Re: [GOAL] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models
ojects, such as the > Research Council U.K.’s block grants for article processing charges, the > EU-led OA2020 initiative, Europe PMC and the short-lived PMC-Canada. > Theoretical analysis will draw on Ostrom’s work on the commons, theories of > development, under-development, epistemic / knowledge inequity and the > concepts of Chan and colleagues (2011) on the importance of moving beyond > north-to-south access to knowledge (charity model) to include > south-to-south and south-to-north (equity model). This model analysis > contributes to build a comparative view of transcontinental efforts for a > global knowledge commons building with shared values of open access, > sharing and collaboration, in contrast to the growing trend of > commodification of scholarly knowledge evident in both traditional > subscriptions / purchase-based scholarly publishing and in commercial open > access publishing. We anticipate that our findings will indicate that a > digital world of inclusiveness and reciprocity is possible, but cannot be > taken for granted, and policy support is crucial. Global communication and > information policy have much to contribute towards the development of a > sustainable global knowledge commons. > > Full text: https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/40664 > > Cite as: Morrison, H. & Rahman, R. (2020). Knowledge and equity: analysis > of three models. *International Association of Communication and Media > Researchers (IAMCR) annual conference*, July 2020. > > Comments are welcome, either on list or on the blog: > > > https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2020/06/26/knowledge-and-equity-analysis-of-three-models/ > > > > best, > > > > Dr. Heather Morrison > > Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa > > Cross-appointed, Department of Communication > > Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa > > Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight > Project > > sustainingknowledgecommons.org > > heather.morri...@uottawa.ca > > https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 > > [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020] > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > -- "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] Invitation to the next Open-source community call, June 29
Thank you Jennifer, Simon Worthington (TiB, Hanover) and I have started a FORCE11 working group on Open Climate Knowledge where we are building systems to scrape the worlds scholarly knowledge (including those not indexed by commercial publishers) . This has been pre-empted by COVID-19 so we have turned the code to extracting knowledge on viral epidemics (not just COVID). http://github.com/petermr/openVirus Andy Jackson has indexed 100,000 theses in BL (EThOS), and Clyde Davies is half way through indexing 4.7 million abstracts in Dir Open Access Journals (DOAJ) Everything is volunteer and Open. The technology is completely general and can be re-used on any open access sources. Since indexes are not owned by authors, we can distribute indexes under the UK law. Scholarly infrastructure is under threat. The threat of monoculture developed not for our benefit, but the income and control of megapublishers. If we do not provide alternatives we will do scholarship under the "snoop and control" of companies we pay huge amounts to. The way to challenge this is to build better infrastructure which is under our control, not corporations. Did you know that over 90% of the literature on face-masks is behind paywalls? That the key 1982 paper predicting Ebola in Liberia is STILL paywalled? That Elsevier is withdrawing its free COVID tools in October 2020 (https://www.elsevier.com/connect/coronavirus-information-center) almost certainly before the end of the epidemic? We have to build our own infrastructure instead of pouring increasingly scarce money into publishers. If it can index the BL theses, then it can index others. Do you have an underused repository that is machine unfriendly? Would it benefit from semantic indexing using Wikidata? We have 7 wonderful volunteers from undergraduate / Masters students in India. Can you find some similar volunteers? On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Gibson wrote: > (Apologies for cross-posting. Please spread the word!) > > Please join us for the next Open-source Community Call, hosted in > partnership by FORCE11, Dryad and eLife. These calls are an informal way to > share and discuss efforts that promote open approaches to research > communication, from dissemination of new results (as datasets, code or > text) to discovery and evaluation. The focus is on emerging projects and > significant updates for ongoing ones. Come out and get the latest. > > The next call will be Monday, June 29, 2020 > 8am Pacific, 1pm Eastern, and 4pm British Summer Time > Registration is free, but required. > > Register here: > https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Bujp0KMORp6SQrrIczkJAg > > The agenda is open and there's space for more presenters. Learn more at > https://www.force11.org/article/register-attend-next-open-source-community-call-june-29 > > Thank you! > > -- > > -- > > Jennifer Gibson (née McLennan) > Head of Open Research Communication > > > > elifesciences.org > > eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd is a limited liability non-profit > non-stock corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware, USA, with > company number 5030732, and is registered in the UK with company number > FC030576 and branch number BR015634 at the address Westbrook Centre, Milton > Road, Cambridge, CB4 1YG. > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > -- "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] GOAL Digest, Vol 103, Issue 5
I dont publish in journals anymore unless there's a co-author who needs it. Most of my output is slides on slideshare.net/petermurrayrust. My main activity is building disruptive software. We are close to having an automatic reader of the scholarly literature. I'm doing a talk today on climate Change and Migration. I'm also running a project on openVirus - scraping the worlds literature on viral epidemics and how to tackle them What would you like a talk on? Would be delighted. Can do this at short notice - days - e.g. next week? As you know I am an activist and see little value in the current scholpub industry. Latin America does it better. Can we Look back to the Scottish enlightenment and re-empower citizens to help us share knowledge? We can change the world if we want to. COVID is a decision point. Universities will be different. Let's get informatics students, not Elsevier, building the libraries of the future. P. On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:06 PM Valerie McCutcheon < valerie.mccutch...@glasgow.ac.uk> wrote: > Thanks for sharing Peter. Don't suppose you have anything published/grey > literature out there on this topic or fancy giving a short community > informal talk on your perspective? > > Valerie > > -Original Message- > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org On Behalf Of > goal-requ...@eprints.org > Sent: 10 June 2020 12:00 > To: goal@eprints.org > Subject: GOAL Digest, Vol 103, Issue 5 > > Send GOAL mailing list submissions to > goal@eprints.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > goal-requ...@eprints.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > goal-ow...@eprints.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than > "Re: Contents of GOAL digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Re: BioMedCentral 2020 (Peter Murray-Rust) > > > ---------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 10:41:52 +0100 > From: Peter Murray-Rust > Subject: Re: [GOAL] BioMedCentral 2020 > To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" > Cc: "scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org" > , Anqi Shi < > ashi...@uottawa.ca> > Message-ID: > < > cad2k14pwuck-cwwdjgauc_5zaoewxveswgnuquwhz0ycwpy...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Thank you Heather, > These are valuable figures that show that "Open Access" does not always > bring knowledge justice. > > I was involved with BMC nearly from the start - it broke new ground - > showed that "OA" could be profitable and sustainable. I was on the > Editorial Board of Journal of Cheminformatics from the start until I > resigned (on this issue) . The editors past and present are close friends > and colleagues and have been a primary force for innovation in chemistry. > > But the takeover by Springer has been ultra-capitalist and an example of > knowledge neocolonialism. From where I was I saw no positive support from > Springer. The editorial board were expected to pay all their expenses > including travelling to US for a "meeting", that was inadequately supported > by Springer (no minutes were kept). Springer provided effectively no > support. They may have provided some generic support for IECs, but in my > view minimal. I addressed all these concerns and got no reply. > > I guestimate (without evidence) that the "prices" are roughly > * 30% true "costs" (much larger than they should be because there is no > pressure) > * 30% corporate (branding, offices, etc.) > * 10% philanthropy (waivers) > * 30% direct to shareholders > > I therefore resigned with as much publicity (not much) that I could > generate. > > It is critical to realise that OA does not guarantee: > * knowledge justice > * global equality (in fact in companies like BMC it is divisive) > * innovation (commercial publishers have no incentive to innovate and this > is holding science/scholarship back massively). The lack of modern > technology means that data which should be used to validate science is > omitted or published as bitmaps. People die because of our current > publication processes. > > It seems clear to me that Editorial Boards and many Editors are > effectively sidelined by megapublishers, who create tech and processes that > benefit them, not the readers or the world. The plethora of arcane > publishers all competing to create different brands effectively destroys > much scientific knowledge. > > This will
Re: [GOAL] BioMedCentral 2020
or more, well > above the inflation rate. 39 journals increased in price by 10% or more; 13 > journals increased in price by 20% or more. Also in 2020, there are 11 new > journals, 11 journals ceased publication, 5 titles were transferred to > other publishers, 2 journals changed from no publication fee to having an > APC, and 3 journals dropped their APCs. Two journals formerly published > fully OA by BMC are no longer listed on the BMC website, but are now listed > as hybrid on the Springer website. This is a small portion of the total but > is worth noting as the opposite direction of the transformative (from > subscriptions to OA) officially embraced by SpringerNature. > > For links to the full PDF and data: > > https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2020/06/08/biomedcentral-2020/ > > > Cite as: Shi, A. & Morrison, H. (2020). BioMedCentral 2020. *Sustaining > the Knowledge Commons*. > https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2020/06/08/biomedcentral-2020/ > > Dr. Heather Morrison > > Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa > > Cross-appointed, Department of Communication > > Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa > > Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight > Project > > sustainingknowledgecommons.org > > heather.morri...@uottawa.ca > > https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 > > [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020] > _______ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > -- "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] Springer Nature reaches new milestone with publication of 1000th open access book
Questions to Springer Nature: * What is the average cost to authors for an e-book? * What support is given to authors from Low/Middle Income Countries (LMIC)? * how many of these 1000 books come from LMIC countries? On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:49 PM Christina Emery < christina.em...@springernature.com> wrote: > ** apologies for cross posting ** > > > > Dear all, > > > > I hope you’re all well. I wanted to share our press release with you which > can be found here: > > > https://group.springernature.com/gp/group/media/press-releases/new-open-access-milestone-with-the-publication-of-1000th-oa-book/17990474 > > > > === > > > > Springer Nature has reached a new milestone in open access (OA) publishing > with the release of its 1000th open access book. > > With 84 million chapters downloaded across the portfolio, the company is > advancing discovery by offering the possibility to publish scholarly books > open access so they can be immediately and freely accessed by readers > worldwide. > > > > As the largest OA publisher, Springer Nature launched a dedicated OA book > programme in 2012 to give authors the opportunity to publish scholarly > books OA. Six years later, in 2018, the OA books programme comprised 500 OA > books with over 30 million chapter downloads. Only two years later, the > total OA book output has now doubled, and the number of chapters downloaded > nearly tripled. > > > > The 1000th open access book, “Health of People, Health of Planet and Our > Responsibility: Climate Change, Air Pollution and Health”, includes a wide > range of cross-disciplinary views regarding the health impacts of climate > change. It brings together health care professionals, climate scientists, > social scientists and humanities researchers, and theologians and political > leaders and includes contributions from four Nobel Laureates. > > > > “Reaching the milestone of 1000 open access books is a proud moment for > us. Open access increases the visibility, readership, and impact of > scholarly books, and we are delighted to be at the forefront in helping > more authors benefit from this, given the important role books play in > scholarly communication,” says Ros Pyne, Director, Open Access Books and > Book Policies at Springer Nature. > > > > Springer Nature offers its open access books across a wide range of areas > in science, technology, medicine (STM), and the humanities and social > sciences (HSS) with a diverse array of book types including monographs, > edited collections, reference works, and proceedings. Springer Nature’s > preferred licence for OA books is CC BY, and authors retain copyright over > their work. > > > > Springer Nature has been publishing academic books and textbooks for over > 175 years and is using its experience and expertise, along with its > investment in new technologies and initiatives, to drive forward the > publishing and reading experience. Springer Nature was the first to offer > all of its books in electronic format, alongside the print version. > > > > === > > > > Best regards, > > > > Christina Emery > Open access books – marketing manager at Springer Nature > christina.em...@springernature.com > > > > > https://www.springernature.com/gp/researchers/campaigns/celebrating-1000-open-access-books > > > -- > DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone > who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received this > e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or > any other storage mechanism. Springer Nature Limited does not accept > liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and > not expressly made on behalf of Springer Nature Ltd or one of their agents. > Please note that Springer Nature Limited and their agents and affiliates > do not accept any responsibility for viruses or malware that may be > contained in this e-mail or its attachments and it is your responsibility > to scan the e-mail and attachments (if any). > Springer Nature Limited. Registered office: The Campus, 4 Crinan Street, > London, N1 9XW. Registered Number: 00785998 England. > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > -- "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] Ten simple rules for innovative dissemination of research
Thanks Tony and also to acknowledge the great contribution made by Jon Tennant , see EGU for an obituary https://www.egu.eu/news/646/obituary-jonathan-tennant-1988-2020/ On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 9:33 AM Tony Ross-Hellauer wrote: > Hi all, > > > > Just to share a new paper in PLOS Comp Bio which gives a how-to summary of > easy steps researchers can take to disseminate their work in novel and > engaging ways to boost their impact. > > > > *Ross-Hellauer T, Tennant JP, Banelytė V, Gorogh E, Luzi D, Kraker P, et > al. (2020) Ten simple rules for innovative dissemination of research. PLoS > Comput Biol 16(4): e1007704. * > > *https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007704 > <https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007704> * > > > > Hopefully of practical use to researchers and research students! > > > > Have a great weekend, Tony > > > > > > *Dr. Tony Ross-Hellauer* > > *Group Leader – Open and Reproducible Research Group > <https://www.tugraz.at/institute/isds/research/groups/orrg/>, TU Graz* > > *Senior Researcher (Open Science) – Know-Center GmbH* > > *Project Coordinator (PI) ON-MERRIT <https://on-merrit.eu/>* > > *Editor-in-Chief Publications <http://www.mdpi.com/journal/publications/> > (ISSN 2304-6775)* > > Phone +43-316-873-32800 Fax +43-316-873-1030815 > > tr...@know-center.at / ross-hella...@tugraz.at > > > > > > > > > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > -- "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action
Thanks for outlining this. There are 300-400 people on the OSI list. I could not find: * any researchers * any doctors/medics * anyone from the Global South But there are 9 directors from Elsevier. And everyone else is director of this, chief of that, CEO of the other. In the early days of OA in UK The https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-open-up-publicly-funded-research Finch Report invited the closed access publishers to help reform publishing. For many of us this was a a complete betrayal of the radicalism required. No wonder there has been to progress. That articles are priced at 3500 Euro. That 80% of the social distancing literature is behind a paywall. This mega committee is a repeat. It cannot reform. It will legitimise the next digital landgrab by the vested interests. There are publishers who create documents (Read Cube) that are specifically designed to make it impossible to re-use knowledge. And no one except a few of us care. m. The business model of megapublishers is to make it as hard as possible to read science. And then collect rent. In software the world works towards interoperable solutions ; in "publishing" we have 100+ competing groups who try as hard as possible to make universal knowledge available. In the coronavirus pandemic we need global knowledge. The person who does this without publisher control will be sued and possibly jailed. The only person who has liberated science will be jailed if she sets foot in USA. This is not fantasy. I have seen graduate students careers destroyed by publishers, with no support from their institutions. I myself have had pushback for text and data mining; I have had no practical support from anyone in the Academic system. Although they got the law changed to allow TDM, no Universities in UK dare do anything the publishers might frown on. I've been on and seen initiative after initiative. I've launched one (Panton Principles) - it probably actually made some difference to protect data before the publishers thought of grabbing it. But most inituiatives achieve nothing. And if they are stuffed with publishers all they do is increase the prices they charge for OA (like DEAL, PlanS and the rest). OA is just a way of milking the taxpayer. The only thing that will change this is building a better system with a fresh start, almost certainly with young radical people. And Coronavirus might just do that when citizens realize how badly they've been robbed. P. -- "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:48 AM Samuel Moore wrote: I share Sam's concerns. > I’d be interested to hear more on the 'high-level' focus of your group and > whether you see it as antagonistic to non-high-level approaches. Put > another way, are you not simply looking for common ground between the > groups who are already in charge of scholarly communication (policymakers, > commercial publishers, senior figures, etc.) to the exclusion of those > operating at the margins? > > I agree, I am concerned about several demographics: * citizens outside academia * young people * the Global South. I am an old white anglophone male so I cannot speak other that to P.urge that the initiative is taken by different demographics. I also think the effect of the capitalist publishing industry, whether closed or Open Access has been hugely detrimental. To the extent that I can carry the views of others , I believe these views are shared by many. P. > > -- "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 6:39 AM Richard Poynder wrote: > “Designing a system that fosters bibliodiversity, while also supporting > research at the international level is extremely challenging. It means > achieving a careful balance between unity and diversity; international and > local; and careful coordination across different stakeholder communities > and regions in order to avoid a fragmented ecosystem.” > > > > That seems to me to be a key paragraph in this document. And the pandemic > — which requires that information is shared very quickly and broadly, and > across borders — does certainly highlight the fact that the current > scholarly communication system leaves a lot to be desired. > > > First , thanks for raising this and also quoting me. I am going to be challenging as these are challenging times. I play the role of a socratic gadly and I will upset people. I'm taking the view of the citizen in the street - in the Global South - who wants answers from academic knowledge. Not in 5 years time, not next month, NOW. If the repository system cannot address the needs of citizens in a time of urgency then it has failed the citizen. If it's creating an academia-only product then citizens can rightfully challenge it. So, if you are still reading I call on the repository system to start supporting the need for universal knowledge. Everywhere. And I'm going to set a timescale. To create a universal interface to the worlds repositories by the end of JUNE 2020 (2020-06-30) That is what emergencies demand. Now most of you will be dismissing this as rubbish. But it's possible. My colleague Rick Smith-Unna, when a graduate student at Cambridge, and contracting to ContentMine, in 2015 wrote a wrapper for EuropePMC repository to systematic download articles in bulk (500 in a minute). It transforms the way that citizens can use the system. It probably took him about 2 weeks. He's a genius but there are geniuses out there who want to help. The goal of the repository system in the COVID age must put citizens at the centre. I've had a request from a Spanish forensic scientist to answer the question: "to collect as many scientific articles as possible regarding the persistence of Covid-19 in different surfaces and materials that are commonly studied in a forensic setting, such as samples obtained form autopsies (skin, bones and body fluids), porous and non-porous surfaces and textiles. " I have no doubt that many useful articles are contained in the world's repository system. It should be able to help with that, now. And without specialist intermediaries. Since you ask for action, which I agree, IMO the first action should be to build systems that work. Within 2 months. Not perfectly, not universal but work. Rick built a wrapper for EuropePMC which with only one or two others (HAL and some other national repos) is the only repository that can support a global system. I don't use CORE because I have to surrender my details to get an API. I have tried to use US repos of theses and couldn't get past the rage of landing pagfes and controls. Biorxiv doesn't yet have an API so I've built an interface in the last two weeks. It's clunky but I can download 600 papers on COVID in an hour, automatically. If the same was done globally, with a single point of entry, then we'd have a modern knowledge system. So how to do it? * set a goal and timescale as I have done * get the worlds brightest grad students (probably 3rd year as they already know all the problems of scholarly literature) to work with your tech people and bibliography people to build a rapid prototype for mass download of raw text from your repo. The grad students are the most important part of this. and then just go ahead, starting today. And my daily call, if anyone wants to help us extract knowledge about COVID automatically, please join our https://github.com/petermr/openVirus I am disappointed that I'v had no response from readers of this list. P. -- "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] Number of Open Access journals per country/ Open Access Heatmap
Thank you, Very useful map indeed. You might find it useful to link up with Wikidata, which now has a huge bibliography of Open Access articles and also links into masses of demographic info. Also they have interactive maps with (of course) are free of limiting restrictions. The high proportion of OA in Latin America should be well known and applauded but I'd particularly like to highlight Indonesia. They have a very active preprint culture and community but face severe financial problems: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00363-3 >>The costs can be significant, particularly for repositories run by volunteers in emerging economies. Dasapta Erwin Irawan, a hydrogeologist at the Bandung Institute of Technology who helped set up INA-Rxiv, says his repository received more than 6,000 submissions between July 2018 and June 2019, so the fees will come to about $25,000 per year, which he cannot afford. [The report ends on a gloomy note but I think Dasapta has some recent possibilities.] The amount of money they need (25,000 USD) is a mere EIGHT papers in the German Springer DEAL (2750Eur each) and a mere FIVE papers for Open Access in Nature or Am Chem Soc. We have to find a permanent solution to this. We are paying publishers for glory badges while the science of the Global South is left to rot. The recent COVID-19 pandemic have emphasised that we must think globally. The Budapest Declaration of Open Access has one of the great paragraphs of liberation: >>>>The public good [the internet] make possible is the world-wide electronic distribution of the peer-reviewed journal literature and completely free and unrestricted access to it by all scientists, scholars, teachers, students, and other curious minds. Removing access barriers to this literature will accelerate research, enrich education, share the learning of the rich with the poor and the poor with the rich, make this literature as useful as it can be, and lay the foundation for uniting humanity in a common intellectual conversation and quest for knowledge. In the North we forget this. How many Open Access deals actively strive for this outcome? And how many put the benefits to authors and universities above global knowledge by propping up legacy bloated publishers? I am starting to work with GlobalSouth repositories and preprint servers to see if our Open ContentMine/Wikidata technology on COVID-19 and beyond ( https://github.com/petermr/openVirus). We are looking for volunteers in indexing, preprint technology, dictionaries, wikimedia, crawling, etc. -- "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 11:04 AM Nicolas Pettiaux wrote: > Dear > > Your example is completely right. For me today, one of the biggest problem > hindering the progress to find a cure for the covid19 disease is related to > copyright. I would therefore like to search for all articles that match > "copyright" and "disease", or "copyright" and "virus" or "copyright" and > "cure" and many other combination. > This will be quite challenging as many articles will have "copyright" as a positive term (e.g. CC BY) and others negative - Copyright X, "all rights reserved". So you will have to create a tighter question. > Please let me know where I can find enough information to start to use the > software you are working on. > https://github.com/petermr/openVirus is where most of the action is https://github.com/petermr/ami3 is where the code is https://github.com/petermr/openVirus/wiki is the discussion But yours is a harder problem than science content and you will need a clear hypothesis. http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge
Here's another example of how you cannot predict what the COVID19 epidemic needs: >There seems to be quite a lot of literature that cationic surfaces (polymeric or inorganics) are good to deal with viruses. Folks have seen this with several materials with a high isoelectric point (Al, ZrO2..) and in solution with polyinorganic Al complexes. I know you are interested in using nanostructures in this context.. could you use nano materials that are cationic? Similarly.. nanomaterials can also be effective in enhancing UV generated radicals/singlet oxygen.. Hence a nanostructured surface of the right material with UV light, might be able to combine all these approaches in one system? PMR> This will have almost zero overlap with the Elsevier Coronavirus Hub but it's just as important. Taylor and Francis: "nanomaterials", 85% PAYWALLED Wiley: 19/20 top hits , i.e. 95% PAYWALLED Sage: 16/20 top hits i.e. 80% PAYWALLED Publishers. Your paywalls are massively destroying the research effort. CORD-19 is irrelevant. If you do not respond NOW the world will judge you vey harshly. Librarians, Purchase Officers. Why continue to pay subscriptions to these companies? Its primary effect is to stop citizens having access to critical knowledge. P. On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 10:43 AM Peter Murray-Rust wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 6:34 AM Thomas Krichel wrote: > >> brent...@uliege.be writes >> >> In practice, I doubt that access to current research is such a big >> issue "NOW" as libraries and open access advocates make it appear to >> be. The average academic only reads about one hour a week. In most >> cases, if you know that a paper exist and who the author is, you can >> contact the author to get the paper. Most authors will comply because >> they crave citations. The open access situation will improve anyway >> as the virus crises in the long run will leave institutions too weak >> to afford the journal subscription folly. >> >> The idea that readers want a single paper is absolutely out of date in > the digital century. I want all information on "face mask"s - it's been > requested by a Cambridge colleague. > > >We need urgent expert help for two respiratory surgeons looking for > evidence of mask effectiveness for typical procedures (collecting samples, > intubation, and on to more invasive procedures). Happy to put experts in > touch with them quickly. Evidence based, ideally peer reviewed rather than > opinion. Thank you. > > Our system getpapers+AMI downloaded and analysed over 300 papers for this > query in 5 minutes. See > https://github.com/petermr/openVirus/blob/master/examples/n95/OVERVIEW.md and > https://github.com/petermr/openVirus/blob/master/examples/n95 for the > actual papers. Anyone can do this on their laptop. For free. (If anyone > says "what about Copyright"? I'll raise the ghost of Queen Anne and her > wrath. Copyright has no place in modern science/medicine).Except they won't > get most of the relevant papers from Springer, Elsevier, T+F, Wiley, Sage, > JSTOR, as my software does not go behind paywalls. > > > It's more than that. Suppose I want all drugs related to chloroquine. The > hydroxy derivative is called Plaquenil. I didn't know that. But the > software developed by my group in Cambridge DOES know that. So we need to > build an index of the chemistry in the literature. > If we do that we'll have a lawyer's letter from Elsevier or Wiley in 5 > minutes and have my university banning me from Knowledge research, (Don't > think it doesn't happen - it does - see > https://www.slideshare.net/petermurrayrust/disrupting-the-publisheracademic-complex > for > what they did to Chris Hartgerink , a PhD researcher at Tilburg, working on > reproducible research. And I have other anecdotal evidence which I can't > share.) . > > Again, > Don't dictate what we want. Let us search the whole literature freely. > Then we may need a new generation of publisher tools. And if you publishers > actually have something to offer it will be decided on merit, not lawyers. > > P. > > > -- > "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I > sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". > > Peter Murray-Rust > Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics > Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry > University of Cambridge > CB2 1EW, UK > +44-1223-763069 > -- "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 6:34 AM Thomas Krichel wrote: > brent...@uliege.be writes > > In practice, I doubt that access to current research is such a big > issue "NOW" as libraries and open access advocates make it appear to > be. The average academic only reads about one hour a week. In most > cases, if you know that a paper exist and who the author is, you can > contact the author to get the paper. Most authors will comply because > they crave citations. The open access situation will improve anyway > as the virus crises in the long run will leave institutions too weak > to afford the journal subscription folly. > > The idea that readers want a single paper is absolutely out of date in the digital century. I want all information on "face mask"s - it's been requested by a Cambridge colleague. >We need urgent expert help for two respiratory surgeons looking for evidence of mask effectiveness for typical procedures (collecting samples, intubation, and on to more invasive procedures). Happy to put experts in touch with them quickly. Evidence based, ideally peer reviewed rather than opinion. Thank you. Our system getpapers+AMI downloaded and analysed over 300 papers for this query in 5 minutes. See https://github.com/petermr/openVirus/blob/master/examples/n95/OVERVIEW.md and https://github.com/petermr/openVirus/blob/master/examples/n95 for the actual papers. Anyone can do this on their laptop. For free. (If anyone says "what about Copyright"? I'll raise the ghost of Queen Anne and her wrath. Copyright has no place in modern science/medicine).Except they won't get most of the relevant papers from Springer, Elsevier, T+F, Wiley, Sage, JSTOR, as my software does not go behind paywalls. It's more than that. Suppose I want all drugs related to chloroquine. The hydroxy derivative is called Plaquenil. I didn't know that. But the software developed by my group in Cambridge DOES know that. So we need to build an index of the chemistry in the literature. If we do that we'll have a lawyer's letter from Elsevier or Wiley in 5 minutes and have my university banning me from Knowledge research, (Don't think it doesn't happen - it does - see https://www.slideshare.net/petermurrayrust/disrupting-the-publisheracademic-complex for what they did to Chris Hartgerink , a PhD researcher at Tilburg, working on reproducible research. And I have other anecdotal evidence which I can't share.) . Again, Don't dictate what we want. Let us search the whole literature freely. Then we may need a new generation of publisher tools. And if you publishers actually have something to offer it will be decided on merit, not lawyers. P. -- "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge
Sorry that this has become confrontational, but I think it's important that we are not drawn into this idea that Elsevier is part of a community. It is not. It is a ruthless commercial organization which, over the 15 years I have had to deal with it has tried every trick in the book to make it difficult or impossible to use scientific knowledge as we would wish. Lobbying governments to make science closed, obfuscating permissions, bullying graduate students, publishing fake journals, hiring Dezenhall to discredit the Open Access movement, lobbying against Text and Data Mining unless they control it, keeping 50-year old paywalls up, making researchers take down papers from repositories. I can provide documentation for all my assertions, but I have more important things to do. On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 5:38 PM Éric Archambault < eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote: > Peter, ... > > There are people in these organizations and insulting us at the personal > level doesn't help creating the sense of community we all need to fight > this bug. There is time for theory, other for actions. > I did not insult you. I was careful to avoid ad hominem remarks. However in reverse I have been publicly insulted some years back on Twitter by an Elsevier Director who called me "pompous" and that his role was to take me down a peg. Communities exist by mutual trust, mutual respect and where necessary being humble enough to listen to others and adopt their ideas. Elsevier staff/directors have frequently attempted to imply they are our friends, they are there to help, they are part of a community. They are not. They are as much a part of my community as my energy provider or car insurance. It is true that we need to work as a community to tackle COVID-19. We are doing that. Elsevier are not. As an example I take the article: >>> A serological survey on viral haemorrhagic fevers in liberia *Author: * J. Knobloch,E.J. Albiez,H. Schmitz *Publication: * Annales de l'Institut Pasteur. Virologie *Publisher:* Elsevier *Date:* 1982 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0769-2617(82)80028-2 Copyright © 1982 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS <<< This paper, 38 years old gave a clear prediction that Ebola could break out in West Africa "Liberia should be included in the Ebola endemic zone". It was paywalled by Elsevier and the Liberian government complained that if they had known of its contents they cold have taken countermeasures. See NY Times https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/opinion/yes-we-were-warned-about-ebola.html This paper is key in understanding how signals for viral epidemics can occur in the literature years before the outbreak (34 years in fact). I am sure there are similar signals about COVID in the scientific literature hidden behind paywalls. Yet the Ebola paper STILL costs 35 USD , and Elsevier still charge exorbitantly for its use in teaching. Put it into RightsLink which will charge you 300 USD as an academic for permission to teach 100 students and 500 if you are an NGO in a French country. This is not "community". If you wish to be seen as part of a community you have to earn it. After 25 years of active opposition to everything the Open community is trying to do, that will be very hard. As a minimum I would expect you to make every article on every subject on every date openly accessible to the whole world for any purpose. 50 million or whatever you control. Not "while the epidemic lasts" (as you did for Ebola and closed articles), But for ever. That would take courage and I'd applaud. But nothing less will do. Peter. > -- "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 4:21 PM Jean-Claude Guédon < jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca> wrote: > > One last note: OA will succeed, despite what Stevan says. Let us shape OA > the right way, and certainly not in the way supported by Elsevier: in their > view, OA is a "charitable" gesture that is applied only in extreme cases. > The reality is that the Great Conversation of science constantly needs it. > We need clear messages. Open by default. Friction costs resources and lives. I don't think people realise how serious friction is in the modern world. If you have to write to an author the friction is absolute. If you have to read a licence the friction is absolute. If you have to work out where to find the full content is from a landing page the friction is large. If you have to parse PDFs or publisher HTML the friction is massive If you have to copy text the friction is absolute. If you don't know what you are getting , that's friction. If you get Dublin-Core or Highwire metadata , it's out of date, undocumented, ambiguous and serious friction. If you crawl UK universities for theses that's Infinite friction. If you crawl US universities for theses that's even worse than infinite. As an example we are working on design and use of masks for COVID-19 and actually supporting their manufacture. The best known one is N95. I immediately go to Wikidata. This disambiguates all other "N95" so we have a precise ontological object which machines can compute in SPARQL. Wikipedia will be as correct and as uptodate as any other authority. That's where the modern knowledge world is. By using Wikidata I reduce almost all friction. See our tutorial example at: https://github.com/petermr/openVirus/blob/master/examples/n95/OVERVIEW.md where over 300 papers were analysed in great detail in 5 minutes. Volunteers welcome. My sources are now: EuropePMC, which mirrors PMC and adds to it. biorxiv/medrxiv which require me to write serious scrapers so huge friction but our group will try to do it Redalyc (Mexico) really excited about this as it's a real example of no fees - that Latin America has pioneered so well. LatA HAL (FR) frictionless In the UK can I use CORE? "Please register to receive an API key ". I don't use services that require APIs so I haven't used CORE. Why is this necessary? I bet it's to do with IP somewhere. Also CORE is non-commercial. So, slightly regretfully, I shan't use CORE. The right way to go is OA free for authors and for readers, which means > that it must be subsidized. But that is all right because scientific > research is subsidized and scientific communication is an integral part of > scientific research (and it costs only 1% of the rest of research). > Yes. I suggest we humbly approach LatAm and other parts of the Global South where we may learn what the real purpose of publishing is. It's so people can READ things, whereas megapub451 builds systems to stop people reading. Let's glory the reader. Let's assess scholarship by how many citizens OUTSIDE academia read our work. Because there are a huge number of smart educated people throughout the world who are - literally - killed by the present system. "When I am dead, I hope it may be said. His sins were scarlet, but his books were read." - Hilaire Belloc. https://github.com/petermr/openVirus - we now have a wiki where you can leave messages (I think) -- "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] COVID-19 and access to knowledge
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:48 PM Éric Archambault < eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote: > Peter, > > > > Two months ago, that is, on January 27, we started work at Elsevier to > make available as much as possible of the scholarly literature on > coronavirus research easily discoverable and freely accessible. > > > > At 1science, we created the Coronavirus Research Hub: > > Why does Elsevier not simply open all its content and let the scientific , medical and citizen community decide what they want? Elsevier can't guess what we want. The Royal Society has done this. Elsevier can afford to do it. > > If we can help further, please let us know, we have been on it for two > months and we continue to evaluate options to help the research community. > > My colleague, a software developer, working for free on openVirus software, is spending most of his time working making masks in Cambridge Makespace to ship to Addenbrooke's hospital. When he goes to the literature to find literature on masks, their efficacy and use and construction he finds paywall after paywall after paywall after paywall Some are 1-page notes behind a 36 USD Elsevier paywall. Do not tell us what we want. let us choose freely. Peter Murray-Rust Volunteer fighting for free scientific knowledge in a world crisias. -- "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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] COVID-19 and access to knowledge
* create all material openly * with a semantic version * review as necessary in public * remove any access barriers to authoring or reading or re-using * use machines to process all material and index it with a single point of access. (Individual publishers with own brands are a massive friction in the system. Individual university repositories are massive friction. ) * annotate, split, combine, compute. The human/machine readership should be the judge of what's useful and needed. * pay for service, not rent/ownership. The preprint servers have shown that the costs are very low. Latin America has shown that the costs are very low. This means that publishers must adapt or die. Other industries are doing that - planes, manufacturing , food, ... People are dying. There is no longer a right to make money by restricting access to knowledge (Paywalls, lawyers, Glass screens, etc.). Publishers - if they are needed at all - must put the dissemination of public knowledge at the top of their mission. And if you've read this polemic this far, and have something to contribute, https://github.com/petermr/openVirus -- "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory Group
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:33 PM Heather Morrison < heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote: > Peter (or others). > > You refer to pharma companies paying tens of thousands of dollars to > re-use open access works. Can you explain / provide examples? If works are > free-to-read, even with All Rights Reserved copyright, pharma companies and > their researchers can read and benefit from knowledge produced to date to > further knowledge at no cost. > See https://twitter.com/petermurrayrust/status/1172554433202458625?s=20 6000 USD for re-use of figures from an NC Cell article in pharma promotion. This is not "voluntary" I have said quite enough on this. If anyone cares about price-gouging by publishers feel free to re-use my tweet under CC BY. -- "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory Group
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 4:14 PM Heather Morrison < heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote: > > This may help to explain why universities are avoiding the license in > spite of the risk of expensive litigation, and why I suggest that a > voluntary $181 USD fee for re-use of 5 figures is, in comparison, a model > of transparency and a bargain. > > *** voluntary***??? This is no more voluntary than a paywall or subscription. > Copyright collectives are organizations that have a particular approach > and culture. People in other countries may find their local collectives > easier to work with. > > Authors, publishers, and teachers do need to use works that are under > copyright, sometimes in ways that go beyond fair use / fair dealing. Open > licensing simplifies matters for some works, but not all works are, or ever > will be, openly licensed. An organization like CCC makes it possible to > find out who owns the rights and obtain permission. This saves time and > sometimes makes to possible to re-use works when otherwise the use would be > abandoned due to the complexity of finding copyright owners and negotiating > use. > CCC are purely a rent-extractor whose only concern is maximising income for publishers. By making re-users pay for Open Access they are destroying the credibility of Open Access. All those who argue for restricted re-use (NC, ND) must realise that this pours huge amounts of money into publishers which are contributing nothing. An there is no logic in the world that says that pharma companies should pay tens of thousands to publishers for "open access" however much you feel they can pay. And this destroys so much re-use for teaching, new books, new research, etc.. It's about time that others take up this issue. There is no excuse for paying Elsevier or many other publishers for OpenAccess re-use. > best, > > Heather Morrison > -- > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org on behalf of > Heather Morrison > *Sent:* Friday, September 13, 2019 8:20:52 AM > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access > Advisory Group > > Thank you, the Cell example is helpful. > > If you look up Cell on Sherpa Romeo you will see that authors can > self-archive their preprint on noncommercial servers such as arXiv and > bioRxiv at no cost and with no delay: > https://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php?source=journal=6580=en=|=simple > > In brief: this is what I recommend to authors and funders. > > Details: > > Relyx (Elsevier's parent company) is a corporation with a mandate to > return profit to shareholders. In the case of Cell, revenue and profit is > derived from selling the journal through subscriptions and selling re-use > rights. For-profit scholarly publishers by definition must make a profit. > > 181 USD for the use of 5 figures is a model of transparency and a bargain > in comparison with legally obligatory non-transparent blanket licensing as > Canada's copyright collectives are demanding for limited rights that might > not cover this case. > > If the figures are in an arXiv version and the downstream author cannot > afford the 181 USD, they can cite the arXiv version at no cost. There is a > small cost in inconvenience, but no loss of knowledge. > > Elsevier appears to be interpreting NC as necessary to their downstream > commercial re-use rights. This is a matter of interpretation. NC/ND with > author copyright means authors retain these rights, not publishers. CC > licenses with no NC grant blanket commercial rights to anyone. Under CC-BY > for example, anyone could charge whatever they like for the 5 figures. > Whether they could do this through CCC per se depends on CCC policy and > practice, not the license. With blanket downstream commercial rights, > anyone can set up a for-pay image database. > > My recommendation: authors of Cell articles should self-archive preprints > for open access and take advantage of pre-submission peer review (a > community practice in arXiv) in order to post a preprint that has been peer > reviewed. For the future: further develop this model and eliminate the role > of the for-profit publisher. > > I do not recommend paying for Elsevier postprint OA under any license. > Their use of NC and ND is problematic. but so is their use of CC-BY. > > best, > > Dr. Heather Morrison > Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa > Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa > Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight > Project > sustainingknowledgecommons.org > heather.morri...@uottawa.ca > https://uniweb.uotta
Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory Group
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:43 PM Heather Morrison < heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote: > Thank you Peter. > > I respectfully disagree. If Elsevier is retaining copyright and using an > NC license, they have a right to sell the work and CCC has a right to > coordinate. Elsevier practice is copyright in the name of the author with > exclusive rights granted to Elsevier. > > Elsevier are not the copyright holders: >>>>> Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. User LicenseCreative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/> | How you can reuse <https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(19)30626-9#> [image: Information Icon] >>>>>> However Elsevier are strongly asserting on CCC/Rightslink that they control the re-use of this >>Permission Not Allowed >>According to the policies of Elsevier, use of this content in the manner you are requesting is not allowed. It is about time that the Universities and Libraries and Funders challenge this. It's nothing to do with "arXiv". The authors have, in good faith, paid Elsevier huge amounts of money to buy "open access" and Elsevier have published it in a framework where they assert all reuse-rights Yes, there's a chance that if Elsevier took the re-users to court they re-users might be vindicated, but that's not open access. This is close to copyfraud. -- "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory Group
gt; > Research Consulting Limited is a Company Registered in England and Wales, > Reg No. 8376797 > > > --- > > This communication and the information contained in it are confidential > and may be legally privileged. The content is intended solely for the use > of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorised > to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, it is hereby brought > to your notice that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or > dissemination, or alternatively the taking of any action in reliance on it, > is strictly prohibited and may constitute grounds for action, either civil > or criminal. > > > > > > ___ > > GOAL mailing list > > GOAL@eprints.org > > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > > ___ > GOAL mailing > listGOAL@eprints.orghttp://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > -- "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory Group
Typical example, Skimmed through Cell to the first CC - NC - ND article: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.05.055 Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. User LicenseCreative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/> | How you can reuse <https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(19)30626-9#> [image: Information Icon] Go to RightsLInk Enter as academic author writing a book with CUP and requiring 5 figures. CCC requires me to pay 181 USD to Elsevier / CCC Try it yourself It's irrelevant in practice who s the copyright owner , the total transparency is that Elsevier can extort rent for all CC -NC they pubish even if the author has copyright. Transparency = daylight robbery -- "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory Group
A few more points about CCC. * it is totally unregulated by external bodies. * it takes 15% of income so it has an incentive to generate as much income as possible * it is a total monopoly - there is no other org that manages rights * all the income goes to the publisher (and CCC). None to authors * the restrictions on re-use are everywhere. Many publishers use CCC to charge the actual authors for reusing their own work in books, teaching etc. * it is massively unjust to the Global South * CC NC and CC ND licences are treated as effectively controlled by the publisher. NC does NOT prevent the publisher contracting with the author so the publisher has the sole right to charge for re-use. This mechanism prevents competitors charging. NC and ND are a means of enforcing The process is legal. I have my own views on the morality and ethics of monopolistic charges which restrict re-use so lecturers and authors and libraries are frightened to use the scholarly literature. And I remain to be convinced that the Advisory Board is anything other than marketing. But if you approve of the Robber-baron model of philanthropy - grow massively rich by monopolistic rent-seeking and then become philanthropic you may have a different view. -- "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory Group
I would direct readers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clearance_Center to get an overview if CCC, which is a for-profit company and has sued universities (and lost). I would think that this new venture is a case of Openwashing of a business model that is directly opposed to GOAL and many of its readers. On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:38 PM Heather Morrison < heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote: > Peter Murray-Rust raises the important point that the Copyright Clearance > Center (CCC)'s basic model fits with perpetual copyright, the antithesis of > open access. > > However, I argue that the open access movement needs to engage with the > issues that will or might be raised by this group. Following is a bit of > background, concluding with a recommendation that copyright for scholarly > works should be led by the research community not industry groups, perhaps > coordinated by bodies such as Canada's Tri-Council of national research > funding agencies. > > Many advocates of open access also advocate for the most liberal of open > licenses. From my perspective, this is naive because some of the most > liberal of open licenses, in particular immediate dedication to public > domain and CC licenses granting downstream commercial use rights (CC-0, > CC-BY, CC-BY-SA) grant to anyone the right to sell the works. This is > already happening as open access works are included in toll access packages > such as Elsevier's Scopus. > > Creators are giving away their works using CC licenses thinking they are > contributing to a commons. The problem with this is that lack of > restrictions means, for example, that images in CC-BY licensed works can be > included either in Wikimedia commons for free sharing or to create a > for-pay image databank. > > If OA venues are lost in future, the toll access versions may be the only > ones available. As I noted recently, the attrition rate at SpringerOpen is > 16%, with most ceased journals de-listed by both SpringerOpen and DOAJ and > content available through Springer's subscriptions site: > > https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/07/22/springer-open-ceased-now-hybrid-oa-identification-challenges/ > > The trend towards market concentration that was evident for subscription > based publishers is beginning to be seen with open access publishers as > well. Examples: Versita was bought by De Gruyter; Medknow was bought by > Wolters Kluwer; Co-Action was bought by Taylor & Francis; Libertas Academic > was bought by Sage; BMC was bought by Springer; as we report regularly, > many of the OA journals by commercial publishers have no APC due to > partnerships with universities and societies, indicating that traditional > publishers are pursuing such partnerships on a global basis. Plus many > commercial initiatives once thought of as OA friendly (Mendeley, SSRN, > Bepress) have been bought by Elsevier. > > Both perpetual copyright and the most liberal forms of open licensing are > problematic for scholarly works. Members of CCC, OASPA, and other industry > groups (e.g. STM, ALPSP) are in a conflict of interest position when > advocating for particular approaches to copyright / licensing, that is, > members stand to benefit or lose financially. > > It is problematic for any of these groups to lead research and > decision-making on matters of copyright. Leadership should come from the > research community. Researchers need time to devote to such activity and in > particular to coordinate. In Canada, coordination of consultation on this > topic might best be led by Canada's Tri-Council of national research > funders, perhaps in cooperation with similar groups in other countries. > > Dr. Heather Morrison > > Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa > > Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa > > Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight > Project > > sustainingknowledgecommons.org > > heather.morri...@uottawa.ca > > https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 > > [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020] > -- > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org on behalf of > Peter Murray-Rust > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 11, 2019 7:32 AM > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access > Advisory Group > > *Attention : courriel externe | external email* > > What is the relation of this group to the actual activities of CCC? Does > it have the power to advise that it extends copyright and licensing to > areas what those practices do great harm, and that the prices for re-use > are often extortionate (one arti
Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory Group
What is the relation of this group to the actual activities of CCC? Does it have the power to advise that it extends copyright and licensing to areas what those practices do great harm, and that the prices for re-use are often extortionate (one article in NEJM apparently generated over 1 million USD for re-use of a scholarly article). If the advisory group were to recommend that CCC's activities be transparently regulated with price caps I might have some sympathy. As it is CCC will have to convince me that it is more than an unregulated rent-seeker. (It's also the antithesis of Open Access - the theme of this list) -- "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts
Thank you Chris, I feel exactly as you do, maybe more. This is wrong on several counts. (a) as you say it requires the underprivileged (the "scholarly poor") to beg. Some journals give lower prices for World Bank LMIC countries - but often Brasil and India are classified as high-income. Even reducing the price to half is impossible for many countries. (b) the APC is NOT cost-related (see another post form me about DEAL). DEAL pays Springer the price of an article (2750 E) whereas the cost of processing is ca 400 E (Grossman and Brembs, 2019) Costs are almost never transparent, therefore cause prices to be whatever the publisher can get away with. This adds another layer of injustice. I am affected by the APCs. I am on the board of two journals and being retired have to pay and APC myself. I feel diminished if I have to ask to get a waiver, and in any case it looks very unethical to gve waivers to the board. I therefore cannot publish in the journals that I give my time freely to. The system is now completely out of date. Many places and organizations CAN run platinum journals (no fee open to all). It's more ethical equitable and makes knowledge fully available. 70% of climate papers are behind paywalls. Making a no-fee publish system is the only way to get the knowledge flowing. My software can read 1 papers in a morning, but the broken societal system prevents that. P. On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 2:17 PM Chris Zielinski wrote: > (Apologies for cross-posting) > > This is to raise a question about how editors of Open Access journals that > demand an article processing charge (APC) should deal with discounts for > non-institutional authors or those from poorer countries. > > The offering of substantial APC waivers to authors from specific countries > or to researchers with financial constraints in specific cases is familiar. > My question relates to the way in which such discounts are offered. > > Usually, a researcher needs to assert or demonstrate his/her inability to > pay the APC before getting relief. The problem is that obliging researcher > to request a lower or zero APC feels a bit like inviting them to beg – and > the result often seems to depend on the benevolence and good humour of the > editor, responding on an individual, case-by-case basis, rather than by > applying some pre-established rule. > > This is surely not good enough. It can’t be correct and ethical scientific > practice to require unsupported authors to face the embarrassment of having > to turn out their pockets and demonstrate the holes in their socks before > they get a discount. > > Any views on this? Should there be a norm among OA journals that each > should adopt a standardized system to determine APC charges (ranging from 0 > to the full APC, depending on an explicit list of circumstances), avoiding > the need for any negotiation? > > Best, > > Chris > > Chris Zielinski > ch...@chriszielinski.com > Blogs: http://ziggytheblue.wordpress.com and > http://ziggytheblue.tumblr.com > Research publications: http://www.researchgate.net > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > -- "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same". Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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] Projekt DEAL is a very serious impediment to BOAI Open Access
I was interviewed by Chemistry World (Royal Soc Chem) last week about
Projekt DEAL 's agreement with Springer.
