particular relevance to a given audience, 
 and of a certain range of quality;  'findability';  kudos of the journal's 
 title (and impact factor);  copy-editing;  linking;  quality of 
 presentation;  etc etc...
  
 And peer review is in any case not a contextless operation.  The selection 
 of articles for publication in journal X is a relative matter;  not just 'is 
 the research soundly conducted and honestly reported?' but 'is it of 
 sufficient relevance, interest and value to our readers in particular?'
 
 I completely agree with Sally about peer review (it is a decision by 
 qualified specialists about whether a paper meets a journal's established 
 standards for quality as well as subject matter, as certified by the 
 journal's title and track-record), and I explicitly say so in the longer 
 commentaries of which I only posted an excerpt.
 
 But that, of course, does not change a thing about the fact that peer review 
 is merely a service, that can be unbundled from the many other products and 
 services with which it is currently co-bundled. It certainly does not imply 
 that in order for referees or editors to make a decision about journal 
 subject matter, there has to exist a set of articles co-bundled in a monthly 
 or quarterly collection, sold together as a product, online or on-paper!
 
 As to the rest of the co-bundled products and services Sally mentions: If 
 she's right, then journals have nothing to fear from Green OA mandates, 
 since those only apply to the author's peer-reviewed, revised, accepted 
 final draft. That's what's self-archived in the author's institutional 
 repository. If all those other products and services are so important, then 
 reaching 100% Green OA globally will not make subscriptions unsustainable, 
 because the need, and hence the market, for all those other co-bundled 
 products and services Sally mentioned will still be there.
 
 The only difference will be that all users -- not just subscribers -- will 
 have access to all peer-reviewed, revised, accepted final drafts. (That's 
 Green OA, and once we are there, I can stop wasting my time and energy 
 trying to get us there, as I have been doing for nearly 20 years now!) 
 
 But then can I ask Sally, please, to call off her fellow publishers who have 
 been relentlessly (and successfully) lobbying BIS not to mandate Green OA, 
 and have been imposing embargoes on Green OA, on the (rather incoherent) 
 argument that (1) Green OA is inadequate for researchers' needs and has 
 already proved to be a failure and (2) that if Green OA succeeded it would 
 destroy publishing, peer review, and research quality?
 
 Otherwise this (incoherent) argument becomes something of a self-fulfilling 
 prophecy, and we have the Finch/RCUK fiasco to show for it.
 
 Stevan Harnad

[GOAL] Re: SCOAP3 Gold OA Membership: Unnecessary, Unscalable Unsustainable

[Jan Velterop]

Hear, hear!

Jan

On 26 Sep 2012, at 16:04, Guédon Jean-Claude wrote:

 This is avery good example of one constant flaw in Stevan Harnad's reasoning. 
 It has to do with point 5.
 
 It may be true that the high-energy physics community would have achieved 
 more for OA if it had put all of its weight behind green OA. I will go 
 further: in my own opinion, in agreement with Stevan Harnad, it would have 
 been better if they had done so.
 
 The point, however, is that they did not. And this is what Stevan Harnad has 
 difficulties dealing with: some people hold viewpoints different from one's 
 own, yet track common objectives. One cannot expect to change them. At least, 
 changing peoples' minds often prove very difficult and very costly. I could 
 say with a smile that if Stevan Harnad, with his relentless determination, 
 has not succeeded, who will? And would it have not been better for Stevan 
 Harnad to use all that extraordinary energy bolstering his own approach 
 rather than trying to change others? Green OA might be farther ahead if he 
 were not so intent on lining up all the ducks (or rather herding academic 
 cats in this instance) all the time.
 
 And it would bring yet another advantage: it would help keep the OA community 
 closer together. We should always bear in mind that much more unites us than 
 separates us. Being a little more inclusive may bring in slightly messier 
 forms of reasoning, but this is compensated by a greater collective strength.
 
 So, yes! There are design problems with the SCOAP project, but it is going 
 forward and it will be going forward whatever anyone tries to do to stop it 
 or derail it. I, for one, would never want to do this. Why? Because, at the 
 end of the day, SCOAP3 will prove to be a positive contribution to the OA 
 movement, even if it should ultimately prove unstable. And instability does 
 not necessarily mean failure; it may mean morphing into something else, like 
 a junction between ArXiv and SCOAP. The flow of history is not based on logic 
 (alas); it is based on remixing available resources through meandering paths.
 
 
 
 
  Message d'origine
 De: goal-boun...@eprints.org de la part de Stevan Harnad
 Date: mer. 26/09/2012 09:31
 À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Objet : [GOAL]  SCOAP3 Gold OA Membership: Unnecessary,Unscalable  
 Unsustainable
 
 1. High Energy Physics (HEP) already has close to 100% Open Access (OA):
 Authors have been self-archiving their articles in
 Arxivhttp://arxiv.org/show_monthly_submissions (both
 before and after peer review) since 1991 (Green OA).
 
 2. Hence SCOAP3 http://scoap3.org/ is just substituting the payment of
 consortial membership http://bit.ly/sc3memb fees for publishing
 outgoing articles in place of the payment of individual institutional
 subscription fees for accessing incoming articles in exchange for an OA
 from its publisher (Gold OA) that HEP already had from self-archiving
 (Green OA).
 
 3. As such, SCOAP3 is just a consortial subscription price agreement,
 except that it is inherently unstable, because once all journal content is
 Gold OA, non-members are free-riders, and members can cancel if they feel a
 budget crunch.
 
 4. Nor does membership scale to other disciplines.
 
 5. High Energy Physics would have done global Open Access a better service
 if it had put its full weight behind promoting (Green OA) mandates to
 self-archive by institutions and research funders in all other disciplines.
 
 6. The time to convert to Gold OA is when mandatory Green OA prevails
 globally across all disciplines and institutions.
 
 7. Institutions can then cancel subscriptions and pay for peer review
 service alone http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/271348/, per individual paper,
 out of a portion of their windfall cancelation savings, instead of en bloc,
 in an unstable (and overpriced) consortial membership.
 
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal


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

[GOAL] Re: Definition of OA and its Priorities and Obstacles

[Jan Velterop]

What does this prove, pray?

A search in Google Scholar for Open Access and God yields 36,300 results, and 
Open Access and the devil 10,600 results.

I share Peter M-R's unhappiness with the term 'libre OA', though maybe for 
different reasons. It is tautological: true OA (as we all – including Harnad – 
envisioned as our goal in the BOAI) is 'libre' already. In French that seems to 
be clear: Open Access is usually translated as Accès libre. What would 'libre 
OA' be in French? Accès libre libre?

Having a 'first things first' approach with 'green' OA to reaching the OA goal 
is a legitimate stance to take (whether or not I or anybody else agrees with 
the idea); arbitrarily and unilaterally changing the goalposts – or the 
definition of what OA should be – along the way is not.

Jan Velterop


On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:09, Hélène.Bosc wrote:

 Peter,
 you wrote : I am less than happy with the term libre which does not 
 correspond to usage elsewhere and is at best confusing
  
 In French we say Les absents ont toujours tort (Absent people are always 
 wrong) . 
  It seems that in April 2008, you were not present in the OA movement 
 (Suber's and Harnad's definition!!!) and specially in the American Scientist 
 discussions when  Libre and Gratis appeared. Please see :
 http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind08L=american-scientist-open-access-forumO=DF=lP=37608
  
  A research with Google Scholar  with Open Access gives the following 
 results:
 http://bit.ly/OAsuberGS 3240
 http://bit.ly/OAharnadGS 3740
 http://bit.ly/OAmurrayrustGS 716
  
 The print of these 6980 Open Access is too strong today, in every mind and  
 you cannot resist to what has been written about Open Access during all 
 these past years by two individuals , as you say. 
 (Quoted from one of your recent messages : It is now left to one (SH) or 
 possibly two (PS) individuals to state what OA is. ) 
  
  
 Hélène Bosc
 Open Access to Scientific Communication 
 http://open-access.infodocs.eu/
 - Original Message -
 From: Peter Murray-Rust
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Cc: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
 Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 7:29 PM
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Definition of OA and its Priorities and Obstacles
 
 
 
 On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
 JV:  the definition of OA... is being changed... instead of any OA 
 achievements
 being measured against the goal that has been set
 
 The 2002 BOAI definition was refined in 2008 to name its two constituents:
 
 http://www.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/fos/newsletter/08-02-08.htm#gratis-libre
 
 This statement is simply wrong.
 
 The linked resource is written by Peter Suber alone. He uses the pronoun I 
 throughout much of the mail. I applaud his efforts to describe the situation. 
 (I am less than happy with the term libre which does not correspond to 
 usage elsewhere and is at best confusing. But since it can apparently mean 
 almost removal of any condition, no matter how minor, it has very limited 
 use).
 
 At the end Peter Suber makes it clear he is NOT refining BOAI. He says 
 (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/08/greengold-oa-and-gratislibre-oa.html
  )
 
 I'm [PS]  not proposing a change in the BBB definition, and I haven't 
 retreated an inch in my support for it.  I'm simply proposing vocabulary to 
 help us talk unambiguously about two species of free online access. [PMR's 
 emphasis]
 
 P.
 
 -- 
 Peter Murray-Rust
 Reader in Molecular Informatics
 Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
 University of Cambridge
 CB2 1EW, UK
 +44-1223-763069
 
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: Definition of OA and its Priorities and Obstacles

[Jan Velterop]

So the definition of Open Access as formulated in the BOAI is now no more than 
'mortal improvisation', according to Harnad. 

What's happening is that for reasons of expediency, the definition of OA (which 
didn't represent 'Holy Writ', but an ambitious goal, for the benefit of 
science) is being changed, quite arbitrarily, instead of any OA achievements 
being measured against the goal that has been set. The fact that Open Access as 
defined in the BOAI seems practically not achievable with the so-called 'green' 
road is no doubt the underlying reason. The intellectually honest way to deal 
with that is not to change the definition, but to admit that whilst what has 
been, and can be, achieved with self-archiving is a most important step towards 
the ultimate goal of Open Access, the goal is not quite achievable that way. 
The difficulty for Harnad c.s. is of course to admit that the 'gold' route to 
OA clearly *can* comply with Open Access as defined in the BOAI. Neither 'gold' 
nor 'green' have achieved full Open Access yet, that's clear. But the Open 
Access of 'gold' is according to the BOAI definition, and most of the open 
access of 'green' isn't. 

Changing the definition – the goal – only serves to promote confusion and 
ambiguity. Tampering with the definition makes the term Open Access so 
ambiguous as to be meaningless. Anybody can now call just about any publishing 
or repository offering Open Access, removing all clarity of purpose contained 
in the original definition. The agenda seems to have changed from striving for 
Open Access in any way possible, to undermining, come what may, the Open Access 
that can be brought by the 'gold' route. A very sad state of affairs.

Jan Velterop

On 28 Aug 2012, at 15:00, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 On 2012-08-28, at 4:26 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
 
 Warning: I shall get shouted down for this post.
 On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk 
 wrote: 
 OA means free online access. 
 When and where and by whom was this decided? It is incompatible with the BBB 
 definitions.
 One of the problems of Open Access as a movement is that the terms used 
 (in the period after BBB) are so poorly defined as to be essentially 
 meaningless - Humpty-Dumpty (  When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in 
 rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more 
 nor less.). 
 Peter, you will not get shouted down -- but it would be a great help if you 
 were to listen, because you have asked and been given this information now 
 countless times. 
 
 There have been updates of the BBB definition of OA, which was drafted in 
 early days and has since seen a decade of developments not envisioned or 
 anticipated in 2002:
 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/08-02-08.htm#gratis-libre
 
 1. Free online access is Gratis OA.
 
 2. Free online access plus (some) re-use rights is Libre OA.
 
 3. Gratis OA is a necessary condition for Libre OA.
 
 4. Over sixty percent of journals already endorse immediate, un-embargoed 
 Green Gratis OA.
 
 5. In addition, about 40% more endorse Green Gratis OA after an embargo of 
 6-12 months.
 
 6. Global Gratis Green OA is within reach of Green OA mandates (ID/OA + 
 Almost-OA Button)
 
 7. Libre OA is not within reach: publishers must be paid extra for it, in the 
 form of Libre Gold OA fees, over and above the subscription fees already 
 being paid by institutions worldwide.
 
 8. All researchers, in all disciplines, want and need access to all refereed 
 research, not just the journals their institutions can afford to subscribe 
 to, i.e., Gratis OA.
 
 9. Not all researchers, in all disciplines, want and need to provide re-use 
 rights (Libre OA).
 
 10. Hence Green Gratis OA is the overwhelmingly first and foremost priority.
 
 11. Once Green Gratis OA is globally mandated by institutions and funders, 
 Libre OA (and Gold OA) will follow as a natural matter of course.
 
 12. Your field, chemistry, would greatly benefit from Libre OA, but it is 
 also the field whose publishers are the most dead-set against OA, whether 
 Gratis or Libre.
 
 13. Your field, chemistry, like all other fields, would also greatly benefit 
 from Gratis OA, so all researchers have access to all refereed research.
 
 14. First things first.
 
 15. The reason you get shouted down is that you keep putting the particular 
 additional needs of your discipline ahead of the generic access needs of all 
 disciplines.
 
 16. The A in OA stands for access; the OA movement is not the Open License 
 movement (though it will help the OL movement along).
 
 (Yes, Jan Velterop, for reasons of his own, also much debated in this Forum, 
 has relentlessly insisted that substantive, strategic and pragmatic matters 
 can somehow be settled by treating the BBB definition as if it had been Holy 
 Writ rather than Mortal Improvisation, and as if nothing had been learned 
 since 2002. Yes, that is at best BBB pedantry

[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] RE: CC-BY: derivatives and liability

[Jan Velterop]

In the so-called Bethesda Declaration it was explicitly recognised that open 
access is a property of individual articles, not necessarily journals or 
publishers. Hybrid journals worthy of that categorisation, for instance, are 
publishing true open access articles in amongst the ones they publish. The DOAJ 
has only ever looked at journals that have OA content and nothing but OA 
content. That is their choice, of course, but it possibly leads to 
misunderstandings, a common one of which seems to be that OA articles in hybrid 
journals are not proper OA. In fact, these articles may be 'more' OA (i.e. 
CC-BY, © author, and deposited in an appropriate open repository) than many an 
article in some OA journals in the DOAJ (which may well be only CC-BY-NC, © 
publisher, and not deposited).

Jan Velterop

On 20 Aug 2012, at 22:42, Heather Morrison wrote:

 Matt,
 
 This DOES help, but note that it is the combination of BMC's good practices - 
 author copyright retention (not a given with CC licenses), publishing at 
 least research articles as open access, archiving in PubMedCentral, and 
 working cooperatively with institutional repositories for cross-deposit 
 (where the IR is willing to work with BMC) that makes this a set of good 
 practices - at least at the article level.
 
 CC-BY on its own does not require any of these other practices.
 
 It is worth noting that even a journal and publishing with all of these good 
 OA practices above and beyond publishing research articles OA and CC-BY, is 
 not sufficient to have a journal listed in DOAJ. Nor is it necessarily a 
 reason for an institution to support the article processing fees, as the 
 subscription content needs to be taken into account when making such 
 decisions.
 
 On another note, thanks once again to you  to BioMedCentral for your 
 leadership in the open access arena. 
 
 best,
 
 Heather
 
 On 2012-08-20, at 1:31 PM, Matthew Cockerill wrote:
 
 Genome Biology's policy, consistent with other BioMed Central journals, is 
 that all research articles are 100% open access.
 Genome Biology also includes commissioned front-matter, reviews etc which 
 are available to subscribers.
 
 This is not an optional OA or hybrid model (in the sense that hybrid OA is 
 generally used). 
 But it is the same OA to research model used by, for example, the BMJ.
 
 See http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/access for more info.
 
 The Bethesda statement was very clear in its focus  - it set out to define 
 a standard for publication of peer-reviewed reports of original research in 
 the biomedical sciences
 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm
 
 In doing this, it allowed for the fact that other types of content (text 
 books, review journals etc) might need to use other models.  Funders have 
 proven willing to pay to ensure that the research they have funded  is 
 openly communicated, but will not necessarily wish to cover the costs of 
 publication for review articles.
 
 In terms of long term accessibility, one of the criteria for the Bethesda 
 statement definition of OA is:
 A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials, including a 
 copy of the permission as stated above, in a suitable standard electronic 
 format is deposited immediately upon initial publication in at least one 
 online repository that is supported by an academic institution, scholarly 
 society, government agency, or other well-established organization that 
 seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution, interoperability, 
 and long-term archiving (for the biomedical sciences, PubMed Central is such 
 a repository).
 
 BioMed Central has always deposited copies of all the OA articles we publish 
 in PubMed Central (and in other international open access repositories), 
 thus guaranteeing the long term accessibility of those articles without any 
 additional action being required by the author.
 
 Hope this helps,
 
 Matt
 -Original Message-
 From: Heather Morrison [mailto:hgmor...@sfu.ca] 
 Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 9:00 PM
 To: Matthew Cockerill
 Cc: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); SPARC Open Access Forum; 
 open-science; scholc...@ala.org T.F.; cc-commun...@lists.ibiblio.org
 Subject: Re: [sparc-oaforum] RE: [GOAL] CC-BY: derivatives and liability
 
 hi Matthew,
 
 Many thanks for posting this, it is good to know that CC-BY publishers do 
 include exerpts that are not necessarily CC-BY.
 
 Now that you've raised the subject, I have a question about BioMedCentral. I 
 have tended to assume that BMC was an open access publisher, and have often 
 referred to BMC as exemplary in this regard. However, I just went to Genome 
 Biology, a highly regarded BMC open access journal, and noted to my 
 surprise that Genome Biology is actually a hybrid OA / subscription journal. 
 Looking at your most viewed articles, 3 of the top 5 are subscription 
 only. I am glad to see that Genome Biology is not included in the Directory 
 of Open

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY and - or versus - open access

[Jan Velterop]

Heather,

Ever heard of FUD? This is it.

Jan Velterop


Sent from my iPad

On 17 Aug 2012, at 18:54, Heather Morrison hgmor...@sfu.ca wrote:

 Many in the open access movement consider CC-BY to be the very embodiment of 
 the spirit of the Budapest Open Access Initiative - giving away all rights to 
 one's work, including commercial rights, for open access. My own take on this 
 is that while CC-BY can provide a useful tool for those fully engaged in the 
 open access spirit, the license is problematic for open access. This is 
 important now that funding agencies in the U.K. are beginning to require 
 CC-BY licenses when they fund open access article processing fees. That is to 
 say, we are now looking at a situation where organizations that do not have 
 any commitment to (or even liking for) open access, may be required to use 
 this license. 
 
 Some questions that I think should be raised at this point:
 
 The CC-BY legal code, as I read it, does not mention open access, nor is 
 there any wording to suggest that the license can only be applied to works 
 that are open access. Here is the URL for the legal code:
 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
 
 Questions:
 
 1.Am I missing something in the legal code, i.e. does it say somewhere 
 that this license is only for open access works?
 
 2.Is there any reason why a publisher could not use a CC-BY license on 
 toll-access works? (Here I am talking about an original publisher, not a 
 licensee).
 
 3.Is there anything to stop a publisher that uses CC-BY from changing 
 their license at a later point in time? (Assuming the license is the 
 publisher's, not the author's).
 
