Re: [GOAL] Fwd: ACS and Elsevier file lawsuit against ResearchGate

[Stevan Harnad]

Now imagine if, instead of trying to sue one 3rd-party publication
recycler, Elsevier and ACS had had to try to sue every one of the
universities of every one if its authors on the planet...

Just sayin'...

Bored Erstwhile Archivangelist


On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 1:58 AM Richard Poynder 
wrote:

>
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: LIBLICENSE 
> Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 at 00:44
> Subject: ACS and Elsevier file lawsuit against ResearchGate
> To: 
>
>
> From: Ann Shumelda Okerson >
> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 16:34:15 -0400
>
> The complaint can be found here:
>
>
> https://www.infodocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/acs_elsevier_rgate.pdf
>
> US District Court -- District of Maryland
>
> Begins :
>
> 1. This action arises from the massive infringement of peer-reviewed,
> published journal articles (“PJAs”). Plaintiffs publish the articles
> in their journals and own the respective copyrights. Defendant
> deliberately uses infringing copies of those PJAs to drive its
> business.
>
> 2. Founded in 1876, Plaintiff ACS is an internationally renowned
> professional and scientific society. It publishes over 50
> peer-reviewed scientific journals, primarily in the field of chemistry
> and related disciplines.  Founded in 1880, Plaintiff Elsevier is an
> international multimedia publishing company. Elsevier publishes
> hundreds of thousands of articles annually in over 2,500 peer-reviewed
> journals it maintains.  Founded in 2008, Defendant ResearchGate is a
> for-profit business that owns and operates an online social network
> and file sharing / download service. Each is aimed at scientists,
> researchers and related professionals and located on ResearchGate’s
> website at http://ResearchGate.net (the “RG Website”).
>
> 3. This lawsuit focuses on ResearchGate’s intentional misconduct
> vis-à-vis its online file-sharing / download service, where the
> dissemination of unauthorized copies of PJAs constitutes an enormous
> infringement of the copyrights owned by ACS, Elsevier and other
> journal publishers.  The lawsuit is not about researchers and
> scientists collaborating; asking and answering questions; promoting
> themselves, their projects, or their findings; or sharing research
> findings, raw data, or pre-prints of articles.
>
> 4. ResearchGate’s infringing activity is no accident. Infringing
> copies of PJAs are a cornerstone to ResearchGate’s growth strategy.
> ResearchGate deliberately utilizes the infringing copies to grow the
> traffic to its website, its base of registered users, its digital
> content, and its revenues and investment from venture capital.
> ResearchGate knows that the PJAs at issue cannot be lawfully uploaded
> to and downloaded from the RG Website.  Nevertheless, in violation of
> the rights of ACS, Elsevier, and others, ResearchGate uploads
> infringing copies of PJAs and encourages and induces others to do so.
> ResearchGate finds copies of the PJAs on the Internet and uploads them
> to computer servers it owns or controls.  In addition, ResearchGate
> lures others into uploading copies of the PJAs, including by directly
> asking them to do so, encouraging use of a “request full-text”
> feature, and misleadingly promoting the concept of “selfarchiving.”
> ResearchGate is well aware that, as a result, it has turned the RG
> Website into a focal point for massive copyright infringement.
>
> [AND SO ON]
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Open Access: "Plan S" Needs to Drop "Option B"

[Stevan Harnad]

To combine Peter Suber's
post with George
Monbiot
's:
The only true cost (and service) provided by peer-reviewed research journal
publishers is the management and umpiring of peer review, and this costs an
order of magnitude less that the publishers extortionate fees and profits
today.

The researchers and peer-reviewers conduct and report the research as well
as the peer reviewing for free (or rather, funded by their institutions and
research grants, which are, in turn, funded mostly by tax-payers).

Peer-reviewed research journal publishers are making among the biggest
profit margins on the planet through almost 100% pure parasitism.

Alexandra Elbakyan's Sci-Hub is one
woman's noble attempt to fix this.

But the culprits for the prohibitive pay-walling are not just the
publishers: They are also the researchers, their institutions and their
research grant funders -- for not requiring all peer-reviewed research to
be  made Open Access (OA) immediately upon acceptance for publication
through researcher self-archiving intheir own institutional open access
repositories.

Instead the OA policy of the EC ("Plan S
")
and other institutional and funder OA policies worldwide are allowing
publishers to continue their parasitism by offering researcher' the choice
between Option A (self-archiving their published research) or Option B
(paying to publish it in an OA journal where publishers simply name their
price and the parasitism continues in another key).

Unlike Alexandra Elbakyan, researchers are freeing their very own research
OA when they deposit it in their institutional OA repository.

Publishers try to stop them by demanding copyright, imposing OA embargoes,
and threating individual researchers and their institutions with
Alexandra-Elbakyan-style lawsuits.

Such lawsuits against researchers or their institutions would obviously
cause huge public outrage globally -- an even better protection than hiding
in Kazakhstan.

And many researchers are ignoring the embargoes and spontaneously
self-archiving their published papers -- and have been doing it,
inclreasingly  for almost 30 years now (without a single lawsuit).

But spontaneous self-archiving is growing far too slowly: it requires
systematic mandates from institutions and funders in order to break out of
the paywalls.

The only thing that is and has been sustaining the paywalls on research has
been publishers' lobbying of governments on funder OA policy and their
manipulation of institutional OA policy with "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.
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Selfie-evident nonsense about copyright

[Stevan Harnad]

Regardless of what one feels about photo copyright or about (nonhuman)
animal (legal) personhood, the "monkey selfie
" trial is absurd. The trivial
counterexamples abound:

1. If a photographer sets up a camera so the sun's rays automatically
trigger a photo of the sun, is it the sun's copyright?

2. Is it different if the "sun's" photo is of a tree? or of a monkey?

3. Is it different if the photo is triggered by acoustic triggers from
thunder? or from someone's footsteps?

4. Is it different if it's time-lapse photography triggered by touch from
the growth of a plant?

5. What has "selfie" to do with it? Doesn't it apply to any
remote-triggered image *by* anyone or anything, *of*anything or anyone?