TL;DR I read as much as I could and gave the interview and said I was
deeply unhappy about DEAL. The interview appeared, it 's now behind a
premium wall. It mangled what I said and has done AmeliCA (which I said was
a better way forward) a serious disservice. I have asked CW to correct and
apologize. I post my snippet here.
TL;DR+ I tweeted this and there has been an intense discussion (in as much
as Twitter allows this). Assuming that what I learn is corroborated here ,
I have an even worse opinion of DEAL (my comments to CW are mild); I am
appalled at both the total waste of resources but also that DEAL is
preventing evolution of BOAI Open Access and the huge missed opportunities.
[I am ready to be corrected by facts, because the DEAL site and reporting
makes it very difficult to get at the real facts.]
First what I said: (now premiumwalled)
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/mixed-reception-for-german-open-access-deal-with-springer-nature/3010886.article
>>>
[snipped]
An ‘absolute minefield’
>>Not everyone is enthusiastic, however. Peter Murray-Rust
<https://www.ch.cam.ac.uk/person/pm286>, a chemist at the University of
Cambridge who champions open access publishing, calls the new arrangement
‘hugely expensive’ and ‘administratively heavy’, and he describes it as ‘a
total fragmentation’ of scientific publishing. ‘This might work well for
German academics in negotiations with one particular publisher, but it
doesn’t necessarily translate to another type of publisher in another
country – you can see an absolute minefield of deals being set up.’
>>Further, Murray-Rust argues that by omitting *Nature,* and other flagship
scientific journals, the deal solidifies the research publishing scene to
major commercial players and rich countries, and creates a glory-based
industry rather than a knowledge dissemination mechanism. ‘These are glory
journals, or high-impact journals, and they can probably charge more,’ he
tells *Chemistry World*. ‘It is purely a marketing ploy.’
>>Meanwhile, Peter Suber <https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/psuber>, who
directs Harvard University library’s office for scholarly communication,
recalls that Elsevier in the past was unable to reach negotiation on a
similar agreement with Project Deal
<https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/german-universities-take-on-elsevier-/3007807.article>.
‘Springer Nature is showing more flexibility than Elsevier, and more
willingness than Elsevier to meet the needs and interests of universities,’
he says.
>>Many opponents of arrangements like Project DEAL note that they might be
imperfect but could serve as stepping-stones to better agreements. As an
example of a preferable OA publishing model, Murray-Rust points to a new
approach in Latin America, known as AmeliCA
<http://amelica.org/index.php/en/about/>, which was launched last year.
>>Led in part by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO), ***Project DEAL*** is centred on a non-profit
publishing model and controlled by an inter-institutional academy. It
involves universities and scientific journals sharing a common
infrastructure of software, tools, hosting and training services.
*** This shocking mistake should read AmeliCA ***
PMR> my message a week ago is that the AmeliCA model should be what honours
the BOAI with its vision of free shared knowledge "the rich with the poor
and the poor with the rich"
I am not involved in German journals policy but I believe that:
the aim of DEAL was to convert ("flip") current subscription-based
publishing (free to author, pay to read) to APC-based (free to read, pay to
author). This was an opportunity for DEAL (which is spending taxpayers
money) to demand transparency, insist on a more equitable model, and reduce
overall expenditure. As far as I can see (and I will stand corrected by
facts) it has done none, and has not even tried to do any.
Note that the Glamour mags (Nature and Nature children) are not part of the
deal which is 40,000,000 Eur for about 16,000 published articles. DEAL
published that the effective price per article was 2750 Eur. which figures
Instead, and this is conjecture, the base assumptions are:
* we need to flip journals to Gold OA. (the motivation for this is not
clear, but probably because funders are or will require it).
* Springer (and Wiley) won't do this unless their income stream is
preserved. These publishers give value for money so we simply change the
payment model. The costs are what the publishers tell us are necessary and
we give them a lump sum without breakdown.
* Authors won't flip unless all their costs are paid
* The main purpose of publishing is to allow authors to get credit for
their work. The only authors we need to consider are those supported by
universities and research
Re: [GOAL] ‘Transformative’ open access publishing deals are only entrenching commercial power
, registration, archival) can be done for < 10 USD. There is no excuse for journals that charge hundreds or many thousands for publication. -- Peter Murray-Rust Founder ContentMine.org and Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Dept. Of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, CB2 1EW, UK ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Re: [GOAL] Results of OA article data collection from OASPA members
ot;forcing Elsevier also to use CC-BY for their > „own“ content would enable competition for analysis tools like Scopus", I > have some questions. Let's start with: > > Are you and/or others proposing to force Elsevier to use CC-BY for their > "own" content?** If so, how do you propose to do this and which of > Elsevier's content? > > best, > > Heather Morrison > > ** Side note: this is problematic, but let's leave this for now. > > > -- > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org on behalf of > Christian Gutknecht > *Sent:* Monday, July 8, 2019 11:14 AM > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] Results of OA article data collection from OASPA > members > > *Attention : courriel externe | external email* > Hi Heather > > Sorry, I can’t follow you on that: > > Increase in monopoly power for Elsevier: anyone can use the CC licensed > material to create a competitor to Scopus, however only Elsevier can use > their copyrighted work. CC-BY reduces the likelihood of successful > competition. > > > The problem here is obviously not the CC-BY content, but the the non-open > content of Elsevier. So forcing Elsevier also to use CC-BY for their „own“ > content would enable competition for analysis tools like Scopus. > > Best regards > > Christian > > > > Am 08.07.2019 um 15:39 schrieb Heather Morrison < > heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>: > > In related news: Elsevier's toll access service Scopus now includes 5,393 > open access journals. This is helpful to illustrate and analyze some of the > implications of blanket downstream commercial re-use (e.g. CC-BY): > > Extra profit for Elsevier: no need to pay CC-BY journals, and open > licensing reduces their costs for clarifying permissions. > > Increase in monopoly power for Elsevier: anyone can use the CC licensed > material to create a competitor to Scopus, however only Elsevier can use > their copyrighted work. CC-BY reduces the likelihood of successful > competition. > > Development of underdevelopment: authors from poor countries get the > benefit of increased exposure with OA, but are locked out of the next > generation of services built on this such as Scopus. CC-BY is not > sufficient to achieve the vision of sharing the knowledge of the rich with > the poor and the poor with the rich; this license facilitates one-way > sharing of the poor with the rich, as it lacks a means of ensuring > reciprocity. (CC-BY-SA does not ensure reciprocity either; it means use the > same license for derivatives, not share like I have. A re-used OA article > with CC-BY-SA can be re-used in a TA environment). > > I recommend against the use of licenses allowing blanket commercial re-use > to authors, journals, OA advocates and policy-makers. > > best, > > Dr. Heather Morrison > Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa > Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa > Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight > Project > sustainingknowledgecommons.org > heather.morri...@uottawa.ca > https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 > -- > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org on behalf of > Bernie Folan > *Sent:* Monday, July 8, 2019 7:01:54 AM > *To:* Bernie Folan > *Subject:* [GOAL] Results of OA article data collection from OASPA members > > *Attention : courriel externe | external email* > > ***With apologies for cross posting *** > > OASPA has published a new blog post summarising the results of a recent OA > article data collection exercise carried out with input from OASPA members. > > You can find the post at > https://oaspa.org/growth-continues-for-oaspa-member-oa-content/ > > Some highlights: > >- Total growth in output by OASPA members is 23%. This does include >some new contributors but on the whole, they were small numbers so don't >count much towards the total. >- Growth in CC BY articles published in fully OA journals is 18% so >this is slightly higher than it has done for the past 5 years. >- Over a quarter of a million CC BY articles were published by OASPA >members in fully OA journals last year. > > Do feel free to share within your networks. > > Best wishes, > Bernie > > > *Bernie Folan *Events and Communications Coordinator, OASPA > bernie.fo...@oaspa.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 mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] Open Letter(s) on Open Access project plan released as a Working Paper.
hn Dove > and Pattern Labs co-founder Sam Klein, aims to raise awareness about Open > Access among academics and encourage authors to take advantage of the > sustainable OA channels available to them. > > > As the gesture towards the plural in the project title indicates, our work > is designed as a pilot that lays out processes for similar research and > outreach that we invite interested people to adopt, adapt, appropriate, and > re-apply. In a similar spirit of continual improvement, we hope to obtain > as much feedback as possible from scholarly communications experts on what > we’ve done so far. > > > We invite you to take a look at a copy of our project plan--available here > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1unWpSj2ZqBbbGzgOT3ELu26hqDypKtcp_bh_slqfCQA/edit?usp=sharing>--in > the case that it’s useful for any of your own initiatives. And if you want > to offer any kind of comments, inputs, and insights, we’d appreciate it! > Just as the complex digital world of scholarship, publication, and > distribution is constantly shifting, this plan is always in-progress. > > > Finally, we’ll soon be releasing our first letter on Alzheimer’s research > and taking funded OA to the next level. Keep an eye out for #OALetters on > twitter to see more. > > > If you have any other inquiries, feel free to email myself and the project > team at o...@googlegroups.com. > > > Thanks & Best, > > > Ingrid > > > -- > Ingrid Becker > Doctoral Candidate > Department of English Language and Literature > University of Chicago > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] Open Access: "Plan S" Needs to Drop "Option B"
th "Big Deals" on extortionate > library licensing fees to ensure that OA policies always include Option B. > > The solution is ever so simple: OA policies must drop Option B. > I think there is a synergistic solution, which is to provide a better search system (especially for STEMM) than Google and WebOfScience. These closed megacorporations are very poor for data and semantic search. They are also completely nonTransparent and unanswerable to us. There is a growing movement for the community to build its own search engines (#dontLeaveItToGoogle) and I am delighted personally to be able to provide some key Open Source (sic) technology for this. slides (35 onwards) What is required now is to build a better system. Not just talk, but build. Would be very interested to hear from like-minded people (on separate channel or @petermurrayrust on Twitter). P. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] COAR Annual Meeting and new Executive Board
Replying only to GOAL... Thank you very much for this report. One question: On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Kathleen Shearer < m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jean-Claude Guédon, Professor at the Université de Montreal and respected > open access advocate, urged us to consider two important principles within > our repository network: intellectual proximity and problem solving > complementarity. Could you please expand on these as I don't understand what they mean in detail. Thanks P. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] North, South, and Open Access: The view from Egypt with Mahmoud Khalifa
ich are not based on funded research, and it is a real hardship to >> find APC money to pay for my papers. >> >> Best, >> >> Chris >> >> 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 08:47 Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@cantab.net> >> wrote: >> >> To try and get a sense of how open access looks from different parts of >> the world, particularly as the strategy of engineering a global “flip” of >> subscription journals to a pay-to-publish gold OA model gains more >> traction, I am interested in talking to open access advocates in different >> parts of the world, ideally by means of matched interviews. >> >> >> >> Earlier this month, for instance, I published a Q with Jeff >> MacKie-Mason, UC Berkeley’s University Librarian and Chief Digital >> Scholarship Officer. (https://poynder.blogspot.co.u >> k/2018/04/north-south-and-open-access-view-from.html). >> >> >> >> Yesterday, I published a matched Q covering the same themes with >> Mahmoud Khalifa, a librarian at the Library of Congress Cairo Office, and >> DOAJ Ambassador for the Middle East and Persian Gulf. This interview can be >> read here: https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/north-south-and-open- >> access-view-from_24.html >> >> >> >> I have also been asking those I interview to comment on the answers given >> by their matched interviewee. Mahmoud Khalifa’s response to the >> MacKie-Mason Q is incorporated in this post: >> https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/north-south-and-open- >> access-mahmoud.html >> >> >> >> I am open to suggestions for further matched interviews. >> >> >> >> Richard Poynder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Richard Poynder > www.richardpoynder.co.uk > > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] North, South, and Open Access: The view from Egypt with Mahmoud Khalifa
supported by the sort of international funding that pays for > papers. But the kind of health research that is essential in developing > countries - health services and health systems research - is generally > undertaken by local institutions and universities. This is a reason for > serious concern, as the economic model of OA appears to be blocking the > most important local research. I would add that this research needs to be > published internationally, not just locally, in order to attract opinions, > input and (in some cases) validation and consensus from the global health > community. > > Many OA journals have special rates, flexibilities and waivers for writers > from developing countries. It is also true that about a quarter of the OA > journals do not charge an APC at all - I presume they pay for their work by > sales of their print editions in industrialized countries, thus enabling > those in other countries free access to the online version. > > Incidentally, this is not just an issue for developing country writers - I > am a non-institutional writer in an industrialized country, writing papers > which are not based on funded research, and it is a real hardship to find > APC money to pay for my papers. > > Best, > > Chris > > 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 08:47 Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@cantab.net> > <richard.poyn...@cantab.net> wrote: > > To try and get a sense of how open access looks from different parts of > the world, particularly as the strategy of engineering a global “flip” of > subscription journals to a pay-to-publish gold OA model gains more > traction, I am interested in talking to open access advocates in different > parts of the world, ideally by means of matched interviews. > > > > Earlier this month, for instance, I published a Q with Jeff > MacKie-Mason, UC Berkeley’s University Librarian and Chief Digital > Scholarship Officer. (https://poynder.blogspot.co. > uk/2018/04/north-south-and-open-access-view-from.html). > > > > Yesterday, I published a matched Q covering the same themes with Mahmoud > Khalifa, a librarian at the Library of Congress Cairo Office, and DOAJ > Ambassador for the Middle East and Persian Gulf. This interview can be read > here: https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/north-south-and- > open-access-view-from_24.html > > > > I have also been asking those I interview to comment on the answers given > by their matched interviewee. Mahmoud Khalifa’s response to the > MacKie-Mason Q is incorporated in this post: > https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/north-south-and- > open-access-mahmoud.html > > > > I am open to suggestions for further matched interviews. > > > > Richard Poynder > > > > > > > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > > > ___ > GOAL mailing > listGOAL@eprints.orghttp://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > *Noordland 44 2548 WB 's-Gravenhage (The Hague) Nederland (The > Netherlands) +31 707611166 (landline) +44 7525026991 (mobile) Voormalig > adres (Previous address): C2 Trinity Gate, Epsom Road Guildford, Surrey, > GU1 3PW United Kingdom * > > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] 1findr: research discovery & analytics platform
I don't want to start a big discussion here, but having briefly browsed the site I assume that the software is closed, and that the process of indexing is not transparent (i.e. similar to GoogleScholar or WoS or TR, etc.). I can't see whether the system indexes fulltext, for example or whether it is titles and abstract if there are some. The FAQ says: 1findr is the first database to proudly and obstinately aim to index *all articles published in peer-reviewed journals in the world*. 1findr is a comprehensive database that covers the arts, humanities, applied sciences, engineering and technology, behavioral sciences, health sciences, natural sciences, and social sciences. We are the world. ** my emphasis I am not clear how this applies to Open Access (this is the GOAL list) . This implies that if you are doing this legally (which I assume) then it;s actually not consistent with the aims of this list and community. P. On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Grégoire Côté < gregoire.c...@science-metrix.com> wrote: > Greetings everyone, > > > > Today, 1science announced the official launch of 1findr, its platform for > research discovery and analytics. Indexing 90 million articles—of which 27 > million are available in OA—it represents the largest curated collection > worldwide of scholarly research. The platform aims to include all articles > published in peer-reviewed journals, in all fields of research, in all > languages and from every country. > > > > Here are a few resources if you’re interested in learning more: > > > > • Access 1findr platform: www.1findr.com > > • Visit the 1findr website: www.1science.com/1findr > > • Send in your questions: 1fi...@1science.com > > • See the press release: www.1science.com/1findr-public-launch > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Grégoire > > > > *Grégoire Côté* > > President | Président > > *Science-Metrix * > > 1335, Mont-Royal E > > Montréal, QC H2J 1Y6 > > Canada > > > > [image: cid:image001.png@01D2DAC6.B5A0CDC0] > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/science-metrix-inc>[image: > cid:image002.png@01D2DAC6.B5A0CDC0] <https://twitter.com/ScienceMetrix> > > T. 1.514.495.6505 x115 > > T. 1.800.994.4761 > > F. 1.514.495.6523 > > *gregoire.c...@science-metrix.com <gregoire.c...@science-metrix.com>* > > www.science-metrix.com > > > > > > > > > > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] On Academic Freedom
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 7:26 PM, SANFORD G THATCHER <s...@psu.edu> wrote: > So, Danny, let me ask if you are ok with funders requiring authors to > publish > under a CC BY license and waive all rights they otherwise would have to > have > input into how and where their writings get translated and how and where > their > works are republished (e.g., in edited form that distorts the author's > meaning > and associates the author with a cause, ideology, etc. that the author > finds > abhorrent)? > > Is these rights do not pertain to academic freedom, please explain why. > > The same might be asked of those universities that require immediate OA > posting > of dissertations, allowing no time for an author to revise it and find a > publisher for it. Various associations (in history, medieval studies, etc.) > have adopted recommended embargo periods to deal with this problem. You are > saying that those associations are wrong to be concerned about this > problem? > That this has nothing to do with academic freedom either? > > Sandy thatcher > This is the clear distinction between rights under copyright and author's moral rights. Moral rights are not affected by copyright or licences. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights : >> *Moral rights* are rights <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights> of creators of copyrighted <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright> works generally recognized in civil law <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)> jurisdictions and, to a lesser extent, in some common law <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law> jurisdictions. They include the right of attribution <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_(copyright)>, the right to have a work published anonymously <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymity> or pseudonymously <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudonym>, and the right to the integrity of the work.[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#cite_note-1> The preserving of the integrity of the work allows the author to object to alteration, distortion, or mutilation of the work that is "prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation".[2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#cite_note-2> Anything else that may detract from the artist's relationship with the work even after it leaves the artist's possession or ownership may bring these moral rights into play. Moral rights are distinct from any economic rights tied to copyrights. Even if an artist has assigned his or her copyright rights to a work to a third party, he or she still maintains the moral rights to the work.[3] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#cite_note-3> PMR> The author can defend their moral rights just as well with CC BY as with "all rights reserved". It is a pity that some parties, including for-profit publishers, argue that CC NC-ND protects the author against misuse of their work. In STEM subjects it often hands a monopoly interest to the *publisher* , not the author. The use of default NC/ND licences by some publishers, also when coupled to lower fees to attract authors to hand over monopoly rights, is seriously regrettable and seriously holds back the re-use of knowledge in STEM subjects. In STEM, if the researcher doesn't accept the CC BY of funders such as Wellcome Trust (who have an excellent resource on CC BY: https://wellcome.ac.uk/funding/managing-grant/creative-commons-attribution-licence-cc) they don't have to take the funding. I assume the same holds in non-STEM subjects. If an academic wishes to write a book without funding, their issue is with their employer. P. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Heather Morrison < heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote: > CC-BY does grant blanket commercial rights to harvest and sell works, or > portions of works such as images > Agreed. and also derivative works. However with CC BY the re-user must (normally) acknowledge original ownership or authorship and may be required to attach a copy of the original licence. > > Re: "the price of freedom is that someone should keep and advertise at > least one copy of the original": this is an important point, but you need > to add "free of charge", otherwise this could become a toll access service. > It's a slightly fluid point. I might make works available on a physical device such as a SSD. I reserve the right to charge for the memory stick and possibly the labour involved. The OKF (sic) anticipated this in the Open Definition (in which I participated) which states (http://opendefinition.org/od/2.1/en/ ) >>1.2 Access The *work* *must* be provided as a whole and at no more than a reasonable one-time reproduction cost, and *should* be downloadable via the Internet without charge. Any additional information necessary for license compliance (such as names of contributors required for compliance with attribution requirements) *must* also accompany the work. >>1.3 Machine Readability The *work* *must* be provided in a form readily processable by a computer and where the individual elements of the work can be easily accessed and modified. >>1.4 Open Format The *work* *must* be provided in an open format. An open format is one which places no restrictions, monetary or otherwise, upon its use and can be fully processed with at least one free/libre/open-source software tool. << Note the use of "a reasonable one-time reproduction cost". This means that I might ask a re-user for (say) 20 USD for media. But the re-user can then re-copy at their own expense without permission and could offer it to others without charge. HM>I argue that this is one of the reasons OA repositories are necessary to sustain OA. Publishers have no obligation to continue to exist or continue publishing, never mind an ongoing obligation to make works freely available on a perpetual basis. PMR> I completely agree. Open repositories and maybe national libraries are the primary guarantee of indefinite Openness. There have (I believe) been examples of Open Access journals being purchased and then disappearing. There is also the problem of "hybrid" open access becoming closed by "mistake". I have certainly highlighted this in the past. IMO Libraries should be assiduousy ingesting "hybrid" and publicising the contents and location and adding search engines. P -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 <+44%201223%20763069> > > _______ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Heather Morrison < heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote: > This is a repeat of one argument I made last week to focus on one argument > at a time. > > Either public domain or CC-BY is consistent with, and facilitates, toll > access, both by the original publisher and downstream. > > To date the best examples I have seen of creative use of CC-BY for > commercial profit-making are Elsevier's ability to incorporate such works > into their toll access services such as Scopus and metadata sales, at no > cost to Elsevier, and Springer's harvesting of images from CC-BY works for > TA image bank (few years ago). > Assuming ths was the collection of images into "Springer Images" in 2012 this is not a correct record. I have documented this in considerable detail in my blog - there are many entries (e.g. https://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2012/06/06/springergate-springerimages-for-today/ and entries on both sides). Springer collected [all the?] images in the articles thay had published over several years. They did this without regard to the licences or ownership or authorship. They stamped this "Copyright Springer". In thousands of case this was a direct violation of copyright. I challenged this and BiomedCentral (an open access publisher then recently acquired by Springer) had to sort the mess out. > > US public domain to works created by federal employees works really well > in areas where the US government itself posts the works online for free > access. Published works that are public domain are often included in toll > access packages. Not even PubMed has free access to all the works created > by its own employees. > > Public domain and Creative Commons are not necessarily "free of charge". > Hence if free of charge is essential to a definition of open access, > neither public domain nor CC are sufficient to achieve OA. > Material that is PD or CC BY (or CC BY-SA) can be copied without permission from the licensor and without charge. (There may be a charge for the materials involved in copying). Once someone has a copy of a PD or CC BY work they can copy it indefinitely without payment to the copyright holder. The only way that a licensor could prevent this free copying is not to make any copies available, ever. The price of freedom is that someone should keep and advertise at least one copy of the original. If all copies happen to be lost (as may happen) then the work may effectively become "closed" .It is important, therefore, that copies are kept of all CC0/CC BY. If this is done then the work can never become closed (unless there is a retrospective change in the law or copyright, which we should fight). CC BY gives the following rights. (from https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) You are free to: - *Share* — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format - *Adapt* — remix, transform, and build upon the material - for any purpose, even commercially. - <https://freedomdefined.org/> - The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. An added request: when referring to CC licences please specify which. I frequently see "published under a CC licence". Some CC licences are very liberal and others very restrictive. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ P. > best, > > Heather Morrison > > _______ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] INTACT analysis of Springer Compact agreements