 4.Is there anything to stop a toll-access publisher from purchasing an 
 open access publisher that uses CC-BY, and subsequently selling all the 
 formerly open access journals under a toll-access model and dropping the open 
 access versions? The license would not permit a third party to do this, but 
 what I am asking about is if the original licensor sells to another publisher.
 
 To sum up, my perspective is that CC-BY, while superficially appearing to be 
 the embodiment of BOAI, is actually a problematic license with significant 
 loopholes and serious thought should be given to this before it is 
 recommended as a standard for open access.
 
 best,
 
 Heather Morrison, MLIS
 Doctoral Candidate, Simon Fraser University School of Communication
 http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/
 The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
 http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: Publications managed by scholarly communities/institutions

[Jan Velterop]

It's a start. 27,995 or so to go.

Jan

On 9 Aug 2012, at 11:43, Laurent Romary wrote:

 Thanks. Are these all managed on their own?
 Laurent
 
 Le 9 août 2012 à 11:42, Bo-Christer Björk a écrit :
 
 Good idea,
 
 Here are four such journals, all of which have been there since the 1990s:
 
 Information Research
 
 Journal of Information Technology in Construction
 
 Journal of Electronic Publishing
 
 First Monday
 
 best regards
 
 Bo-Christer Björk
 
 Journal of On 8/9/12 11:35 AM, Laurent Romary wrote:
 Dear all,
 As an echo to the fourth option mentioned by Peter, I would like to gather 
 references to journals and initiatives which are notoriously community 
 based. Could members of the list point to what they would be aware of? 
 Thanks in advance,
 Laurent
 
 Le 7 août 2012 à 16:11, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit :
 
 
 
 On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Sally Morris 
 sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote:
 We should not delude ourselves; journals can only be 'free' if someone pays
 the costs.
 
 All the work involved in creating and running a journal has to be paid for
 somehow - they don't magically go away if a journal is e-only (in fact,
 there are some new costs, even though some of the old ones disappear).
 
 I can only see three options for who pays:  reader-side (e.g. the library);
 author-side (e.g. publication fees);  or 'fairy godmother' (e.g. sponsor).
 
 There is a fourth option, which works: the scholarly community manage 
 publication through contributed labour and resources and the net amount of 
 cash is near-zero. This is described in 
 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/ 
   where the J. Machine Learning Research is among the highest 
 regarded journals in the area (top 7%) and free-to-authors and 
 free-to-readers. There is an enlightening debate (on this URL) between 
 those who run the journal and Kent Anderson of the Scholarly Kitchen who 
 cannot believe that people will run and work for journals for the good of 
 the community.
 
 There is no law of physics that says this doesn't scale. It is simply that 
 most scholars would rather the taxpayer and students paid for the 
 administration publishing (either as author-side or reader-side) so the 
 scholars don't have to do the work. And they've managed ot get 10 B USD 
 per year. If scholars regarded publishing as part of their role, of if 
 they were prepared to involved the wider community (as Wikipedia has done) 
 we could have a much more C21 type of activity - innovative and valuable 
 to the whole world rather than just academia. It would cost zero, but it 
 would be much cheaper than any current model.
 
 And of course we now have a complete free map of the whole world 
 (openstreetmap.org) which is so much better than other alternatives that 
 many people and organizations are switching to it. And, for many years, it 
 didn't have a bank account and existed on marginal resources from UCL 
 (and probably still does).
 
 But most people will regard this as another fairy tale.
 
 
 -- 
 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
 
 Laurent Romary
 INRIA  HUB-IDSL
 laurent.rom...@inria.fr
 
 
 
 
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
 
 
 Laurent Romary
 INRIA  HUB-IDSL
 laurent.rom...@inria.fr
 
 
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: Publications managed by scholarly communities/institutions

[Jan Velterop]

No, 27,995 still to be converted :-)

Jan

On 9 Aug 2012, at 12:05, Laurent Romary wrote:

 So you know 27,995 which are working without any private publisher in the 
 loop and no author/reader fee. 
 Laurent 
 
 Le 9 août 2012 à 11:55, Jan Velterop a écrit :
 
 It's a start. 27,995 or so to go.
 
 Jan
 
 On 9 Aug 2012, at 11:43, Laurent Romary wrote:
 
 Thanks. Are these all managed on their own?
 Laurent
 
 Le 9 août 2012 à 11:42, Bo-Christer Björk a écrit :
 
 Good idea,
 
 Here are four such journals, all of which have been there since the 1990s:
 
 Information Research
 
 Journal of Information Technology in Construction
 
 Journal of Electronic Publishing
 
 First Monday
 
 best regards
 
 Bo-Christer Björk
 
 Journal of On 8/9/12 11:35 AM, Laurent Romary wrote:
 Dear all,
 As an echo to the fourth option mentioned by Peter, I would like to 
 gather references to journals and initiatives which are notoriously 
 community based. Could members of the list point to what they would be 
 aware of? 
 Thanks in advance,
 Laurent
 
 Le 7 août 2012 à 16:11, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit :
 
 
 
 On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Sally Morris 
 sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote:
 We should not delude ourselves; journals can only be 'free' if someone 
 pays
 the costs.
 
 All the work involved in creating and running a journal has to be paid 
 for
 somehow - they don't magically go away if a journal is e-only (in fact,
 there are some new costs, even though some of the old ones disappear).
 
 I can only see three options for who pays:  reader-side (e.g. the 
 library);
 author-side (e.g. publication fees);  or 'fairy godmother' (e.g. 
 sponsor).
 
 There is a fourth option, which works: the scholarly community manage 
 publication through contributed labour and resources and the net amount 
 of cash is near-zero. This is described in 
 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/ 
 where the J. Machine Learning Research is among the highest regarded 
 journals in the area (top 7%) and free-to-authors and free-to-readers. 
 There is an enlightening debate (on this URL) between those who run the 
 journal and Kent Anderson of the Scholarly Kitchen who cannot believe 
 that people will run and work for journals for the good of the community.
 
 There is no law of physics that says this doesn't scale. It is simply 
 that most scholars would rather the taxpayer and students paid for the 
 administration publishing (either as author-side or reader-side) so the 
 scholars don't have to do the work. And they've managed ot get 10 B USD 
 per year. If scholars regarded publishing as part of their role, of if 
 they were prepared to involved the wider community (as Wikipedia has 
 done) we could have a much more C21 type of activity - innovative and 
 valuable to the whole world rather than just academia. It would cost 
 zero, but it would be much cheaper than any current model.
 
 And of course we now have a complete free map of the whole world 
 (openstreetmap.org) which is so much better than other alternatives that 
 many people and organizations are switching to it. And, for many years, 
 it didn't have a bank account and existed on marginal resources from 
 UCL (and probably still does).
 
 But most people will regard this as another fairy tale.
 
 
 -- 
 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
 
 Laurent Romary
 INRIA  HUB-IDSL
 laurent.rom...@inria.fr
 
 
 
 
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
 
 
 Laurent Romary
 INRIA  HUB-IDSL
 laurent.rom...@inria.fr
 
 
 
 ___
 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
 
 Laurent Romary
 INRIA  HUB-IDSL
 laurent.rom...@inria.fr
 
 
 

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

[GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era

[Jan Velterop]

This is an excellent model and worthy of implementing. What are our scholars 
waiting for? 

Wherever and whenever it doesn't quite come to fruition, or when the 
'champions' of such journals retire or get bored, entities that formerly might 
have been called 'publishers' could then fill the gaps with their services, 
helping academics with these things, possibly in the form of 'gold' OA journals.

Jan Velterop

On 7 Aug 2012, at 16:11, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:

 
 
 On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Sally Morris 
 sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote:
 We should not delude ourselves; journals can only be 'free' if someone pays
 the costs.
 
 All the work involved in creating and running a journal has to be paid for
 somehow - they don't magically go away if a journal is e-only (in fact,
 there are some new costs, even though some of the old ones disappear).
 
 I can only see three options for who pays:  reader-side (e.g. the library);
 author-side (e.g. publication fees);  or 'fairy godmother' (e.g. sponsor).
 
 There is a fourth option, which works: the scholarly community manage 
 publication through contributed labour and resources and the net amount of 
 cash is near-zero. This is described in 
 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/ where 
 the J. Machine Learning Research is among the highest regarded journals in 
 the area (top 7%) and free-to-authors and free-to-readers. There is an 
 enlightening debate (on this URL) between those who run the journal and Kent 
 Anderson of the Scholarly Kitchen who cannot believe that people will run and 
 work for journals for the good of the community.
 
 There is no law of physics that says this doesn't scale. It is simply that 
 most scholars would rather the taxpayer and students paid for the 
 administration publishing (either as author-side or reader-side) so the 
 scholars don't have to do the work. And they've managed ot get 10 B USD per 
 year. If scholars regarded publishing as part of their role, of if they were 
 prepared to involved the wider community (as Wikipedia has done) we could 
 have a much more C21 type of activity - innovative and valuable to the whole 
 world rather than just academia. It would cost zero, but it would be much 
 cheaper than any current model.
 
 And of course we now have a complete free map of the whole world 
 (openstreetmap.org) which is so much better than other alternatives that many 
 people and organizations are switching to it. And, for many years, it didn't 
 have a bank account and existed on marginal resources from UCL (and 
 probably still does).
 
 But most people will regard this as another fairy tale.
 
 
 -- 
 Peter Murray-Rust
 Reader in Molecular Informatics
 Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
 University of Cambridge
 CB2 1EW, UK
 +44-1223-763069
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era

[Jan Velterop]

Chris,

The nice thing about true open access articles (under a CC-BY licence) is that 
they can be printed and distributed, even for a profit (CC-BY publishers are 
not consumed by 'profit-spite'). This is not true for the so-called OA articles 
which are under a Non-Commercial licence, of course, but they are not real open 
access). 

Here lies an opportunity for enterprising minds in developing countries!

Best,

Jan

 
On 7 Aug 2012, at 17:27, Zielinski, Mr. Chris - bzv wrote:

 …and don’t forget the cost of printing, paper, glue and postage stamps in the 
 original print version, O Digerati: last time I checked, they weren’t being 
 given away for nothing. While much of the Open Access discussion only applies 
 to digital objects, these existential OA cost comparisons must include the 
 costs of paper versions as well. where there is a paper version at all,
  
 Or are we only talking about that motherless object, the online-only journal 
 (useless to many in most developing countries)?
  
 Best,
  
 Chris
  
 Chris Zielinski
 Coordinator, African Health Observartory and
 Managing Editor, African Health Monitor
 WHO Regional Office for Africa
 BP06 Cité du Djoué, Brazzaville, Congo
 Brazzaville T: +47 241 39935  M: +242-068 29 79 49  F: +47 241 39503
 Geneva: M+41 799 40 3662
 Skype: chris.zielinski1 e-mail: zielins...@afro.who.int
  
  
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
 Sally Morris
 Sent: 07 August 2012 16:00
 To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era
  
 Do you think that doesn't entail cost?
  
 The people who are doing this work 'free' (and the computer services provided 
 'free', etc) are all in reality being paid by someone to do their 'real' 
 jobs.  And, presumably, the amount of time devoted to those 'real' jobs is 
 accordingly reduced.
  
 Sally
  
  
 Sally Morris
 South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
 Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
 Email:  sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
  
  
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
 Peter Murray-Rust
 Sent: 07 August 2012 15:12
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era
 
  
 
 On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Sally Morris 
 sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote:
 We should not delude ourselves; journals can only be 'free' if someone pays
 the costs.
 
 All the work involved in creating and running a journal has to be paid for
 somehow - they don't magically go away if a journal is e-only (in fact,
 there are some new costs, even though some of the old ones disappear).
 
 I can only see three options for who pays:  reader-side (e.g. the library);
 author-side (e.g. publication fees);  or 'fairy godmother' (e.g. sponsor).
 
 There is a fourth option, which works: the scholarly community manage 
 publication through contributed labour and resources and the net amount of 
 cash is near-zero. This is described 
 inhttp://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/ 
 where the J. Machine Learning Research is among the highest regarded journals 
 in the area (top 7%) and free-to-authors and free-to-readers. There is an 
 enlightening debate (on this URL) between those who run the journal and Kent 
 Anderson of the Scholarly Kitchen who cannot believe that people will run and 
 work for journals for the good of the community.
 
 There is no law of physics that says this doesn't scale. It is simply that 
 most scholars would rather the taxpayer and students paid for the 
 administration publishing (either as author-side or reader-side) so the 
 scholars don't have to do the work. And they've managed ot get 10 B USD per 
 year. If scholars regarded publishing as part of their role, of if they were 
 prepared to involved the wider community (as Wikipedia has done) we could 
 have a much more C21 type of activity - innovative and valuable to the whole 
 world rather than just academia. It would cost zero, but it would be much 
 cheaper than any current model.
 
 And of course we now have a complete free map of the whole world 
 (openstreetmap.org) which is so much better than other alternatives that many 
 people and organizations are switching to it. And, for many years, it didn't 
 have a bank account and existed on marginal resources from UCL (and 
 probably still does).
 
 But most people will regard this as another fairy tale.
 
 
 -- 
 Peter Murray-Rust
 Reader in Molecular Informatics
 Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
 University of Cambridge
 CB2 1EW, UK
 +44-1223-763069
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: First use of the phrase open access?

[Jan Velterop]

Gary,

About half a year before the BOAI meeting in December of 2001, in the early 
summer of 2001, BioMed Central already used the term on its web site (BioMed 
Central's unshakeable commitment to open access.). And ever since. See Wayback 
Machine 9 July 2001: 
http://web.archive.org/web/20010709143907/http://www.biomedcentral.com/.

Best,

Jan Velterop


On 7 Aug 2012, at 00:29, Omega Alpha | Open Access wrote:

 Greetings. Does anyone know who/when first used the phrase open access to 
 refer to toll free publication and/or access to scholarly literature, though 
 not necessarily yet as a technical term?
 
 Could this be a candidate? I'm reading the transcript of Stevan Harnad's 
 presentation: Implementing Peer review on the Net: Scientific Quality 
 Control in Scholarly Electronic Journals in the Proceedings of the 1993 
 International Conference on Refereed Electronic Journals, 1-2 October1993. 
 Winnipeg: University of Manitoba, 1994, 8.1-8.14, and come across the 
 following excerpt:
 
 Enter anonymous ftp ('file transfer protocol'--a means of retrieving 
 electronic files interactively). The paper chase proceeds at its usual tempo 
 while an alternative means of distributing first preprints and then reprints 
 is implemented electronically. An electronic draft is stored in a 'public' 
 electronic archive at the author's institution from which anyone in the world 
 can retrieve at any time….The reader can now retrieve the paper for himself, 
 instantly, and without ever needing to bother the author, from anywhere in 
 the world where the Internet stretches--which is to say, in principle, from 
 any institution of research or higher learning where a fellow-scholar is 
 likely to be.
 
 Splendid, n'est-ce pas? The author-scholar's yearning is fulfilled: open 
 access to his work for the world peer community. The reader-scholar's needs 
 and hopes are well served: free access to the world scholarly literature (or 
 as free as a login on the Internet is to an institutionally affiliated 
 academic or researcher)…. (8.4-8.5)
 
 The use here is clearly not yet technical, and yet it has all the earmarks of 
 future application. The words access, open, and free are used 
 repeatedly in the Proceedings, but I was unable to find any the phrase open 
 access was used elsewhere.
 
 I suppose the next question would be: At what point did this informal and 
 (perhaps) coincidental use become formalized into a technical signifier?
 
 Curious and interested.
 
 Gary F. Daught
 Omega Alpha | Open Access
 http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com 
 Advocate for open access academic publishing in religion and theology
 oa.openaccess@ gmail.com | @OAopenaccess
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: (no subject)

[Jan Velterop]

On 3 Aug 2012, at 03:08, Andrew A. Adams wrote:

 
 
 Jan Velterop wrote (on the liblicense list):
 
 Indeed, we signed up to the BOAI, as did Stevan Harnad, and the
 Initiative talked about two routes to OA, which have become known as
 'gold' and 'green'. The BOAI doesn't talk about keeping a 'balance'
 between the two, if memory serves. (I tried to look it up to make
 sure, but the BOAI page at soros.org is not available anymore, perhaps
 temporarily, in any case this morning).
 
 This fetishism with the first formal statemet of OA principles and practice 
 is, I think, counterproductive.

Apart from having sexual and magical connotations, the term 'fetishism' applies 
to excessive or irrational devotion to some activity. It seems that in the 
discussion on how to achieve OA, the term might be more appropriate to use in 
relation to the advocacy of 'green' than in relation to referring to the BOAI 
principles. 

 Our understanding has improved in the more 
 than a decade since, in particular driven by over ten years of experience in 
 trying and failing to achieve (even near-)universal open access.
 
 If one thinks that the verb rubbish is appropriate to describe
 Finch's treatment of 'green', then one must surely conclude that
 rubbish is the term to be used 'a forteriori' for Harnad's treatment
 of 'gold', constantly calling people who even contemplate 'gold'
 alongside of 'green'  foolish or worse. The point of my previous post
 was that there are many roads leading to Rome. To insist on waiting
 until the OA world is 'green' before doing anything with 'gold' is
 putting dogma before pragma; waiting to open the parachute until a
 split second before hitting the ground and calling that a 'good
 thing'. Or even believing that.
 
 I do not care which route we achieve open access by. I care that we achieve 
 it. In the seven years that I have been involved in this debate I have been 
 persuaded that the Gold route is slow, costly, highly uncertain, depends on 
 actors with different interests and incentives to the authors and readers of 
 the scholarly literature. That is why I am persuaded that the way to achieve 
 open access most quickly and most certainly is via the Green Road. 
 Governments, research funders, research institutions and researchers cannot 
 dictate a shift to Gold. They can dictate and adopt a shift to Green.

It is a mistake to rely on the ability to dictate.

 THere 
 are on the order of 10,000 research instutitions and more than ten times as 
 many journals. Persudaing 10,000 institutions to adopt OA deposit mandates 
 seems to me a quicker and more certain route to obtain OA than persuading 
 100,000 journals to go Gold (and finding more money to bribe them into it, it 
 would appear - money which is going to continue to be demanded by them in 
 perpetuity, not accepted as a transitional fee - there's nothing so permanent 
 as a temporary measure).

10,000 research institutes means, in terms of Harnadian 'green', 10,000 
repositories; 100,000 journals (if there were so many; I've only ever heard 
numbers in the order of 20-25,000) does not mean 100,000 publishers. Besides, 
there is no existential reason for institutions to have a repository and 
'green' mandate. The fact that others have repositories and it doesn't have one 
itself does not harm a research institution in the same way that not having 
being 'gold' (or at least having a 'gold' option) does existentially harm 
journals in an environment of more and more 'gold' journals. 

As for costs, there are two things that seem to escape the attention of 
exclusively 'green' advocates:

1) 'Green' fully depends on the prolongation of the subscription model. Without 
subscription revenues no journals, hence no peer-reviewed articles, hence 
nothing to self-archive but manuscripts, arXiv-style. (That would be fine by 
me, actually, with post-publication peer review mechanisms overlaying 
arXiv-oids). The cost of maintaining subscriptions is completely ignored by 
exclusively 'green' advocates, who always talk about 'green' costing next to 
nothing. They are talking about the *marginal* cost of 'green', and compare it 
to the *integral* cost of 'gold'.