6. If the monkey deliberately triggered a photo to get a food-pellet would
that be different from deliberately triggering it for a look at the photo?
of self? of other? of a tree? of a file-photo? of a mirror?

7. Does it make any difference if it's a monkey (who does not recognize
self in mirror or photo) or an ape (who does)? or an infant?

8. Or monkeys typing Shakespeare?
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Elsevier acquires bepress

[Stevan Harnad]

I guess this now makes me an Elsevier editor...

except that *Animal Sentience* is fully subsidized by the Institute for
Science and Policy of the Humane Society of the United States
<http://www.humanesociety.org/about/departments/hsisp/#.UuvR9T1dWSo>.
It is neither
Fool's Gold nor Fair Gold <https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/381526/>. It's Free
Gold. (But the subsidy model does not scale.) And I don't get or seek a
penny.

But if Elsevier should hike the rate
*Animal Sentience *will migrate...

Stevan Harnad
Editor, Animal Sentience <http://animalstudiesrepository.org/animsent/>

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@gmail.com>
 wrote:

> Forwarding from Scholcomm
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: "Roger Schonfeld" <roger.schonf...@ithaka.org>
> Date: 2 Aug 2017 16:11
> Subject: [SCHOLCOMM] Elsevier acquires bepress
> To: "scholc...@lists.ala.org" <scholc...@lists.ala.org>
> Cc:
>
> Today’s breaking news: Elsevier has acquired bepress
>
> https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/08/02/elsevier-acquires-bepress/
>
>
>
> Roger
>
>
>
> Roger C. Schonfeld‪
> Director, Library and Scholarly Communication Program
> Ithaka S+R‪
>
> Twitter: @rschon <http://twitter.com/rschon>
>
> Facebook: roger.schonfeld <https://www.facebook.com/roger.schonfeld>
>
> LinkedIn: rogerschonfeld <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rogerschonfeld>
>
> Email: r...@ithaka.org
>
> Tel: 212-500-2338 <(212)%20500-2338>
>
> Ithaka S+R (www.sr.ithaka.org/) is a strategic consulting and research
> service that focuses on the transformation of scholarship and teaching in
> an online environment, with the goal of identifying the critical issues
> facing our community and acting as a catalyst for change.  Ithaka S+R is
> part of ITHAKA (www.ithaka.org), a not-for-profit organization that also
> includes JSTOR (www.jstor.org) and Portico (www.portico.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

Re: [GOAL] anti-Soros campaign /Re: The Budapest Open Access Initiative and Budapest 2017

[Stevan Harnad]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:29 AM, <sigmaxi.org@dfgh.net> wrote:

>  On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > It’s ironic that billionaire George Soros
> > [...] is today being notably vilified in a hate campaign by
> > Hungary’s incipient dictator
>
>  So an autocrat is vilifying the sponsor of OSI
>  (as well as countless other Open Society NGOs).
>  It is certainly sad, but how is that ironic?
>
>   -- Zoli Fekete (an introspective Hungarian)
>

Kedves Zoli,

Ironic -- for the regulars of the *Global Open Access List*, successor to
SigmaXi's *American Scientist Open Access Forum* -- that the Budapest-born
(and fled) funder of the *Budapest Open Access Initiative* in Budapest in
2001 is being openly calumnied in Budapest in 2017 (by one of the past
beneficiaries of his philanthropy).

Yes, we're used to autocrats doing things like that, but not quite so
flagrantly (since the '30s), and not smack in the middle of the EU, with
impunity.

Perhaps either "outrageous" or "preposterous" would be more pertinent and
proportionate descriptors than "ironic" (introspectively speaking), but I
was straining to be decorous...

Minden jót,

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

[GOAL] The Budapest Open Access Initiative and Budapest 2017

[Stevan Harnad]

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 
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)
that
launched OA.  (But I suspect that yet another US billionaire will find a
way to trump

Orban’s odia with his own...)
___
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?

[Stevan Harnad]

On Jun 28, 2017, at 9:57 AM, Andrew Odlyzko <odly...@umn.edu> wrote:

we could operate an adequate scholarly publishing business, with the
> current level of peer review, at $300 per article, or 10% what it costs
> Elsevier.  The main obstacle is inertia.


"I think that the true figure for peer-review implementation alone
across all refereed journals probably averages closer to $200 per article,
or even lower. Hence, quality-control costs account for only 10% of the
collective tolls actually being paid per article.”

*Nature* *410*, 1024-1025 (*26 April 2001*) | doi:10.1038/35074210

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6832/full/4101024a0.html


Inertia indeed, on the part of the publishing industry, predictably, but on
the part of the research community, deplorably…

*Stevan Harnad*

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Andrew Odlyzko <odly...@umn.edu> wrote:

> Perhaps a Kazhakstani graduate student can provide simple distribution
> of files at a very low cost.  But once you get into providing anything
> resembling serious curation, and even more when you get into peer review,
> costs do mount up.  For example, arXiv costs about $10 per preprint
> submitted (if we divide the annual cost of the arXiv by the number of
> new submissions, and so don't worry about the accounting niceties of
> splitting the costs between handling new and old papers).  For a few
> million papers per year for all of scholarly publishing, this gets
> beyond the capability of a Kazhakstani graduate student.
>
>
> This rough estimate of $10 per preprint for arXiv, and others to be quoted,
> are all from the paper "Open Access, library and publisher competition, and
> the evolution of general commerce," Evaluation Review, vol. 39, no. 1,
> Feb. 2015, pp. 130-163,
>
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0193841X13514751
>
> and (for those who can't get inside the paywall), a preprint is at
>
> http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/libpubcomp.pdf
>
> Going beyond preprint distribution (and the very light level of screening
> by volunteer editors, which does exist at arXiv, at no monetary cost),
> Elsevier collects about $5,000 in total on average for each article they
> publish.  About $2,000 is their profit, and the remaining $3,000 covers
> what they claim are necessary costs.  As many (including your truly) have
> been arguing for a couple of decades, the necessity of those costs (leaving
> the profit question aside) is extremely questionable, and we now have lots
> of examples of lower cost journals.  It seems clear (some estimates and
> references in the paper cited above) that we could operate an adequate
> scholarly publishing business, with the current level of peer review,
> at $300 per article, or 10% what it costs Elsevier.  The main obstacle
> is inertia.
>
> Andrew
>
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Fwd: [SCHOLCOMM] BLOG: 'Be nice to each other' - the second Researcher 2 Reader conference

[Stevan Harnad]

The time to concel subscriptions is AFTER Green OA has become universal,
not BEFORE, because pre-emptive cancellation just slows the progress of Green 
OA. 
While Green OA is just partial, cancellation means loss of access. 
And publishers try harder to embargo Green. 