Thank you very much for this analysis. On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Dirk Pieper <dirk.pie...@uni-bielefeld.de> wrote: > Dear all, > > > > as part of the INTACT project (https://www.intact-project.org/), we have > been working intensively on the analysis of offsetting data during the last > days. Thanks to Austrian Academic Library Consortium (KEMÖ), the Max Planck > Digital Library, VSNU / UKB Netherlands, the Swedish Bibsam consortium and > JISC Collections, we were able to analyze data from 2015 to 2018 of > existing Springer Compact agreements. > Thank you very much for this analysis. One of the problems of hybrid Open Access is discovering it. I would like to find all the Open Access that a publisher creates by asking a single question and then decide what I want my machines to read. Is there a simple of way of asking Springer "please give me all Open Access articles in hybrid journals in 2017" and getting a list of all articles and their URLs/DOIs? P. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] bepress and SSRN Announce Integration Pilot with Columbia and University of Georgia Law Schools
Thank you for the reply: The URL link you posted in the original announcement is invalid: The page you were on is trying to send you to an invalid URL (http://bepress %20and%20SSRN%20Announce%20Integration%20Pilot%20with%20Columbia%20and%20University%20of%20Georgia%20Law%20Schools). Please can you post a correct link that points directly to your "open access" content so that I can explore it. I had three questions, you have answered one, * whether visitors can use SSRN/Bepress anonymously without registering? 1 ANSWER not yet given * what the explicit licence is on the articles (e.g. CC BY) 2 ANSWER depends on the author. * whether text and data mining is allowed without Elsevier' permission 3 ANSWER not yet given I'd be grateful if can you give a correct link and answer questions 1 and 3 P. On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Chatterji, Promita (ELS-BKY) < pchatte...@bepress.com> wrote: > Hi Peter – > > Since your question was to me, I’ll respond for bepress here. We see our > role as building a platform that excels in making open access content > discoverable. We leave the exact definition of open access, including > licensing and access control, to our customers to decide. > > > > So, for the record, yes, Digital Commons meets your criteria when our > customers decide to make their work openly available, which is almost all > of the time. When schools decide to restrict access on their content, we > support them in that too. It’s their content and we have no claim to it. > > > > Best, > > Promita > > -- > > Promita Chatterji > > Product Marketing Manager > > bepress > > > > > > > > > > *From: *<goal-boun...@eprints.org> on behalf of Peter Murray-Rust < > pm...@cam.ac.uk> > *Reply-To: *"Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" < > goal@eprints.org> > *Date: *Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 2:50 AM > *To: *"Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org> > *Subject: *Re: [GOAL] bepress and SSRN Announce Integration Pilot with > Columbia and University of Georgia Law Schools > > > > Please can the Elsevier poster of this announcement define exactly (in > operational terms, not marketing fluff) what is meant by "openaccess" . > When I visit the SSRN site I find it is a walled garden with the message: > > > What Happened? > > We have observed an unusual download pattern. > > The reason why this might happen: > >- Accessing through a proxy server >- Having problems downloading a paper >- Accidentally downloading a paper too frequently > > Please consider signing in or creating a free account. You can continue > downloading this paper and you will no longer see this page. It also helps > us track reader interest and provide accurate download counts to our > authors and readers. > > > > This seems standard for other visitors who have tried to download even a > single paper. My interpretation is that Elsevier (because SSRN and Bepress > are now Elsevier) want to monitor and control readers in a walled garden. > Unless I am reliably informed otherwise I expect that Elsevier will track > all my actions on the site (monitor), probably report them to third > parties, form data products out of my actions (monitoring) and also provide > a nonobjective set of search results based on whatever Elsevier wants to > promote (this is common in walled gardens). > > Could the Product Marketing Manager inform this list precisely: > > * whether visitors can use SSRN/Bepress anonymously without registering? > > * what the explicit licence is on the articles (e.g. CC BY) > > * whether text and data mining is allowed without Elsevier' permission > > The answers to all these questions can be single words. If they are not > (YES, CC-BY, YES) then I do not regard this as Open Access > > P. > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 7:11 PM, Chatterji, Promita (ELS-BKY) < > pchatte...@bepress.com> wrote: > > ** apologies for cross-posting** > > > > bepress and SSRN Announce Integration Pilot with Columbia and University > of Georgia Law Schools > > > > Bepress > <http://bepress%20and%20SSRN%20Announce%20Integration%20Pilot%20with%20Columbia%20and%20University%20of%20Georgia%20Law%20Schools> > and SSRN <https://www.ssrn.com/en/> are pleased to announce a joint pilot > to explore integration between their two platforms. The four-month pilot > launches today with the participation of Columbia Law School’s Arthur W. > Diamond Law Library and University of Georgia School of Law’s Library. > > Both bepress and SSRN are eager to explore potential solutions to the > obstacles that professional
Re: [GOAL] bepress and SSRN Announce Integration Pilot with Columbia and University of Georgia Law Schools
Please can the Elsevier poster of this announcement define exactly (in operational terms, not marketing fluff) what is meant by "openaccess" . When I visit the SSRN site I find it is a walled garden with the message: What Happened? We have observed an unusual download pattern. The reason why this might happen: - Accessing through a proxy server - Having problems downloading a paper - Accidentally downloading a paper too frequently Please consider signing in or creating a free account. You can continue downloading this paper and you will no longer see this page. It also helps us track reader interest and provide accurate download counts to our authors and readers. This seems standard for other visitors who have tried to download even a single paper. My interpretation is that Elsevier (because SSRN and Bepress are now Elsevier) want to monitor and control readers in a walled garden. Unless I am reliably informed otherwise I expect that Elsevier will track all my actions on the site (monitor), probably report them to third parties, form data products out of my actions (monitoring) and also provide a nonobjective set of search results based on whatever Elsevier wants to promote (this is common in walled gardens). Could the Product Marketing Manager inform this list precisely: * whether visitors can use SSRN/Bepress anonymously without registering? * what the explicit licence is on the articles (e.g. CC BY) * whether text and data mining is allowed without Elsevier' permission The answers to all these questions can be single words. If they are not (YES, CC-BY, YES) then I do not regard this as Open Access P. On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 7:11 PM, Chatterji, Promita (ELS-BKY) < pchatte...@bepress.com> wrote: > ** apologies for cross-posting** > > > > bepress and SSRN Announce Integration Pilot with Columbia and University > of Georgia Law Schools > > > > Bepress > <http://bepress%20and%20SSRN%20Announce%20Integration%20Pilot%20with%20Columbia%20and%20University%20of%20Georgia%20Law%20Schools> > and SSRN <https://www.ssrn.com/en/> are pleased to announce a joint pilot > to explore integration between their two platforms. The four-month pilot > launches today with the participation of Columbia Law School’s Arthur W. > Diamond Law Library and University of Georgia School of Law’s Library. > > Both bepress and SSRN are eager to explore potential solutions to the > obstacles that professional schools and their libraries face in promoting > their open access scholarship. The initial pilot offers one possible model > for demonstrating the increased reach of legal scholarship when work is > available through an open access repository as well as a specialized > network of peers, by simplifying population of and aggregating research > impact from both platforms. > > > > “We are incredibly excited to launch this project,” stated Jean-Gabriel > Bankier, Managing Director at bepress. “It is the first step in our vision > to work together with others in the Elsevier ecosystem in order to better > support our community with their open access initiatives.” Columbia Law > School Library Director Kent McKeever noted, “this is exactly the kind of > synergy that I was hoping to see now that both products are under the > Elsevier umbrella.” With Elsevier’s acquisition of bepress in August 2017, > both platforms are now part of the Elsevier portfolio. > > > > One goal of the pilot is to support open access initiatives by helping > libraries quickly populate their institutional repositories. SSRN and > bepress will explore ways to easily transfer research articles, enabling > this scholarship to become part of an institution’s open access > collections. “Integrating these two platforms will reduce some of the > hurdles to making law faculties’ scholarship freely available through open > access,” states Carol Watson, Director of the Law Library at the University > of Georgia. > > > > The pilot also tests potential benefits for authors. Bankier states, “we > believe that authors should be able to get credit for their readership, > regardless of whether an article is downloaded from bepress’s Digital > Commons or SSRN.” As Watson puts it, the integration will lead to a “more > accurate assessment of the true impact of their legal scholarship” by > harnessing the discovery power that is at the heart of both platforms. SSRN > and bepress are leading names in the law scholarship, with thousands of > authors > > -- > > Promita Chatterji > > Product Marketing Manager > > bepress > > > > > > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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] Open Access Down the Drain
Julia Reda, MEP, who has been fighting for years for copyright
liberalisation has a hugely gloomy comment ("Open Access Down the Drain")
on the recent deliberations of CULT and ITRE:
https://juliareda.eu/2017/07/a-loss-for-culture-and-research/
>>>
The Committee for Culture and Education (CULT) and the Committee for
Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) ceirtainly didn’t prioritize culture,
education or research in today’s copyright votes.
Open access down the drain
Both votes were in favour of the extra copyright for news publishers
creating charges for the use of snippets and links.
Incredibly, the ITRE committee – responsible for research and usually a
staunch defender of open access – even voted to extend the extra copyright
to academic publications, which would make open access publishing virtually
impossible. It would stop people from linking to academic content, despite
the content itself being free. This would apply to both online publications
and print journals. The chilling effects on the spread of academic works
and information would be substantial.
<<<
Julia is not given to sensationalism so this sounds very serious.
Personally I see increasing restrictions on the re-use of public knowledge
and think we are facing a potentially bleak future. I am currently writing
blog posts on why Text and Data Mining in UK has been complete failure:
https://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2017/07/11/text-and-data-mining-overview/
and subsequent.I shalle writing several blogs over the next few days.
--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] The Budapest Open Access Initiative and Budapest 2017
I would support that view (and also acknowledge past funding from OSF). To avoid confusion, note that OSI has been renamed to OSF ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Society_Foundations ) On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com> wrote: > It’s ironic that billionaire George Soros (who is less wealthy than > billionaire Bill Gates but has done a lot more philanthropy, both > absolutely and proportionately) is today being notably vilified in a hate > campaign > <https://www.facebook.com/anna.bayer.338/videos/10155503514384458/> by > Hungary’s incipient dictator, Viktor Orban, who is expelling the Central > European University (founded by Soros, and the best university in Hungary) > while blaming its founder for Hungary’s ills. > > > Soros’s Open Society Institute was also the one that founded and funded > the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) > <http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/>that launched OA. (But I > suspect that yet another US billionaire will find a way to trump > <https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/trump-s-paradigm-shift-may-derail-free-access-to-online-content-for-researchers-1.3126744> > Orban’s odia with his own...) > > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
ublishing bad for > science? > https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business- > scientific-publishing-bad-for-science?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other > > > Eric Archambault > 1science.com > Science-Metrix.com > +1-514-495-6505 x111 <(514)%20495-6505> > > _______ > 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 > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] [open-science] Services owned / operated by Elsevier
I think it would also be valuable to know which HEIs have received research funding from Elsevier. I believe this is valuable in helping to identify possible conflicts of interest. On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Michael Svendsen <m...@kb.dk> wrote: > ...to continue this investigation of services operated by the big E, it > could be of interest to know, which HEI have buy-ins on their product side. > > From University of Copenhagen/University Library, DK, we at least talk: > > - Pure, Science Direct, SCIVal, Scopus, Mendeley + various > discipline-specific databases and licenses to E-owned content. > > What do you think? Could we crowdsource and visualize the landscape? > > Best regards, > > Michael Svendsen > Open Access & Research Data Coordinator | MLISc > Research Support Services: http://kub.kb.dk/researchsupport > Copenhagen University Library | Royal Danish Library > M: m...@kb.dk | Mob: +45 91324589 <+45%2091%2032%2045%2089> | T: > @tullemich > OrcID: http://orcid.org/-0002-5807-5326 > _ > From: Kramer, B.M.R. (Bianca) <b.m.r.kra...@uu.nl> > Sent: søndag, april 30, 2017 1:37 PM > Subject: Re: [open-science] Services owned / operated by Elsevier > To: open-science <open-scie...@lists.okfn.org>, Ulrich Herb < > u.h...@scinoptica.com>, <open-acc...@lists.okfn.org>, <goal@eprints.org> > > > > Hi Ulrich, > > As part of our 101 Innovations in Scholarly Communication > <https://101innovations.wordpress.com/> project, we mapped Elsevier > products/services against the different phases of the research workflow > <http://innoscholcomm.silk.co/page/Elsevier>. It shows how strategic > their acquisitions are - to encompass a complete ecosystem. You can find > this here <http://innoscholcomm.silk.co/page/Workflows>, along with other > (company) workflows. > > kind regards, > Bianca Kramer and Jeroen Bosman > > > > 101 Innovations in Scholarly Communication > <https://101innovations.wordpress.com/outcomes/> > . > Bianca Kramer, PhD | Subject Specialist Life Sciences and Medicine | > Utrecht University Library | Heidelberglaan 3 Utrecht NL-3584 CS | > www.uu.nl/library | b.m.r.kra...@uu.nl | room G.01.503 UMC Utrecht | > working hours Mon-Tue mornings, Thu-Fri all day | Twitter: @MsPhelps > > > From: open-science [open-science-boun...@lists.okfn.org] on behalf of > Ulrich Herb [u.h...@scinoptica.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 4:58 PM > To: goal@eprints.org; open-acc...@lists.okfn.org; open-science > Subject: [open-science] Services owned / operated by Elsevier > > Dear all, > > > in preparation of a talk I will give in Linz (Austria) I am trying to find > out which science-related services are owned by Elsevier. I published a > list of the services known to me here: https://www.scinoptica.com/ > 2017/04/the-elsevier-empire-which-services-belong-to-it/ > > > It would be a great help if you could add other services missing on the > list using the blog comments, email or twitter... > > > Thanks a lot, best regards > > Ulrich > > Dr. Ulrich Herb > POB 1154 > D-66266 Kleinblittersdorf > http://www.scinoptica.com > 0049 157 30306851 > http://twitter.com/#!/scinoptica > ___ > open-science mailing list > open-scie...@lists.okfn.org > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science > > > > ___ > open-science mailing list > open-scie...@lists.okfn.org > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?
The statement: "Copyright is only invoked if you want to actually copy an original table for inclusion in a publication" is completely wrong. The question of whether it is legal to point to another work depends on the jurisdiction. It is Ancillary Copyright see http://www.communia-association.org/2016/08/25/eu-commission-yes-will-create-new-ancillary-copyright-news-publishers-please-stop-calling-link-tax/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_publishers where laws have been passed (e.g. in Spain) to copyright and tax hyperlinks. There have been indications of pressure from some scholarly publishers to do the same for scholarly articles http://ancillarycopyright.eu/news/2016-06-15/beware-neighbouring-right-publishers-ancillary-copyright-steroids-potential-consequences-general-nei which could require scholars to pay publishers for the right to link to their sites. This is not hypothetical - it is being fought bitterly in Europe. On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Heather Morrison < heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote: > hi Peter, > > On 2017-01-24, at 10:10 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm...@cam.ac.uk> > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Heather Morrison < > heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote: > >> Another critique that may be more relevant to this argument: I challenge >> PMR's contention that it is necessary to limit this kind of research to >> works that are licensed CC-BY. If you gather data from a great many >> different tables and analyze it, what you will be publishing is your own >> work. >> >> This is no different from doing a great deal of reading and thinking and >> writing a new work that draws on this knowledge, with appropriate citations >> to the works that you have read. >> >> Copyright is only invoked if you want to actually copy an original table >> for inclusion in a publication. If you are drawing on data from thousands >> of tables it is not clear how often this will happen. If what you want to >> copy is an insubstantial amount this would be covered under fair dealing. >> If the work is free-to-read, whether All Rights Reserved or under an open >> license, you can point readers to the original. At worst, this is a minor >> inconvenience. >> > > This is completely wrong. The problem is that this is a legal issue and > copyright law, by default, covers all aspects of copying. Copying material > into a machine for the purpose of mining involves copyright. Whether it > seems reasonable or fair is irrelevant. If you carry out mining then you > should be prepared to answer in court. > > > "This is completely wrong" is a rather broad statement. Can you explain > how my statement "if the work is free to read…you can point readers to the > original". Are you arguing that it is illegal to point people to a > free-to-read work? > > As Marc Couture noted on the GOAL list yesterday, with respect to internet > search engine's mining and reproduction of portions of work, Google has won > a lawsuit: > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2017-January/004340.html > > From the Wikipedia entry: "*Field v. Google, Inc.*, 412 F.Supp. 2d 1106 > (D. Nev. 2006) <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Field_v._Google,_Inc.> is > a case where Google Inc. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Inc.> > successfully defended a lawsuit for copyright infringement > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement>. Field argued that > Google infringed his exclusive right to reproduce his copyrighted works > when it "cached <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_cache>" his website > and made a copy of it available on its search engine. Google raised > multiple defenses: fair use <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use>, implied > license <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_license>, estoppel > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel>, and Digital Millennium > Copyright Act > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act> safe > harbor protection. The court granted Google's motion for summary judgment > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment> and denied Field's > motion for summary judgment." > > I myself am not familiar with this case. Is the Wikipedia entry wrong? > > > The problem is compounded by: > * it is jurisdiction-dependent. Fair-use only exists in certain domains. > It is not the same as fair dealing which is generally weaker. What is > permissible in the US may not be in UK and vice versa. > > > Agreed. I argue that universal strong fair use / fair dealing is something > we need to fight for, not something to take for granted. > > * It is
Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Heather Morrison < heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote: > Another critique that may be more relevant to this argument: I challenge > PMR's contention that it is necessary to limit this kind of research to > works that are licensed CC-BY. If you gather data from a great many > different tables and analyze it, what you will be publishing is your own > work. > > This is no different from doing a great deal of reading and thinking and > writing a new work that draws on this knowledge, with appropriate citations > to the works that you have read. > > Copyright is only invoked if you want to actually copy an original table > for inclusion in a publication. If you are drawing on data from thousands > of tables it is not clear how often this will happen. If what you want to > copy is an insubstantial amount this would be covered under fair dealing. > If the work is free-to-read, whether All Rights Reserved or under an open > license, you can point readers to the original. At worst, this is a minor > inconvenience. > This is completely wrong. The problem is that this is a legal issue and copyright law, by default, covers all aspects of copying. Copying material into a machine for the purpose of mining involves copyright. Whether it seems reasonable or fair is irrelevant. If you carry out mining then you should be prepared to answer in court. The problem is compounded by: * it is jurisdiction-dependent. Fair-use only exists in certain domains. It is not the same as fair dealing which is generally weaker. What is permissible in the US may not be in UK and vice versa. * It is extremely complex. Guessing the law will not be useful. * Much of the law has not been tested in court. "Non-commercial" is not what you or I would like it to mean. It is what a court finds when I or others are summoned before it. I have been involved in this for over 4 years in the UK and in Europe (Parliament and Commission). There is no consensus on what should be allowed and what will ultimately be decided by the Commission and Member States. I have taken legal opinion on some of this and consulted with other experts and the answers are often unclear. The legality of Text and Data Mining is formally unrelated to whether the miner publishes the results or not. > If you prefer to limit your research to works that are CC-BY licensed, it > is your right to make this choice. Many other researchers, myself included, > work with a wide range of data and do not choose to limit what we gather to > works that are licensed CC-BY. One example from my own research: if a > publisher has a table listing APCs, I screen scrape the table, pop the data > into a spreadsheet, and work with it. > The primary issue for Text and data Mining is automated analysis of many tables. This is an inconsistency in the law that we are trying to get legislators to change. > Even publishers that use CC-BY for articles usually have All Rights > Reserved for pages that contain this type of information. > Do you have metrics for this. Because this is incompatible with the licence and should be challenged - as I frequently do. > If I limited myself to data sources that are CC-BY I could not do this > kind of research. > I agree that this is limiting and that is why it would be useful for scientific material to be licensed CC BY. In summary this is a complex legal question and the answers have to be based on law not guesswork. > > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Heather Morrison < heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote: > hi Peter, > > If many knowledge projects are advancing our knowledge through the means > that you have described, surely there are others than the one you started > yesterday? Can you provide a list or literature review of such studies? > There are literally thousands. In biomedicine alone there are many conferences and competitions. An overview is given in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomedical_text_mining . > > My OA APC study uses data from different sources that do not have a common > set of terms: > dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dataverse > > I would like to note some methodological concerns with such the approach > described by PMC > I assume you mean me, PMR, Not (Europe)PubMedCentral. > (automatically gathering data from tables).Taking data from different > studies without fully accounting for difference in methods (eg definition > or measurement) could easily lead to false conclusions. Worse, such false > conclusions would be highly replicable leading to false confidence in > results, ie anyone could repeat the same mistakes and come to the same > conclusion of unknown external validity. > It is very sad to be severely criticised by a scholar who has not read my work, proposal, and website and does not understand what I am doing. There are many cases where the data format I extract from allows precise metrics on recall and precision of the character stream (in the current case I expect >> 99%). You do not know my purpose - which you describe as "false conclusions". In fact the output will be routed to expert human reviewers and will save 90% of their time. > > For the 2016/17 OA APC dataset I am adding a "providence" > I assume you mean "provenance" > column because the data in the 2016 APC column comes from different > researchers with some differences in data collection. Even in a single > dataset, to analyze one needs to understand when you are comparing apples > with apples or macintoshes with Spartans. Automating data analysis without > full comprehension of the data strikes me as problematic. > This assertion that I do not have full comprehension and that my work is problematic is unworthy. I have pioneered automatic extraction of chemistry and of crystallography over 40 years and have been honoured by scientific societies for doing so. I have defined the data extraction process, shown how it can be aggregated, provided metrics and pioneered technology that has led to several thousand papers (by people who have built on my work). Peter -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?