2) Exclusively 'green' advocates do not seem to understand that for 'gold' 
journals, publishers are not in any position to demand money. They can only 
offer their services in exchange for a fee if those who would pay the fee are 
willing to pay it. That's known as 'competition', or as a 'functioning market'. 
By its very nature, it drives down prices. This in contrast to the monopoloid 
subscription market, where the price drivers face upwards. Sure, some APC's 
increased since the early beginnings of 'gold' OA publishing, when 'gold' 
publishers found out they couldn't do it for amounts below their costs. But 
generally, the average APCs per 'gold' article are lower — much lower — than 
the average publisher revenues per subscription article. And this average 
per-article

[GOAL] Re: Reaching for the Reachable

[Jan Velterop]

 years or indefinitely.

(Reluctantly) allowing is not the same as endorsing. As for embargoes, the 
biggest mistake made in the original BOAI statement is to leave out the word 
'immediate'.

 
 9. Effective Green OA mandates (ID/OA: Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access) are 
 the ones that require immediate deposit of all articles, but if the publisher 
 has an OA embargo, access to the deposit can be set as Closed Access during 
 the allowable embargo period (preferably no more than 6 months).

Another confusing acronym introduced here, in which even OA means something 
other than Open Access. It almost appears as if confusing researchers has 
become the goal. What is needed is a dramatically simplified message: Open 
Access means that you can do anything with an article as long as you 
acknowledge the original author.

 
 10. During any embargo, the institutional repository has an automated 
 email-eprint-request button that allows users to request a copy for research 
 purposes with one click, and allows the author to comply with one click. 
 (This is not OA but Almost-OA.)

Well, why not. Almost-OA, Gold OA, Green OA, ID/OA, Gratis OA, Libre 
OA — not seeing the forest for the trees.

 
 11. The rationale for ID/OA + the Almost-OA button is to ensure that 100% of 
 papers are immediately deposited and accessible for research purposes, not 
 just the 60% that have publisher endorsement.
 
 12. The expectation is that once ID/OA is mandated globally by 100% of 
 institutions and funders, not only will it provide 60% immediate-OA plus 40% 
 Almost-OA, but it will hasten the end of OA embargoes, as the power and 
 utility of OA become evident, familiar and indispensable to all researchers, 
 as authors and users. 
 
 There are additional details about optimal mandates. (Deposit should be 
 designated the sole procedure for submitting publications for institutional 
 performance review, and funders should mandate convergent institutional 
 deposit rather than divergent institution-external deposit.) 
 
 And the further expectation is that once Gratis Green OA is mandated by 
 institutions and funders globally, it will hasten the advent of Libre OA 
 (CC-BY) and Gold OA.

This may well be the case, or it may not. In any event, it makes sense to 
prepare for the golden way to support OA. 

 
 All the frustration and complaints being vented in the recent GOAL postings 
 are with the lack of OA. But frustration will not bring OA. Only mandates 
 will. And the optimal mandate is ID/OA, even if it does not confer instant 
 global OA. 

Much of the frustration is self-inflicted by muddying the waters, where crystal 
clear water is needed.

 
 First things first. Don't let the unreachable best get in the way of the 
 reachable better. Grasp what is already within reach.
 
 Stevan Harnad
 
 
 On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
 
 
 On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
 
 
 On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:
 Stevan may well be right that the repository of the U of Liege (ORBi) 
 contains 3,620 chemistry papers. But apart from posters, most deposits of 
 articles published in peer-reviewed journals, and even theses, are marked 
 restricted access and not accessible to me, and 'libre' access seems 
 completely out of scope. So if this is the best example of a successful OA 
 repository, Peter Murray-Rust can be forgiven for getting the impression that 
 compliance is essentially zero, in terms of Open Access. 
 
 
 I am generalizing from a sample of one in Liege (ORBIS) . This says:
  
 
 Reference: Ivanova, T. et al - (2012) - Preparation and characterisation of 
 Ag incorporated Al2O3 nanocomposite films obtained by sol-gel method [ 
 handle:2268/127219 ]
 
 Document(s) requested:
 Tanya-CRT47-579.pdf - Publisher postprint
 
 The desired document is not currently available on open access. Nevertheless 
 you can request an offprint from the author(s) through the form below. If 
 your request is accepted you will receive by email a link allowing you access 
 to the document for 5 days, 5 download attempts maximum.
 
 ...
 
 The University expressly draws your attention to the fact that the electronic 
 copy can only be used for the strict purposes of illustration and teaching 
 and academic and scientific research, as long as it is not for the purposes 
 of financial gain, and that the source, including the author’s name is 
 indicated. 
 
 So If I am a small business creating science-based work I am not allowed the 
 Open Access from Liege. If I represent a patient group I am not allowed 
 this material. If I am in government making eveidence-based policy I am not 
 allowed it. It is the pernicious model that only academics need and can have 
 access to the results of scholarship.
 
 As I have said before University repositories seem to delight in the process 
 of restricting access.
 
 No wonder that no-one

[GOAL] EU Commissioner Neelie Kroes talking to Harold Varmus about OA — video

[Jan Velterop]

Of definite interest to this list:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=a90BpPb9kk8

Jan



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

[GOAL] Re: Reaching for the Reachable

[Jan Velterop]

Stevan may well be right that the repository of the U of Liege (ORBi) contains 
3,620 chemistry papers. But apart from posters, most deposits of articles 
published in peer-reviewed journals, and even theses, are marked restricted 
access and not accessible to me, and 'libre' access seems completely out of 
scope. So if this is the best example of a successful OA repository, Peter 
Murray-Rust can be forgiven for getting the impression that compliance is 
essentially zero, in terms of Open Access. 

Jan Velterop

On 13 Jul 2012, at 00:11, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
 
 *** The faculty ignore the mandates.
 
 This is the reality - Wellcome, who have the sanction of withholding grants 
 and put huge efforts into promoting, still only get 55% compliance.  
 
 You have spent  10 years trying to get effective mandates and they are 
 hardly working. The compliance in chemistry is 0%.
 
 ZERO.
 
 Really? You'll have to tell that to your colleagues at, for example, U. 
 Liege: There seem to be 3,620 chemistry papers deposited there:
 
 http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/151
 
 And that's the optimal ID/OA mandate (Liege model) that I recommended.
 
 Wellcome could raise their compliance rate to 100% if they were willing to 
 listen to advice. (Admirably [indeed pioneeringly] early in adopting an OA 
 mandate, they have nevertheless since been deaf to advice for years, 
 insisting on institution-external deposit, allowing publisher deposit, and 
 wasting scarce research money on paying for Gold OA instead of shoring up 
 their Green OA mandate.) 
 
 Other funders are listening, however, and integrating their mandates with 
 institutional mandates, to make them mutually reinforcing:
 
 Integrating Institutional and Funder Open Access Mandates: Belgian Model
 http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/864-.html
 
 How to Maximize Compliance With Funder OA Mandates: Potentiate Institutional 
 Mandates
 http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/891-.html
  
 There is no way in my or your liftetime that senior chemists will 
 self-archive. And that goes for many other disciplines. What are the VCs 
 going to do? Sack them ? they bring in grant money?
 
 No: draw their attention to the financial benefits, as Alma Swan  John 
 Houghton have been doing, for Green and Gold OA:
 http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/610/2/Modelling_Gold_Open_Access_for_institutions_-_final_draft3.pdf
 
 Yes - and probably  5% of VCs care about it. 
 
 You are right that the mandate percentage is still far too small (and the 
 effective mandate percentage is still smaller). But the benefits are large, 
 and the costs are next to nothing: just effective policy-making and 
 implementation. 
  
 My argument - or fairy story - is that nothing will happen if we continue as 
 we are. We have to get much tougher. And university mandates are seen as next 
 to useless - universities can't police them and it alienates the faculty.
 
 The attraction of the fairy story is that it's vastly simpler and quicker to 
 carry out. It even builds on the apathy of the faculty - the less they care, 
 the easier it is.
 
 I am not against green OA - I am arguing that the OA community should unite 
 and take decisive action.
 
 I'm for reality rather than fairy tales. And reaching for the reachable, now, 
 rather than fulminating about the unreachable (especially when reaching for 
 the reachable, now, is eventually likely to bring more of the unreachable 
 within reach).
 
 Stevan Harnad
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: Chemistry and the Green Door

[Jan Velterop]

If ever one needed an argument in favour of 'gold' OA, here it is.

Jan

On 13 Jul 2012, at 09:48, brent...@ulg.ac.be wrote:

 
 
 Le 13 juil. 2012 à 09:32, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk a écrit :
 
 What is the percentage of full-text ACS papers pubished by Liege which are 
 visible at time of publication?
 
 None, of course!
 Just ask for an e-print when you are in thé ORBi web site and we'll send it 
 at once. It's Green, not Gold!
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal


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

[GOAL] Re: Chemistry and the Green Door

[Jan Velterop]

So really, the only true deposited open access articles are published as 
'gold'. At least that is the impression I get from this exchange.

Jan

On 13 Jul 2012, at 10:19, Kiley, Robert wrote:

 Peter
  
 These 1059 articles were deposited via the ACS “open choice” option.
  
 There will be other ACS papers, funded by NIH authors, which are in PMC but 
 were not routed through the “open choice” route.  These papers will be made 
 available after 12 months, and will not have re-use permissions.  These 
 papers are what NIH call “public access”.
  
 By way of example this article published in Organic Letters is an NIH author 
 manuscript.   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3253247  This 
 article would NOT have been included in the 1059 figure quoted above.
 R
  
  
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
 Peter Murray-Rust
 Sent: 13 July 2012 08:57
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Chemistry and the Green Door
  
  
 
 On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Kiley, Robert r.ki...@wellcome.ac.uk wrote:
 
 Peter
 
 Just done a quick search on PMC. There are 1059 full text articles in this 
 repository
 
 this = PMC, not Liege I assume
  
 which were published by the ACS. These are also all OA -- in the sense they 
 can all be freely accessed and reused for non commercial use.
 
 Was this through APC / or US waiver (Gold/hybrid);  or self-archiving Green?
 
 And, as you are aware, from early 2013 Wellcome will be requiring that when 
 we fund an APC that article must be published under the CC-BY licence.
 
 Absolutely - and I support you 110% and I know that author compliance is 
 awful and I know you (and I) are angry about this and that we need measures 
 to detect non-compliance. I am keen to help provide tools that will detect 
 non-compliance because without drastic action (which you and I support) it 
 will continue.
 
 P.
 
 
 
 -- 
 Peter Murray-Rust
 Reader in Molecular Informatics
 Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
 University of Cambridge
 CB2 1EW, UK
 +44-1223-763069
 
 
 This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: Chemistry and the Green Door

[Jan Velterop]

In order to remove ambiguity from the discussion, I think we should make clear 
that:

1) it is about Open Access, not about deposit in repositories per se (though 
such deposit can well be one of the routes to open access as already 
established in Budapest over a decade ago)
2) any repositories worthy of being classified Open Access repositories must 
make their contents fully open, to human eyes and to computers, and enable 
comprehensive indexing by any search engine. 

As for 1), I'm afraid that 'green' has been watered down so much as to be 
practically useless in terms of open access, when it may be possible to get an 
article, as long as one waits a year (or when lucky, half a year), one can only 
see metadata and has to jump through hoops to ask the author for a copy (this 
was always possible, and doesn't constitute open access), and one has to forget 
about re-use or data mining.
As for 2), we must realise that researchers won't turn to repositories to 
search the literature. They use search engines. So the relevant contents of 
repositories must be prominently visible in the search results of search 
engines. 

If articles in repositories cannot be easily found and used and re-used in a 
way that can reasonably be expected from true open access material, the 
exercise is useless, from a user's perspective.

Jan


On 13 Jul 2012, at 13:58, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:

 The discussion presently going on is divisive and not useful. Both Gold and 
 Green are useful. Every little bit helps. Everybody is doing as well as 
 he/she can, and we all know it is not enough. Let us at least trust each 
 others' motives, please.
 
 Let us, therefore, go back to the basic idea of Peter, regarding the 
 possibility of convening a high-level group of administrators of universities 
 and research institutions. I would add high-level people from granting 
 agencies; researchers should also be involved, especially those who, like 
 Stuart Shieber, have managed getting faculty-initiated mandates. Such a 
 meeting has never been done before. The BIOAI10 meeting in Budapest last 
 February focused on broad strategies rather than concrete strategic moves.
 
 Stevan has mentioned the group Enabling Open Scholarship led by Bernard 
 Rentier. First, Bernard is the perfect person to start the move toward a 
 meeting of the kind suggested by Peter by virtue of his institutional 
 standing. Perhaps this group is the right anchor for such a move. How can we 
 join this group, or how can we work with it? We hear about it episodically, 
 but nothing much seems to have come out of it so far. Would this not be the 
 best occasion to really get this organization off the ground?
 
 The goal: convene a limited but high-power group of administrators and 
 researchers to develop a policy aiming at effective, immediate implementation 
 of the green road, and do so in a unified manner. The implementation details 
 should constitute a major part of this meeting: we seem to know broadly what 
 we want, but we have not yet fully agreed on the the means to make it 100% 
 effective. If researchers are evaluated only from what is in repositories, 
 they will deposit. Now, why are so few institutions ready to implement such a 
 policy? Are funders of research really ready to apply similar rules to the 
 evaluation of applicants? Questions like these should be at the centre of 
 this meeting.
 
 The green road will have succeeded when researchers spontaneously turn to 
 repositories to search the literature. We are very far from this and mandates 
 are only one step in the right direction. The goal of this meeting is to 
 build decisive momentum.
 
 Anyone on board?
 
 Jean-Claude
 
 
 
 Le vendredi 13 juillet 2012 à 10:00 +0200, Jan Velterop a écrit :
 
 If ever one needed an argument in favour of 'gold' OA, here it is.
 
 Jan
 
 On 13 Jul 2012, at 09:48, brent...@ulg.ac.be wrote:
 
  
  
  Le 13 juil. 2012 à 09:32, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk a écrit :
  
  What is the percentage of full-text ACS papers pubished by Liege which 
  are visible at time of publication?
  
  None, of course!
  Just ask for an e-print when you are in thé ORBi web site and we'll send 
  it at once. It's Green, not Gold!
  
  ___
  GOAL mailing list
  GOAL@eprints.org
  http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
 
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: Becoming Unglued ... a rejoinder ...

[Jan Velterop]

Dana,

All these things — including flipping through pages, making notes, looking up 
references, multiple books open — are possible if the books are in PDF (and 
you're using a suitable PDF reader, such as Utopia Documents for instance). On 
a single laptop; I'm doing it all the time. What your undergrads may need is 
not a paper book, but some computer training.

The only thing missing is the smell of a book. Which is indeed a drawback of 
electronic literature. 

Best,

Jan Velterop

On 1 Jul 2012, at 23:49, Dana Roth wrote:

 In regards e-books in the sciences and engineering ...
 
 
 This from one of our undergrads … who didn’t want an e-book …
 ---
 
 It is mostly personal preference that I prefer paper copies -
 
  *   I like being able to quickly flip through pages (especially with math 
 books) to refer back to equations/concepts, while I'm not tech-savvy enough 
 to open two pages in a e-publication.
  *   Similar concept - having multiple books open and available is useful
  *   Being able to look up references online in books
  *   I take notes on my computer, so if I have an e-publication up, I can't 
 take notes
 I suppose I'm just old fashioned. I realize now that this is not so much 
 anti-epublication as not enough e-readers to look at several of these 
 e-pubs simultaneously.
 
 
 
 
 Dana L. Roth
 Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
 dzr...@library.caltech.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
 http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm
 
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Eric 
 F. Van de Velde [eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 6:35 PM
 To: goal@eprints.org
 Subject: [GOAL] Becoming Unglued...
 
 I posted my latest blog a couple of days ago. It is slightly off-topic for 
 this list in that it is about books, not journals. However, it is 100% about 
 open access and an innovative way of getting around long copyright terms. Who 
 knows, it can be translated to journals...
 
 On Becoming Unglued...
 On June 20th, the e-book world changed: One innovation cut through the fog of 
 the discussions on copyright, digital rights management (DRM), and various 
 other real and perceived problems of digital books. It did not take a 
 revolution, angry protests, lobbying of politicians, or changes in copyright 
 law. All it took was a simple idea, and the talent and determination to 
 implement it.
 
 
 http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2012/06/on-becoming-unglued.html
 
 
 --Eric.
 
 http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
 
 Google Voice: (626) 898-5415
 Telephone:  (626) 376-5415
 Skype: efvandevelde -- Twitter: @evdvelde
 E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.commailto:eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com
 
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal


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

[GOAL] Re: Agreement on Green OA not needed from publishers but from institutions and funders

[Jan Velterop]

Jean-Claude,

It is easy to accept that scientific communication is not an activity that is 
easily reconciled with commerce, share holders, and profit. Even though it 
evidently has been reconciled for a very long time, in the print era, before 
the internet and the web became available. In this day and age publishing is 
not about scientific communication anymore (though some traditionalist 
publishers may disagree). It is a peer-review organisation service combined 
with a career-enhancing service. And that can be reconciled with commerce, as 
it is a service governed by the forces of competition.

The communication itself can – and does – easily take place without the help of 
publishers nowadays. Although this is not yet universally the case, it easily 
can be. Posting one's research results on the web, ArXiv-like, is a possibility 
open to us all. At very little or no cost. The savings relative to the current 
system of involving journals would be phenomenal: 
http://theparachute.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/holy-cow-peer-review.html 

So what is happening? An analogy: Researchers can easily take the very short 
walk to their destination, but insist on taking a taxi, on the institution's 
account, and the institution then complains about the fact that the driver 
wants to be paid. But we need the taxi, the researchers maintain, because we 
have our finest clothes on and it might rain. So despite appearances, the 
service the taxi delivers is not one of transportation, but one of protecting 
researchers against the risk of spoiling their clothes. An umbrella might do 
the same.

Back to scholarly reality. We use journals not for conveying the information, 
but for protecting scientific reputations and for fostering career prospects. 
That's fine, but doing that using a system of subscriptions provides perverse 
incentives. To keep subscriptions alive in order to sap them until they die and 
only then build up a 'pay for a service' system is one way to change the 
system, possibly, but what I like about the Finch report (and yes, it has its 
flaws; a lot is written about that elsewhere) is its radical choice for a 
complete change of the system, and tie payment to services requested. The 
report is grossly pessimistic about the cost implications, and even about the 
difficulties of a transition and there are other flaws. But its radicalism is 
to be welcomed, as it gives support to already existing initiatives like PLoS 
One and to new ones like PeerJ. Similar initiatives will spring up in 
increasing numbers, and the Finch report can only be seen as encouraging for 
those forces of real progress. The fact that traditionalist publishers have 
also welcomed the Finch report (though on the wrong grounds, I think, and they 
will come a cropper) is no reason to denounce it. Hanging on to the old 
(subscriptions) in order to achieve the new (open access) may have been 
considered a suitable strategy ten years ago, but what it delivers is at best a 
form of open access that's likely to be merely 'ocular access' and of limited 
use to modern science, in contrast to the benefits that come with a radical 
change to full open access (no rights limitations, commercial or technical), 
not just to the equivalent of text on paper, but to all the potential that can 
be released from text, tables, graphs and images in electronic format.

Meanwhile, ArXiv-like self-publishing seems to me a good thing. Anything more 
that is needed or desired can be obtained from entities now commonly referred 
to as 'publishers' (even though in reality their role is a different one).