Harnad, Stevan (2015) Open Access: What, Where, When, How and Why. 
In: Ethics, Science, Technology, and Engineering: An International Resource 
eds. J. Britt Holbrook & Carl Mitcham, 
(2nd edition of Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics, Farmington 
Hills MI: MacMillan Reference) 
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/361704/ 

> On Feb 27, 2017, at 8:19 AM, Richard Poynder  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Rick Anderson >
> Date: Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 1:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] BLOG: 'Be nice to each other' - the second 
> Researcher 2 Reader conference
> To: SCHOLCOMM >
> 
> 
> I do hope that those who are interested in the issue of Green OA and library 
> cancellations will take the trouble
> to read the actual text of my comments on that topic from the R2R conference, 
> and not rely either on Danny’s
> gloss below (“The Green OA=subscription cancellations is only viable in a 
> utopian, almost fully green world”)
> or the version in her blog post (“The black and white version of Anderson’s 
> future is: ‘If green OA works then
> subscriptions fail, and the reverse is true’”), neither of which accurately 
> summarizes the argument I was making
> – though the latter version comes a bit closer than the former.
> 
> For those interested, the text of my R2R presentation can be found here:
> 
> https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/02/21/forbidden-forecast-thinking-open-access-library-subscriptions/
>  
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Rick Anderson
> Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
> Marriott Library, University of Utah
> Desk: (801) 587-9989
> Cell: (801) 721-1687
> rick.ander...@utah.edu 
> 
> From:  > on behalf of Danny Kingsley 
> >
> Organization: University of Cambridge
> Reply-To: Danny Kingsley >
> Date: Monday, February 27, 2017 at 2:20 AM
> To: SCHOLCOMM >
> Subject: [SCHOLCOMM] BLOG: 'Be nice to each other' - the second Researcher 2 
> Reader conference
> 
> 
> This time last week about 140 publishers, librarians, intermediaries, 
> researchers and others were about to
> start the second annual Researcher 2 Reader conference. This is my take on 
> the event:
> 'Be nice to each other' - the second Researcher 2 Reader conference -  
> https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=1316 
> 
> A taster:
> Aaargh! was Mark Carden's summary of the second annual Researcher 2 
> Reader conference, along
> with a plea that the different players show respect to one another. My take 
> home messages were slightly different:
> • Publishers should embrace values of researchers & librarians and become 
> more open, collaborative, experimental and disinterested. 
> • Academic leaders and institutions should do their bit in combating the 
> metrics focus.
> • Big Deals don't save libraries money, what helps them is the ability to 
> cancel journals. 
> • The green OA = subscription cancellations is only viable in a utopian, 
> almost fully green world.
> • There are serious issues in the supply chain of getting books to readers.
> • And copyright arrangements in academia do not help scholarship or protect 
> authors. 
>  The programme for the conference included a mix of presentations, debates 
> and workshops. The Twitter hashtag is #r2rconf.
> 
> 
> Enjoy!
> Danny
> 
> --
> Dr Danny Kingsley
> Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
> Cambridge University Library
> West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
> P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
> M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
> E: da...@cam.ac.uk 
> T: @dannykay68
> B: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/ 
> 
> S: http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley 
> 
> ORCID iD: -0002-3636-5939
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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

Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Richard Poynder  wrote:

> OA advocates maintain that the formative definition of open access agreed
> at the meeting that led to the Budapest Open Access Initiative means that
> only papers with a CC BY licence attached can be described as open access.
> And yet millions of papers in open repositories are not available with a CC
> BY licence.
>

OA advocates are a plurality, not a monolith.

No, OA advocates do not agree that only CC-BY = OA.

There are two "shades" of OA:

"Gratis OA" = free access
"Libre OA" = CC-BY

 Take, for instance, PubMed Central, which currently has 4.2 million
> documents deposited in it. A recent search shows that only 24% of the
> non-historical documents in PMC have a CC BY licence, and so 76% of the
> content cannot be described as open access.
>

The right measure of proportion OA for PMC (or any repository) is the
percent that is Gratis *or* Libre OA, not just the percent that is CC-BY.
(It also matter *when* it is deposited: immediately or a year or more after
publication.)


>  The good news is that the CC BY percentage in PMC is growing over time.
> Nevertheless, that it has still only reached 24% a decade after the NIH
> Public Access policy came into effect suggests that the OA movement still
> has a way to go if it is to live up to the BOAI definition.
>

The figures are insufficient. Percent OA in PMC does not even represent
percent OA in biomedicine, in the US or globally, let alone in all fields.
And PMC, as Richard notes, is largely publisher-deposited, which means it's
For-Fee Fool's Gold OA rather than author-deposited For-Free Green OA.

That the percentage OA is growing globally with time  is inevitable, as the
old researchers are retiring with time, and the young researchers have more
sense.

The goal, however, is OA, not "living up to the BOAI definition."

And the growth rate is still absurdly slow, compared to what it could and
ought to be (and have been).

S.H.

 More here: http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/the-nih-public-access-
> policy-triumph-of.html
>
>
>
> 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

Re: [GOAL] OA Overview January 2017

[Stevan Harnad]

Many thanks for the very welcome and useful data about Green OA policy and
practise in Australia.