not invited and encouraged to manipulate the text, > images, etc. > > In creative works, eg to prepare a horror flick, by all means take this > and that, mix it together and create something new and intriguing. I am not > convinced that the same arguments ought to apply to works that might guide > procedures in a real hospital operating room. > > I suggest the "how open is it" spectrum is a useful exercise that has > served a purpose for some but not a canon for all to adhere to. > > best, > > Heather Morrison > > > > Original message > From: David Prosser <david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk> > Date: 2017-01-23 2:16 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org> > Subject: Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able > to meet the definition of open access? > > I rather like the ‘How open is it?’ tool that approaches this as a > spectrum: > > http://sparcopen.org/our-work/howopenisit/ > > > I may be quite ‘hard line’, but I acknowledge that by moving along the > spectrum a paper, monograph, piece of data (or whatever) becomes more open > - and more open is better than less open. > > If the funders have gone to the far end of the spectrum it is perhaps > because they feel that the greatest benefits are there, not because they > have been convinced that they have to follow the strict, ‘hard line’ > definition of open access. > > David > > > > On 23 Jan 2017, at 18:30, Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Marc, > > You say: > > "I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such: > > I don’t equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I’m a little > bit tired of discussions about what 'being OA' means." > > I hear you, but I think the key point here is that OA advocates (perhaps > not you, but OA advocates) are successfully convincing a growing number of > research funders (e.g. Wellcome Trust, RCUK, Ford Foundation, Hewlett > Foundation, Gates Foundation etc.) that CC BY is the only acceptable form > of open access. > > So however tired you and Stevan might be of discussing it, I believe there > are important implications and consequences flowing from that. > > Richard Poynder > > > > On 23 January 2017 at 16:31, Couture Marc <marc.cout...@teluq.ca> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> Just to be clear, my position on the basic issue here. >> >> >> >> I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such : >> >> >> >> - I don’t equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I’m a little >> bit tired of discussions about what “being OA” means. >> >> >> >> - I work to help increase the proportion of gratis OA, still much too low. >> >> >> >> - I try to convince my colleagues that CC BY is the best way to >> disseminate scientific/scholarly works and make them useful. >> >> >> >> I favour CC BY over the restricted versions (mainly -NC) because I find >> the arguments about potentially unwanted or devious uses far less >> compelling than those about the advantages of unrestricted uses and the >> drawbacks of restrictions that can be much more stringent than they seem at >> first glance. >> >> >> >> Like Stevan said, OA advocates are indeed a plurality. The opposite would >> bother me. >> >> >> >> Marc Couture >> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> GOAL mailing list >> GOAL@eprints.org >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >> >> > > > -- > Richard Poynder > www.richardpoynder.co.uk > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] Elsevier as an open access publisher
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Heather Morrison < heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote: > Elsevier is now one of the world’s largest open access publishers as > measured by the number of fully OA journals published. What are the > implications? I’d love to hear your thoughts, on list or on the SKC > blogpost (see link below). > > A practice termed author nominal copyright is observed, where copyright is > in the name of the author although the author contract is essentially a > copyright transfer. > Thank you very much Heather for highlighting this appalling practice. It deserves the widest possible publicity and condemnation. For me it oversteps the boundaries of ethical practice. Unfortunately I doubt very much whether it was discussed in the recent Jisc "negotiations" with Elsevier and so is probably part of the model where Elsevier is supporting "open science" through "helping authors". This is an area where the Universities and their libraries should be proactive. Relying on a few brave activists outside the system is a recipe for publishers to continually change their terms in their favour. > > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. 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
Re: [GOAL] MDPI APCs 2011 - 2016
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Heather Morrison < heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote: > A preliminary version of our MDPI APC longitudinal study is now available: > https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2016/07/29/mdpi-apc-fdp-2011-2016/ > > > It is useful to get these prices. (I comment that some of the earlier percentages referred to ratios rather than changes; the latter is more normal). > MDPI is a new commercial publisher committed to the APC model, with a not > uncommon approach of free publication for new journals. For the record a number of the journals have been established for some time - Molecules is 20 years old. From Wikipedia: >>The journal *Molecules* <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecules_%28journal%29> was established in 1996 in collaboration with Springer-Verlag (now Springer Science+Business Media <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springer_Science%2BBusiness_Media>) in order to document the chemical samples of the MDPI collection. Several other journals were established by the MDPI Verein, including *Entropy* <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28journal%29> (1999), the *International Journal of Molecular Sciences <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Journal_of_Molecular_Sciences>* (2000), *Sensors* <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensors_%28journal%29> (2001), *Marine Drugs <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Drugs>* (2003), and the *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Journal_of_Environmental_Research_and_Public_Health>* (2004). The publisher MDPI AG was spun off from MDPI Verein in 2010. The use of the same acronym for two different organizations may confuse some people. -- 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
Re: [GOAL] CC-BY with copyright transfer
I agree with Heather, this is unclear and needs checking. There is a difference between the author of a work and the owner. I would agree that it appears to be a deceptive practice. I have had similar problems "arguing" with Elsevier about text-and-datamining "licences" where the licences apparently give rights to Elsevier. I will try to get an informal opinion. On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Heather Morrison < heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote: > Elsevier's copyright page provides a very clear example of copyright > transfer combined with CC licenses. Elsevier is not alone in this practice; > I see this quite frequently while looking for APCS. > > The Elsevier copyright page: > https://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/copyright > > States under "for open access articles": > "Authors sign an exclusive license agreement, where authors have copyright > but license exclusive rights in the article to the publisher. In this case > authors have the right to share their articles in the same ways permitted > to third parties..." > > This language makes it very clear that when Elsevier applies CC licenses, > Elsevier (or one of its partners) is the Licensor or copyright holder, > even when there is a copyright statement indicating the author holds > copyright. > > I argue that this is a deceptive practice that I call author nomination > copyright. > > This is important, because CC licenses place obligations downstream for > licensees, not Licensor. The copyright holder of a CC license has no > obligation to continue to provide a copy of the work under the same terms > in perpetuity (unless there is a separate contract). > > To assess the extent of this practice one must examine journal/author > contracts, not just visible indications, because even if an author is > licensed CC-BY and indicates the author as copyright holder, it may > actually be the publisher who owns all the rights under copyright. > > best, > > Heather Morrison > > > > > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Éric Archambault < eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote: > Isidro > > Not so sure. Two weeks ago while visiting university libraries in Europe I > saw that many of them are switching/considering to switch to their CRIS > instead of continuing to rely on their traditional repositories and the > mostly open source software. We'll have to see how far it goes but the rise > of national research assessment exercises and national OA mandates, there > is growing pressure to consolidate research data and expect Elsevier, > Holtzbrinck (->Digital Science->Symplectic), and Thomson Reuters (and > whomever acquires the IP & Science unit - which the rumor mill suggests > could be acquired by BC Partners, itself Holtzbrinck's partner in Springer > Nature - thus possibly more consolidation on the way) to increase their > stronghold on research data and research intelligence. > > Only fools think we are witnessing an opening of research knowledge > dissemination. The winners of open data and open access will be large > corporates concerns. Research is big business and there are huge economies > of scale in that industry, just as in so many others. Consolidation is the > name of the game, and amateur bricolage solutions are giving way to > corporate professional solutions, whether we like it or not. > > Eric > > > Eric Archambault, Ph.D. > President and CEO | Président-directeur général > Science-Metrix & 1science > > T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111 > C. 1.514.518.0823 > F. 1.514.495.6523 > > > Completely agree with Eric. It's the increasing privatizing of academic Infrastructure that terrifies me. Geoff Bilder has also cogently argued this. Open (whether Green or Gold) is almost irrelevant if the material is held in non-discoverable fragmented repos. A commercial "solution" - TR, Elsevier, DigitalScience will effectively lock in discovery and access. The primary value of CC-BY open is that you can fork it. You can't fork Green. You can't fork academia.edu or Researchgate. You can't fork Mendeley (whose contents are "open" in name but not forkable in practice). My prediction is that DigitalScience and Elsevier will compete to manage university repos. What do repos cost? Peter Suber said 1.5 - 5 FTE/year. Multiply across UK (*150) and you get ca 400 FTEs. cost this at 100K real costs (e.g. RC costing) and you get 40 Million GBP. And that's for 5% of output. Suppose Digisevier goes to VCs or HEFCE or JISC and offers to do it for half and allow those valuable library staff to be "repurposed". We must build our own Open infrastructure. It's a matter of crisis. If we don't do it in the next 12 months it will be too late. There is enough Open technology to do it. If Universities, Funders, Libraries scholars and citizens get up and shout for Open infrastructure we can pool resources and do it. If we out-source our thinking and planning to Digisevier we shall be sidelined within 5 years. -- 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
Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
Maintaining organizations against being taken over or pwned is critical. I believe in ThomasK and PaulG, but no human is immortal. The inevitable outcome of useful public innovation is privatization, unless formal steps are taken to protect it. This can be done by a trusted organization (I would trust most Scientific Unions but not most scientific societies, for example). The most powerful mechanism , which I would promote , is legal constraints in the organization. One of the best known is the GPL. In the Shuttleworth Foundation (which funds ContentMine) we have been discussing this in depth and we are now integrating legal tools such as OpenLock, MissionLock and AssetLock. These are formal phrases, enforceable by courts, which prevent certain change of direction. These tools would have prevented SSRN from this disaster. You can trust that ContentMine cannot be taken over by Mendeley because we have a clause in the Articles of Association. I think arXiv and RePeC should consider protection like this. On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Ted Bergstrom <t...@econ.ucsb.edu> wrote: > Hooray for RePEc! > Thomas, Is there a short answer to the question: > "How do we know RePEc can't be bought?" > Do you have any advice to offer economists who are wary of > the SSRN sellout? > > > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Thomas Krichel <kric...@openlib.org> > wrote: > >> >> Stevan Harnad writes >> >> > Shame on SSRN. >> >> Why? I am certainly looking forward to SSRN becoming as undynamic as >> Mendeley after an Elsevier takeover. >> >> > I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated >> > expenses are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's >> sure is >> > that the distributed network of Green institutional repositories >> worldwide >> > is not for sale, and that is their strength... >> >> RePEc can not be bought either. I created it before institutional >> repositories came along. It is based on the same principles as >> institutional repositories. >> >> >> -- >> >> Cheers, >> >> Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel >> skype:thomaskrichel >> ___ >> GOAL mailing list >> GOAL@eprints.org >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >> > > > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Can time-stamped PDF's qualify as OA?
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Pippa Smart <pippa.sm...@gmail.com> wrote: > There are a few issues here and I think it is important to separate them > out. > > *$400 for course packs* > OUP allows authors who want open access to select whether they want to > restrict reuse of their article - to prevent commercial or derivative > reuses. It is the authors that select the licence they want to use - unless > their funder forces them to use a particular licence. > > The CC BY licence allows anyone (including OUP) to reuse content for > commercial reasons - i.e. to sell the articles. CC BY means that if I want > to use the articles to create a coursepack then I do not have to ask > permission - the CC BY licence allows me to do this. It also allows me to > sell my coursepacks (even if they comprise only CC BY articles). However if > I "want" to pay then there is nothing to stop someone making a charge. > [Example - someone has downloaded a series of OA CC BY articles published > in PLOS Medicine and is selling them as a book on Amazon - this is entirely > legitimate under CC BY]. > Here is OUP's wording (via RightsLink) for re-use in a pharmaceutical context for a ** CC-BY** article >>Please Contact Oxford University Press >>Please note republication of content for pharmaceutical use requires authorization from an Oxford University Press customer service representative directly. Please e-mail your request to corporate.servi...@oup.com PMR> This states categorically that OUP forbids the re-use of CC-BY articles. I will not imply motivation to OUP - if it is deliberate then they have a case to answer. If it is not, then does it reflect a high standard of customer care (to the author, who has paid a lot of money)? This is not an isolated case - it's endemic in the Scholarly publishing industry. Elsevier calls it "The Bumpy Road" - i.e. we should feel sympathy for Elsevier in the difficult task of getting this service right. Remember that it costs a lot of money to publish CC-BY. The author's rights have been ignored. Much of the wording in Reuse Permissions is weighted towards purchase even when the reader or re-user can technically get it somewhere for free. And, of course, there is the additional ongoing problem when articles which authors have paid to have Open, are hidden behind a paywall. === > If an author wants to publish under a CC BY-non-commercial licence, then > they must grant OUP commercial rights - otherwise OUP could not publish > their work in this (commercial) journal. > The main problem here is exclusive, ongoing rights. Rights to publish are not the same as re-use rights which (especially in the pharma industry) can run into 7 figures for a single instance. > > > -- 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: Can time-stamped PDF's qualify as OA?
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Walker,Thomas J <t...@ufl.edu> wrote: > Peter Murray-Rust’s posting about $400 study packs based on articles > published with CC-BY rights statements opened my eyes to a part of > OUP/ESA’s business plan I had missed—the use of time-stamped PDFs to make > money from students of the teachers who use study packs that include > articles by ESA authors in any of ESA’s four principal journals. OUP has > slapped time stamps and notices of an ESA copyright on all articles in the > four journals going back to 1908 for Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. and J. Econ. > Ent, and to 1972 and 1965 for J. Med. Ent. and Envir. Ent. > > > > This should be illegal, as well as ethically and morally unacceptable. > It's called Copyfraud by many, including me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud gives a good overview. It's a "victimless crime" for Universities and their libraries, because the victims are not the Universities but hoi polloi outside the ivory towers. The people who suffer are artists, naturalists, policy makers, SMEs, doctors, politicians, and curious minds. > This is because ESA has no valid claim of copyright to articles published > in its journals before it started requiring authors to sign over their > copyrights to ESA in 1978. Furthermore, JME, for its entire run of being > published by Honolulu’s Bishop Museum (1964-1986), never required authors > to sign copyright releases. The handover of J. Med. Ent. to ESA resulted > in the run from 1987-date being copyrighted by ESA. > > The magnitude of the deception of OUP claiming an ESA copyright on all > articles that ever appeared in ESA’s four journals is that of ESA’s *271* > “journal-years” of publication (through 2015 and including the first 22 > journal-years of JME), ESA could fairly claim copyright to only *103* ( > *103/271=38%*). > > > > That ought to be illegal, but is it? (The evidence is clear cut and > online.) > I suffered from this. Springer took all the images published in its journals and stamped COPYRIGHT SPRINGER over all of them and offered them for sale at 60 USD. This included all my publications in BioMedCentral, a CC-BY Open Access journal. I raised this on my blog as "Springergate", see https://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2012/06/06/springergate-springerimages-for-today/ and preceding/subsequent articles. I publicized this - was dismissed by Springer first of all and then it was a "computer glitch" . No one in academia cared. However Wikimedia cared greatly, because their CC-BY-SA images had also been universally stamped as Springer property. They made a considerable fuss, rightly (explore the blog). The Editor of BMC then spent time correcting it (it wasn't his fault, it was SpringerImages). So the moral is that University libraries do not fight to preserve the public domain or CC-BY*. In a sad extension of this many libraries (including the British Library - whom I FOI'ed) will take the easy way and apply charges for everything because it is too difficult to determine whether anything is in the public domain or CC-BY*. Thus the BL charges people to read my Open Access papers online, and 120-year old chemical publications are regarded as belonging to the journal (and hence chargeable) because they can't prove the authors are dead. P. > > > Tom > > > > Thomas J. Walker > > Department of Entomology & Nematology > > PO Box 110620 (or Natural Area Drive) > > University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0620 > > E-mail: t...@ufl.edu Phone: 352-273-3920 > > Web: http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/walker/ > > > > > > -- 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: Can time-stamped PDF's qualify as OA?
Thank you both for replying. On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Lucie Burgess < lucie.burg...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > Dear Peter and GOAL readers, > > At Oxford we work closely with Oxford University Press (OUP) on open > access issues, as OUP is part of the University. Andy Redman, Editorial > Director at OUP is a member of our Open Access Oxford Project Group, so I > contacted him to respond to Peter and others’ concerns about OUP’s > licensing practice for open access articles. Andy replied as follows, and > is cc-ed above if you have specific questions for him. > > *** > > Hi Lucie, > > > > We don’t have a registered list member on GOAL so it would be great if you > could share a response for us: > > > > We’ve checked on the permissions issue reported by Peter Murray-Rust and > it is something where we need to take further action. > Agreed. > We use RightsLink for standard permission requests and there are better > ways we can use RightsLink to handle OA licences. > Yes > Our current implementation flags that anyone making a request should > consider whether the article is available under a Creative Commons Open > Access licence before applying for permission through RightsLink: > This is an unnecessary cognitive load on the reader and undoubtedly leads to errors. > > > “Papers published under Creative Commons Open Access licences may not > require permissions for re-use. Please check the copyright line and licence > used for this paper before requesting permission. Copyright lines can be > found on the abstract of all OUP journal articles and information on CC > licences can be found here. If you are unsure if the material is covered by > open access or if your reuse requires permissions then please contact > journals.permissi...@oup.com” > Many readers won't know what Creative Commons is. Even if they do this is an unnecessary labyrinth. CC-BY journals frequently omit any link to RightsLink and so avoid any error. > > > However, if someone still continues with a request though the system then > they are not barred from doing this in the current implementation and the > system will calculate a standard permissions quote (which is what Peter has > noted). > What I noted was the absolute forbidding of reuse. That statement should never occur. > We will look at when we can implement an OA licence sensitive interface in > RightsLink. > I don't know how long NAR has been Open Access and how long it has been using CC, but I suspect ca 10 years. I don't know when Rightslink joined the system. IMO Rightslink is so complex that it is bound to introduce this type of problem. When publishers are primarily or completely Toll Access it seems that the mindset is often "all the content belongs to us" and this philosophy is burnt into the software. It is then much harder to make corrections, and indeed this is a faulty design. > We will also check for evidence of permissions payments having been made > for articles where a Creative Commons licence was in place and, if there > are any such instances, we will make arrangements to reimburse the customer. > Thank you. I suspect this can go back several years > > > Peter asked on Twitter whether this was a bumpy road or worse and, on > GOAL, said that he hoped that this was a "glitch". Hopefully this answers > that question. It’s a case of infrastructure needing to be adapted and the > time required to schedule and implement changes which involve multiple > systems. > And the apparent absence of quality control on rights management. If I can spot these problems so could a rights-quality-control tester. Please convince me I am wrong and that there is significant and regular quality control. Waiting till a knowledgeable obsessive like me finds problems is not sufficient. > > > Cheers, > > > Andy > > > * > > > > Kind regards, > > Lucie > > Lucie Burgess > Associate Director for Digital Libraries > Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford > Clarendon Building, Broad Street, Oxford > Senior Research Fellow, Hertford College > Tel: +44 (0)1865 277104 > +44 (0)7725 842619 > Twitter @LucieCBurgess > LinkedIn LucieCBurgess > http://orcid.org/-0001-6601-7196 > Get ready for the REF – Act on Acceptance > <http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/home-2/act-on-acceptance/> > > > > > From: Peter Murray-Rust <pm...@cam.ac.uk> > Reply-To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org > > > Date: Wednesday, 10 February 2016 15:57 > To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org> > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Can time-stamp
[GOAL] Re: Do libraries fight to preserve the public domain?
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Lucie Burgess < lucie.burg...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > Dear Peter, > > I wanted to respond to the point you made that: > > *'So the moral is that University libraries do not fight to preserve the > public domain or CC-BY*. In a sad extension of this many libraries > (including the British Library - whom I FOI'ed) will take the easy way and > apply charges for everything because it is too difficult to determine > whether anything is in the public domain or CC-BY*. Thus the BL charges > people to read my Open Access papers online, and 120-year old chemical > publications are regarded as belonging to the journal (and hence > chargeable) because they can't prove the authors are dead.**’* > > In my experience, it is really not the case that University libraries do > not fight to preserve the public domain. > I am primarily talking about material that is digital and has been published electronically under a liberal licence (CC-BY or CC0 or public domain). And the emphasis on this list is scholarly publication, particularly in journals [... digitisation snipped] > I can’t comment on the British Library access to your papers because I > don’t know the details, but I will forward your query to colleagues at the > British Library to respond to. > I blogged this 6 years ago in several posts - see https://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2010/05/08/my-current-freedom-of-information-foi-requests/ for a start. > > Thanks and kind regards, > Lucie > > > > Lucie Burgess > Associate Director for Digital Libraries > Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford > Clarendon Building, Broad Street, Oxford > Senior Research Fellow, Hertford College > Tel: +44 (0)1865 277104 > +44 (0)7725 842619 > Twitter @LucieCBurgess > LinkedIn LucieCBurgess > http://orcid.org/-0001-6601-7196 > Get ready for the REF – Act on Acceptance > <http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/home-2/act-on-acceptance/> > > > > > From: Peter Murray-Rust <pm...@cam.ac.uk> > Reply-To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org > > > Date: Wednesday, 10 February 2016 15:57 > To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org> > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Can time-stamped PDF's qualify as OA? > > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Walker,Thomas J <t...@ufl.edu> wrote: > >> Peter Murray-Rust’s posting about $400 study packs based on articles >> published with CC-BY rights statements opened my eyes to a part of >> OUP/ESA’s business plan I had missed—the use of time-stamped PDFs to make >> money from students of the teachers who use study packs that include >> articles by ESA authors in any of ESA’s four principal journals. OUP has >> slapped time stamps and notices of an ESA copyright on all articles in the >> four journals going back to 1908 for Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. and J. Econ. >> Ent, and to 1972 and 1965 for J. Med. Ent. and Envir. Ent. >> >> >> >> This should be illegal, as well as ethically and morally unacceptable. >> > > It's called Copyfraud by many, including me. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud gives a good overview. It's a > "victimless crime" for Universities and their libraries, because the > victims are not the Universities but hoi polloi outside the ivory towers. > The people who suffer are artists, naturalists, policy makers, SMEs, > doctors, politicians, and curious minds. > > >> This is because ESA has no valid claim of copyright to articles published >> in its journals before it started requiring authors to sign over their >> copyrights to ESA in 1978. Furthermore, JME, for its entire run of being >> published by Honolulu’s Bishop Museum (1964-1986), never required authors >> to sign copyright releases. The handover of J. Med. Ent. to ESA resulted >> in the run from 1987-date being copyrighted by ESA. >> >> The magnitude of the deception of OUP claiming an ESA copyright on all >> articles that ever appeared in ESA’s four journals is that of ESA’s *271* >> “journal-years” of publication (through 2015 and including the first 22 >> journal-years of JME), ESA could fairly claim copyright to only *103* ( >> *103/271=38%*). >> >> >> >> That ought to be illegal, but is it? (The evidence is clear cut and >> online.) >> > > I suffered from this. Springer took all the images published in its > journals and stamped COPYRIGHT SPRINGER over all of them and offered them > for sale at 60 USD. This included all my publications in BioMedCentral, a > CC-BY Open Access journal. I raised this on my blog as "Springergate", see >
[GOAL] Re: Can time-stamped PDF's qualify as OA?