Jan Velterop


On 20 Jun 2012, at 17:05, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:

 It is not a question of hating publishers; it is a question of placing them 
 in their rightful place. David Prosser, very aptly, defined publishers as a 
 service industry. This is excellent. Let publishers behave like a service 
 industry, while recognizing that other kinds of actors and financial schemes 
 may render the same services as well, or even better, than they do.
 
 Researchers value journals only because evaluation techniques in the 
 universities narrowly rely on scientometric techniques that are themselves 
 based on journals (and were designed to evaluate journals, not researchers). 
 They have little choice in the matter. However, managers of research 
 institutions, in particular universities, would do well to study how their 
 evaluation procedures relate to the high prices libraries pay for 
 subscriptions, and how poorly they relate to the quality of their researchers.
 
 As for what is added to research articles, it is done by peers or by 
 editors (and both categories qualify as researchers). Style, clarity, layout 
 are valuable additions, but this is secondary: researchers want access to 
 content; they will gladly accept and even encourage good style, clarity, 
 etc., but content is what they want.
 
 Finally, if publishers were really trying only to make scientific

[GOAL] Re: Finch Report - commentary

[Jan Velterop]

Marcin Wojnarski has just added some comments to the PDF of the Finch Report 
(at 'executive summary' in the full version) via Utopia Documents. He asked me: 
Why don't you send info to GOAL list about this possibility? I think many 
people might be interested, as it's a very convenient way to share comments - 
and to put all one's comments in a single place.

So here it is: If you open the PDF of the report in Utopia Documents, you can 
comment on any portion of the text and submit them. There is no need for the 
comments or for the PDF to be sent around. It's just like magic, though the 
magic trick in this case is that the comments are being held, with information 
on what in the PDF is commented on, and separately from the PDF, which is not 
being held, on the Utopia Documents server and then shown, on the fly, if the 
PDF is opened with Utopia Documents.

You can add your own comments, of course. Utopia Documents is free and 
available, for Mac and Windows (an older Linux version is available and a new 
one is expected this summer) from http://utopiadocs.com

Jan Velterop

On 20 Jun 2012, at 12:43, Marcin Wojnarski wrote:

 Below is my comment posted originally on Cameron Neylon's blog. Can be of 
 interest for GOAL.
 
 On publicity front the Finch Report is a good news, as it restates that Open 
 Access is the way to go.
 On the more important policy-making front, it's a complete failure and more 
 of a harm than an aid in establishing universal OA. Being the govt, I'd throw 
 away this entire report and start again from scratch, but with renowned OA 
 expert as a leader of the group and no publishers on the board (let them 
 write a separate report if they wish). My general feeling is that Dame Janet 
 Finch either didn't withstand the big pressure of corporate interests; or she 
 completely misunderstood the aim of the study and her role as a chair.
 
 The report contains very few quantitative facts - especially when it comes to 
 drafting conclusions for the policy - but lots of gobbledygook, doubletalk 
 and publishers' marketing stuff aimed at obstructing OA. Even worse, it 
 doesn't deliver on its essential and most important promise: to give policy 
 guidelines for govt on how to make OA into mainstream. Instead, it provides a 
 long list of Key actions (see Executive Summary) which are a 
 perfect example of buzzword-compliant non-speak: 
 Make a clear commitment, Put in place arrangements, Keep under review, 
 Renew efforts to sustain and enhance, Establish effective and flexible 
 mechanisms, Provide clear information, continue to develop, consider, 
 discuss, extend, ensure, rationalise, examine, find ways, support, ... and do 
 it carefully and in consultation! - that's a brief but complete summary 
 of what Dame Finch recommends to the government.
 
 I think they should withdraw her remuneration, because she simply didn't do 
 her job. And then make a new study, hopefully more insightful than this one.
 
 
 Besides this report being incomplete and sloppy, it also poses a serious 
 threat to OA policy-making, because up to now it is the most formalized and 
 authoritative voice of scientific community and thus the government can't 
 just ignore it. The OA community should make a very clear and unambiguous 
 statement addressed to the govt saying that this report is bad, 
 non-actionable in terms of policy making, and doesn't have acceptance of the 
 community.
 
 BTW, note a funny thing: Dame Finch doesn't provide any clear plan of what 
 has to be done, but she knows (!) that this will cost £50-60M. How can it be?!
 
 
 Marcin Wojnarski
 
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: Why should publishers agree to Green OA?

[Jan Velterop]

The mistake authors make is to 'pay' publishers for their services by 
transferring copyright. They should pay with money and get open access. Full 
open access, CC-BY. 

The reason why they pay is that they want services. Let's call those services 
'formal publishing'. They don't need those services for the sake of 
distributing their papers. They can do that for free, in a repository, say, and 
with open access without any cost or hindrance. It's the way ArXiv works. 

But authors want/need more. They want formal publications, in a journal. So 
they 'buy' the services of a publisher to formalise their papers, with peer 
review and a journal 'badge'. The value of the 'badge' is often expressed as 
impact factor. 

Once the copyright has been transferred to the publisher, that publisher *is* a 
legitimate party in the discussion. 

So the solution is: don't ask a publisher (or anyone) for a service if you 
don't want to pay. And if you want a service and are prepared to pay, don't pay 
by transferring copyright, but just with plain old money. 

Jan Velterop

Sent from Jan Velterop's iPhone. Please excuse for brevity and typos. 

On 20 Jun 2012, at 14:29, Andrew A. Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp wrote:

 
 Alicia,
 
 What on earth business is it of Elsevier what the arrangements I have with my 
 funding body or university? You are seriously overreaching in your arrogance 
 to presume to interfere. You either give me (i.e. all authors) the right to 
 make a green deposit or you don't. This overweening attitude of the academic 
 publishers - an intermediary and no more - in the field of scholarly 
 communications starts to beggar belief. I will not abide by any such 
 ridiculous terms or caveats regarding my relations with third parties, nor do 
 I advise anyone else to pay any attention whatsoever to this unbelievable FUD.
 
 
 -- 
 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

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

[GOAL] Re: Agreement on Green OA not needed from publishers but from institutions and funders

[Jan Velterop]

On 20 Jun 2012, at 16:21, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 On 2012-06-20, at 10:30 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:
 
 The mistake authors make is to 'pay' publishers for their services
 by transferring copyright.
 
 Publishers are paid, in full, by institutional subscriptions. 

What does 'in full' mean here?

 
 They should pay with money and get open access.
 
 Publication is being paid for already.

What is being paid is enough to pay for publication, I agree. But it's not paid 
for publication, it's paid for access. That's precisely the problem. 

 All that's needed for 
 OA (Green) is mandates (and keystrokes).
 
 Full open access, CC-BY. 
 
 Green, Gratis OA (free online access) is full OA.
 
 Insisting on CC-BY today is premature, and a red herring now, 
 when we are still so far from just plain vanilla free online access.

Well, the BOAI in 2000 described OA in such a way that CC-BY is the licence 
that best covers the intention then expressed. Plain vanilla access is solving 
yesterday's problem. Sometimes one has to leapfrog and anticipate the future. 
CC-BY allows that. OA as simply 'ocular access' doesn't. I'm referring to text 
mining and re-use rights, or rather the lack of it in plain vanilla, before you 
ask.

 
 The reason why they pay is that they want services.
 Let's call those services 'formal publishing'.
 They don't need those services for the sake of distributing their papers.
 They can do that for free, in a repository, say, and with open access
 without any cost or hindrance. It's the way ArXiv works. 
 
 It's the way Green OA works.

As long as 'green' means manuscripts, yes. If 'green' means the published paper 
for which the copyright has been transferred, no. A mandate should make 
abundantly clear that under no circumstances copyright should be transferred to 
a publisher. Copyright transfer is a contract. 'Green' mandates rule out 
copyright transfer. Legally and practically. Researchers shouldn't be enticed 
into legal conflict zones with false assertions that they can transfer legal 
rights and then ignore the fact that they have transferred them. They should 
not transfer them and be advised accordingly. Admitting the problem is the 
first step to a solution. 

 
 And the only service authors need is peer review, which
 peers provide for free, and publishers manage for a fee.
 And that fee is being paid in full by subscriptions today.

No. Subscriptions pay for access. The fee should be paid for the service 
rendered, which is the organisation of peer review and formal publication. 
Conflating the two is the main cause of misunderstanding and conflict. Mandates 
would be an awful lot clearer if the argument that the publication fee is paid 
in full by subscriptions were to be dropped from the equation. 'Green' 
mandates are about making research results open, and costs nothing; publishing, 
including OA publishing, is about giving those research results 'value' and 
'context' in the scholarly ego-system, and carries a cost, because it involves 
asking people (publishers) to arrange something, professionally, and those 
people need to be paid.

 
 But authors want/need more. They want formal publications, in a journal.
 So they 'buy' the services of a publisher to formalise their papers, with
 peer review and a journal 'badge'. The value of the 'badge' is often 
 expressed
 as impact factor. 
 
 See above. The rest is just formal verbiage. Authors want peer review, and
 that's being fully paid for today by subscriptions.

See above.

 
 So what is missing today is Green OA. And that's what mandates are for.
 
 Once the copyright has been transferred to the publisher, that publisher
 *is* a legitimate party in the discussion. 
 
 Along with premature insistence on CC-BY, redirecting the agenda from
 Green OA to copyright reform is again a red herring -- one that has been
 a very successful distractor and retardant for years now.

CC-BY is not copyright reform. It's using existing copyright effectively, and 
not as a proxy for payment to publishers, that subsequently makes it possible - 
and necessary - to sell subscriptions.

 
 But that's behind us. We are discussing immediate deposit mandates
 here, not the length of embargo periods.

I'm not discussing the length of embargo periods, either. In fact, I don't like 
them at all. 'Gold' OA doesn't need them.

 
 No publisher agreement is needed by an institution or a funder either for 
 adopting an immediate-deposit (ID/OA) mandate or for adopting a maximum 
 allowable OA embargo-length.


 
 So the solution is: don't ask a publisher (or anyone) for a service if you 
 don't want to pay.
 
 To repeat, the service of managing peer review is paid for, many times over, 
 by
 subscriptions today.

See above.

 
 If and when Green OA makes subscriptions unsustainable, we can discuss
 paying for peer review as a Gold OA fee, out of the subscription cancelation
 savings -- but not before, or instead.

Indeed, nobody should even have been thinking

[GOAL] Re: [BOAI10] Re: Elsevier's query re: positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized

[Jan Velterop]

On 15 May 2012, at 19:57, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:

  Universities will never collaborate (third law)


So there you have it, the Third Law of Acadynamics. Anybody surprised that
private enterprise has stepped into the breach?

Another reason why I think that gold CC-BY will win out. PLoS-like, eLife-like,
BMC-like, PeerJ-like outfits will prevail, and deliver, with the help of funding
bodies, what the scientific community needs.

A bit of historical information: the BigDeal, as started in the UK, was
originally conceived as a nation-wide deal, top-sliced, with every university
and every institution having access to everything that was published. It worked
like that for 4 years in the UK, in partnership with HEFCE and covering the
material that Academic Press published, and then it fell apart, because
universities didn't like the top-slicing, in spite of the fact that a national
deal came out cheaper in the aggregate, was easier to contain in terms of price
increases (negotiating clout), gave access to every scholar and student, could
easily evolve into nation-wide access for which no institutional affiliation was
needed at all, and could be rolled out to encompass the material of other
publishers.  However, it was thwarted by the Third Law of Acadynamics. With all
the consequences we have to live with now.

The fight for OA is not really one against publishers at all; it is chiefly one
against academic inertia. Open access will write libraries out of the equation
(what's the point of 'library collections' in an OA web world?), and also
institutions. It will be funders who will make OA reality. Funders private and
public, who finance the whole scientific enterprise and who realise that OA
publishing is part and parcel of doing science itself and therefore of the cost
of science.

At that point universities don't need to collaborate any longer, and the Third
Law of Acadynamics will have lost validity in matters relating to scientific
literature.

Jan






[ Part 2: Attached Text ]

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

[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

[Jan Velterop]

Alicia,

Some publishers are often criticised, you're right, and I agree that they 
shouldn't be for just being an established scholarly publisher. And I don't 
think they are as often as you perhaps assume. It is the policies and business 
models that are criticised rather than the publishers per se. And you may have 
noticed that the scientific community is often criticised as well, for moaning 
and then doing what is not consistent with what they are moaning about, to put 
it crudely.

I think that if a publisher, Elsevier, say, were to make all the journal 
material available with delayed open access (CC-BY, fully re-usable and 
mine-able) after a reasonable embargo period of a year (possibly 2 years in 
certain slow-moving areas), that publisher might lose a few reprint sales, but 
gain a fair amount of kudos as well. Of course it isn't the same as immediate 
OA, but it would be an important step in the right direction. Would you 
consider advising your corporate masters to do just that?

Anyway, there will be plenty of other steps in the right direction one can 
think of, but this is the one that springs to mind immediately.

It really is the policies, not the publisher per se, though you will agree with 
me that it is perhaps understandable that some specific policies are commonly 
identified with specific publishers, and it is the publishers who make the 
policies, of course.

Best,

Jan


On 11 May 2012, at 10:55, David Prosser wrote:

 Hi Alica
 
 There are a number of good examples.
 
 In gold OA we have the example of PLoS, BMC, Hindawi, and hundreds of other 
 publishers who are showing the OA gold is a sustainable model.
 
 In hybrid, we have publishers such as Springer who a) make obvious papers 
 where the author has paid a publication fee to make the paper OA and b) 
 publish the OA papers as CC-BY rather than retaining restrictive copyright 
 licenses.  (On the flip side we have examples of publishers who have taken 
 payment under hybrid models and then have had to be chased to make the papers 
 freely available - those publishers really need to get their processes in 
 order).
 
 In green, we have many, many good examples of clear and unrestrictive 
 policies that allow authors to self-archive.  Particularly un-welcome are 
 those publishers who put in place complex restrictions, or whose policies 
 place authors in conflict with funder or institutional mandates.
 
 I think we have wonderful examples of a wide range of publishers who have 
 embraced open access (in both its forms) and I don't believe that many of us 
 feel that publishers are exclusively a negative force in open access.  Of 
 course, some specific publishers have tried to be a negative force - those 
 that hire expensive PR lobbyists and paint open access as 'junk science' for 
 example.  But thankfully such publishers are few and far between.
 
 Best wishes
 
 David
 
 
 
 
 On 11 May 2012, at 10:19, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote:
 
 Hi all,
  
 I’m glad we’re now moving our conversation on in new directions, and I’ld 
 like to suggest one which I hope will be productive.  The discussion on this 
 list often seems to me be based on the assumption that scholarly publishers 
 are a wholly negative force in the open access world, and a community to be 
 avoided/undermined/mistrusted at all costs.  This feels unwarranted to me – 
 and perhaps other publishers on this list who are not so audacious as to 
 stick their heads over the parapet.  So, knowing that positive messages are 
 powerful ways to influence:  what positive things are established scholarly 
 publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and 
 future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, 
 recognized?   
  
 With kind wishes,
  
 Alicia
  
  
 Dr Alicia Wise
 Director of Universal Access
 Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB
 P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com I
 Twitter: @wisealic
  
  
  
  
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf 
 Of CHARLES OPPENHEIM
 Sent: 11 May 2012 09:27
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] UK Defamation Bill and OA
  
 This has just been published - see 
 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0005/13005.pdf.
   Clause 6 gives special protection against defamation actions to peer 
 reviewed scholarly articles (the first time peer review has figured in a 
 piece of legislation??). This is something that scholarly publishers will no 
 doubt pick up on as an argument against unrefereed green OA.
  
 Charles
 
 Professor Charles Oppenheim
 
  
  
 Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, 
 Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 
 (England and Wales).
 
 ATT1..txt
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 

[GOAL] Re: Meaning of Open Access

[Jan Velterop]

I might be convinced by his core argument, and quite possibly other people on
this list as well, if Stevan cum suis could come up with credible evidence that
in order to get universities and funders to mandate deposit in what they call
OA-repositories requires watering down OA and not sticking to what OA was meant
to be according to the BOAI. 
Why would potentially mandating organisations be more likely to mandate OA if it
were watered-down to 'gratis' OA instead of BOAI-compliant OA? What are the
dangers averted or the gains won by watering down OA from how it was defined in
the BOAI? If institutions and funders go through the trouble of mandating, would
they really knowingly settle for second best?

Of course, any access is better than no access, but by that reckoning striving
for what has been called 'delayed OA', opening up the literature after a few
years or so, is quite likely the strategy with the best chance of quick success.
I haven't seen the notion of immediacy feature in this discussion, so Stevan
c.s. may not find it important, and because it isn't mentioned in the BOAI
either (it became prominent in the later Bethesda Statement on OA –
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm), that may be a route to go with
more chance of speedy success than the current mandate strategy.

And if delayed OA is then full OA, including the re-use rights mentioned in the
BOAI, then that might even be the better solution. (Those re-use right were
formulated as follows: free availability on the public internet, permitting any
users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full
texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software,
or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical
barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet
itself.)

Having a watered-down form of 'open' with regard to access (relative to the
BOAI, for most of us the real starting point of serious OA), gives us a
scientific information landscape where everybody can start digging for
knowledge, anywhere, but that remains closed for any larger-scale analyses (if
we're taking the landscape metaphor, aerial surveys and the like) unless
permission has been obtained, which is perhaps on offer, but likely to be
obtainable only by negotiation, publisher by publisher, and therefore
unworkable.

Jan 


On 10 May 2012, at 07:59, Richard Poynder wrote:

  So what is really at issue is whether Green Gratis OA is indeed not
  meaningful enough to warrant lowering  the  bar in order to
  mandate it.

  According to Jan, it is not.

  According to me, it most definitely is: in fact, it is the first and
  foremost reason for providing OA at all.

  What do other GOAL and JISC readers think?



  There are times when the best that can be achieved is that people
  agree to
  disagree. I think this is one of those times.

  Richard Poynder


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






[ Part 2: Attached Text ]

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

[GOAL] Re: Meaning of Open Access

[Jan Velterop]

The real issue is to do with usage rights. Can any article that is presented as 
being OA just be read with human eyes, or also be re-used and used for 
text-mining? The answer in my view should be 'yes', re-use and text-mining, 
too, whether the article is in a repository, a personal web site, or a 
publisher's site.

There may be technical issues to overcome, but there is scant reason to 
overcome those for so-called OA articles if text-mining is not allowed. By the 
way, a format converter to assist text-mining can be found here: 
http://pdfx.cs.man.ac.uk . The web version works on individual articles, but I 
gather that batch processing (of the content of a repository, say) is possible, 
albeit at a very small fee per article. But these kind of tools don't make 
articles BOAI-compliant OA; if articles are not, permission must still be 
sought. I can understand those who regard OA pretty much useless without the 
rights to re-use and text-mine.

Jan


On 9 May 2012, at 13:28, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:

 
 
 On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
 A provisional definition, of a new possibility and vision,
 crafted by a team of well-meaning but not omniscient
 visionaries at the time -- and since  updated in keeping 
 with reality and practical experience.
 
 http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/442-guid.html
 
 
 This states: 
 Because there are many different permission barriers to remove, there many 
 different degrees or kinds of libre OA.  Gratis OA is just one thing, but 
 libre OA is a range of things.  
 Where can I find definitions or examples of Libre OA? Without those it is 
 effectively meaningless.
 