To measure compliance with the immediate-deposit requirement, the following
would provide an *estimate*:

1. Require immediate deposit of the dated letter of acceptance.
2. Require immediate deposit of the accepted final draft. (You and I know
that the publisher's PDF-of-record is superfluous for OA.)
3. Retrieve the institution's published output from WoS monthly (it is
updated about monthly) or from SCOPUS via institution-name search
4. Check (via software) each title for whether and when it is deposited
(deposit date)
5. Compare deposit date with dated acceptance date.
6. Calculate percentage of monthly output that is deposited, as well as the
latency (timing) of the deposit relative to the acceptance date.
7. Calculate proportion and length of OA embargo on deposits
8. Calculate the volume of Request-Button traffic for embargoed deposits
(requests, compliances, latencies)


No, this is not too complicated nor too demanding (as everyone will of
course cry). It's exactly the simple, natural compliance monitoring system
that needs to be put into place in order to establish a natural long-term
practice, one  that ensures that immediate Green OA is always provided.

Of course, the institutions and funders need to stand firm on the
carrots/sticks: Non-compliance should have consequences. It doesn't take
much, because the policy does not ask for much.

Once it's a reliable and universal habit, the checks and stats can become
less frequent.

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Arthur Sale <a...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> Let me summarize what I know Stevan.
>
>
>
> · All Australian universities (even privately-funded ones) can
> get federal research grants. As part of the eligibility requirements, all
> publicly-funded research has to be collected by each university’s Research
> Office and made available for federal audit. In all cases, I believe that
> this means deposit of the articles in an Internet-connected server.
> Quaintly, we call such objects RODAs (Research Output Digital Assets)!
>
> · To answer question 1, I do not know. We do at the University of
> Tasmania as you would expect (see http://ecite.utas.edu.au/rmdb/
> ecite/q/ecite_home) but I don’t survey all the others regularly as I used
> to do. I would expect about 30-50%.
>
> · Are the repositories registered in ROARMAP? Again, I don’t
> know. However, I will do a post to the Australian OA discussion group (and
> copy this email to it).
>
> · You did not ask, but are they included in the BASE search
> engine? I think my university is, but again, this is a question for each
> university. As you know they are obstinate and lazy beasts.
>
> · In the acquittal of each research grant (the final report), the
> recipients are supposed to document whether the RODAs were made open
> access, and if not to explain why not. I do not know whether this is
> complied with or enforced.
>
> · As far as I know there are no aggregated statistics. Each
> university does its own thing.
>
>
>
> I attribute this state to (a) you, me and all the other great OA advocates
> who have joined the debate over the years, and (b) savvy leaders of our two
> Australian research councils, and now including the Chief Scientist who
> advises the Prime Minister. We run a community oa email group, but it is
> not over-active.
>
>
>
> I don’t know about aggregated compliance statistics, and indeed I do not
> see how easy it would be to measure them. The question is ‘how do you
> measure the whole output to compare with the deposited?’ when everything is
> supposed to be deposited?  Please have a look at
> http://ecite.utas.edu.au/rmdb/ecite/q/ecite_about,
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Arthur Sale
>
>
>
> *From:* Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@
> JISCMAIL.AC.UK] *On Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad
> *Sent:* Thursday, 12 January 2017 02:06 AM
> *To:* jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
> *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] OA Overview January 2017
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Arthur,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the kind words, and congratulations on 100% self-archiving in
> Australia! (I had no idea!)
>
>
>
> Although my comment was posted at the point of your contribution to the
> thread, I was not actually responding to you, but to various points made in
> the thread. I know we agree.
>
>
>
> But I do have two questions:
>
>
>
> (1) Do the Australian universities use your (our) Button during the OA
> embargo?
>
>
>
> (2) Are the Australian mandates registered in ROARMAP? (They need to be
> known to be amulated.)
>
>
>
> (3) Are the compliance statistics available?
>
>
>
&

[GOAL] Internet Archive Mirroring in Canada to Protect from Trump

[Stevan Harnad]

We're only just beginning to see the long, dark reach of what the
deplorables have wrought upon the planet... (Thank goodness the Canadian
government today is Trudeau's liberals and not Harper's "conservatives.")

http://thenextweb.com/politics/2016/11/30/trump-scares-internet-archive-canada/
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Q with CNI's Clifford Lynch: Time to re-think the institutional repository?

[Stevan Harnad]

See reply:

*Repositories vs. Quasitories, or Much Ado About Next To Nothing
*

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:35 AM, Richard Poynder <
richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> I thank Kathleen Shearer for her comments. I have responded to them here:
>
>
>
> http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/institutional-
> repositories-response-to.html
>
>
>
> Richard Poynder
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@
> JISCMAIL.AC.UK ] *On Behalf Of *Kathleen
> Shearer
> *Sent:* 28 September 2016 14:59
> *To:* jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
> *Subject:* Re: Q with CNI's Clifford Lynch: Time to re-think the
> institutional repository?
>
>
>
> “The reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated” (to paraphrase
> Mark Twain)
>
>
>
> Although I agree with some of what Richard Poynder writes in the
> introduction to his recent interview
>  with Cliff Lynch
> published on September 22, 2016, I do take exception to a number of the
> assertions he makes about the current state of IRs, especially his comments
> that green OA has failed (although this is clearly what the publishers
> would have us believe).
>
>
>
> It is true that repositories have not yet completely fulfilled their
> potential, and there are efforts to shift the transition to open access
> through APC-based gold OA. However, this is a critical time for IRs. The
> global network is now at a point where we have an international mechanism
> to communicate with each other (COAR) and we are consolidating around a
> common vision and strategy for repositories.
>
>
>
> In the last 3 months I have been traveling extensively in Europe, Latin
> America and China. All of these regions are investing in repository
> infrastructure to support open access, are working actively to improve
> interoperability across regions, and are establishing regional and/or
> national networks for repositories. In this respect, the United States is
> an outlier, since it has yet to leverage the strategic value of its
> institutional repositories through developing a national network. I hope
> this will change in the near future.
>
>
>
> As Poynder alludes to in his introduction, highly centralized systems are
> far easier to launch, nurture and promote, however, there are significant
> benefits to a distributed system. It is much less vulnerable to buy-out,
> manipulation, or failure. Furthermore, a global network, managed
> collectively by the university and research community around the world, can
> be more attuned to local values, regional issues and a variety of
> perspectives. Repositories *do* have the potential to change scholarly
> communication, but there is some urgency that we start to build greater
> momentum now.
>
>
>
> Recognizing the current challenges and opportunities for repositories,
> COAR launched a working group
> 
> in April 2016 to identify priority functionalities for the next generation
> of repositories. In this activity, our vision is clearly articulated,
>
>
>
> "To position distributed repositories as the foundation of a globally
> networked infrastructure for scholarly communication that is collectively
> managed by the scholarly community. The resulting global repository network
> should have the potential to help transform the scholarly communication
> system by emphasizing the benefits of collective, open and distributed
> management, open content, uniform behaviors, real-time dissemination, and
> collective innovation.”
>
>
>
> Ultimately, what we are promoting is a conceptual model, not a technology.
> Technologies will and must change over time, including repository
> technologies. We are calling for the scholarly community to take back
> control of knowledge production process via a distributed network based at
> scholarly institutions around the world.
>
> The aim of our next generation repositories working group is to better
> integrate repositories into the research process and make repositories
> truly ‘of the web, not just on the web’. Once we do that, we can support
> the creation of better, more sophisticated value added services.
>
>
>
> In his comments, Poynder also talks about the lack of full text content in
> repositories and cites one example, the University of Florida, which is
> working with Elsevier to add metadata records. However, one repository does
> not make a trend and COAR does not support
> 
> this type of model. The vast majority of repositories focus on collecting
> full text content and the primary raison d’etre of repositories has always
> been and remains 