The OUP journal Nucleic Acids Research (which has been "Open" for many years) uses CC licences: Example: http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/44/2/524.full.pdf+html which is CC-BY and the licence is clearly displayed on the PDF . This grants rights to any reader to re-publish. (Note that some articles are CC-NC). My guess is that this is variable between journals or else simply inconsistent (The price we pay for not challenging publishers more frequently) . ©The Author(s) 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Nucleic Acids Research. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http: //creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Walker,Thomas J <t...@ufl.edu> wrote: > In investigating the PDFs of articles in Journal of Medical Entomology > [JME] published by Oxford University Press [OUP] I’ve found that OUP puts a > time stamp on every PDF they provide to others. This makes it impossible > for authors, who have paid a fee or $2000 to $3500 for OA, to make a > non-time stamped PDF openly accessible on the Web. > > > > This is because even though OUP has granted copyrights to OA-fee paying > authors, it requires the corresponding author of each article to sign (for > himself and for any other authors of the article) OUP’s “License to > Publish.” This License > <http://entnemdept.ifas.ufl.edu/walker/OUP_License_to_Publish.pdf> states > (in legal language) that OUP has the exclusive right to publish the > article! That would mean that authors could not legally post their > copyrighted PDFs on their homepages. > > > > In a draft of a paper about this practice, I’ve argued that OUP’s > time-stamped PDFs should not qualify as OA: > > > > All the meanings of OA that I am aware of would exclude PDF files that > have been altered to prevent their being an unaltered copy of the printed > pages of the version of record. None of the PDF files in OUP’s archive are > unaltered. I challenge anyone to find one PDF that is a true electronic > version of the printed version of that article [which is the “version of > record”]. Yet PDF files of journal articles are valued *because* they > are unaltered scans of the pages of the paper version of the article. > > > > But am I wrong and OUP’s PDFs meet current NIH standards for OA? > > > > Tom > > > > Thomas J. Walker > Department of Entomology & Nematology > PO Box 110620 (or Natural Area Drive) > University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0620 > > E-mail: t...@ufl.edu FAX: (352)392-0190 > > Web: http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/walker/ > > ======== > > > > > > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Can time-stamped PDF's qualify as OA?
practice, I’ve argued that OUP’s > time-stamped PDFs should not qualify as OA: > > > > All the meanings of OA that I am aware of would exclude PDF files that > have been altered to prevent their being an unaltered copy of the printed > pages of the version of record. None of the PDF files in OUP’s archive are > unaltered. I challenge anyone to find one PDF that is a true electronic > version of the printed version of that article [which is the “version of > record”]. Yet PDF files of journal articles are valued *because* they > are unaltered scans of the pages of the paper version of the article. > > > > But am I wrong and OUP’s PDFs meet current NIH standards for OA? > > > > Tom > > > > Thomas J. Walker > Department of Entomology & Nematology > PO Box 110620 (or Natural Area Drive) > University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0620 > > E-mail: t...@ufl.edu FAX: (352)392-0190 > > Web: http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/walker/ > > > > > > > > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: On 2015-06-01, at 4:17 PM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: Please accept that posting on the web, with whatever good intentions but without explicit licence, gives no rights to any potential user. Good grief, no, I accept no such thing. You sound like a copyright maximalist here, PMR. I am a copyright realist. The reality is that Copyright law trumps any implicit permissions. If I download from a site with All Rights Reserved or indeed without a clear *legal* license such as CC then I am potentially breaking copyright and can be taken to court. The judge will decide using the law of the country/ies involved (which may be difficult with distributed servers, remote working, etc.). We need to understand that posting on the web means that you are automating giving people certain permissions, e.g. to read, copy, crawl, unless you have put up explicit barriers. There is no legal justification for this and it will usually not act as a defence in court. I am often challenged by publishers who assert I have no right to mine material on their sites. Legal letters to repositories have required them to remove material. This is not something to be taken for granted, rather an obvious right to fight for in copyright law. And that is what I and many other have been fighting for for years. In the UK parliament, In Strasbourg, in Brussels. It may be obvious but it is being fought tooth and nail by the STM publishing industry with lobbying and FUD. Precisely what permissions is not something we need to figure out exactly in advance. Norms can evolve based on what people do, what they like and dislike. A CC BY document, with only one copy behind the LIcensor's firewall is not accessible and is therefore operationally closed. If one copy is published, then it can be copied and cannot be revoked by the licensor. Agreed. CC-BY does not necessarily mean open access. A CC-BY license can be applied to a work that is never shared with anyone at all. A CC-BY license can be put on a work with technological protection measures that prevent people from actually using the rights granted. CC-BY is not sufficient for open access. In all non-hypothetical cases it has been fully sufficient to grant BOAI-compliant Open Access. Where publishers hide CC-BY material behind firewalls I an others alert the community. It would be nice to have greater support for this. Thank you for acknowledging that the UK has changed its laws to facilitate data and text mining. Since I have spent years fighting for this I am happy to publicize it. best, Heather ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: Question and challenge Question: Didn't the UK recently change its legislation explicitly to allow for data and text mining? Yes, The Statutory Instrument came into force in June2014 following recommendations In Prof Hargreaves' report. They basically provide for private research for non-commercial puposes. They allow miners to override restrictive clauses inserted by publishers in contracts. However it is unclear what can be published as a result of mining and it is unclear how it interacts with the European sui generis directive on Database rights. We are mining the literature under the new Instrument. However this has not been tested in court. A full and authoritative account is given by Prof Charles Oppenheim who is an active adviser to TheContentMine Challenge: My research blog and data verses are both fully open with no CC license at all. They are All Rights Reserved, and yet posted on the web, in the case of the dataverse deliberately so that people can go ahead and download and manipulate the data. I challenge anyone to go ahead and try some text and data mining. If you think there are legalities preventing you from doing this, please explain what they are. This language makes little sense. The material is not fully open. It is posted on your web site and could be withdrawn at any time. This is not Open - it is temporarily free-to-view. You posses the copyright. ContentMine inevitably requires copying from your site which is potentially an infringement of copyright and in most jurisdictions, including Canada, you would have the right to sue a ContentMiner. Please accept that posting on the web, with whatever good intentions but without explicit licence, gives no rights to any potential user. ... I think we need to understand what barriers exist to data and text mining and resolve them, rather than assuming that pushing everyone to make their work CC-BY is the answer. We understand many of the barriers already and they prevent us mining the content without an agreement. Only with CC-BY or CC0 can we do this knowing that we can do it without the permission of the copyright owner. The UK legislation gives UK researchers an additional resource, which we are now using. For example, if my blog were CC-BY licensed, this wouldn't help with Wordpress not being set up to search the comments. Another example: there is nothing to stop the Licensor (as opposed to the downstream user) to put TPMs in a CC-BY or CC-0 work that would effectively prevent people from data and text mining. A CC BY document, with only one copy behind the LIcensor's firewall is not accessible and is therefore operationally closed. If one copy is published, then it can be copied and cannot be revoked by the licensor. If one is legally prevented from data and text mining works that are in the open, no doubt as a law-abiding citizen you're not using any internet search engine. the legality of search engines is unclear in many cases. Many have agreements with large content providers - most STM publishers allow Google to search and index their content. This does not mean that everyone can spider everything and if you try it you will get pushback. -- 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: A case for strong fair use / fair dealing with restrictive licenses
@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Who benefits from for-profit open access publishing? A case study of Hindawi and Egypt
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Dana Roth dzr...@library.caltech.edu wrote: Some of the Hindawi journals are publishing ~10 papers a day. That could be over two million dollars a year income (@$600/article) for a single journal (e.g. Scientific World Journal). I have no involvement with Hindawi and no comment on their quality, but 10 papers/day is not in itself a problem. PLoSONE publishes ca 150 papers/day and I would assume SWJ covers a number of subjects. There are many established journals with high publication rates. For example Tetrahedron Letters (which only publishes chemical syntheses) can publish 50 papers/week (7 papers per day) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00404039/56/2 (and a 2-page paper can cost 41 USD for 24 hours read) If that is aggregated with Tetrahedron (the same subject matter, but longer papers), then Elsevier can publish over 100 papers in chemical synthesis alone in some weeks. 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: Who benefits from for-profit open access publishing? A case study of Hindawi and Egypt
I agree completely with what Jan and David have said. If the purpose a journal is to communicate between author and reader without frills and publisher-junk (cf. Tufte's chart-junk) then Hindawi journals come high up my list. Conversely many mainstream publishers' technical offerings are simply appalling. They create output which is designed to promote and brand the publisher rather than communicate science. As I am partially moving into plant science I have been working on content-mining (machine reading) the Hindawi International Journal of Agronomy (http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ija/ ). The content is a clear reporting of basic scientific knowledge; it may not enhance author's prestige factors in our sick metric society, but it provides material that is useful for making sure the world has enough to eat. It's honest (compliant with the Open Definition, CC-BY) well prepared and with no wasted effort on unnecessary publisher-junk (e.g. publisher marketing). In particular the content is well prepared (e.g. uses compliant HTML and Unicode, with vector graphics) while larger publishers like XXx destroy vector graphics, XXX can't even create compliant XML and Xxxx and many others actively lobby against contentmining. 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 the GOAL?
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:04 PM, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk wrote: Jeroen - CC-BY license Heather - NO!!! the CC-BY license is a major strategic error of the open access movement. Allowing downstream commercial use to anyone opens up the possibility of re-enclosure. ... I continue to be unable to grasp Heather’s argument. If, for whatever reason, I purchase from you a CC-BY article I can, as it is CC-BY, make the article freely available. I don’t see how CC-BY allows for re-enclosure when it contains within itself the ultimate enclosure-busting feature of allowing unlimited distribution provided there is attribution. David I completely agree with David. If HeatherM can show us that total enclosure has ever actually occurred we need to know. The conditions are almost inconceivable: * a commercial company encloses the *published* CC-BY article. It strips off the licence (thereby breaking the contract). * the world destroys or loses ALL other copies of the manuscript. It then forgets that this manuscript ever existed as CC-BY. Only then does the illegally enclosed object represent monopoly control. In the normal case there are always copies of the un-enclosed article available for free use, re-use, modification and redistribution P. [Far more serious is the following scenario which happens frequently enough to be really serious. A traditional toll-access publisher accepts payment from an author/funder for CC-BY licensing. It then publishes the manuscript without CC-BY and under a more (often completely) restrictive licence. Only the author/funder knows that the m/s should be CC-BY. Unless they publish this information (as Wellcome Trust and some libraries did last year) the m/s will remain closed and will continue to be resold. And early copies , before the discovery, will probably still circulate with All rights reserved. ] -- 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: Is access to information a human right?
Completely support you Chris. I blogged about this 3-4 years back but got little take-up http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/09/30/access-to-scientific-publications-should-be-a-fundamental-right/ reported later... http://access.okfn.org/2012/03/20/scientific-social-networks-are-the-future-of-science/ We need to keep arguing this! On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Chris Zielinski ziggytheb...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for this comment, Jenny, and for sharing the link to Farida Shaheed's Report on The right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications. She makes some interesting points regarding the right of access to scientific (and cultural) knowledge, and notes that governments are increasingly insisting on open access to the results of government-funded research. While this is indeed a chink in the armor, it is a long way short of comprehensive open access to all information essential to human development. Altogether, the UDHR/Covenant do not offer the interpretation that access to information is a human right.You would in fact have to conclude the reverse - if authors/creators have a human right to their output, which allows them to decide all significant further uses (publishing, reading, etc) of their work then surely nobody else does.Note that I am arguing this strictly from a rights perspective, not applied law. In the next few weeks I hope to develop a few more building blocks for my argument in the blog, before trying to pull them all together. Best, Chris On 5 January 2015 at 15:00, Jenny Molloy jenny.mol...@okfn.org wrote: Thanks Chris, this is very interesting and I look forward to reading your future blogs on reconciling access to knowledge with authors rights. I've found the following article to be a good exploration of discussions on the normative content of the 'right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress' (part of Article 27 of UDHR): Report of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, Farida Shaheed The right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session20/A-HRC-20-26_en.pdf Jenny On 31 December 2014 at 22:02, Chris Zielinski ziggytheb...@gmail.com wrote: I’ve just posted a blog that might be of interest to members of this list. The blog seeks to answer the question, “Is access to information a human right?” by carrying out a short, non-specialist analysis of Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is at http://ziggytheblue.wordpress.com – Wordpress runs a short free registration step and sends you no subsequent spam. Happy New Year to all! Chris Chris Zielinski ch...@chriszielinski.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 mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Deal in France, no deal in The Netherlands
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: We should all get behind the Dutch universities and tell them to stand firm, and tell them that we are going to do all that is possible to help them. And the French should have done the same. This would have generated a spirit of resistance that would have quickly spread across Europe and beyond. Jean-Claude Guédon I agree, I have already tweeted my support. It's cheaper to fly from Amsterdam to London (75 GBP) and back than read two papers for 1 day from Elsevier. The Dutch could come and use our public libraries for free ... and use the money for science. This is not only costing money it's destroying chunks of science and other scholarship. And destroying careers. I have the honour of being asked to give an invited talk at OpenCon ( http://www.opencon2014.org/) (in Washington) where students and early career researchers are discussing Open Access. I'm embarrased with our generation's feeble attitude to Open Access and shall say so.The student generation is angry with our legacy, and rightly. Unless we take massive concerted action to fight - as the Dutch are starting to do, and in many other ways - we shall have let them down. 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: Paperity launched. The 1st multidisciplinary aggregator of OA journals papers
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 2:08 AM, 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. Is this listing (a) publicly visible - or only available to WoS subscribers? (b) re-usable without further permission from T-R? (CC-BY or weaker?) If it's not re-usable then we need a fully Open equivalent for indexable journals. 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 -- -- 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: Paperity launched. The 1st multidisciplinary aggregator of OA journals papers
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote: 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. Yes, It's noteworthy that almost all modern text and data mining exercises are carried out on the Open Access subset of the literature. In some cases this is an attempt to get the whole Open literature - in others it's a subsubset such as EuropePubMedCentral. (The alternatives to this are (a) to ignore rights and mine anyway - something we are legally allowed to do in the UK but almost nowhere else or (b) do in in private hoping you won't be found and scared of publishing your sources as a good scholar should). Another is that most articles can be harvested in XML-format, which enables sophisticated and worthwhile services to be added to aggregations. This is true for born-Open publishers such as BioMedCentral, PLOS*, eLIfe, PeerJ, Ubiquity ... This is a straightforward sale - author payment = freedom for re-use. It works very well for text miners. (And please don't tell us that mining is a minority sport which has to tread water for another 5-10 years). I have not systematically surveyed whether XML is offered in the Gold Open Access journals of other major publishers nor whether the licence is always permissive. Those people who argue that CC-NC-ND protects authors (it doesn't) should realise that it has a massive negative impact on useful re-use including mining. Hybrid journals almost certainly do not offer XML. It's hard enough for them to offer CC-BY for Open Access. It works less well for born-Closed publishers (such as Elsevier, NPG, ACS, etc.). Rather than having the simple 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. Yes - we have built the apparatus to do this in contentmine.org 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. Exactly. Most Green repositories make it very hard to re-use material. This is primarily due to copyright - the default library approach is to say this may be copyright and you cannot use it unless you write to the author and get permission in writing with real ink. Then there is the technology. University repositories are constructed on the basis that each document is a priceless artefact that scholars will spend hours discovering and reading. The reality of science is that most of these documents will probably only be read by machines. Some counties (NL, FR for example) at least aggregate some documents - such as theses - and the UK has CORE to try to remedy the situation, but even so it's extremely difficult to index and search repositories. I wrote to Bernard Rentier offering to index his repository for scientific terms but was told - sadly - that there was a new phase of investment required before this would be possible. Another problem with most repositories is that they insist on transforming DOCX or LaTeX into PDF. Even for their own theses. This is an act of barbarism. PDF has no semantics and it destroys about 50-75% of the science in the document. Anyway we expect to announce our own Open indexing of the literature RSN. -- 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: Fwd: [open-science] PeerLibrary is searching for volunteers
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: I'd be interested in hearing what people think of PeerLibrary. My own perspective is that the user name general crap (I'm not making this up, it's copied from the PeerLibrary collection) says it all. I'm writing in support of PeerLibrary. It is quite inexcusable to describe it is crap - it's a high quality project with worthy motives. I and colleagues are working closely with PeerLibrary in projects such as contentmine.org. It might be worth noting that one of the partners behind PeerLibrary, Mendeley, is owned by Elsevier. Mendeley is not behind PeerLibrary. Aspersions of this sort should be checked. and ... Thank you for your comments, Mitar. My question has more to do with whether some in the open access community see this kind of initiative as the purpose of OA, and the justification for efforts to force all scholars and open access journals to use the CC-BY. If this is the point of CC-BY, then I think we need to have a discussion about the implications and desirability of this kind of project. For us PeerLibrary is about making an Open resource, especially of the bibliography. There is no de facto Open Bibliography of scholarship - and Peer Library aims, inter alia, to do this. In ContentMine we need an Open Bibliography to consume the global literature Any preference for CC BY content (and I did not see this as an emphasis of the project) is likely to result from restrictions. At present only CC-BY, CC-BY-SA and CC0 content can be legally copied into global public view without fear of violating rights. This is one of the major downsides of CC-NC - domains such as Germany could regard public posting of NC documents as not for personal use. So, far from being crap, PeerLibrary should be welcomed. -- 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: Open access: What price affordability?
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk wrote: I have had an editorial published in ecancer journal with the above title. The final two paragraphs read: [W]hat if funders, governments and research institutions ceased providing money for researchers to pay to publish, and instead insisted that they continue publishing in subscription journals—but always self-archived their papers in OA repositories (green OA)? Would this not mean that publishers would have to compete with repositories in access provision? And would they not as a result lower their prices? And if they did, could we not hope to see both the accessibility and affordability problems resolved? I would find this completely unacceptable. Firstly the publishers have always set the rules , on price, embargo and re-use. This will strengthen their position as the controllers, not services, of publication. For me it would mean the scholarly poor could often not read an article till 2 years after publication, could not datamine it for commercial purposes, could not re-use it for teaching without permission (teaching = commercial), could not aggregate into reviews, could not re-use diagrams. It would be no better than what we have now. And it would never happen because the funders have never been able to exercise enough power to mandate authors and universities have never managed to enforce anything. We would have to employ a lot more police. -- 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] Restriction of discussion on GOAL mailing list
Richard, I would be grateful if you could post the following message verbatim to the GOAL list - it is likely to be my last. In a recent post to the GOAL list ( http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2013-December/002585.html ) Stevan Harnad put forward 10 reasons why immediate non-BOAI access is better than BOAI access. I felt that these needed to be challenged and replied to two points: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2013-December/002587.html and http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2013-December/002589.html You then mailed me and asked me not to post any more such messages on the GOAL list. I note however that you have allowed SH to continue arguing his case. http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2013-December/002593.html My messages challenged the postings, not the person. I had assumed that the GOAL list would allow a balanced debate and am sad to find it will not allow one. It is a pity that there is no forum or body which allows constructive debate on Open Access - and that is one reason why I and colleagues have set up https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access. Peter -- 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: Fwd: I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!