 P.
 
 
 
 -- 
 Peter Murray-Rust
 Reader in Molecular Informatics
 Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
 University of Cambridge
 CB2 1EW, UK
 +44-1223-763069
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: [BOAI] Meaning of Open Access

[Jan Velterop]

Jeffrey,

All research articles in BMC journals are OA, BOAI-compliant CC-BY. A few 
journals (six of them, to be precise, http://arthritis-research.com/ , 
http://breast-cancer-research.com/, http://ccforum.com/ 
,http://genomebiology.com/ , http://genomemedicine.com/ ,  and 
http://stemcellres.com/ ) contain non-research articles, e.g. commissioned 
Reviews, Commentaries, Meeting reports, Viewpoints, and those articles – only 
those – are subject to a subscription charge.

Jan


On 9 May 2012, at 15:10, Beall, Jeffrey wrote:

 Jan:
  
 Not all articles in the Biomed Central journals are open access; some require 
 a subscription.
  
 An example is BMC's Genome Biology http://genomebiology.com/content/13/4  
 which is a hybrid journal with both toll access and open access articles.  
  
  
 Jeffrey Beall, Metadata Librarian / Assistant Professor
 Auraria Library
 University of Colorado Denver
 1100 Lawrence St.
 Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
 (303) 556-5936
 jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu
  
 image001.jpg
  
  
  
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
 Jan Velterop
 Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 6:24 AM
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Cc: boai-fo...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: [BOAI] Meaning of Open Access
  
 Andras,
  
 Whether Open Access relates to an individual article or to a whole journal 
 depends on whether the journal calls itself an OA journal or whether the OA 
 label is just attached to a few individual articles. Among the best examples 
 we have are PLoS and BMC journals, all the articles in which are covered by a 
 CC-BY licence, meaning they are full, BOAI-compliant Open Access, and you can 
 do pretty much anything with them, including redistribute the whole journal, 
 and converting articles into different formats, as long as you properly 
 acknowledge the original author(s) whenever possible.
  
 Depending on the reason why you text-mine, of course, the value of 
 text-mining increases, on the whole, with the size of the body of literature 
 that you can text-mine. A whole journal is better than a single article, but 
 a large amount of articles from different journals on the same topic is 
 better still.
  
 The BOAI definition of Open Access allows text-mining. The appropriate 
 licence covering BOAI-compliant Open Access is CC-BY.
  
 Jan
  
  
 On 9 May 2012, at 12:34, Andras Holl wrote:
 
 
 Dear All, 
 
 The thing whether Open Access relates to an individual article 
 or a whole journal is not clear. Does libre OA mean that anyone 
 is free to redistribute the whole journal, or only one, a few article? 
 Text mining rights are meaningful only for the whole journal. 
 My opinion that they should be granted - the problem I have 
 is not with the rights. It is with the practice. The OA journal 
 I manage has every article available in several formats - LaTeX, PS. PDF, 
 HTML - 
 some of these are generated on-the-fly, some static. Indiscriminate 
 harvesting is a prolem for me. What I would like to have is 
 some method, which is a mix of robots.txt and htaccess, 
 maybe with a touch of legal content about the scope of 
 possible use of harvested content. 
 
 So, in my opinion, the real worls situation is even more complex 
 than either gratis or libre. There are many flavors of OA, and 
 I do not think that sticking to the bOAI definition would do much good. 
 
 Andras Holl 
 
 On Wed, 9 May 2012 06:37:55 -0400, Stevan Harnad wrote 
  ** Cross-Posted ** 
  
  On 2012-05-09, at 4:12 AM, Jan Velterop wrote: 
 
 
  I would favour doing away with both the terms 'libre OA' and 'gratis OA'.
 
  Open Access suffices. It's the 'open' that says it all. Especially if it is 
  made
 
  clear that OA means BOAI-compliant OA in the context of scholarly
 
  research literature.
 
  
  I don't doubt that Jan would like to do away with the terms libre and 
  gratis OA.  
  He has been arguing all along that free online access is not open access, 
  ever since 2003 on the American Scientist Open Access Forum: 
  
  http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#msg6478 
  
  This would mean that my subversive proposal of 1994 was not really a  
  proposal for open access  and that the existing open access mandates  
  and policies of funders and institutions worldwide are not really open 
  access  
  mandates or policies. 
  http://roarmap.eprints.org/ 
  
  It is in large part for this reason that in 2008 Peter Suber and I proposed 
   
  the terms gratis and libre open access to ensure that the term 
  open access retained its meaning, and to make explicit the two  
  distinct conditions involved: free online access (gratis OA) and 
  certain re-use rights (libre OA): 
  
  http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/strong-and-weak-oa.html 
  
  For Peter Murray-Rust's crusade for journal article text-mining rights, 
  apart from reiterating my full agreement that these are highly important 
  and highly desirable

[GOAL] Re: [BOAI] Meaning of Open Access

[Jan Velterop]

In the BOAI, the content to which OA should apply is described as follows:
The literature that should be freely accessible online is that which scholars 
give to the world without expectation of payment. Primarily, this category 
encompasses their peer-reviewed journal articles, but it also includes any 
unreviewed preprints that they might wish to put online for comment or to alert 
colleagues to important research findings.

This is a handy page to keep at hand and to refer to: 
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm (unfortunately, the BOAI site 
itself, http://www.soros.org/openaccess, is often exceedingly slow and 
therefore difficult to consult if you don't have a lot of time).

Jan

On 9 May 2012, at 16:48, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:

 
 
 On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:
 Jeffrey,
 
 All research articles in BMC journals are OA, BOAI-compliant CC-BY. A few 
 journals (six of them, to be precise, http://arthritis-research.com/ , 
 http://breast-cancer-research.com/, http://ccforum.com/ 
 ,http://genomebiology.com/ , http://genomemedicine.com/ ,  and 
 http://stemcellres.com/ ) contain non-research articles, e.g. commissioned 
 Reviews, Commentaries, Meeting reports, Viewpoints, and those articles – only 
 those – are subject to a subscription charge.
 
 Jan
 
 
 Thanks both of you,
 This is a good illustration that Open Content Mining does not necessarily all 
 of the lierature to be fully CC-BY. It requires clear labelling of the subset 
 that is BOAI-compliant. There is enough material - I believe - in BMC and 
 PLoS papers to develop some useful science. And the toll-access journals will 
 miss out on the citations. 
 
 This is the problem with UK/PMC (as Casey Bergman and others have pointed 
 out) - it is difficult to find the content that is minable other than BMC and 
 PLoS.
 
 P.
 
 -- 
 Peter Murray-Rust
 Reader in Molecular Informatics
 Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
 University of Cambridge
 CB2 1EW, UK
 +44-1223-763069
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[GOAL] Re: Open data

[Jan Velterop]

On 9 May 2012, at 00:53, Andrew A. Adams wrote:

 Jan Velterop wrote:
 The trouble with focussing on 'green', rather than on full
 BOAI-compliant OA for research literature, is that it has become an a
 priori concession and an end in itself. That only confuses matters (as
 do ill-defined labels such as 'gratis' and 'libre'). 
 
 We should insist on BOAI-compliant OA (CC-BY or CC-0) for all research
 articles, including for self-archived articles. And if anything, we
 should insist on institutional repositories to actually be searchable
 and accessible also for text mining. Human-readable OA is a conditio
 sine qua non, but it is not sufficient for modern science.
 
 The trouble with focussing on this high level

So you're saying that the OA definition in the BOAI is too high level?

 is that there isn't agreement 
 amongst scientists that this is what is needed

Really? What do scientists agree on then?

 , and on exactly what the 
 limits of this are. Indeed, opening up one's data can involve significantly 
 more work for the scientist/scholar.

Who is talking about opening up one's data? That may be desirable in its own 
right, but it is not part of BOAI-compliant OA. Any data in this context is 
just data as published in articles (and therefore potentially mine-able).

 Green OA requires a few keystrokes per 
 paper. Perhaps five minutes work (so long as one's repository is set up well 
 and one keeps focussed on providing the paper's text and does not get too 
 hung up about more than citing meta-data).

What I'm after is that green OA should not weaken the BOAI (in which the 
definition of OA equates to libre OA) to mean just 'gratis' (humans can read 
it, but it can't be used for text-mining).
 
 I have a PhD student, for example, who has just finished her thesis. The 
 thesis and papers from it contain various statistics and quotes drawn from 
 her field work. We are still working on further papers from the thesis with 
 an expectatin of two more to come. The data has been appropriately developed 
 for the publications written at present, but the fullw interviews from which 
 quotes are drawn have not had their source seudonymised; the numeric data has 
 only been put systematised for the precise analyses used in the thesis and 
 the papers. Some of it is in incompatible file formats with chunks of the raw 
 data put into different tools in different (overlapping but not a single set 
 in any one tool).

As said, not relevant in the context of BOAI-compliant OA to published articles.

 
 What rights to first publication of specific analysis on this data do my 
 student and her supervisors have? Which elements of the data are required to 
 be made available?
 
 If we wait until we can answer these questions before providing the 
 additional access to the existing outputs

Additional access? Is 'libre' as opposed to 'gratis' OA additional access? Or 
are you against re-use of data published in peer-reviewed articles? If so, that 
means you're against the BOAI.

 then we are likely to wait another 
 twenty years or more before achieving full access to the papers. Yes, in a 
 few fields perhaps, the data must be in a publishable form before a paper can 
 be published, but there are currently no social mechanisms, and indeed few 
 technological mechanisms, that can cope with providing this data at present. 
 There is an easy, simple solution to providing access to the text of papers: 
 put a pdf, word, html, rtf, odt or even plain text of the author's final 
 submitted text in an institutional repository or the opendepot.

Indeed, and make it 'libre' rather than just 'gratis'. In fact, do away with 
both 'libre' and 'gratis', since OA as defined by the BOAI suffices.

 
 Human-readable OA is within our grasp but we're not grasping it!

Let us not assume that putting, say, pdfs and Word documents in repositories 
prevents them in principle from being machine-readable and text-mine-able. To 
do so is to grossly underestimate what computer scientists can already do, and 
I fully expect generally available tools to appear soon. If there are any 
impediments to text-mining them, it's more likely due to the repository than to 
the file format. Certainly there is no reason to deny any article 
BOAI-compliance. Where does the 'gratis' versus 'libre' come from anyway? 
'Gratis' is an unnecessary weakening of what is defined as OA in the BOAI.


 Let us grasp 
 this first and THEN go on to sort out the more difficult issues.

What's more difficult about self-archiving under 'libre' (BOAI-compliant OA) 
conditions than under just 'gratis' conditions?

 Otherwise 
 we're just fiddling while Rome burns (struggling to reform the whole of 
 scholarly and scientific communications in one go rather than doing what is 
 simple and achievable now with little in the way of controversy about its 
 beneficial effects on science and scholarship and then and only then dealing 
 with the more difficult issues

[GOAL] Re: Open data and article text-mining rights

[Jan Velterop]

We're clearly talking cross-purposes here. There is nothing wrong with the 
mechanism to get to OA, but there is no need to weaken OA as defined in the 
BOAI to just 'gratis' OA, which implies that re-use is not allowed and enabled. 
If 'gratis' isn't a weakening of BOAI-compliant OA, why introduce the term? And 
now we're apparently having LBOA and HBOA as well! We need simplification of 
what OA is, not making it more complex. OA is Open Access as defined in the 
BOAI. Basta. If that cannot be achieved by mandates, weakening it to 'gratis 
OA', without re-use rights, won't help either.

Jan

On 8 May 2012, at 22:25, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 'Insist' here is shorthand for taking an approach similar to the one you are 
 taking re 'green'.
 
 My insist means mandate green gratis OA -- as over 200 institutions
 and funders worldwide have already done -- with the prospect of
 another very big one (FRPAA in the USA) becoming a distinct
 possibility.
 
 And Enabling Open Scholarship is dedicated to promoting OA mandates
 and providing policy guidance to institutions.
 
 What's the counterpart mechanism of insistence for what you are
 advocating, Jan?
 
 'We' is shorthand for those who care about achieving Open Access (true 
 BOAI-compliant  OA) and wish to convince others to do the same.
 
 What's the counterpart mechanism of insistence on providing true
 BOAI-compliant  OA?
 
 Whatever 'practical strategy' is unlikely to succeed without a clear goal 
 – which should be BOAI-compliant OA – and for a 'hearts and minds' 
 matter like OA also not without an unambiguous ideological substrate. 
 Practical strategies don't fire enough researchers up, evidently; ideology 
 may.
 
 I can't follow, Jan. Mandates generate green gratis OA, and advocacy
 generates mandates.
 
 What is the counterpart of this for libre OA?
 
 You are lowering the OA bar (gratis is enough) hoping to get more 
 mandates, an approach reasonable if you believe mandates or similar legal 
 measures will solve the lack-of-OA problem.
 
 They certainly solve the lack-of-gratis-OA problem. And we certainly
 lack gratis OA.
 
 What is the practical counterpart for libre OA?
 
 I am on the side of those who wish to change the 'cultural' behaviour of 
 scientists with regard to sharing their research results, and on the side of 
 those who wish to refrain from lowering the OA bar.
 
 Lowering the bar for whom? Most authors are not providing the
 lower-bar OA unless mandated. I presume you are not against mandating
 lower-bar OA, or against complying with lower-bar OA. (Are you?)
 
 So what does being against lowering the bar mean, practically
 speaking? How to get authors -- who don't provide lower-bar OA unless
 mandated -- to provide higher-bar OA? Try to mandate that? (But then
 you're up against both authors and publishers.)
 
 So by all means, let legal measures play a role, but not at the expense of 
 lowering the bar to 'gratis' OA. If one believes in mandates, then there is 
 no reason why BOAI-compliant OA ('libre' in your lingo) should not be 
 mandated.
 
 So, after all, you *do* mean no mandates at all unless they are for
 higher-bar OA?
 
 How do you propose to persuade authors to do more (HBOA), when they
 won't even do less (LBOA), unmandated? And how do you persuade funders
 and institutions to mandate HBOA, against resistance from authors and
 publishers, when funders and institutions are even ready to lower the
 bar for LBOA even lower, to accommodate publisher embargoes (LLBOA?)?
 
 Unreasonable? Perhaps.
 
 George Bernard Shaw: The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the 
 unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore 
 all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
 
 I had thought it was reasonable to expect researchers to provide LBOA
 of their own accord, unmandated, out of self-ineterest. I learned that
 that wasn't enough. So, with others, we adapted toward the mandatory
 route.
 
 What is your practical accommodation against the dictates of reason?
 
 Stevan Harnad
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal


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

[GOAL] Re: Meaning of Open Access

[Jan Velterop]

The definition of Open Access in the BOAI:
  By open access to this literature, we mean its free availability
  on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download,
  copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these
  articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or
  use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or
  technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access
  to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and
  distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should
  be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the
  right to be properly acknowledged and cited.


Signed by Stevan as well. But declared not valid anymore by him, apparently, or
at least not a guide anymore to what Open Access is and should be.

Jan


On 9 May 2012, at 11:37, Stevan Harnad wrote:

  ** Cross-Posted **

On 2012-05-09, at 4:12 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:

  I would favour doing away with both the terms 'libre OA' and
  'gratis OA'.

  Open Access suffices. It's the 'open' that says it all.
  Especially if it is made

  clear that OA means BOAI-compliant OA in the context of
  scholarly

  research literature.


I don't doubt that Jan would like to do away with the terms libre and
gratis OA. 
He has been arguing all along that free online access is not open access,
ever since 2003 on the American Scientist Open Access Forum:

http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#msg6478

This would mean that my subversive proposal of 1994 was not really a 
proposal for open access  and that the existing open access mandates 
and policies of funders and institutions worldwide are not really open
access 
mandates or policies.
http://roarmap.eprints.org/

It is in large part for this reason that in 2008 Peter Suber and I
proposed 
the terms gratis and libre open access to ensure that the term
open access retained its meaning, and to make explicit the two 
distinct conditions involved: free online access (gratis OA) and
certain re-use rights (libre OA):

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/strong-and-weak-oa.html

For Peter Murray-Rust's crusade for journal article text-mining rights,
apart from reiterating my full agreement that these are highly important
and highly desirable and even urgent in certain fields, I would like
to note that -- as PM-R has stated -- neither gratis OA nor libre OA
is necessary for the kinds of text-mining rights he is seeking. They
can be had via a special licensing agreement from the publisher.

There is no ambiguity there: The text-mining rights can be granted
even if the articles themselves are not made openly accessible,
free for all. 

And, as Richard Poynder has just pointed out, publishers are
quite aware of (perhaps even relieved with) this option, with 
Elsevier lately launching an experiment in it:

http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2012-May/000433.html

This makes it clear that the text-mining rights PM-R seeks can be
had without either sort of OA, gratis or libre...

Let us hope the quest for Open Access itself is not derailed in this
direction.

Stevan Harnad

  On 9 May 2012, at 08:30, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:



  On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Stevan Harnad
  amscifo...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Jan Velterop
velte...@gmail.com wrote:

JV So by all means, let legal measures play
a role, but not at the expense of lowering
the bar to 'gratis' OA. If one believes in
mandates, then there is no reason why
BOAI-compliant OA ('libre' in your [SH]
lingo) should not be mandated.

I'd like to suggest that the term libre OA be dropped.
Gratis OA implies freedom for anyone to read the manuscript
somewhere. Libre OA imlies the removal of some permission
barriers but neither says which or how many. Since Gratis OA
has already required the removal of one permission barrier
(the permission being granted to post on the web, permanently)
it can be argued that all Gratis OA is ipso facto Libre OA.

This renders the term Unnecessary and confusiing, and allows
many people and organizations to imply they are granting
rights and permissions beyond GratisOA when they are not. If
there are current examples where the use of libreOA plays a
useful role it would be useful to see them.

The only terms that make operational sense and are clear are
Gratis OA and BOAI-compliant OA . It is a pity that the latter
is a long phrase and maybe its usage will contract the phrase.

I would be grateful for clear discourse on these definitions
and the suggestion of retiring libreOA.

P.

--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069

[GOAL] Re: Meaning of Open Access

[Jan Velterop]

What we may be seeing here is a dichotomy between researchers that can afford 
to read much of what they have to take in, simply because there isn't an 
enormous 'overwhelm' of papers in their field, and those who cannot possibly 
read everything they ought to take in, because they are constantly confronted 
with precisely such an 'overwhelm' of papers. The latter need to have 
alternative ways of getting the gist of the information that's being published 
in their field, even if simply to judge which fraction of the published 
literature they actually do need to read with their own eyes. Machine-aided 
techniques, such as text-mining and text-analysis, which can 'ingest' and 
analyse many more articles than a single human can, are essential in such 
fields, and only getting more important.

Open Access should not be reserved just for the former class of researchers, 
the ones who are in a position to read all the literature in their fields with 
their own eyes.

Jan


On 9 May 2012, at 16:43, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 On Wed, 9 May 2012, Jan Velterop wrote:
 
 The real issue is to do with usage rights.
 
 Usage rights are moot if you don't have access.
 
 There may be technical issues to overcome, but there 
 is scant reason to overcome those for so-called OA 
 articles if text-mining is not allowed.
 
 Perhaps the reasons are not so scant for all those 
 researchers who are currently denied access 
 (irrespective of whether text-mining is [or is]
 not allowed...).
 