Re: [GOAL] changing IR software

[Stevan Harnad]

> From:Antony Walter Corfield [awc]
> Sent: 09 August 2016 16:39
> To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk <mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: changing IR software
>  
> The barrier to open access is not technology (most CRIS and IRs aren't that 
> far
> apart in terms of their functionality), it's authors who sign away copyright 
> to
> publishers! Unfortunately that bug is not easily fixed.

No, signing away copyright is not the barrier, and never was: 
Failing to deposit the article is.

The bug is easily fixed: Either researchers just do the keystrokes 
(and/or their institutions and funders mandate it).

Sale, A., Couture, M., Rodrigues, E., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2014) Open 
Access  <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/>
Mandates and the "Fair Dealing" Button <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/>. 
In: Dynamic Fair Dealing: Creating
Canadian Culture Online (Rosemary J. Coombe & Darren Wershler, Eds.) 
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/ <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/>

Vincent-Lamarre, Philippe, Boivin, Jade, Gargouri, Yassine, Larivière, Vincent 
and Harnad, Stevan (2016) Estimating Open Access Mandate Effectiveness: The  
<http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/>
MELIBEA Score. <http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/>Journal of the  Association 
for Information Science and 
Technology (JASIST)  67  http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/ 
<http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/>

“I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind as to what the optimal and 
inevitable
 outcome of all this will be…  The only question is: When? This piece is 
written in the
 hope of wiping the potential smirk off Posterity's face by persuading the 
academic 
cavalry, now that they have been led to the waters of self-archiving, that they 
should just 
go ahead and drink!”  
[Harnad, S. (1999) Free at Last: The Future of Peer-Reviewed  
<http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december99/12harnad.html>Journals 
<http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december99/12harnad.html>. 
D-Lib 5(12) December 1999  http://cogprints.org/1685/ 
<http://cogprints.org/1685/>]

Stevan Harnad

> On 9 Aug 2016, at 15:37, David Kane wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Alicia,
>  
> I am not in the business of throwing shade on a company of bright, 
> hardworking people.  That would be mean-minded.  We are here because we share 
> the same concerns.  Though I have no particular issue with Elsevier, it is 
> possible for companies abuse privileged market positions, and it is rational 
> for people on this list to be aware of that possibility.
>  
> The question I personally have is who do we entrust with the ever growing sum 
> of human knowledge – for the next thousand years.  We need to ask how best we 
> shoulder that sacred responsibility, for generations hence.  This is 
> particularly difficult because, in our culture, thinking does not generally 
> extend beyond the quarterly profit statement or the 5-year term of public 
> office, and technology becomes obsolete so very quickly.
>  
> I don’t have the roadmap, but you must start with the right question to get 
> the right answers.
>  
> My Best,
>  
> David.
>  
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
>  
> From: Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) <mailto:a.w...@elsevier.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 1:51 PM
> To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk <mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: changing IR software
>  
> Hi George,
>  
> Open access is a great thing – I was actively supporting it while working at 
> the JISC long before I joined Elsevier to do the same.  While I don’t think 
> it is correct to say that our company has single handedly inspired the global 
> OA movement, would that in fact be a bad thing?  Elsevier:
>  
> · actively engages with and supports OA in all its forms: gold, 
> green, platinum, data, etc. 
> · actively supports researchers and research institutions and 
> research funders, and it is in this context we provide an array of services 
> to support the research lifecycle (including scholarly comms). 
> · has highly professional and skilled business/system analysts, AND 
> we also engage with and listen to others in the research community. 
> · is actively engaged in initiatives that support the development of 
> and interoperability with repositories.
>  
> I don’t want to take up listserv space with what might be perceived as 
> marketing messages, but very happy to share additional information about any 
> and all of this offline.  And happy to talk with anyone at any time about 
> partnerships and projects to advance open access.  We’ll achieve open science 
> further and faster by working together!
>  
>

[GOAL] Brexit for Institutional Repositories?

[Stevan Harnad]

This exchange on jisc-repositories (about abandoning institutional
repositories for Elsevier's "PURE" and/or for CRISes) is so outrageous that
I could not resist a pause in my solemn self-imposed silence:

(1) I will assume (out of charity) that George McGregor was being supremely
ironic when he quipped that Elsevier "Single handily inspired the global
Open Access movement" and that

(2) Elsevier's Alicia Wise has a tin ear for irony and took it as a
compliment -- and a cue for some free advertising.

(3) If UK universities are foolish and thoughtless enough to heed the siren
call of "PURE" and again let in Elsevier's latest Trojan Horse (instead of
just coupling CRIS functionality with their IRs) then (as in some other
recent supremely foolish UK decisions) they will get exactly what's coming
to them.