I do not intend to get drawn into a logic-chopping session. I think that SH is probably the only person in the world who actually follows his logic all the way through. However if he wishes I will show that several of his statements are equally flawed and badly constructed. The serious danger is that others will pick part of his utterances and use them to justify their conclusions. The most pressing is that the TA/STM publishers are spending massive amounts of money and lobbying to discredit content-mining (TDM). That is because they fear it (they shouldn't). A typical utteraance is: there is no demand for content-mining This is untrue. There is demand despite the publishers putting every conceivable obstacle in our way. But publishers can now say: Stevan Harnad says: *re-use rights to only a fragment of the research in a field are near-useless..*It doesn't matter to their readers that this is taken out of the context of a convoluted and flawed argument. It is taken as a statement of an authority and can be highly damaging. Another typical SH soundbite is Elsevier is on the side of the Angels. This type of dramatic utterance is again highly dangerous. It actually means something like Elsevier allows Green OA under certain (Catch-22) conditions. In a world where advocacy matters, it is important to provide good clear advocacy. Of the statements above over half of them rely on premises unique to SH and I don't intend to discuss them further. However the following is utterly unacceptable: *SH But publishers allowing authors to provide free online access and re-use rights can immediately be undercut by free-riding rival publishers; publishers allowing authors to provide free online access alone cannot...* I interpret this as meaning *BOAI rights are actually dangerous because they allow unscrupulous publishers to copy and reuse publications whereas Green OA can be used to restrict re-use and is therefore a good thing*. I am not anti-green (if it were actually done properly it could be useful, unlike the fragmented and hidden repositories we now have). But I think SH's crusade is now doing harm to the whole OA movement. It is not that it does harm on this list, but that it confuses the wider public debate. Readers are invited to draw their own conclusions -- 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: Fwd: I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Mitar mi...@tnode.com wrote: See: *I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!*http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1092-I-dont-want-free-online-access-I-want-free-online-access-with-re-use-rights%21.html I can't let this torrent of hypotheticals and suppositions stand This includes completely misleading statements such as: I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights! *SH rebuttal : But re-use rights to only a fragment of the research in a field are near-useless...* near-useless is SH's judgment. He has no evidence for this and it's simply catstrophically wrong. I am starting right now to mine the bioscience literature. BOAI #openaccess is somewhere around 15-20 percent of currently published bioscience. That is enormously valuable as it stands. SH may describe my research as near-useless but I can extract high-quality publishable science, and I intend to publish it if it achieves a useful scientific gain. There are MANY cases where comprehensiveness is not required. Here are some of the things I and colleagues intend to do - they are NOT near-useless * compiling a vocabulary. This is of enormous value in nearly every field. 20% will contain all the commonly used vocabulary. The value of the long-tail is not critical in most fields * building a natural language toolkit. I have done this and it is widely used . I do not need the whole literature to do this. * creating a corpus for the community to use as a reference. This is extremely useful and has been plagued in the past by rights issues * extracting information from diagrams and figures. * building reference data. My group has built a system with half the world's published crystallographic data (200,000 structures) . For many purposes - docking drugs into enzymes, building nanomaterials , supporting Quantum mechanics calculations - it's essentially as valuable as the complete literature. * reference data. Enormously valuable. It is a great pity that Open Access has become embroiled in personal crusades rather than constructive discussion and accurate opinions. My research on 15-20% of the literature is not near-useless and this will become clear in the next 1-2 months ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Fwd: Institutions: Ignore Elsevier Take-Down Notices (and Mandate Immediate-Deposit)
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote: 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. Why? Many publishers - such as the Royal Society have announced exactly that. If I (my univ) pays for ProcRoySoc then I have the right to mine it. 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. I think there is a misunderstanding. My slogan expands to If I have the right to read a document by whatever means, including paying for it, then I have the right to mine it. The STM publishers are saying if you have a right to read it by paying a subscription you have no right to ine it and will require an additional licence from us. 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. I cannot see how TA publishers would adopt your approach without extra payment or reducing the ocular product (e.g. by DRM'ing , making it self-destruct after 30 seconds, not allowing printing, using font size 4, etc.). They would then split the subscription material into ocular material of better quality and then charge even more for XML. -- 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: Fwd: Institutions: Ignore Elsevier Take-Down Notices (and Mandate Immediate-Deposit)
There are two separate issues here.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:
Elsevier's (or at least Tom Reller's) response is as expected, though it
does show an apparent – mistaken IMO – belief in the idea that a 'final'
manuscript is inferior to the published version of an article. Much
inferior, actually, given that the published version purports to justify
the difference in cost to the reader wishing to access the article. My
experience – though by definition limited, of course – is that the
difference between final manuscript and published article is mostly minor
in terms of content, and mainly one of appearance. If we look beyond
content, there is often a difference in findability, usability (e.g. for
TDM) and functionality (e.g. links and enhancements). For the professional
end-user, my contention is that those differences in usability and
functionality are much more important than any slight differences in
content (which, if present at all, are mostly of a linguistic nature, not a
scientific one).
In many cases publishers seriously detract from the quality of a
publication. Reformatting can destroy readability - I have fought one major
chemical publisher who reformatted computer code as proportional font and
refused to change and even when we corrected the proofs they changed it
back because it wasn't house style. By coincidence I heard a tale at lunch
where a publishers had changed the units in a diagram to make them
consistent. The diagram now has Resistance (Gigahertz). Even a
non-scientist knows that Hertz is frequency and Ohm is resistance but the
technical editors didn't. Turning vector diagrams (EPS) into bitmaps - very
common - makes me cringe.
So why don't subscription publishers use that distinction in their
policies and provide a simple, human-readable-only version freely, on their
own web sites (findability, transparency as regards usage), while keeping
the fully functional, machine-readable version for the professional
scientist (power-user) covered by subscription pay-walls? Not quite the
same as true open access, clearly. That is, not as good as 'gold' (be it
supported by APCs or subsidies). But neither is 'green' with its fragmented
nature, often low functionality (only simple PDFs, no TDM), often
embargoed, etc. Making a distinction with regard to access on the real
basis of functionality differences instead of the illusory basis of content
differences may be a compromise more meaningful for authors on the one hand
(visibility) and incidental readers outside of academia on the other
('ocular' access).
No, Jan, PLEASE NOT.
Publishers would love to be able to offer an enhanced version of XML for
which they could charge more (added value). I have asserted The Right to
Read is the Right to Mine and a number of organizations (e.g. BL, JISC,
Wellcome, OKFN, Ubiquity, etc. ) have argued in Brussels for the right to
carry out TDM on material they have the right to read. The TA publishers
fought this, we walked out, and Neelie Kroes has declared we should start
afresh and have a different non-licence approach.
P.
--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Hybrid Open Access
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Graham Triggs grahamtri...@gmail.comwrote: On 18 December 2013 06:41, Peter Murray-Rust I agree with you about the other problems about funders and OA subset. However, let's just step back a minute and think about the bigger picture. An -NC licence does not prevent any scholarly use of the content, which by definition, would be non-commercial. It only covers commercial interests, and purchasing those rights would come from private funds. This is a common misconception. Scholarly is frequently commercial. Universities charge fees - a commercial transaction. Authors pay publishers - a commercial transaction. If an -NC licence allowed the authors (funders) to pay a lower APC, with the balance expected to be made up from commercial sales to private funds, then this would reduce the burden of publishing on the public purse, at no harm to scholarly use. Everyone has amateur opinions on what NC allows. What matters is the law - and we have seen publishers exercising the law. The best estimate of the LAW that I have seen is: http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/article/2189/ ZooKeys 150: 127–149, doi: 10.3897/zookeys.150.2189 Creative Commons licenses and the non-commercial condition: Implications for the re-use of biodiversity information Gregor Hagedorn 1, Daniel Mietchen 2, Robert A. Morris 3, Donat Agosti 4, Lyubomir Penev 5, Walter G. Berendsohn 6, Donald Hobern 7 This makes it clear that the law almost certainly prevents re-use in teaching, content-mining , publishing and much other scholarly activity. NC has no beneficial spinoffs to scholarship and has serious drawbacks. Offering it for a lower cost, without explaining the implications, is IMO unacceptable. Arguably, that could be considered a good thing. Although more likely it would be seen that the public expenditure as an investment to allow commercial use to drive economic growth outweighs the small cost difference. a nice idea but fallacious as the opportunity cost is large. G ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Hybrid Open Access
Moving the discussion to a new title... On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 9:16 AM, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.ukwrote: What my paper missed and what may have been obvious at the time, but which I only saw with hindsight, were the biggest problems with the model: 1. There is little incentive for the publisher to set a competitive APC. It is clear that in most cases APCs for hybrids are higher than APCs for born-OA journals. But as the hybrid is gaining the majority of its revenue from subscriptions why set a lower APC - if any author wants to pay it then it is just a bonus. Of course, this helps explains the low take-up rate for OA in most hybrid journals - why pay a hight fee when you can get published in that journal for free? And if you really want OA then best go to a born-OA journal which is cheaper and may well be of comparable quality. 2. There is little pressure on the publisher to reduce subscription prices. Of course, everybody says 'we don't double dip', but this is almost impossible to verify and from a subscriber's point of view very difficult to police. I don't know of any institution, for example, in a multi-year big deal who has received a rebate based on OA hybrid content. There are several other concerns about hybrid: * the unacceptable labelling and licensing of many TA publishers. Many hybrid papers are not identified as OA of any sort, others are labelled with confusing words Free content. Many do not have licences, some have incompatible rights. * many are linked to RightsLink which demand payment (often huge) for Open Access reuse * many deliberately use Non-BOAI compliant licences. One editor mailed me today and said the the publisher was urging them to use NC-ND as it protected authors from exploitation. * they are not easily discoverable. I mailed the Director of Universal Access at Elsevier asking for a complete list of OA articles and she couldn't give it to me. I had to use some complex database query - I have no idea how reliable that was. Leaving aside the costing of hybrid, if someone has paid for Open Access then it should be: * clearly licensed on splash page, HTML, and PDFs. * the XML should be available * there should be a complete list of all OA articles from that publisher. Currently I am indexing and extracting facts from PLoSONE and BMC on a daily basis. Each of these does exactly what I need: * lists all new articles every day * has a complete list of all articles ever published * collaborates with scientists like me to make it easy to iterate over all the content. It is easy to get the impression that TA publishers don't care about these issues. BMC and PLoS (and the OASPAs) do it properly - an honest product. Any publisher who wishes to be respected for their OA offerings has to do the minimum of what I list here: * CC-BY * list of all articles * easy machine iteration and retrieval. Anything else is holding back progress -- 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] Elsevier Takedown Of Green Openaccess
In a blog post http://svpow.com/2013/12/17/elsevier-steps-up-its-war-on-access/ Mike Taylor reports that The University of Calgary http://www.ucalgary.com/ has just sent this notice to all staff: The University of Calgary has been contacted by a company representing the publisher, Elsevier Reed, regarding certain Elsevier journal articles posted on our publicly accessible university web pages. We have been provided with examples of these articles and reviewed the situation. Elsevier has put the University of Calgary on notice that these publicly posted Elsevier journal articles are an infringement of Elsevier Reed’s copyright and must be taken down. We are now in the position - which many of us foresaw many years ago - that if Green Open Access started to hurt publishers they would arbitrarily close it down or otherwise make it difficult. Green OA is not a right, nor a contractual agreement and can be withdrawn at any time. The danger for the publisher is bad publicity but this seems to be a weak constraint. Others may debate why Elsevier has done this - maybe the papers aren't on the right web pages, maybe the University has a mandate (which invalidates Green OA as far as Elsevier is concerned), maybe it's a foulup , maybe... The simple truth is that this is the end of the road for many of us. We are not working with publishers, we are fighting them. Open Access is about justice. This is not. -- 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: Hybrid Open Access
I flagged this up to Elsevier about 5 months ago. I would agree that they could be in violation of trading laws as they are asserting rights over free material and charging for it. I don't know whether the trading standards office would be able to deal with it - we might have to make purchases. From my observations it has happened frequently with Elsevier (see my blog). I have no idea whether my examples I pointed out have been corrected. There is a more general problem in that many publishers charge for CC-NC articles. It is unclear which categories can be legitimately charged for. I note that Elsevier journals such as Cell Reports have a very high proportion of CC-NC(-ND) on the basis that authors choose it (in the same way that 10 year olds choose burgers and sweets). I was sent an example today of an editor who was being urged by Elsevier to make her journal CC-NC. as it would protect authors. Proponents of CC-NC should realize that this licence directly gives a monopoly for exploitation to the publisher - the author is irrelevant. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Graham Triggs grahamtri...@gmail.comwrote: Thanks for that Robert. Interestingly, the Rightslink page also claims that the article is Copyright Elesvier. Which it isn't - the copyright is held with the authors (which is only clear when you download the PDF). That means on Rightslink, aside from the licence not requiring re-use rights to be purchased, the page is making false and misleading statements about the item in question. I would say that is breaking UK law, and presumably other regions too. I would suggest that Elsevier needs to urgently review how this is advertised and/or it's relationship with CCC on the basis of that evidence. Although I suspect a lot of this comes from blanket rules in place for an entire serial with CCC, and a lot of these problems could at least be mitigated by ScienceDirect: a) being clear about copyright and licencing in the HTML page, as well as the PDF b) not providing links to Rightslink for CC-BY articles, where this is clearly unnecessary. G On 17 December 2013 16:30, Kiley, Robert r.ki...@wellcome.ac.uk wrote: Laura It is not difficult to find an example of RightLink (and probably others) quoting re-use fees for CC-BY articles. Let me give you an example. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0898656813002489 is an article funded by Wellcome, and made available under a CC-BY licence. This is made clear at ScienceDirect (albeit in a footnote). However, if you follow the link to “Gets rights and content” you get redirected to the Rightslink site where there is a form you can complete to get a quick quote for re-use. So, for arguments sake I selected that I wanted to use this single article: · In a CD-ROM/DVD · I was a pharmaceutical company · I wanted to make 12000 copies · And translate it into two languages ..and RightsLink gave me a “quick price” of 375,438.35 GBP [I love the accuracy of this price.] Of course for a CC-BY article, there is no need for anyone to pay anything to use this content. Attribution is all that is required. I don’t know what would have happened if I had continued with the transaction, but I hope that a user would not really end up getting charged. As the CC-BY licence information is in the ScienceDirect metadata I’m not sure why RightsLink can’t “read “ this and for whatever use the user selects, the fee is calculated to be £0.00. Better still would be for CC-BY articles NOT to contain a link to RightsLink. Regards Robert *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On Behalf Of *Laura Quilter *Sent:* 17 December 2013 14:53 *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Hybrid Open Access Can you clarify regarding instances of CCC RightsLink demanding payments for OA reuse? I'd really like to know details. -- Laura Markstein Quilter / lquil...@lquilter.net *Attorney, Geek, Militant Librarian, Teacher * Copyright and Information Policy Librarian University of Massachusetts, Amherst lquil...@library.umass.edu Lecturer, Simmons College, GSLIS laura.quil...@simmons.edu On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: Moving the discussion to a new title... On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 9:16 AM, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk wrote: What my paper missed and what may have been obvious at the time, but which I only saw with hindsight, were the biggest problems with the model: 1. There is little incentive for the publisher to set a competitive APC. It is clear that in most cases APCs for hybrids are higher than APCs for born-OA journals. But as the hybrid is gaining the majority of its revenue from subscriptions why set a lower APC - if any author wants to pay
[GOAL] Re: Hybrid Open Access
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Couture Marc marc.cout...@teluq.cawrote: Peter Murray-Rust wrote: Proponents of CC-NC should realize that this licence directly gives a monopoly for exploitation to the publisher - the author is irrelevant Not necessarily. It means that for any commercial use (and the CC definition is subject to interpration), one has to obtain the permission of the copyright owner, which may be the author, depending of the scope of the license granted to the publisher. This may be true in theory, but I have never heard of an *author*, at least in scientific disciplines, issuing a take-down notice or taking an exploiter to court. Please give counterexamples if they exist. The exploitation is carried out by the *publisher* through CCC Rightslink. This does not involve the author (IMO it absolutely should) - it is a monopoly business carried out by the publisher. I would be amazed if 0.1% of authors understood they had handed over effective exploitation rights to CCC+publisher. CCC Rightslink nowhere mentions authors - this is why I use the word irrelevant - it only mentions the publisher, even where the copyright is still held by the author. In effect the publisher is exploiting the author without involving them. This exploitation only affects citizen purchasers (individuals, companies, etc.) not academics. We don't need to care about these second-class citizens. I’m in the editorial board of an OA journal which uses -NC but doesn’t ask authors to grant it a license, so the authors keep the exploitation rights. If you manage all permissions yourself then this may be true but I would need to see details - which Journal?. If you involve CCC RightsLink I would be very surprised if the exploitation - including pricing - was not done by the publisher without reference to individual authors. And please reconsider NC. It does a lot of harm beyond the RightsLink stuff. It is not allowed by many funders and cannot be deposited in the Open Access subset of (Europe) PMC. The problem with Elsevier is that they require (even for CC-BY) an exclusive license to publish that effectively makes them the ones who give permissions (and pocket the money). The pocketing of money is not confined to Elsevier. It is true of other TA publishers, especially those who promote CC-NC. Marc Couture *De :* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *De la part de* Peter Murray-Rust *Envoyé :* 17 décembre 2013 16:04 *À :* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) *Objet :* [GOAL] Re: Hybrid Open Access I flagged this up to Elsevier about 5 months ago. I would agree that they could be in violation of trading laws as they are asserting rights over free material and charging for it. I don't know whether the trading standards office would be able to deal with it - we might have to make purchases. From my observations it has happened frequently with Elsevier (see my blog). I have no idea whether my examples I pointed out have been corrected. There is a more general problem in that many publishers charge for CC-NC articles. It is unclear which categories can be legitimately charged for. I note that Elsevier journals such as Cell Reports have a very high proportion of CC-NC(-ND) on the basis that authors choose it (in the same way that 10 year olds choose burgers and sweets). I was sent an example today of an editor who was being urged by Elsevier to make her journal CC-NC. as it would protect authors. Proponents of CC-NC should realize that this licence directly gives a monopoly for exploitation to the publisher - the author is irrelevant. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Graham Triggs grahamtri...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for that Robert. Interestingly, the Rightslink page also claims that the article is Copyright Elesvier. Which it isn't - the copyright is held with the authors (which is only clear when you download the PDF). That means on Rightslink, aside from the licence not requiring re-use rights to be purchased, the page is making false and misleading statements about the item in question. I would say that is breaking UK law, and presumably other regions too. I would suggest that Elsevier needs to urgently review how this is advertised and/or it's relationship with CCC on the basis of that evidence. Although I suspect a lot of this comes from blanket rules in place for an entire serial with CCC, and a lot of these problems could at least be mitigated by ScienceDirect: a) being clear about copyright and licencing in the HTML page, as well as the PDF b) not providing links to Rightslink for CC-BY articles, where this is clearly unnecessary. G On 17 December 2013 16:30, Kiley, Robert r.ki...@wellcome.ac.uk wrote: Laura It is not difficult to find an example of RightLink (and probably others) quoting re-use fees for CC-BY articles. Let me give you an example
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Graham Triggs grahamtri...@gmail.comwrote: On 14 December 2013 20:53, Jean-Claude Guédon jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: Regarding an earlier post of your that seemed to complain that OA advocates are using too narrow and too strict a definition of open access, you might consider that the publishing industry, for its part, has done its utmost to confuse issues by throwing all kinds of new terms. Which terms have been introduced by the publishing industry? The majority of the terms that I see regularly were introduced - or at least claimed to have been - by scholars. There are probably 20 different terms introduced by publishers. They include: Author choice Free choice Free content and variants. All are imprecisely defined and a cynic might say intended to confuse. And there is blatant misrepresentation: Fully open Access (to describe CC-NC-ND with a list of restrictions, all-rights-reserved and huge charges from RightsLink including for teaching.) The publishing industry has been fairly quick to make use of the variety of terms though - some in attempting to best engage with and understand the needs and desires of the academic community; others to preserve their business models for as long as possible. Finally, the focus of OA is not to destroy the publishing industry. Saying this amounts to some form of paranoia. Some OA advocates, including myself, are very angry at some members of the publishing industry, but these are individuals, not the OA movement. Some OA supporters try to imagine alternatives to the present publishing system. It's kind of difficult to say that somebody outside of the publishing industry is paranoid in stating that some sections of the OA movement are attempting to destroy the publishing industry. You might say that it is ignorant to believe that some OA supporters are merely speculating on alternatives, without hoping - attempting, even - to engineer a situation that destroys the publishing industry. Some os us strongly feel that research communication comes first, and the publishing industry a distant second, so that the publishing industry should not consider scholarly communication as if it were a gold mine ready to be pillaged at will (45% profit, to my mind, is pillaging, and pillaging a lot of public money, to boot). But perhaps I am a little too precise here... [image: :-)] Profits alone are not a good measure of whether the public purse is being pillaged or not. They are just the difference between revenue and costs. At which point: 1) Publisher revenue does not just come from the public purse - sales to privately funded institutions, personal subscriptions, reprints, advertising... 2) For everything that they do (which may or may not be appropriate), the publishing industry is very, very good at reducing costs. Ultimately, the public purse is not necessarily disadvantaged by engaging with for-profit industries; although it could benefit from ensuring there are competitive markets. You can argue that the publishing industry could stand to reduce it's profits by charging less - but there is no guarantee that an alternative would take less money overall from the public purse. Finally, I would like you to think seriously and deeply about what Jacinto Dávila wrote in response to you. Developing nations are hit in a number of nasty ways by a communication system that seems to think that knowledge is not fit for Third World brains, or that Third World brains are good enough only if they focus on problems defined by rich countries. Make no mistake about this: the anger in those parts of the world where 80% of humanity lives is rising and what the consequences of this anger will be, I cannot foretell, but they will likely be dire and profound. If I were in your shoes, I would be scared. From free and low cost access programmes, through APC waivers, and charitable partnerships, the publishing industry does a lot more for developing nations than the picture you are painting. Is it perfect? No. Could more be done? Probably. Can the industry do it alone? No. If you want to see the situation improve, then it's going to take funders and researchers to work with the publishing industry. Or you could try and ignore the industry entirely. But simply depositing research in institutional repositories does not necessarily solve developing nation's access problems, and does not necessarily solve their publishing problems. G ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 face-smile.png___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: I don't deny that re-use (e.g. text mining) is a valuable attribute of OA for some scholars; interestingly, however, it is rarely if ever mentioned in surveys which ask scholars for their own unprompted definition of OA. That suggests to me that it is not fundamental in most scholars' minds. That's primarily because many publishers ban in with legal contracts. So it's not done. That's changing - OA publishers are very positive (BMC, PLOS ...). There's a chicken-and-egg. Forbid textmining = no tools developed = no use = assertions nobody wants it. Also it is difficult to argue for something that is not widely deployed. Ask anyone in 1993 whether they want a (deliberately) fragile hypermedia system with a stupid name (Word - wide - Web) cooked up by a geek in CERN and they'd look in amazement. 1995 we believed in the web. It'll be the same with TextMining. The STM publishers individually and severally have tried to advocate against it but - at least in UK - Hargreaves has overridden this. In April 2014 Hargreaves legislation will come in. The few responses to my original posting have all focused on whether the 'credo' of the BBB declarations is or is not fundamental to the underlying concept of OA. I find it interesting that no one has commented at all on the two main points I was trying to make (perhaps not clearly enough): 1)The focus of OA seems to be, to a considerable extent, the destruction of the publishing industry: note the hostile language of, for example, Peter M-R's 'occupying power' If an industry is pouring millions into lobbyists and systems to stop me and others developing TDM except under their complete control then, yes, I do regard it as a hostile act. Do I want to destroy it? Not per se, but I want it to change. STM is about 25 years behind the rest of the world. The double-column sighted-human-only PDF is a disgrace in the electronic century. There is no ability to innovate technically, socially, economically, politically or organizationally. We are stuck in C20-stasis. Every year that passes sees more pressure building up for change. Recent years suggest the industry is incapable of change so I predict that parts of it will crash heavily. Maybe some will adjust. For me the industry adds very little positive value. Academics can manage authoring, peer-review, production. For me the typesetting is negative value. We should get rid of it. We cannot now even trust parts of the industry. What's left? A badge for the author and their institution. Does this mean that everyone agrees with me on both points?! ;-) You can interpret my paragraphs however you wish. -- 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: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly CompromisesCredibilityofBeall's List