 Stevan Harnad
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal


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

[GOAL] Re: [BOAI10] Re: OA Ideology vs. OA Pragmatics

[Jan Velterop]

 only because the funders have only been listening to the
 nay-sayers. I recommend a little p[en-mindedness and empiricism.

It's not a question of nay-saying at all. It's a question of seeking ways to 
achieve OA and seeing that getting mandates isn't quite delivering the bacon. 
That is *not* to say that mandates might not work; I'm saying that getting 
institutions to mandate and police the mandates is perhaps a nice idea, but 
stagnating.

It may be good to get some psychologists on board of the OA advocacy, who could 
help to understand what needs to change in the mindsets of those who are in 
positions to change hearts and minds in favour of OA. What's happening 
currently is a cart-before-the-horse approach. What we need to achieve is a 
cultural (within academia) sense not of desirability of OA (motherhood and 
apple pie), but of unacceptability of the lack of OA, and then back it up by 
whatever legal and pseudo-legal measures are appropriate. Smoking hasn't become 
socially unacceptable due to legislation; legislation came about because of a 
growing social unacceptability of smoking. (Another frustratingly slow process 
with many similarities to the battle for OA ? and if you think it's different 
because addiction plays no role in publishing, think again).

So instead of making the case that OA is desirable, we should strongly make the 
case that non-OA is unacceptable, and motivate efforts to promote OA mandates 
as well as OA publishing on that basis. Perhaps a subtle difference for some, 
but fundamental, in my view.

Jan

 
 Stevan Harnad
 
 On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde
 eric.f.vandevelde at gmail.com wrote:
 Jan:
 
 I thought for a long time that conflating the two was wrong, but I have
 changed my view on that. On Michael Eisen's blog, two comments, one by John
 C and one by JJ, illustrate the point.
 
 Let's start with JJ, a grad student looking for a postdoc or assistant prof
 position, but it could also be someone up for tenure. These junior
 researchers need to know that their personal open-access initiatives will be
 valued. Universities must show real commitment on their part. If they
 communicate that library subscriptions will disappear in three years,
 promotion and tenure committees will be on notice, all faculty will be on
 notice that the university is serious about the change.
 
 John C is a researcher who paid gold open access out of his research grants.
 The overhead on his grants sponsors his library subscriptions AND he pays
 the full freight of gold open access. That is not sustainable.
 
 Three years is plenty long enough for faculty, libraries, and publishers to
 adapt to a new reality, and it is short enough for the transition not to
 impact junior researchers adversely.
 
 Stevan will say that gold open access is not necessary. And he is right, but
 green open access has been moving too slowly and it requires mandates that
 will be difficult to enforce in the long term. The quality of institutional
 repositories is sufficient for access to research, but it is not at the
 level necessary for long-term archiving. For institutions participating in
 green open access, all the costs of open access are additive to subscription
 costs. If IRs are the answer, their quality have to improve and that means
 more resources are required.
 
 I don't know what the end result will be. No one can plan a disruptive
 change. However, I have come to the view that site licenses cause the
 stasis. Phasing out of paid subscriptions is the disruption that will set
 everything else in motion. Then, let faculty, students, publishers,
 libraries, and startups figure it out. The money saved on subscriptions can
 help smooth the transitory effects and can be invested in open access.
 
 --Eric.
 
 http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
 
 Google Voice: (626) 898-5415
 Telephone:  (626) 376-5415
 Skype chat, voice, or web-video: efvandevelde
 E-mail: eric.f.vandevelde at gmail.com
 
 
 
 On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Jan Velterop velterop at gmail.com wrote:
 
 Eric,
 
 Why the second sentence? As long as they require OA, do we care how they
 spend ? or waste ? their money? (Except as tax payers, perhaps, but the
 access issue isn't the financial issue. Conflation of the two has stymied
 progress in my view. Just as dirigiste solutions have.)
 
 Jan
 
 
 On 1 May 2012, at 19:16, Eric F. Van de Velde wrote:
 
 How about the following:
 
 Because Open Access (OA) maximises research usage, impact and progress,
 funders and institutions must require that all researchers provide OA to
 their published research results. Institutions and their libraries will
 phase out all electronic journal subscriptions by May 1st, 2015 and invest
 in OA initiatives instead.
 
 --Eric.
 
 http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
 
 Google Voice: (626) 898-5415
 Telephone:  (626) 376-5415
 Skype chat, voice, or web-video: efvandevelde
 E-mail: eric.f.vandevelde at gmail.com
 
 
 
 On Tue, May 1, 2012

[GOAL] Re: Wikipedia founder to help in [UK] government's research scheme

[Jan Velterop]

Strict logic is not what we win the battle for open access with. Some celebrity 
involvement is to be welcomed. On a visceral level the success of Wikipedia 
(not a logical outcome at the outset on the basis of the premises) may well 
influence the perception of open access.

Jan Velterop

On 2 May 2012, at 11:00, Andrew A. Adams wrote:

 
The [UK] government has drafted in the Wikipedia founder Jimmy
Wales to help make all taxpayer-funded academic research in Britain
available online to anyone who wants to read or use it.
 
 I was hoping that the new government might be less star-struck than the 
 previous one. Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose, it would seem. We really 
 don't need Jimmy Wales advising on this. The team behind eprints has been 
 (with minimal funding) developing the technology needed for many years and 
 there are many academics in the UK much better versed in the intricacies of 
 UK academic work and life than Mr Wales. Sigh. I foresee another lost couple 
 of years wasted on this instead of getting to grips with the known problem 
 and the known solution (including providing better funding for eprints 
 development to the team that created it and still does the software 
 engineering for it).
 
 
 -- 
 Professor Andrew A Adams  aaa at 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 at eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: [BOAI10] Re: OA Ideology vs. OA Pragmatics

[Jan Velterop]

 only because the funders have only been listening to the
 nay-sayers. I recommend a little p[en-mindedness and empiricism.

It's not a question of nay-saying at all. It's a question of seeking ways to 
achieve OA and seeing that getting mandates isn't quite delivering the bacon. 
That is *not* to say that mandates might not work; I'm saying that getting 
institutions to mandate and police the mandates is perhaps a nice idea, but 
stagnating.

It may be good to get some psychologists on board of the OA advocacy, who could 
help to understand what needs to change in the mindsets of those who are in 
positions to change hearts and minds in favour of OA. What's happening 
currently is a cart-before-the-horse approach. What we need to achieve is a 
cultural (within academia) sense not of desirability of OA (motherhood and 
apple pie), but of unacceptability of the lack of OA, and then back it up by 
whatever legal and pseudo-legal measures are appropriate. Smoking hasn't become 
socially unacceptable due to legislation; legislation came about because of a 
growing social unacceptability of smoking. (Another frustratingly slow process 
with many similarities to the battle for OA – and if you think it's different 
because addiction plays no role in publishing, think again).

So instead of making the case that OA is desirable, we should strongly make the 
case that non-OA is unacceptable, and motivate efforts to promote OA mandates 
as well as OA publishing on that basis. Perhaps a subtle difference for some, 
but fundamental, in my view.

Jan

 
 Stevan Harnad
 
 On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde
 eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com wrote:
 Jan:
 
 I thought for a long time that conflating the two was wrong, but I have
 changed my view on that. On Michael Eisen's blog, two comments, one by John
 C and one by JJ, illustrate the point.
 
 Let's start with JJ, a grad student looking for a postdoc or assistant prof
 position, but it could also be someone up for tenure. These junior
 researchers need to know that their personal open-access initiatives will be
 valued. Universities must show real commitment on their part. If they
 communicate that library subscriptions will disappear in three years,
 promotion and tenure committees will be on notice, all faculty will be on
 notice that the university is serious about the change.
 
 John C is a researcher who paid gold open access out of his research grants.
 The overhead on his grants sponsors his library subscriptions AND he pays
 the full freight of gold open access. That is not sustainable.
 
 Three years is plenty long enough for faculty, libraries, and publishers to
 adapt to a new reality, and it is short enough for the transition not to
 impact junior researchers adversely.
 
 Stevan will say that gold open access is not necessary. And he is right, but
 green open access has been moving too slowly and it requires mandates that
 will be difficult to enforce in the long term. The quality of institutional
 repositories is sufficient for access to research, but it is not at the
 level necessary for long-term archiving. For institutions participating in
 green open access, all the costs of open access are additive to subscription
 costs. If IRs are the answer, their quality have to improve and that means
 more resources are required.
 
 I don't know what the end result will be. No one can plan a disruptive
 change. However, I have come to the view that site licenses cause the
 stasis. Phasing out of paid subscriptions is the disruption that will set
 everything else in motion. Then, let faculty, students, publishers,
 libraries, and startups figure it out. The money saved on subscriptions can
 help smooth the transitory effects and can be invested in open access.
 
 --Eric.
 
 http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
 
 Google Voice: (626) 898-5415
 Telephone:  (626) 376-5415
 Skype chat, voice, or web-video: efvandevelde
 E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com
 
 
 
 On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Eric,
 
 Why the second sentence? As long as they require OA, do we care how they
 spend – or waste – their money? (Except as tax payers, perhaps, but the
 access issue isn't the financial issue. Conflation of the two has stymied
 progress in my view. Just as dirigiste solutions have.)
 
 Jan
 
 
 On 1 May 2012, at 19:16, Eric F. Van de Velde wrote:
 
 How about the following:
 
 Because Open Access (OA) maximises research usage, impact and progress,
 funders and institutions must require that all researchers provide OA to
 their published research results. Institutions and their libraries will
 phase out all electronic journal subscriptions by May 1st, 2015 and invest
 in OA initiatives instead.
 
 --Eric.
 
 http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
 
 Google Voice: (626) 898-5415
 Telephone:  (626) 376-5415
 Skype chat, voice, or web-video: efvandevelde
 E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com
 
 
 
 On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 8

[GOAL] Re: Wikipedia founder to help in [UK] government's research scheme

[Jan Velterop]

Strict logic is not what we win the battle for open access with. Some celebrity 
involvement is to be welcomed. On a visceral level the success of Wikipedia 
(not a logical outcome at the outset on the basis of the premises) may well 
influence the perception of open access.

Jan Velterop

On 2 May 2012, at 11:00, Andrew A. Adams wrote:

 
The [UK] government has drafted in the Wikipedia founder Jimmy
Wales to help make all taxpayer-funded academic research in Britain
available online to anyone who wants to read or use it.
 
 I was hoping that the new government might be less star-struck than the 
 previous one. Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose, it would seem. We really 
 don't need Jimmy Wales advising on this. The team behind eprints has been 
 (with minimal funding) developing the technology needed for many years and 
 there are many academics in the UK much better versed in the intricacies of 
 UK academic work and life than Mr Wales. Sigh. I foresee another lost couple 
 of years wasted on this instead of getting to grips with the known problem 
 and the known solution (including providing better funding for eprints 
 development to the team that created it and still does the software 
 engineering for it).
 
 
 -- 
 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


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

[GOAL] Re: Wikipedia founder to help in [UK] government's research scheme

[Jan Velterop]

On 2 May 2012, at 13:32, Stevan Harnad wrote:
 
 Andrew is so right (and the current UK government is showing as much good 
 sense in turning to JW as they showed for many years in turning to RM).
 
 Wikipedia is based on the antithesis of peer review. Asking JW to help make
 sure peer-reviewed research is available to all is like asking McDonalds to
 help the WHO/FDA make sure that wholesome food is available to all.

Ach, come off it, Stevan. By your reckoning arXiv is also the antithesis of 
peer review. Would you talk in the same way about Paul Ginsparg?

OA will gain from more involvement of people who understand diplomacy, 
persuasion, and yes, 'marketing'.



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

[GOAL] Re: Wikipedia founder to help in [UK] government's research scheme

[Jan Velterop]

On 2 May 2012, at 15:31, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 On 2012-05-02, at 9:28 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:
 
 On 2 May 2012, at 13:32, Stevan Harnad wrote:
 
 Andrew is so right (and the current UK government is showing as much good 
 sense in turning to JW as they showed for many years in turning to RM).
 
 Wikipedia is based on the antithesis of peer review. Asking JW to help make
 sure peer-reviewed research is available to all is like asking McDonalds to
 help the WHO/FDA make sure that wholesome food is available to all.
 
 Ach, come off it, Stevan. By your reckoning arXiv is also the antithesis of 
 peer review. Would you talk in the same way about Paul Ginsparg?
 
 Arxiv contains preprints of articles before and after peer review. Arxiv 
 does not do peer review. Neither do institutional repositories.

And Wikipedia doesn't either, so why is that the antithesis to peer review?
 
 (Why do you ask about Paul Ginsparg?)
 
 OA will gain from more involvement of people who understand diplomacy, 
 persuasion, and yes, 'marketing'.
 
 At the moment, Jimmy Wales does not have a clue about what are the real 
 problems of getting OA provided by researchers; nor does he have a clear 
 understanding of (or any experience with) peer review.

He knows and understands far more about OA that you presume (on the basis of 
what do you presume that, actually?). For a start, he has been 'educated' on 
all matters OA by Melissa Hagemann herself. 

 
 This can all be remedied, if someone has JW's ear, and he listens and 
 understands.
 
 Then JW can be a helpful (though no doubt expensive

Expensive? No-doubt? You didn't read the article in The Guardian, did you? 
There it says … he was brought in by No 10 as an unpaid adviser to 
government on crowdsourcing….

 ) conduit to the ears of 
 those (David Willetts?) who are in a position to do what needs to get done to 
 make the RCUK mandates work.
 
 Meanwhile, regarding diplomacy and persuasion, I suggest that you give 
 more weight to what Professor Rentier has posted 
 about academia's attitude to Wikipedia. We are trying to win researchers 
 over to providing OA to their peer-reviewed research -- not to win them 
 over to some fantasied Wikipedia-style alternative to peer review.
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2012-May/000372.html
 
 We've been down this path so many times, Jan. Is the appointment of a 
 celebrity name now to be the occasion for rehearsing it all yet again?

I know somebody who is infinitely more repetitive with his views than I am with 
my views.

 
 It's not diplomacy that's needed; it's effectively formulated and implemented 
 policy. The RCUK already leads the rest of the world in OA, but its OA policy 
 needs tweaking to make it effective. 
 
 Stevan Harnad
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal


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

[GOAL] Re: OA Ideology vs. OA Pragmatics

[Jan Velterop]

I would simplify it further:

Because Open Access (OA) maximises research usage, impact and progress, 
funders and institutions must require that all researchers provide OA to their 
published research results.

Any form of dirigisme as to how this is to be achieved is best avoided. 
Avoiding prescriptions for the means helps keep the focus on the goal and also 
leaves the door open for imaginative ways of convincing researchers, funders 
and institutions, and even of achieving more OA in possibly more effective ways.

Jan Velterop

On 1 May 2012, at 11:54, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 I completely agree with my old comrade-at-arms Eric van de Velde 
 (below) that one, short, simple, doable message is needed.
 
 BOAI 10, Enabling Open Scholarship and the SPARC
 OA Policy group are each working  on providing such 
 a message. (BOAI's will be released shortly by Peter Suber).
 
 The messages are still being crafted, but I certainly know
 what I think the message ought to be:
 

 
 Research Funders and Institutions: 
 
 1. Open Access (OA) maximizes research usage, impact and
 progress.
 http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html
 
 2. Mandate (i.e., require) that all researchers provide OA
 by self-archiving the final, refereed draft of all
 peer-reviewed journal articles in your institutional
 repository.
 http://roarmap.eprints.org/
 
 3. Free software is available to create an institutional
 repository if you don't yet have one.
 http://roar.eprints.org/
 
 4. The optimal OA mandate is called ID/OA,
 with deposit designated as the sole mechanism for
 submitting publications for institutional performance review.
 http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html
 http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/737-.html
 
 Do the above, and do not complicate with any of the
 following for the time being. They will all happen naturally
 of their own accord once ID/OA mandates prevail globally:
 
 X1. Gold OA Journal Publishing
 X2. Libre OA re-use rights
 X3. Copyright reform
 X4. Open Data
 X5. Publishing reform
 X6. Peer review reform
 X7. Digital preservation
 X8. etc.
 

 
 We have not yet reached the fabled (and many times prematurely
 announced) tipping point for OA. Eric, despite heroic efforts, did
 not succeed in persuading CalTech to adopt an OA mandate
 hence his worries about whether it is possible at all:
 
 It *is* possible. ROARMAP contains examples of successful, sustainable 
 OA mandates. See especially Southampton ECS, Liege, QUT and Minho.
 
 The secret is to keep it simple, forget about X1-X8 for now, and to keep 
 trying. 
 As more OA mandates are adopted (with the help of policy guidance for 
 Enabling Open Scholarship, BOAI 10, SPARC OA Policy and -- let's hope
 -- the adoption of FRPAA), the mandate momentum will accelerate, gloablly
 and irreversibly.
 
 Just keep it simple (ID/OA) and don't over-reach!
 
 Stevan Harnad
 
 On 2012-04-30, at 6:22 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde wrote:
 
 Stevan and others:
 This is also a response to the long thread on Open Access Priorities: Peer 
 Access and Public Access. I am responding in this thread as it includes the 
 issue of OA Pragmatics.
 
 Over the years, you and others on this list have amassed a wealth of 
 analysis and data that favors OA. In the process, you and most of us have 
 our favored OA mechanisms and policies. And GOAL provides spirited debates 
 on every OA detail there is.
 
 Yet, detail is not what is needed. We need a clear and simple message that 
 is capable of inducing many independent strong-willed individuals to change 
 behavior. Most of these individuals are part of old institutions with 
 long-ingrained traditions. Changing their behavior is a political problem, 
 not one of analytics.
 
 The target group for the OA campaign consists of PhDs, and we tend to think 
 that they are best approached with analysis. That is true, but for most OA 
 is at most a peripheral issue on which they do not wish to spend a lot of 
 time. The Harvard memo is an example of a complicated political message: it 
 does not say to do one thing, it says to consider doing five or six things 
 if the opportunity should so arise. Your list of priorities is clearer, but 
 it is long and (politically) complicated.
 
 Policies (like mandates) are difficult to maintain over many years. In year 
 one, there may be a motivated university president/chancellor/provost/... to 
 serve as enforcer, but by year 2, 3, 4, or 5, this person moves on, and the 
 mandate-exception list grows, partially erasing any OA gains. Because of the 
 distributed nature of all of the research institutions, this is asynchronous 
 process. Today, it is Harvard that is interested in OA and the journal 
 crisis. Tomorrow, it will be other major institutions. Yet, many of the 
 proposed OA policies will only be effective if implemented at a significant 
 fraction of institutions simultaneously.
 
 Although starting an institutional

[GOAL] Re: OA Ideology vs. OA Pragmatics

[Jan Velterop]

Eric,

Why the second sentence? As long as they require OA, do we care how they spend 
? or waste ? their money? (Except as tax payers, perhaps, but the access issue 
isn't the financial issue. Conflation of the two has stymied progress in my 
view. Just as dirigiste solutions have.)

Jan


On 1 May 2012, at 19:16, Eric F. Van de Velde wrote:

 How about the following:
 
 Because Open Access (OA) maximises research usage, impact and progress, 
 funders and institutions must require that all researchers provide OA to 
 their published research results. Institutions and their libraries will phase 
 out all electronic journal subscriptions by May 1st, 2015 and invest in OA 
 initiatives instead.
  