*Elsevier's PURE: self-interest and exploitation*
<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1164-.html>


My instinct tells me wiser (sic) heads will prevail (but I've been
over-optimistic before...)

*Stevan Harnad*
Erstwhile Archivangelist Seconded to Higher Calling
<https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201501/doing-the-right-thing-interview-stevan-harnad>

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) <a.w...@elsevier.com>
wrote:

> Hi George,
>
>
>
> Open access is a great thing – I was actively supporting it while working
> at the JISC long before I joined Elsevier to do the same.  While I don’t
> think it is correct to say that our company has single handedly inspired
> the global OA movement, would that in fact be a bad thing?  Elsevier:
>
>
>
> · actively engages with and supports OA in all its forms: gold,
> green, platinum, data, etc.
>
> · actively supports researchers and research institutions and
> research funders, and it is in this context we provide an array of services
> to support the research lifecycle (including scholarly comms).
>
> · has highly professional and skilled business/system analysts,
> AND we also engage with and listen to others in the research community.
>
> · is actively engaged in initiatives that support the development
> of and interoperability with repositories.
>
>
>
> I don’t want to take up listserv space with what might be perceived as
> marketing messages, but very happy to share additional information about
> any and all of this offline.  And happy to talk with anyone at any time
> about partnerships and projects to advance open access.  We’ll achieve open
> science further and faster by working together!
>
>
>
> With kind wishes,
>
> Alicia
>
>
>
> 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:* Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@
> JISCMAIL.AC.UK] *On Behalf Of *George Macgregor
> *Sent:* 09 August 2016 08:34
> *To:* jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
> *Subject:* Re: changing IR software
>
>
>
> Hello all - I was a little guarded in my previous response but I would
> like to echo David's comments and offer some personal views.  Leaving aside
> the usual repository arguments for maintaining an IR in tandem with a CRIS,
> the philosophical arguments increasingly appear far more persuasive.  Some
> of these were rehearsed by PASTEUR4OA recently (http://bit.ly/2b5eo92). I
> think institutions need to be asking themselves if they want to use a
> system such as PURE controlled by a company that:
>
>
>
> * Single handily inspired the global Open Access movement?
>
> * Has always vehemently opposed Open Access?
>
> * Has recently acquired SSRN and other "open" services (allegedly) for the
> purposes of controlling the scholarly communications lifecycle?
>
> * Has been accused of allegedly purging SSRN of supposedly "illegal" open
> content?
>
> * Uses user group and working group mechanisms as a substitute for
> dedicated business and system analysts. In essence, staff time of people
> like me and you being used to make a proprietary system better which
> Elsevier then sells back to public research organisations?
>
> * Appears not to value the development of repository functionality or
> interoperability with the systems that are central to repositories or Open
> Access?
>
>
>
> Thankfully we elected to maintain our IR (although I still harbour
> concerns about its relationship with PURE).  But if I were an institution
> surveying the landscape as it is now, I would be exercising extreme caution
> before considering some of these tools as a sub

[GOAL] Misdiagnosis of the slow passage to the optimal and inevitable

[Stevan Harnad]

There is absolutely no contradiction between making papers (Green) OA and 
publishing them in any journal you like.

(1) Deposit them in your institutional repository immediately upon acceptance 
for publication

and

(2a) Either make the deposit OA immediately 

or (if you want to comply with a publisher OA embargo)

(2b) Make the deposit “Closed Access” and make sure your repository 
has implemented the “Almost-OA” copy-request Button,

The biggest blockage to OA is indeed not “a lack of interoperable systems.” 
Nor is it “unwillingness of publishers to engage.” (Publishers are irrelevant.)

But wherever researchers fail to do (1) and either (2a) or (2b), 
the biggest blockage to OA is indeed researcher apathy.

Nothing whatsoever to do with journal choice, journal impact factors, or 
“mismeasurement.” 
Red Herrings, all.

Dixit.

Stevan Harnad

——

Harnad, S (2015) Optimizing Open Access Policy. The Serials Librarian, 69(2), 
133-141
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/381526/ <http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/381526/>

Sale, A., Couture, M., Rodrigues, E., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2014) 
Open Access Mandates and the "Fair Dealing" Button. 
In: Dynamic Fair Dealing: Creating Canadian Culture Online (Rosemary J. Coombe 
& Darren Wershler, Eds.) 
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/ <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/>

Vincent-Lamarre, P, Boivin, J, Gargouri, Y, Larivière, V & Harnad, S (2016) 
Estimating Open Access Mandate Effectiveness: The MELIBEA Score. 
<http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/>
Journal of the  Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST)  67 
(in press) 
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/ <http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/>


> On Jul 11, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Danny Kingsley <da...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> The first in a series of blogs about 'The case for Open Research' went live 
> today. 
> The case for Open Research: the mismeasurement problem - 
> https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=713 
> <https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=713>
> A taster:
> *
> Let’s face it. The biggest blockage we have to widespread Open Access is not 
> researcher apathy, a lack of interoperable systems, or an unwillingness of 
> publishers to engage (although these do each play some part) – it is the 
> problem that the only thing that counts in academia is publication in a high 
> impact journal.
> 
> This situation is causing multiple problems, from huge numbers of authors on 
> papers, researchers cherry picking results and retrospectively applying 
> hypotheses, to the reproducibility crisis and a surge in retractions.
> 
> This blog was intended to be an exploration of some solutions prefaced by a 
> short overview of the issues. Rather depressingly, there was so much material 
> the blog has had to be split up, with several parts describing the problem(s) 
> before getting to the solutions.
> 
> Prepare yourself, this will be a bumpy ride. <...snip...>
> ***
> 
> I'm not sure that 'enjoy' is the right sign off.
> 
> Danny
> -- 
> Dr Danny Kingsley
> Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
> Cambridge University Library
> West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
> P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
> M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
> E: da...@cam.ac.uk <mailto:da...@cam.ac.uk>
> T: @dannykay68
> B: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/ 
> <https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/>
> S: http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley 
> <http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley>
> ORCID iD: -0002-3636-5939

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

[GOAL] Un pas de plus vers le libre accès

[Stevan Harnad]

http://www.actualites.uqam.ca/2016/libre-acces-Europe-objectif-2020?utm_campaign=UQAMHEBDO_medium=email_source=8JUIN2016_content=libre-acces-Europe-objectif-2020
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] The "Ingelfinger Rule, " publisher FUD and author paranoia.