The only values in OA that matter to me (and many others) are those in the BOAI (and related BBB) declarations. These are declarations of human rights. They fed off early declarations such as Richard Stallman's freedoms in software and are mirrored in many other endeavours.These include Free and Open Source, Open Data (a term I resurrected in 2006), Open Government Data, Open Bibliography, Open Citations, and many more (Dave Flanders has a complete alphabet). The term libre is often used synonymously with Free/Open. Perhaps the greatest victory for Libre was the human genome - preserved for all of us and not controlled by an uncontrollable company. All of these conform to the Open Definition of the Open Knowledge Foundation - free to use, re-use and redistribute simple, clear, useful and empowering. For us in OKF Open is not an end in itself, but is to make knowledge USEFUL. For saving the planet; for increasing human health, for making better decisions, for educating. BOAI-Open ensures that. It's nothing to do with peer review. It's based on justice for every citizen of the planet. When the BOAI was launched I celebrated. It seemed a great step forward. But over the years several of the signatories have backed away from the use of BOAI as a vision of Open. Something can be OA-libre if we are allowed some unspecified removal of barriers. This is not only a completely useless definition but discredits OA in activities outside. It seems that many of the signatories don't really care about the values of the BOAI. For me Green Access is not libre. Green is a concession allowed on arbitrary occasions by an occupying power - a toll-access publisher. It is not negotiated, it is not a right. It does not lead to justice. And it's costing hundreds of millions each year, if not more, in terms of opportunity costs. The human genome (fully libre) has generated downstream wealth of 140 dollars for every dollar invested. What has OA generated in downstream wealth? Because of its fragmented nature it's unmeasurable. But I have calculated that in chemistry alone BOAI-compliant publications (which allows content-mining) would generate low billions per year worldwide - this is the figure I transmitted to the UK government. That is the opportunity cost of non-BOAI. FWIW I am starting large scale content-mining of science this week. And I shall publish the results under CC0 (OKD compliant). Anyone interested in true Open-ness is welcome to help. On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Graham Triggs grahamtri...@gmail.comwrote: On 12 December 2013 15:14, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.ukwrote: But I still feel that the BOAI definition may be an unnecessarily tight/narrow definition of the end: optimal scholarly exchange, as you put it (or unimpeded access to research articles for those who need to read them, as I would perhaps more narrowly describe it) Sorry Sally, but I really have to disagree. It is a definition for what a number of people considered to be important. Plus, it is consistent with the other existing definitions of open ... (such as open source). Clearly, other people may have a different opinion. Some may feel that everyone who needs access already has it (or they at least don't feel that people denied access are particularly relevant to them). Others may believe that only being able to read is important, and additional terms, whilst beneficial are not as necessary, and may be holding back delivering access. That doesn't mean that the BOAI definition is too narrow. It means that people are campaigning for a different end. Which is fine. But as they are different ends (with some similarities), let's call them different things. We have Open Access - as defined by BOAI, and there is public access, which provides the ability to read for free, but with none of the other freedoms. Let people choose which unambiguously defined term provides for optimal scholarly exchange, rather than redefining a 10 year-old term, changes to which nobody will ever be able to agree on. G ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: [***SPAM***] Don't Conflate OA with Peer-Review Reform
___ 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 The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. ___ 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 -- 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: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
is requiring an exclusive publishing license. This is not compatible with your explanation below that nothing is required beyond attribution as required by the CC-BY license. It is consistent - the article can be re-published elsewhere, providing it is accordance with the CC-BY licence, including attribution to the definitive record as published by Elsevier. G Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, Registered in England and Wales. ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- 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 heather.morri...@uottawa.ca ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
CC-BY - they were published through BioMedCentral. Springer labelled all images that went through their business as (C) SpringerImages. This included Wikimedia, many third-parties and I even found D*sn*y content. Wikimedia rightly cared. No-one in academia cared. Of course it's copyright breach. The point is that toll-access publishers have a mentality that everything that crosses their doors belongs to them. It's much cheaper to claim the lot rather than work out what they own and what they don't. It's only awkward people like me who care. On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote: 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 -- 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: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: I will go one step further: I believe that all the instances noted by Peter are not simply oversights; I believe they are part of a kind of benign neglect aimed at creating as much confusion as possible. The result is that researchers do not know which way to and, therefore, abstain. There are many hypotheses. I am not picking one in this case. * One, which I think happened about 10 years ago was general ignorance. We've never heard of this Open Access thing - etc. That's no longer the case anywhere * we simply don't care. Again I doubt that. Most publishers have heard of Open Access. Note that benign neglect when driving a car in UK is called careless driving and can land you in jail. careless publishing is an offence morraly and should be legally. * our company knows how to do things. I call this institutionisation, in keeping with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism. The organization as a whole is unaware of the injustice it is causing and may even think it is doing OK. * incompetence. Could also be system failure. * deliberate muddying. I differentiate this from careless publishing. I am absolutely sure it's happening. * moving the goal posts. Similar, but different. Here the position is clearly defined but constantly changing. At least, if I were a strategist within one of these big publishers, this is what I would strive to do: avoid direct confrontation and muddy the waters as much as you can while optimizing the revenue stream from whatever source. The fact that the *deliberate* policy on CC-BY vs CC-NC/ND is so messy is an indication that muich of this is deliberate. PLOS/BMC/eLife/PeerJ/Ubiquity... are honest brokers. Pay your APC and they provide very clear CC-BY. There was never any question. The Toll-access publishers could an should have done this. Springer and Wiley have (I think) universal CC-BY. Good for them. But many others have offered tempting CC-NC and authors have chosen it. The analysis is as sophisticated as going into a class of 10-year-olds and asking do you want carrot salad or do you want burger and chips and fried mars bar? Oh and the burger is cheaper. Of course authors aren't sophisticated enough to know that the *only* beneficiaries of CC-NC are the publishers because they then have a monopoly to sell reprints (which could be tens of thousands of USD per paper). -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Pre-publication peer review (was: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List)
-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 to do is upload their work, an action that constitutes publishing, and that this act results in a product that is somehow similar to the products that professional publishers produce…. * *JB: **The open-access movement isn't really about open access. Instead, it is about collectivizing production and denying the freedom of the press from those who prefer the subscription model of scholarly publishing. It is an anti-corporatist, oppressive and negative movement, one that uses young researchers and researchers from developing countries as pawns to artificially force the make-believe gold and green open-access models to work. The movement relies on unnatural mandates that take free choice away from individual researchers, mandates set and enforced by an onerous cadre of Soros-funded European autocrats...* *JB: **The open-access movement is a failed social movement and a false messiah, but its promoters refuse to admit this. The emergence of numerous predatory publishers – a product of the open-access movement – has poisoned scholarly communication, fostering research misconduct and the publishing of pseudo-science, but OA advocates refuse to recognize the growing problem. By instituting a policy of exchanging funds between researchers and publishers, the movement has fostered corruption on a grand scale. Instead of arguing for openaccess, we must determine and settle on the best model for the distribution of scholarly research, and it's clear that neither green nor gold open-access is that model...* And then, my own personal favourites: *JB: **Open access advocates think they know better than everyone else and want to impose their policies on others. Thus, the open access movement has the serious side-effect of taking away other's freedom from them. We observe this tendency in institutional mandates. Harnad (2013) goes so far as to propose [an]…Orwellian system of mandates… documented [in a] table of mandate strength, with the most restrictive pegged at level 12, with the designation immediate deposit + performance evaluation (no waiver option). This Orwellian system of mandates is documented in Table 1... * *JB: **A social movement that needs mandates to work is doomed to fail. A social movement that uses mandates is abusive and tantamount to academic slavery. Researchers need more freedom in their decisions not less. How can we expect and demand academic freedom from our universities when we impose oppressive mandates upon ourselves?...* Stay tuned!… *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 mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: OA journal publishing by APC: dominated by the commercial sector
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: All of the 14 largest publishers listed in DOAJ that have article processing charges (by number of journals published) are commercial in nature, to the best of my knowledge (if any are not-for-profit, correction would be appreciated). PLOS is a non-profit organization that supports itself largely through its publishing activities. from www.plos.org It is important to realize that commercial and for-profit are not synonymous. PLoS is a commercial non-profit organization. Commercial is a wide concept but it is generally agreed that this includes any form of transaction of value, including teaching (students pay fees to be taught). -- 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: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: I argue that the problem here is not green open access. It's Elsevier. Even their version of CC-BY (with exclusive license to publish) does not resolve this problem. The only version of CC-BY is that created by Creative Commons: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode It may not be arbitrarily modified, nor can its use be restricted or modified by additional exterior protocols: From section 8: d and e *No term or provision of this License shall be deemed waived and no breach consented to unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged with such waiver or consent.This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You.* I have done a moderate amount of exploration of Elsevier's Open Access and have not observed any modified CC-BY licences - the licence statement refers back to the CC authority. I have observed CC-BY licences on documents which also assert (C) Elsevier; All rights Reserved which would be overridden be clauses d and e. I have also observed articles labelled CC-BY behind paywalls and have alerted the world (including Elsevier) to this. It would be legal to copy these articles and post them openly anywhere. -- 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: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) a.w...@elsevier.comwrote: Hi Jeroen, These articles can of course be used without any restriction other than the attribution required by the CC-BY license. With kind wishes, Alicia If I visit an Elsevier CC-BY article and ask for permissions - say for translation by myself - I get the message from RightsLink: Pricing for this request requires the approval of an Elsevier Commercial Sales Representative. You will be notified of the price before order confirmation. The processing period may take up to three business days. To enable Elsevier to contact you and price the request, please create a Rightslink account, or log in if you haven't already, and confirm the order details. This is seems in direct contravention of the CC-BY licence which would enable anyone to translate an article without permission. I would actually expect Elsevier to charge me for the rights if I continued with this process and I am not prepared to take the risk. I have encountered many examples of Elsevier CC-BY articles behind Paywalls and with restrictions on re-use. It is unacceptable to require the re-user to be brave enough to assert that the CC-BY article overrides the additional and incompatible restrictions and prices from Elsevier. I would ask Elsevier to adopt a similar policy to Publishers such as BMC and PLoS and simply state, under Permissions, that the paper is available under the CC-BY licence and any legitimate re-use may be made. Dr Alicia Wise Director of Access and Policy Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com *Twitter: @wisealic* *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On Behalf Of *Bosman, J.M. *Sent:* Sunday, December 08, 2013 9:56 AM *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu Heather, That would be new for me. Do you mean to say that Gold OA articles from Elsevier with a CC-BY license can not be shared without restriction? The exclusive license you mention is not in the fine print here: http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/open-access/open-access-policies/oa-license-policy/user-licenses Jeroen Bosman Op 7 dec. 2013 om 22:58 heeft Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca het volgende geschreven: I argue that the problem here is not green open access. It's Elsevier. Even their version of CC-BY (with exclusive license to publish) does not resolve this problem. This is one of the reasons I am participating in the Elsevier boycott and encourage all scholars to join me (google The Cost of Knowledge). My two bits, Heather Morrison On Dec 7, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Bosman, J.M. j.bos...@uu.nl wrote: Peter, This is not about where authors may self archive their papers, but about the version they archive. Academia (and Researchgate, and personal sites) have thousands of published versions archived by the authors. That is against most publishers' policies. Cambridge University Press is a good exception allowing archiving of the publishers' version after an embargo period.. Elsevier has always been issuing takedown notices, but not at this scale and mostly not against their own authors. In that sense this is new and a sign that Elsevier wants to fight the very idea that outcomes of science should circulate freely. Strictly juridically speaking Elsevier is just asserting copyright of course. But I hope it will be another wake up call for authors with the effect that they start to massively share their last author versions through their institutional repositories and other routes. And of course they can publish in reasonably priced full OA journals. Jeroen Bosman Utrecht University Library Op 7 dec. 2013 om 08:20 heeft Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk het volgende geschreven: List members can also refer to the following article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, which includes comments from the founder and CEO of Academia.edu Richard Price, and from Elsevier: http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/posting-your-latest-article-you-might-have-to-take-it-down/48865 Elsevier has also posted a statement on the matter here: http://www.elsevier.com/connect/a-comment-on-takedown-notices *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orggoal-boun...@eprints.org] *On Behalf Of *Peter Murray-Rust *Sent:* 07 December 2013 05:04 *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) *Cc:* jisc-repositories; ASIST Special Interest Group on Metrics *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Elsevier Study Commissioned by UK BIS List members may be aware that Elsevier sent out thousands of take-down notices for Green OA yesterday. See http://svpow.com/2013/12/06/elsevier-is-taking-down-papers-from-academia-edu/and much twitter
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier Study Commissioned by UK BIS
mandates in the UKhttp://roarmap.eprints.org/view/geoname/geoname=5F2=5FGB.html -- where there are relatively more of them, and they have been there for a half decade or more -- are detectable, compared to the rest of the worldhttp://roarmap.eprints.org/view/geoname/, where mandates are relatively fewer. But 11.6% Green is just a pale, partial indicator of how much OA Green OA mandates generate: If instead of looking at the world (where about 1% of institutions and funders have OA mandates) or the UK (where the percentage is somewhat higher, but many of the mandates are still weak and ineffective ones), one looks specifically at the OA percentages for effectively mandated institutions http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/358882/, the Green figure jumps to over 80% (about half of it immediate-OA and half embargoed OA: deposited, and accessible during the embargo via the repository's automated copy-request Button, with a click from the requestor and a click from the author). So if the planet's current level of Green OA is 11.6%, its level will jump to at least 80% as effective Green OA mandates are adopted. Meanwhile, Gold OA will continue to be unnecessary, over-priced, double-paid (which journal subscriptions still need to be paid) and potentially even double-dipped (if paid to the same hybrid subscription/Gold publisher) out of scarce research funds contributed by UK tax-payers (Fool's Goldhttps://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=crei=b-CUUuTZNM-3kQeAj4CACA#q=harnad+%28fools+OR+fool%27s%29+gold ). But once Green OA prevails worldwide, Fair Goldhttps://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=crei=b-CUUuTZNM-3kQeAj4CACA#q=harnad+%22fair+gold%22 (and all the Libre OA re-use rights that users need and authors want to provide) will not be far behind. We are currently gathering data to test whether the immediate-deposithttps://www.google.ca/search?hl=enlr=q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/ie=UTF-8tbm=blgtbs=qdr:mnum=100c2coff=1safe=active#c2coff=1hl=enlr=q=%22immediate+deposit%22+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2Fsafe=activetbm=blg (HEFCEhttps://www.google.ca/search?hl=enlr=q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/ie=UTF-8tbm=blgtbs=qdr:mnum=100c2coff=1safe=active#c2coff=1hl=enlr=q=hefce+immediate+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2Fsafe=activetbm=blg /Liegehttps://www.google.ca/search?hl=enlr=q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/ie=UTF-8tbm=blgtbs=qdr:mnum=100c2coff=1safe=active#c2coff=1hl=enlr=q=liege+model++blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2Fsafe=activetbm=blg) Green OA mandate model is indeed the most effective mandate (compared, for example, with the Harvardhttps://www.google.ca/search?hl=enlr=q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/ie=UTF-8tbm=blgtbs=qdr:mnum=100c2coff=1safe=active#c2coff=1hl=enlr=q=Harvard+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2Fsafe=activetbas=0tbm=blg copyright-retention model with opt-out, or the NIHhttps://www.google.ca/search?hl=enlr=q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/ie=UTF-8tbm=blgtbs=qdr:mnum=100c2coff=1safe=active#c2coff=1hl=enlr=q=NIH+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2Fsafe=activetbm=blg model with a 12 month embargo). *Stevan Harnad* P.S. Needless to say, the fact that the UK's Green OA rate is twice as high as its Gold OA rate is true *despite* the new Finch/FCUK policyhttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1074-html which subsidizes and prefers Gold and tries to downgrade Green -- certainly not because of it! ___ GOAL mailing listGOAL@eprints.orghttp://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 -- 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: [Open-access] Re: Re: Fight Publishing Lobby's Latest FIRST Act to Delay OA - Nth Successor to PRISM, RWA etc.
- http://brembs.net Neurogenetics Universität Regensburg Germany ___ open-access mailing list open-acc...@lists.okfn.org http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access -- 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] Support the OAButton Thunderclap
The OpenAccess Button Thunderclap ( https://www.thunderclap.it/en/projects/5675-open-access-button-launch ) will happen in about 5 hours from now. This comes from two students Joe and David who are angry that paywalls still exist. The Thunderclap will push 800,000+ tweets onto the web expressing their frustration. I've hacked with Joe and David in Bethnal Green. They are the generation that matter. I've blogged this http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2013/11/17/oa-thunderclap-students-are-rightly-angry-with-all-of-us/ If you are on Twitter, and especially if you have followers, you can support this by following the simple instructions on their page -- 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: Elsevier Keeps Revising Its Double-Talk (But Remains Fully Green)
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Laurent Romary laurent.rom...@inria.frwrote: With all respect, Stevan, I am not sure it is worth answering publishers' policy tricks with deposit hacks. The core question is: does Elsevier fulfills, by making such statements, its duties as service provider in the domain of scholarly communication. If not, we, as institutions, have to be clear as to what we want, enforce the corresponding policy (i.e. we determine what and in which way we want our publications to be disseminated) and inform the communities accordingly. I agree with Laurent. We should assert our rights and - if we could act coherently - we would be able to get them implemented. There is no legal reason why we cannot assert a zero-month embargo - we are just afraid of the publishers rather than believers in our own power. (It wouldn't hurt the publishers as repositories are not yet a credible resource for bulk readership). Libraries (including Cambridge) seem to sign any contract the publisher puts in front of them - they only challenge price, not use and re-use. In a recent mail on OA the process on Green (paraphrased) was we'll see what embargo periods the publishers mandate [and then enforce them]. whereas it should have been we - the world - demand access to knowledge and will not accept embargos. That's a clear starting point. I could believe in Green OA if it were boldly carried out and repositories actually worked for readers (including machines). As it is we have nearly OA - i.e. not visible. And OA/ID - visible at some unspecified time in the future. If the OA community could get a single clear goal then it might start to be effective for the #scholarlypoor, such as Jack Andraka whose parents buy him pay per view for medical papers. -- 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: Elsevier Keeps Revising Its Double-Talk (But Remains Fully Green)
Thanks Fred, At one level it is true that we get the contracts we deserve, but only if the issues are known. And the #scholarlypoor does not get the contracts it deserves. Peter's complaint that libraries do not challenge use or re-use clauses in contracts is not absolutely true, I give two examples - DRM (Digital Rights Management) and TDM (text and data mining). Libraries (including national libraries) have widely agreed to practices that restrict access to and re-use of information. But these issues were unknown to me and the general public before the contracts were signed and the practices implemented. My libraries has signed rights with major publishers that drastically restrict my rights to re-use the information (via TDM) that my library has paid for. No one consulted me and I doubt it anyone consulted a university board or committee. (I might use FOI to find out - anyone can do it). Yet this was done in secret because the publishers insist on secrecy and the libraries agree. Whereas prices may be secrecy sensitive there is no justification for not consulting on rights before signing. Libraries should advertise what they are being asked to sign - only in that way do I have any moral responsibility as an academic. And yet a very senior publisher once told me that librarians have much more power than they realise. Yes, but many librarians see their business with publishers as a fundamental part of their existence. One librarian came to me enthusiastically isn't it wonderful - we can pay for TR's data citation index. [my view is we should be building our own data citation index, not handing control to commercial interests and I am trying to do part of it]. Another anecdote - when asked by an academic to publish his/her dataset we cannot archive academic datasets - our role is to buy datasets from publishers. However, librarians cannot bear all of the blame for giving in too easily. My hard stance received no backing from senior academics, and no librarian can refuse to sign an unsatisfactory contract unless they know that they have solid support from within their university. Of course Elsevier and other publishers know this and that is why they want to conclude deals with senior university management, who will probably agree to unsatisfactory clauses even more readily than the librarians. I have no idea which part of my university signed away my rights. I know it was the librarians in UBC who did a deal with Elsevier to agree to give up Heather Piwowar's rights to TDM and negotiate on a case-by-case basis. I am sorry to be cynical, but the academic community gets the contracts it deserves. We have to learn to say no and really mean it. The #scholarlypoor does not get the contracts it deserves. The issues have to be out in the open. -- 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: Disruption vs. Protection
era and evolve instead toward something more in line with the real needs of the PostGutenberg research community. Evolution and adaptation never occur except under the (disruptive) pressure of necessity. Is there any reason to protect the journal publishing industry from evolutionary pressure, at the expense of research progress? *Stevan Harnad* ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Japan's National OA Mandate for ETDs.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Syun Tutiya tut...@niad.ac.jp wrote: Dear Peter, Thank you for your interest. In Japan, use of the licence is still at the individual level, the national-level assessment has just begun. (Currently, Copyright Act is only.) Just to follow up Makoto's response, let me add something. Actually what Japan's Minstry of Education, Culture etc has done is a little tricky as far as open access is concerned. Since many decades ago, doctoral degree awardees have been obliged to publish their theses, typically by publishing books or by contributing to scholarly journals. It goes without saying that those books and journals were printed ones because there neither online books nor journals. That was what the former version of the ministry's decree postulated by saying that theses shall be printed and published. The revised version says only that theses shall be published, and adds that it shall be done on the Internet with aid from the degree awarding institutions. We expect this will result in open access to virtually all PhD theses, but there is no explicit expression of or reference to open access in the new stipulation, much less to copyright or licensing. We are aware there still so many adjustments to be made in so many related legal and operational areas. Hope this helps. This is very useful. This rest of this post applies to theses in all countries and I'd be interested in practices everywhere. We agree that this is a difficult area since different institutions and different countries have a wide range of practices. There is also a balance between the rights of the student, the university, the public and the funding body. Some countries (such as NL) have a centralized approach to the provision of theses - this makes it easy for the reader (including machines). Others like UK are fragmented with almost as many policies as there are universities - it is almost impossible to discover material in their repositories unless you know precisely what you are looking for. Theses are an incredibly valuable resource. They are obviously very highly peer-reviewed and a great deal of work goes into the final version to make sure it is high quality. However much material in theses is never published elsewhere because the student loses contact with the supervisor. It is very difficult to guess at the amount but even for those theses which result in publications there is likely to be much more detail inside (which is often omitted in formal publications). Many of us would like to use machines to index theses and find the valuable unpublished material. (At present no one can answer the question Find (most) chemistry theses in UK). Machines can now index science - our software could extract and index much of the chemistry in Japanese-language theses since the diagram and chemical formula are universal. But to do this we need to have explicit permission to download, read and index the thesis. That is why machine-readable licences are critical. I'd be interested to know how many institutions allow or even encourage Google to index them but forbid other people. Theses should be an important part of the Open Access activities but they seem to be largely ignored. Syun Tutiya -- Syun Tutiya Professor, National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation Address: 1-29-1 Gakuennishimachi, Kodaira, Tokyo, 187-8587 Japan Phone/FAX: +81-42-307-1803/1851 Email: tutiya @ niad.ac.jp Web: http://svrrd2.niad.ac.jp/faculty/tutiya/ ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