 --Eric.
 
 http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
 
 Google Voice: (626) 898-5415
 Telephone:  (626) 376-5415
 Skype chat, voice, or web-video: efvandevelde
 E-mail: eric.f.vandevelde at gmail.com
 
 
 
 On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Peter Murray-Rust pm286 at cam.ac.uk wrote:
 
 
 On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Jan Velterop velterop at gmail.com wrote:
 I would simplify it further:
 
 Because Open Access (OA) maximises research usage, impact and progress, 
 funders and institutions must require that all researchers provide OA to 
 their published research results.
 
 Any form of dirigisme as to how this is to be achieved is best avoided. 
 Avoiding prescriptions for the means helps keep the focus on the goal and 
 also leaves the door open for imaginative ways of convincing researchers, 
 funders and institutions, and even of achieving more OA in possibly more 
 effective ways.
 
 I support this.  A simple sentence powerful and this probably has what we 
 want - like all sentences this may need slight crafting.
 
 The reality of the present situation is that we seem to need a mix of 
 strategies. What works for one discipline may not work for another. Things 
 have changed over the last 10 years and we need to look for changing methods, 
 changing finances and changing allies.
 
 
 -- 
 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 at eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
 
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL at eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120501/115c208c/attachment.html
 

[GOAL] Re: OA Ideology vs. OA Pragmatics

[Jan Velterop]

Eric,
Why the second sentence? As long as they require OA, do we care how they spend 
–
or waste – their money? (Except as tax payers, perhaps, but the access issue
isn't the financial issue. Conflation of the two has stymied progress in my
view. Just as dirigiste solutions have.)

Jan


On 1 May 2012, at 19:16, Eric F. Van de Velde wrote:

  How about the following:
  Because Open Access (OA) maximises research usage, impact and
  progress, funders and institutions must require that all researchers
  provide OA to their published research results. Institutions and
  their libraries will phase out all electronic journal subscriptions
  by May 1st, 2015 and invest in OA initiatives instead.
 
--Eric.

http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com

Google Voice: (626) 898-5415Telephone:      (626) 376-5415
Skype chat, voice, or web-video: efvandevelde
E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com



On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:


  On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Jan Velterop
  velte...@gmail.com wrote:
I would simplify it further:

Because Open Access (OA) maximises research
usage, impact and progress, funders and
institutions must require that all researchers
provide OA to their published research results.

Any form of dirigisme as to how this is to be
achieved is best avoided. Avoiding prescriptions
for the means helps keep the focus on the goal and
also leaves the door open for imaginative ways of
convincing researchers, funders and institutions,
and even of achieving more OA in possibly more
effective ways.

I support this.  A simple sentence powerful and this probably has
what we want - like all sentences this may need slight crafting.

The reality of the present situation is that we seem to need a mix
of strategies. What works for one discipline may not work for
another. Things have changed over the last 10 years and we need to
look for changing methods, changing finances and changing allies.


--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069

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


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






[ Part 2: Attached Text ]

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

[GOAL] Re: Open Access Priorities: Peer Access and Public Access

[Jan Velterop]

All very well, Andrew, but did it ever occur to you that when there is no wide 
cultural or societal support for whatever law or mandate, more effort is 
generally being spent on evasion than on compliance and enforcement turns out 
to be like mopping up with the tap still running? If you insist on taking 
examples from US politics, the 'war on drugs' is the one to look at.

Forcing scientists into OA is only ever likely to be successful if it rooted in 
an already changing culture. A culture with an expectation that research 
results are openly available to all. By the shame that researchers will be made 
to feel at dinner parties, or in the pub, if their results are not OA. Of 
course that will still be mainly peer-pressure, but changing hearts and minds 
of peers is greatly helped if there were a societal substrate in which the open 
culture can grow. Mandates or not, OA will never happen if scientists aren't 
convinced from within. An appeal to them as human beings and members of society 
is more likely to achieve that than mandates, in my view. The latter should 
back up a general change of heart, not be a substitute for it.

What is 'the general public' should not be misunderstood and be construed to be 
only those interested in medical literature. It includes all those interested 
in the other 999 areas as well. Ex scientists, retired scientists, SMEs, 
scientists interested in another discipline or cross-discipline topics, 
students, lawyers, reporters, teachers, even hobbyists. Einstein wasn't an 
institutionalised scientist when he worked on his most important work; he was a 
patent clerk. 

Of course, those OA evangelists who wish to pursue mandates should be pursuing 
mandates. I encourage them to keep doing just that. But to narrow the efforts 
of OA evangelism to what is stubbornly being called the quickest route, in 
spite of it being no more than a hypothesis which certainly over the last 
decade and a half hasn't proved itself to be as effective as first thought, is 
a mistake. 

By all means where there are opportunities to promote mandates let us do that, 
but not at the expense of making the moral and societal responsibility case for 
OA. 

Jan


On 28 Apr 2012, at 16:13, Andrew A. Adams wrote:

 Researchers may already know that providing peer access is in their
 best interest, yet they don't massively take that interest to
 heart. The scientific 'community' is very conservative. Scientists,
 like politicians, are generally into reluctant followship, less into
 leadership. In my view it is time to change tactics and put more
 effort into mustering the persuasiveness that the potentially more
 dynamic general public may be able to provide. A recent spate of
 articles in The Guardian and The Observer in the UK, and even articles
 in The Economist, are good examples of what can be done to create an
 atmosphere in which not providing open access is frowned upon and
 becoming unacceptable. The pressure of public opinion can be
 formidable, particularly on governments and government-backed funders
 (though rarely admitted, of course). Recent steps taken by the RCUK
 may well (subconsciously) have been inspired by a desire to preempt
 such public pressure (and having to admit that 'it was the pressure of
 public opinion wot did it'). Especially in times of austerity it pays
 to keep the general public on board. Literally.
 
 Jan,
 
 How much influence does public opinion actually have on real policies and 
 real actions by ordinary academics, though? Having been an academic union 
 activist for a number of years and having tried to talk to my friends about 
 the highly stressful situation of academics and the poor pay they receive in 
 the UK, I found that even those with degrees (most of my friends) really had 
 no understanding of academic work, situations etc. I suspect that's the 
 reality found by most academics. Since they know non-academics don't 
 understand academia, they tend to ignore pressure from the general public on 
 specific issues because they assume the general public just doesn't get it 
 about academia (and in many cases they are right, even if they're wrong in 
 this one).
 
 Getting the general public to support OA may help in getting funder mandates, 
 although as we've seen, often those funder mandates are slightly mis-aimed at 
 central deposit. The numbers also suggest that support for medical literature 
 will be easy (everyone needs health and even those without the understanding 
 will know someone (their own doctor if no one else) who would probably 
 benefit from OA). However, the number who actually read any field are likely 
 to be a minority, and those who read any particular field an even smaller 
 minority. Trying to get them all to get behind OA in general may well be hard 
 to do with the publishers using their large warchests to fight us in the 
 public debate (if you think large warchests don't matter in public debate, 
 look at US presidential 

[GOAL] Re: Open Access Priorities: Peer Access and Public Access

[Jan Velterop]

Stevan sees the issue of providing open access primarily to scientists as 
strategic. I would have described it as tactical at best, but the main problem 
is that Stevan's strategy reinforces the ivory tower and the 
'my-brain-is-bigger-than-yours' elitism. First of all, scientists are also 
members of the public in any area other than their own (sub)specialism. But 
more importantly, reinforcing the ivory tower undermines efforts to demonstrate 
the wide relevance science has to society at large, the absence of which will 
ultimately undermine the societal appreciation of science itself (especially 
when that needs to be expressed in money and respect for science). Reinforcing 
the ivory tower runs counter to the very welcome development of the sister 
notions of open access and open science.

Instead of arguing for peer-access as the primary goal of open access, efforts 
should be aimed at making the argument for OA strengthening the societal 
relevance of science, an argument that any scientist with a healthy dose of 
self-interest is bound to understand and take on board. Funders such as the 
Wellcome Trust are already doing important work in that regard.

Jan Velterop

On 28 Apr 2012, at 14:24, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 The list of recommendations I made was strategic.
 The objective was to maximize OA deposits and 
 maximize OA deposit mandates.
 
 The issue is not about how many members of the
 general public might wish to read how many
 peer-reviewed journal articles.
 
 The issue is strategic: What provides a viable, credible,
 persuasive reason for researchers to provide OA 
 and for institutions and funders to mandate providing 
 OA in all fields of research, funded and unfunded, in
 all disciplines.
 
 My point was that providing access for the the general
 public is a viable, credible, persuasive reason for providing
 and mandating OA in some fields (notably health- related
 research, but there may be other fields as well) -- but it
 is not a viable, credible, persuasive reason for providing
 OA in all fields, nor for all research.
 
 It is not difficult to find anecdotal evidence of nonspecialist
 interest in specialized research; one's own interests often
 go beyond one's own area of expertise.
 
 But that is user-based reasoning, whereas providing OA
 and mandating OA require reasons that are viable,
 credible and persuasive to providers of research -- and 
 not some providers, sometimes, but all providers, for all
 research.
 
 The only reason for providing OA to research that is
 valid, credible and persuasive for all research and 
 researchers is in order to ensure that it is accessible to 
 all of its intended users -- primarily peers -- and not just 
 to those whose  institutions can afford to subscribe to the 
 journal in which it was published.
 
 The issue is strategic. It is a great mistake to construe
 giving priority to reasons for providing peer access
 over reasons for providing public access as somehow
 implying that public access should be denied: Public
 access automatically comes with the territory with OA.
 So public access denial is not the issue.
 
 The strategic issue is whether researchers (and their
 institutions and funders) are more likely to be induced
 to provide and mandate OA by the argument that the
 public wants and needs access or by the argument that
 peers want and need access. 
 
 Peer access provides research progress and impact.
 It is an appeal to researchers' self-interest to stress
 the beneficial effects of OA on the uptake and impact of
 their research.
 
 Most researchers of course also have a secret
 yearning that their research should appeal not only
 to their peers, but to the general public. But they also
 know that that is probably just wishful thinking in most
 cases. And in any case, public access does not have
 the direct affect on their careers, funding, and research
 progress that peer access has.
 
 So it is not that the enhancement of public access should
 not be listed among the reasons for providing OA. It is
 just that it should not be promoted as the first, foremost,
 or universal reason for providing OA, because it is not: for
 many or most researchers, that argument simply will not
 work. 
 
 Ditto for the argument that researchers need to provide
 OA because journal subscriptions cost too much. The
 eventual solution to the journal affordability crisis will
 probably also come from providing and mandating OA.
 But, like public access, journal affordability is not a
 sufficiently compelling or universal rationale for 
 providing OA.
 
 The public access rationale for providing OA appeals
 to politicians and voters. Good. Use it in order to help get
 OA mandate legistlation adopted by research funders.
 But the rationale is much less convincing to researchers
 (peers) themselves, and their institutions.
 
 The journal affordability rationale for providing OA appeals
 to librarians and institutions, but it is much less convincing

[GOAL] Re: Open Access Priorities: Peer Access and Public Access

[Jan Velterop]

Researchers may already know that providing peer access is in their best 
interest, yet they don't massively take that interest to heart. The scientific 
'community' is very conservative. Scientists, like politicians, are generally 
into reluctant followship, less into leadership. In my view it is time to 
change tactics and put more effort into mustering the persuasiveness that the 
potentially more dynamic general public may be able to provide. A recent spate 
of articles in The Guardian and The Observer in the UK, and even articles in 
The Economist, are good examples of what can be done to create an atmosphere in 
which not providing open access is frowned upon and becoming unacceptable. The 
pressure of public opinion can be formidable, particularly on governments and 
government-backed funders (though rarely admitted, of course). Recent steps 
taken by the RCUK may well (subconsciously) have been inspired by a desire to 
preempt such public pressure (and having to admit that 'it was the pressure of 
public opinion wot did it'). Especially in times of austerity it pays to keep 
the general public on board. Literally.

Jan

On 28 Apr 2012, at 15:23, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 Jan is talking ideology, whereas I am talking pragmatics. 
 
 Jan is free to try to persuade researchers that it is in their 
 interests (or otherwise worthy) to provide OA for the sake 
 of providing public access. Researchers already know 
 that providing peer access is in their own interests. That's 
 why  I think that rationale should be put up-front. 
 
 (Wellcome research, to repeat, is public health related. 
 No contest there. Now try that for the 999 other scholarly 
 and scientific disciplines...)
 
 PS Providing peer access to research -- so it can be
 used, applied  and built upon -- is also in the public 
 interest -- if doing (and funding) research at all is...
 
 Stevan
 
 On 2012-04-28, at 10:05 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:
 
 Stevan sees the issue of providing open access primarily to scientists as 
 strategic. I would have described it as tactical at best, but the main 
 problem is that Stevan's strategy reinforces the ivory tower and the 
 'my-brain-is-bigger-than-yours' elitism. First of all, scientists are also 
 members of the public in any area other than their own (sub)specialism. But 
 more importantly, reinforcing the ivory tower undermines efforts to 
 demonstrate the wide relevance science has to society at large, the absence 
 of which will ultimately undermine the societal appreciation of science 
 itself (especially when that needs to be expressed in money and respect for 
 science). Reinforcing the ivory tower runs counter to the very welcome 
 development of the sister notions of open access and open science.
 
 Instead of arguing for peer-access as the primary goal of open access, 
 efforts should be aimed at making the argument for OA strengthening the 
 societal relevance of science, an argument that any scientist with a healthy 
 dose of self-interest is bound to understand and take on board. Funders such 
 as the Wellcome Trust are already doing important work in that regard.
 
 Jan Velterop
 
 On 28 Apr 2012, at 14:24, Stevan Harnad wrote:
 
 The list of recommendations I made was strategic.
 The objective was to maximize OA deposits and 
 maximize OA deposit mandates.
 
 The issue is not about how many members of the
 general public might wish to read how many
 peer-reviewed journal articles.
 
 The issue is strategic: What provides a viable, credible,
 persuasive reason for researchers to provide OA 
 and for institutions and funders to mandate providing 
 OA in all fields of research, funded and unfunded, in
 all disciplines.
 
 My point was that providing access for the the general
 public is a viable, credible, persuasive reason for providing
 and mandating OA in some fields (notably health- related
 research, but there may be other fields as well) -- but it
 is not a viable, credible, persuasive reason for providing
 OA in all fields, nor for all research.
 
 It is not difficult to find anecdotal evidence of nonspecialist
 interest in specialized research; one's own interests often
 go beyond one's own area of expertise.
 
 But that is user-based reasoning, whereas providing OA
 and mandating OA require reasons that are viable,
 credible and persuasive to providers of research -- and 
 not some providers, sometimes, but all providers, for all
 research.
 
 The only reason for providing OA to research that is
 valid, credible and persuasive for all research and 
 researchers is in order to ensure that it is accessible to 
 all of its intended users -- primarily peers -- and not just 
 to those whose  institutions can afford to subscribe to the 
 journal in which it was published.
 
 The issue is strategic. It is a great mistake to construe
 giving priority to reasons for providing peer access
 over reasons for providing public access as somehow
 implying that public access should be denied

[GOAL] Re: Open Access Priorities: Peer Access and Public Access

[Jan Velterop]

Just a note to express my support and 100% agreement with Peter and Arthur.
Jan Velterop


On 28 Apr 2012, at 10:00, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:



  On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Arthur Sale a...@ozemail.com.au
  wrote:
Stevan

I disagree with you in one regard. I agree that
researchers are a main
target but the general public cannot and should not be
omitted. The place
you go wrong is in your clauses 8 and 9. They are false,
though perhaps a
misguided intent is a better description. Almost all
research papers are of
interest to a subset of the general public (different
for each paper, as for
researchers).


I completely agree with Arthur. It is arrogant and unethical for academics
to claim that research is primarily for academics. There are huge numbers
of people outside academia who are frustrated by lack of access. A similar
arrogance was showed by Lord Winston (an academic medic well kown on TV) 
at the Oxford  meeting on Evolution of Scholarship where he stated that
the general public shouldn't have access to the medical literature. Even
were this awful premise justifiable, the mechanism of doing it through
pay-barrier access for commercial gain is an appalling way.

I am now retired and along with many others feel the effect of being
scholarly poor. These are the people who want to, but cannot, read the
scholarly literature except at 40 USD per paper per day. Academics don't
care bout them and it's shameful. There are people who change jobs - e.g.
from academia to industry - who overnight get cut off from scholarship.
Why should the taxpayers and student fees and research funders subsidize
library subscriptions in academia if there is this elitism?

Universities have failed to catch the spirit of twenty-first century
information and the world is showing its frustration with them.

To change attitudes and show the importance of the Scholarly Poor the Open
Knowledge Foundation and Mike Taylor has set up resources at
http://whoneedsaccess.org/ and @ccess to show the waste and pain caused by
denying scholarship outside academia. Mike is outside academia - he works
in computing - and yet manages to publish peer-reviewed research in
sauropods (dinosaurs). He has also championed the cause of effective Open
Access outside academia and has several articles in the national presses.

P.

--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal





[ Part 2: Attached Text ]

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

[GOAL] Re: Open Access Priorities: Peer Access and Public Access

[Jan Velterop]

Stevan sees the issue of providing open access primarily to scientists as 
strategic. I would have described it as tactical at best, but the main problem 
is that Stevan's strategy reinforces the ivory tower and the 
'my-brain-is-bigger-than-yours' elitism. First of all, scientists are also 
members of the public in any area other than their own (sub)specialism. But 
more importantly, reinforcing the ivory tower undermines efforts to demonstrate 
the wide relevance science has to society at large, the absence of which will 
ultimately undermine the societal appreciation of science itself (especially 
when that needs to be expressed in money and respect for science). Reinforcing 
the ivory tower runs counter to the very welcome development of the sister 
notions of open access and open science.

Instead of arguing for peer-access as the primary goal of open access, efforts 
should be aimed at making the argument for OA strengthening the societal 
relevance of science, an argument that any scientist with a healthy dose of 
self-interest is bound to understand and take on board. Funders such as the 
Wellcome Trust are already doing important work in that regard.

Jan Velterop

On 28 Apr 2012, at 14:24, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 The list of recommendations I made was strategic.
 The objective was to maximize OA deposits and 
 maximize OA deposit mandates.
 
 The issue is not about how many members of the
 general public might wish to read how many
 peer-reviewed journal articles.
 
 The issue is strategic: What provides a viable, credible,
 persuasive reason for researchers to provide OA 
 and for institutions and funders to mandate providing 
 OA in all fields of research, funded and unfunded, in
 all disciplines.
 
 My point was that providing access for the the general
 public is a viable, credible, persuasive reason for providing
 and mandating OA in some fields (notably health- related
 research, but there may be other fields as well) -- but it
 is not a viable, credible, persuasive reason for providing
 OA in all fields, nor for all research.
 
 It is not difficult to find anecdotal evidence of nonspecialist
 interest in specialized research; one's own interests often
 go beyond one's own area of expertise.
 
 But that is user-based reasoning, whereas providing OA
 and mandating OA require reasons that are viable,
 credible and persuasive to providers of research -- and 
 not some providers, sometimes, but all providers, for all
 research.
 
 The only reason for providing OA to research that is
 valid, credible and persuasive for all research and 
 researchers is in order to ensure that it is accessible to 
 all of its intended users -- primarily peers -- and not just 
 to those whose  institutions can afford to subscribe to the 
 journal in which it was published.
 