[Stevan Harnad]

The Ingelfinger Rule is dead and buried. No publisher can require a
researcher to keep their findings secret. They can report them at
conferences and post their unrefereed preprints whenever they like.

(Authors can voluntarily comply with a press embargo on an accepted paper
until publication, but that's irrelevant to HEFCE, which requires deposit
within 3 months of acceptance: No *Nature* press embargo is anywhere near
that long.)

Harnad, S. (2000) Ingelfinger Over-Ruled: The Role of the Web in the Future
of Refereed Medical Journal Publishing. Lancet Perspectives 256 (December
Supplement): s16. http://cogprints.org/1703/


Closed access deposit of the author's final, accepted draft is absolutely
none of the business of the publisher, has nothing to do with copyright,
and certainly provides not the faintest of grounds for "pulling" a
publication. Neither does public notice of a scientific conference and its
papers (and abstracts).

HEFCE and HEFCE authors: Steer the course. This kind of FUD has been
floated for decades now and deserves your contempt, not your concern.

Here are a couple of flashbacks from yesteryear:

http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#publisher-forbids
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#10.Copyright

*Stevan Harnad*

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Danny Kingsley <da...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:


> Hello all,
>
> Our latest blog on Unlocking Research is looking at the issue of press
> embargoes.
>
> Below is a teaser from "Press embargoes – a threat from the shadows" -
> https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=653
>
> 
> Something has been rumbling under the surface in the repository world
> recently, at least in the UK. Over the past six months or so, the Office of
> Scholarly Communication has had some fraught conversations with researchers
> who are terrified that their papers will be 'pulled' from publication by
> the journal. The reason is because some information about the upcoming
> paper is publicly available.
>
> 
>
> Our researchers are concerned that having the metadata about an article
> available means that publishers will consider this a breach of embargo and
> will pull the publication. Note that the Author’s Accepted Manuscript of
> the article itself (or the data files, in case of datasets) is locked down
> and the information about the volume, issue and pages are missing as the
> work is not yet published.
>
> The researchers are worried because there is a need for publication in
> high profile journals such as *Nature* for their careers and if a work
> was to be pulled from publication this would have huge implications for
> them. This has caused a challenge for us – clearly we do not wish to
> threaten our researchers’ publication prospects, but we are also bound by
> the requirements of the HEFCE policy.
> 
> *
>
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

[Stevan Harnad]

I greatly admire Eric's creative work. I also highly recommend his sincere,
thoughtful and highly impassioned text, below, about the value of creative
commercial ventures like his own. What his reflections don't resolve,
however, is the very special problem of scientific and scholarly research:
the fact that it is being relentlessly held hostage by an obsolete
industry, because of chance historic contingencies. Everything Eric says is
and remains true of just about any other area of academic spin-off
entrepreneurship. But the special case of OA is different, perhaps even
unique. Eric's eloquent defence of his company (which needs no defence, by
the way) does not resolve this particular conundrum.

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Éric Archambault <
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote:

> Stevan – my answers are in the text.
>
>
>
> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad
> *Sent:* May 18, 2016 6:30 PM
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation
>
>
>
> And then, if Science-Metrix & 1science succeeds in helping librarians
> harvest back the output that university researchers have deposited
> elsewhere in the web than their own university's repository, Elsevier can
> buy Science-Metrix & 1science as it bought Mendeley, SSRN and PURE and
> tighten yet again the stranglehold on our research output that they should
> never have had in the first place.
>
>
>
> àSo your suggestion for us is what? Close the company now and all the
> staff join a university and we would finally achieve the level of nobility
> and disinterestedness that all good humans should aim for? La noblesse
> publique! Or is it to develop a product that is so stupid that no one will
> buy it, to close the shop, then repeat same until we have been consigned to
> oblivion? Are you suggesting that companies leave everything that is
> university-related to universities? And that we also leave everything
> governmental to government employees? Perhaps we should also leave
> customers to barter among themselves? Yes, I know, the world would be so
> happy without these greedy entrepreneurs, there would be no profit taking,
> and we would obtain a perfect distribution of wealth. Dream on.
>
>
>
> Like most of the people who completed a Ph.D. I seriously considered going
> into academia but for a variety of reason life decided differently. So what
> do we do when we have a drive to change the world? We find a job at Google
> that you seem to admire so much that you always promote as a solution for
> every ill created by companies just equally greedy but who are not
> advertising businesses. We need a world more complex than the choice
> between being noble academics or being employed at virtuous Google. I know
> I’m not noble, but I feel no shame getting my hand dirty working in a
> private corporation. We also play a part in making this world work. Evil
> certainly is present in business, but it is not entirely absent from
> academia even if academia has way more checks and balances to keep this low.
>
>
>
> The economics of small firms is tough, real tough, I know something about
> it after 15 years running Science-Metrix. We are squeezed by large entities
> that have economies of scale that make us extremely inefficient in
> comparison. I am so constantly aware of it that one day I’d like to call
> upon Thomas Piketty to jointly write a book showing that rate of scale
> return in countries is persistently greater than that associated with
> creativity and flexibility and this leads “naturally” to concentration in
> industry. Also, as small firms, we are also frequently competing against
> noble academics who triple dip with their salaries, their research grants
> and generating some non-taxable research income to top it all up. Of
> course, we are the greedy ones, we the entrepreneurs, in contrast to these
> disinterested academics for whom money doesn’t count and for whom
> profiteering is such a filth. In case there is a doubt here, yes I am
> sarcastic. Like many entrepreneurs, I work nearly every day of the week,
> from dusk to long after dawn and my son ask my wife when we’ll have a
> normal life. I didn’t start 1science to sell it up to Elsevier, but I would
> think one could understand if one day I ran out of steam I ended up doing
> so. Many entrepreneurs are like farmers, the only money they have is in the
> value of their enterprise, so selling is not a shame, it’s a pension
> scheme.
>
>
>
> With all my admiration for what Science-Metrix & 1science do, it's
> nothing that a few bright graduate students in computer science could not
> d

Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

[Stevan Harnad]

And then, if Science-Metrix & 1science succeeds in helping librarians
harvest back the output that university researchers have deposited
elsewhere in the web than their own university's repository, Elsevier can
buy Science-Metrix & 1science as it bought Mendeley, SSRN and PURE and
tighten yet again the stranglehold on our research output that they should
never have had in the first place.