 The issue is strategic. It is a great mistake to construe
 giving priority to reasons for providing peer access
 over reasons for providing public access as somehow
 implying that public access should be denied: Public
 access automatically comes with the territory with OA.
 So public access denial is not the issue.
 
 The strategic issue is whether researchers (and their
 institutions and funders) are more likely to be induced
 to provide and mandate OA by the argument that the
 public wants and needs access or by the argument that
 peers want and need access. 
 
 Peer access provides research progress and impact.
 It is an appeal to researchers' self-interest to stress
 the beneficial effects of OA on the uptake and impact of
 their research.
 
 Most researchers of course also have a secret
 yearning that their research should appeal not only
 to their peers, but to the general public. But they also
 know that that is probably just wishful thinking in most
 cases. And in any case, public access does not have
 the direct affect on their careers, funding, and research
 progress that peer access has.
 
 So it is not that the enhancement of public access should
 not be listed among the reasons for providing OA. It is
 just that it should not be promoted as the first, foremost,
 or universal reason for providing OA, because it is not: for
 many or most researchers, that argument simply will not
 work. 
 
 Ditto for the argument that researchers need to provide
 OA because journal subscriptions cost too much. The
 eventual solution to the journal affordability crisis will
 probably also come from providing and mandating OA.
 But, like public access, journal affordability is not a
 sufficiently compelling or universal rationale for 
 providing OA.
 
 The public access rationale for providing OA appeals
 to politicians and voters. Good. Use it in order to help get
 OA mandate legistlation adopted by research funders.
 But the rationale is much less convincing to researchers
 (peers) themselves, and their institutions.
 
 The journal affordability rationale for providing OA appeals
 to librarians and institutions, but it is much less convincing

[GOAL] Re: Open Access Priorities: Peer Access and Public Access

[Jan Velterop]

Researchers may already know that providing peer access is in their best 
interest, yet they don't massively take that interest to heart. The scientific 
'community' is very conservative. Scientists, like politicians, are generally 
into reluctant followship, less into leadership. In my view it is time to 
change tactics and put more effort into mustering the persuasiveness that the 
potentially more dynamic general public may be able to provide. A recent spate 
of articles in The Guardian and The Observer in the UK, and even articles in 
The Economist, are good examples of what can be done to create an atmosphere in 
which not providing open access is frowned upon and becoming unacceptable. The 
pressure of public opinion can be formidable, particularly on governments and 
government-backed funders (though rarely admitted, of course). Recent steps 
taken by the RCUK may well (subconsciously) have been inspired by a desire to 
preempt such public pressure (and having to admit that 'it was the pressure of 
public opinion wot did it'). Especially in times of austerity it pays to keep 
the general public on board. Literally.

Jan

On 28 Apr 2012, at 15:23, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 Jan is talking ideology, whereas I am talking pragmatics. 
 
 Jan is free to try to persuade researchers that it is in their 
 interests (or otherwise worthy) to provide OA for the sake 
 of providing public access. Researchers already know 
 that providing peer access is in their own interests. That's 
 why  I think that rationale should be put up-front. 
 
 (Wellcome research, to repeat, is public health related. 
 No contest there. Now try that for the 999 other scholarly 
 and scientific disciplines...)
 
 PS Providing peer access to research -- so it can be
 used, applied  and built upon -- is also in the public 
 interest -- if doing (and funding) research at all is...
 
 Stevan
 
 On 2012-04-28, at 10:05 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:
 
 Stevan sees the issue of providing open access primarily to scientists as 
 strategic. I would have described it as tactical at best, but the main 
 problem is that Stevan's strategy reinforces the ivory tower and the 
 'my-brain-is-bigger-than-yours' elitism. First of all, scientists are also 
 members of the public in any area other than their own (sub)specialism. But 
 more importantly, reinforcing the ivory tower undermines efforts to 
 demonstrate the wide relevance science has to society at large, the absence 
 of which will ultimately undermine the societal appreciation of science 
 itself (especially when that needs to be expressed in money and respect for 
 science). Reinforcing the ivory tower runs counter to the very welcome 
 development of the sister notions of open access and open science.
 
 Instead of arguing for peer-access as the primary goal of open access, 
 efforts should be aimed at making the argument for OA strengthening the 
 societal relevance of science, an argument that any scientist with a healthy 
 dose of self-interest is bound to understand and take on board. Funders such 
 as the Wellcome Trust are already doing important work in that regard.
 
 Jan Velterop
 
 On 28 Apr 2012, at 14:24, Stevan Harnad wrote:
 
 The list of recommendations I made was strategic.
 The objective was to maximize OA deposits and 
 maximize OA deposit mandates.
 
 The issue is not about how many members of the
 general public might wish to read how many
 peer-reviewed journal articles.
 
 The issue is strategic: What provides a viable, credible,
 persuasive reason for researchers to provide OA 
 and for institutions and funders to mandate providing 
 OA in all fields of research, funded and unfunded, in
 all disciplines.
 
 My point was that providing access for the the general
 public is a viable, credible, persuasive reason for providing
 and mandating OA in some fields (notably health- related
 research, but there may be other fields as well) -- but it
 is not a viable, credible, persuasive reason for providing
 OA in all fields, nor for all research.
 
 It is not difficult to find anecdotal evidence of nonspecialist
 interest in specialized research; one's own interests often
 go beyond one's own area of expertise.
 
 But that is user-based reasoning, whereas providing OA
 and mandating OA require reasons that are viable,
 credible and persuasive to providers of research -- and 
 not some providers, sometimes, but all providers, for all
 research.
 
 The only reason for providing OA to research that is
 valid, credible and persuasive for all research and 
 researchers is in order to ensure that it is accessible to 
 all of its intended users -- primarily peers -- and not just 
 to those whose  institutions can afford to subscribe to the 
 journal in which it was published.
 
 The issue is strategic. It is a great mistake to construe
 giving priority to reasons for providing peer access
 over reasons for providing public access as somehow
 implying that public access should be denied

Re: [GOAL] Open Access Priorities: Peer Access and Public Access

[Jan Velterop]

Just a note to express my support and 100% agreement with Peter and Arthur.
Jan Velterop


On 28 Apr 2012, at 10:00, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:



  On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Arthur Sale a...@ozemail.com.au
  wrote:
Stevan

I disagree with you in one regard. I agree that
researchers are a main
target but the general public cannot and should not be
omitted. The place
you go wrong is in your clauses 8 and 9. They are false,
though perhaps a
misguided intent is a better description. Almost all
research papers are of
interest to a subset of the general public (different
for each paper, as for
researchers).


I completely agree with Arthur. It is arrogant and unethical for academics
to claim that research is primarily for academics. There are huge numbers
of people outside academia who are frustrated by lack of access. A similar
arrogance was showed by Lord Winston (an academic medic well kown on TV) 
at the Oxford  meeting on Evolution of Scholarship where he stated that
the general public shouldn't have access to the medical literature. Even
were this awful premise justifiable, the mechanism of doing it through
pay-barrier access for commercial gain is an appalling way.

I am now retired and along with many others feel the effect of being
scholarly poor. These are the people who want to, but cannot, read the
scholarly literature except at 40 USD per paper per day. Academics don't
care bout them and it's shameful. There are people who change jobs - e.g.
from academia to industry - who overnight get cut off from scholarship.
Why should the taxpayers and student fees and research funders subsidize
library subscriptions in academia if there is this elitism?

Universities have failed to catch the spirit of twenty-first century
information and the world is showing its frustration with them.

To change attitudes and show the importance of the Scholarly Poor the Open
Knowledge Foundation and Mike Taylor has set up resources at
http://whoneedsaccess.org/ and @ccess to show the waste and pain caused by
denying scholarship outside academia. Mike is outside academia - he works
in computing - and yet manages to publish peer-reviewed research in
sauropods (dinosaurs). He has also championed the cause of effective Open
Access outside academia and has several articles in the national presses.

P.

--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: what is a suitable CC license for an scholarly open access journal

[Jan Velterop]

Dear Sridhar,

CC-BY without a doubt. I share your views on the ND element. Almost all science 
is derived from earlier work. And ND would encumber, or make impossible, usage 
by modern scientific analyses, which are increasingly using ? needing ? text- 
and data-mining and then publishing those analyses.

Best,

Jan Velterop

On 26 Apr 2012, at 11:38, Sridhar Gutam wrote:

 Dear All,
 
 In the year 2009, when we launched the Open Access Journal of Medicinal and 
 Aromatic Plants (OAJMAP) http://www.oajmap.in from Medicinal and Aromatic 
 Plants Association of India (MAPAI) http://www.mapai.co.nr we have asked a 
 question on a OA forum on what should be the suitable CC license to apply for 
 the OAJMAP.
 
 We were told and we also got convienced that we should go for CC BY ND. But 
 now as we are progressing, I feel unfortable in using 'ND'.
 
 Why?? the license says -- No Derivative Works ? You may not alter, transform, 
 or build upon this work.
 
 But, all the research is derived out from the existing and new things would 
 be built on the existing.
 
 I would like to advice to the Editorial Board, OAJMAP and the Management 
 Committee, MAPAI to go for CC-BY.
 
 Whats your suggestions pleases??
 
 Sridhar
 
 
 __
 Sridhar Gutam PhD, ARS, Patent Laws (NALSAR), IP  Biotech. (WIPO)
 Senior Scientist (Plant Physiology)
 Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture
 Rehmankhera, Kakori Post
 Lucknow 227107, Uttar Pradesh, India
 Phone: +91-522-2841022/23/24; Fax: +91-522-2841025
 Mobile:+91-9005760036/8005346136
 Publications: http://works.bepress.com/sridhar_gutam/
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL at eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120426/63a84c4f/attachment.html
 

[GOAL] Re: what is a suitable CC license for an scholarly open access journal

[Jan Velterop]

Dear Sridhar,
CC-BY without a doubt. I share your views on the ND element. Almost all science
is derived from earlier work. And ND would encumber, or make impossible, usage
by modern scientific analyses, which are increasingly using – needing – 
text-
and data-mining and then publishing those analyses.

Best,

Jan Velterop

On 26 Apr 2012, at 11:38, Sridhar Gutam wrote:

  Dear All,

  In the year 2009, when we launched the Open Access Journal of
  Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (OAJMAP) http://www.oajmap.in from
  Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Association of India (MAPAI)
  http://www.mapai.co.nr we have asked a question on a OA forum on
  what should be the suitable CC license to apply for the OAJMAP.

  We were told and we also got convienced that we should go for CC BY
  ND. But now as we are progressing, I feel unfortable in using 'ND'.

  Why?? the license says -- No Derivative Works — You may not alter,
  transform, or build upon this work.

  But, all the research is derived out from the existing and new
  things would be built on the existing.

  I would like to advice to the Editorial Board, OAJMAP and the
  Management Committee, MAPAI to go for CC-BY.

  Whats your suggestions pleases??

  Sridhar


  __
  Sridhar Gutam PhD, ARS, Patent Laws (NALSAR), IP  Biotech. (WIPO)
  Senior Scientist (Plant Physiology)
  Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture
  Rehmankhera, Kakori Post
  Lucknow 227107, Uttar Pradesh, India
  Phone: +91-522-2841022/23/24; Fax: +91-522-2841025
  Mobile:+91-9005760036/8005346136
  Publications: http://works.bepress.com/sridhar_gutam/
  ___
  GOAL mailing list
  GOAL@eprints.org
  http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal





[ Part 2: Attached Text ]

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

[GOAL] Re: Why Public Access vs. Research Access Matters

[Jan Velterop]

Everybody with a reasonable education and interest is a researcher from time to 
time; for some it's a job; some are affiliated to an institution.

You may well be right that public access is not enough reason to induce 
publishing researchers to bother to make their research publications OA. That, 
sadly, seems to be the case. That also seems to be the case for the 'OA 
citation advantage', for the 'taxpayer has the right to access' argument, for 
the 'we're paying twice for research' argument, etcetera. 

These arguments should translate into a general ethical argument. When 
scientific or scholarly research results obtained with public resources are 
worthy of being published (and a lot more is worthy of being published than is 
being published now ? think negative results), they belong to the 'no?sphere', 
the knowledge sphere for all humanity to take in, when so desired. 

It should ? and in my judgment it will ? be socially and professionally 
unacceptable for any researcher who wishes to be taken seriously to keep his or 
her published results behind barriers. 

Jan Velterop


On 29 Mar 2012, at 02:47, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 No flames, Peter. I said researcher -- not institutionally affiliated 
 researcher.
 
 Researchers are the ones most researcher is written for: to be used,
 applied and built upon.
 
 And I also said that health-related research was one of the special exceptions
 where public access is indeed desired and needed. 
 
 But health-related research is not representative of most scientific and 
 scholarly 
 research. 
 
 Hence it is not reason enough  to induce researchers bother to make their 
 research OA (or their institution bother to mandate it).
 
 Maximizing research access for those intended to use and build upon is.
 
 (And no one said anyone was a second class citizen.)
 
 Peace.
 
 On 2012-03-28, at 4:18 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
 
 
 
 On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Stevan Harnad harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk 
 wrote:
 Some comments on Richard Poynder's interview of Mike Rossner in Open  Shut
 http://poynder.blogspot.ca/2012/03/rups-mike-rossner-doing-whats-right.html
 
 Practically speaking, public access (i.e., free online access to research,
 for everyone) includes researcher access (free online access to research
 for researchers).
 
 Moreover, free online access to research, for everyone, includes both public
 access and researcher access.
 
 I do not wish to start a flame war on this list, but to distinguish public 
 and researcher is totally unacceptable to me. I have worked as a scientist 
 for 15 years outside academia and I am not a second class citizen. There are 
 many outside academia who are every bit as good scientists as those inside - 
 they pay the taxes which pay research and pay library subscriptions.
   
 There are people who would be dead if they could not have read the medical 
 literature - fortuitously because they happened to be employed by a 
 university. 
 
 P.
 
 -- 
 Peter Murray-Rust
 Reader in Molecular Informatics
 Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
 University of Cambridge
 CB2 1EW, UK
 +44-1223-763069
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL at eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL at eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120329/d2ed8b38/attachment.html
 

[GOAL] Re: RCUK Open Access Feedback

[Jan Velterop]

I agree with Tim. Doesn't the 'NC' in CC-BY-NC just mean I can't make money 
from it and I would resent it if you could ?

Jan Velterop

   ? ?  ? ? ?   ? ? ?  ? ?
**
Drs Johannes (Jan) Velterop, CEO
Academic Concept Knowledge Ltd. (AQnowledge)
+44 7525 026 991 (mobile)
+44 1483 579 525 (landline UK)
+31 70 75 33 789 (landline NL)
Skype: Villavelius
Email: velterop at aqnowledge.com
velterop at gmail.com
aqnowledge.com




On 19 Mar 2012, at 11:37, Tim Brody wrote:

 On Sun, 2012-03-18 at 21:28 +0900, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
 David Prosser wrote:
 Say I wanted to data mine 10,000 articles.  I'm at a university, but I am c=
 o-funded by a pharmaceutical company and there is a possibility that the re=
 search that I'm doing may result in a new drug discovery, which that compan=
 y will want to take to market.  The 10,000 articles are all 'open access', =
 but they are under CC-BY-NC-SA licenses.  What mechanism is there by which =
 I can contact all 10,000 authors and gain permission for my research?
 
 
 The intent of CC-NC is that one cannot take the original material, re-mix it 
 (or even just as-is) and sell the resulting new work. It does not mean that 
 the information it contains cannot be used in a commercial setting, but that 
 the expression it contains cannot be used in a commercial setting. A simple 
 example is that a CC-NC licensed book cannot be recorded as an audio play 
 which is then sold. If one makes an audio book it must be available for 
 free. 
 However, copies of a CC-NC book can be distributed to students who are 
 paying 
 for a course in English literature as one of the books studied.
 
 I don't understand this concern about 'NC' (non-commercial). I
 understood that the give-away open access literature was given-away by
 authors precisely because the motivation for publishing publicly funded
 research is not for direct commercial gain. Instead, authors derive
 impact from others reading and citing their work.
 
 If a company were to create and sell an audio version of a research work
 then that increases the author's impact. That doesn't preclude someone
 else creating a for-free audio version, nor readers accessing the
 original self-archived or gold-OA text version.
 
 OA is not about anti-capitalism - if someone can take the resource (OA
 research literature), add value and re-sell it (with suitable
 attribution) then that can only be to the advantage of authors and
 readers.
 
 -- 
 Tim Brody
 
 School of Electronics and Computer Science
 University of Southampton
 Southampton
 SO17 1BJ
 United Kingdom
 
 Email: tdb2 at ecs.soton.ac.uk
 Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 7698
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL at eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120319/1766ca1a/attachment.html
 

[GOAL] Re: RCUK Open Access Feedback

[Jan Velterop]

I agree with Tim. Doesn't the 'NC' in CC-BY-NC just mean I can't make money
from it and I would resent it if you could ?
Jan Velterop

               – –  • • •   • • •  – –
**
Drs Johannes (Jan) Velterop, CEOAcademic Concept Knowledge Ltd. (AQnowledge)
+44 7525 026 991 (mobile)
+44 1483 579 525 (landline UK)
+31 70 75 33 789 (landline NL)
Skype: Villavelius
Email: velte...@aqnowledge.com
velte...@gmail.com
aqnowledge.com




On 19 Mar 2012, at 11:37, Tim Brody wrote:

  On Sun, 2012-03-18 at 21:28 +0900, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
David Prosser wrote:

  Say I wanted to data mine 10,000 articles.
   I'm at a university, but I am c=

  o-funded by a pharmaceutical company and
  there is a possibility that the re=

  search that I'm doing may result in a new
  drug discovery, which that compan=

  y will want to take to market.  The 10,000
  articles are all 'open access', =

  but they are under CC-BY-NC-SA licenses.
   What mechanism is there by which =

  I can contact all 10,000 authors and gain
  permission for my research?



The intent of CC-NC is that one cannot take the original
material, re-mix it

(or even just as-is) and sell the resulting new work. It
does not mean that

the information it contains cannot be used in a
commercial setting, but that

the expression it contains cannot be used in a
commercial setting. A simple

example is that a CC-NC licensed book cannot be recorded
as an audio play

which is then sold. If one makes an audio book it must
be available for free.

However, copies of a CC-NC book can be distributed to
students who are paying

for a course in English literature as one of the books
studied.


  I don't understand this concern about 'NC' (non-commercial). I
  understood that the give-away open access literature was
  given-away by
  authors precisely because the motivation for publishing publicly
  funded
  research is not for direct commercial gain. Instead, authors derive
  impact from others reading and citing their work.

  If a company were to create and sell an audio version of a research
  work
  then that increases the author's impact. That doesn't preclude
  someone
  else creating a for-free audio version, nor readers accessing the
  original self-archived or gold-OA text version.

  OA is not about anti-capitalism - if someone can take the resource
  (OA
  research literature), add value and re-sell it (with suitable
  attribution) then that can only be to the advantage of authors and
  readers.

  --
  Tim Brody

  School of Electronics and Computer Science
  University of Southampton
  Southampton
  SO17 1BJ
  United Kingdom

  Email: t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
  Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 7698
  ___
  GOAL mailing list
  GOAL@eprints.org
  http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal





[ Part 2: Attached Text ]

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