With all my admiration for what Science-Metrix & 1science do, it's nothing
that a few bright graduate students in computer science could not do as a
JISC project, and afterwards the software is available to all universities.
As foolish as a Fool's-Gold membership consortium of universities is, a
consortium to support and sustain the skills and tools needed to repatriate
universities' research as well as its processing would be wise thing to
form. The research funders would stand to benefit from supporting it too.

Research access-provision, archiving and processing simply do not have to
be outsourced by universities. It's just a perverse Gutenberg legacy -- the
predatory publisher stranglehold -- that makes it seem even seem faintly
worthy of considering for a microsecond.

(This has nothing to do with the question of whether digital warehousing is
cheaper to do in-hourse or in some commercial cloud. I have no idea
whatsoever about the economics of that. Nor about whether it's more
economical to outsource email services. I'm talking about custodianship
over -- and access to -- universities' own research output.)

Stevan Harnad

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Éric Archambault <
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote:

> Eric
>
>
>
> At 1science, we have developed a robust solution to address some of the
> problems you are mentioning. In contrast to the optimistic view of the
> repositories that Stevan has, in our efforts to locate all the contents
> which is available in green and gold (including hybrid), we are finding
> that most of the IRs have only about 5-8% of the papers published by
> authors at the universities hosting these repositories. Another contrast,
> the latest data we have compiled at 1science shows that we are fast
> approaching 60% of the papers indexed the Thomson Reuters Web of Science
> which can be found in gratis OA form somewhere on the internet. Given the
> law of large numbers, on average, there is a gap of more than 50% between
> what is available somewhere on the net, and what is available in local IR.
> It’s clear tat a solution that fills that gap quickly can remove a huge
> pain point in the filling of IR with full-text (or links to full-text) and
> proper metadata.
>
>
>
> We have developed a product called oaFoldr which basically repatriates
> these papers to the IRs. Our privileged model is to feed the IRs with good
> quality metadata (and when institutions are subscribing to the Web of
> Science, we can install the WoS API and populate the repository with very
> high quality metadata and this removes a lot of the pain of entering data
> manually) and then place URLs that points to locations (other IR,
> publishers’ websites, arXiv, Scielo, PMC,…) where a gratis OA version is
> located. This turns empty IRs into institutional knowledge hubs. Of course,
> many librarians are also actively examining these links and copying a
> physical version of the paper in the IR (where possible considering
> licencing and rights issues). If the uptake is good for this product (which
> we think it will as we developed this solution because we kept hearing from
> tens of university librarians that something of the kind was really
> needed), IRs are going to be way more populated, way faster, and librarians
> and researchers will be able to spend more time archiving and
> self-archiving pre-prints and post-prints that do not exist anywhere else.
> For libraries to spend time looking at what is uniquely missing makes
> sense, this is an exercise in search engine optimization as the Bing and
> Google bots will see unique content. This solution will help move
> universities towards 100% OA availability at the institutional level. Take
> Caltech – they already have a stunningly good IR but using 1science’s data
> it’ll be every better – we can find close to 80% of Caltech’s paper in
> Gratis OA somewhere on the internet. Of course, this solution is not a
> silver bullet and some problems will remain but it will help creating a
> more robust, distributed architecture.
>
>
>
> Éric
>
>
>
>
>
> *Eric Archambault, Ph.D.*
> President and CEO | Président-directeur général
> Science-Metrix & 1science
> [image: http://1science.com/images/LinkedIn_sign.png]
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/ericarchambault>
> *T.* 1.514.495.6505 x.111
> *C.* 1.514.518.0823
> *F.* 1.514.495.6523
>
> [image: h

Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

[Stevan Harnad]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stevan

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

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

[Stevan Harnad]

ries run on.
>
> I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can further
> monetise academic IP.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Ross
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL <joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr>
> wrote:
>
> Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories
> worldwide is not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional
> repositories can be replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better
> solutions, more functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better
> connected to databases and gold/hybrid journals etc.
>
>
>
> - Mail d'origine - De: Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com> À:
> Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org> Envoyé:
> Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST) Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to
> Elsevier
>
>
>
> Shame on SSRN.
>
>
>
> Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley):
>
>
>
> It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed
> scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer
> needed, and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as
> a foothold if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a
> legacy from an obsolete Gutenberg era.
>
>
>
> I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated
> expenses are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is
> that the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide
>  is not for sale, and that is their strength...
>
>
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk <
> bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi> wrote:
>
> This is an interesting news item which should interest the readers of this
> list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale. Bo-Christer Björk
>
>
>
>
>
>  Forwarded Message 
>
> *Subject:*
> Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman
>
> *Date:*
> Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)
>
> *From:*
> Michael C. Jensen <ad...@ssrn.com> <ad...@ssrn.com>
>
> *Reply-To:*
> supp...@ssrn.com
>
> *To:*
> bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi
>
>
>
> [image: Web Bug from
> http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/TrackEmailOpening.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740]
> [image: http://papers.ssrn.com/Organizations/images/ihp_ssrnlogo.png]
> <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740=http://www.ssrn.com>
>  [image:
> http://static.ssrn.com/Images/Header/socialnew.gif]
>
>
>
> Dear SSRN Authors,
>
>
>
> SSRN announced today that it has changed ownership. SSRN is joining
> Mendeley <https://www.mendeley.com/?signout> andElsevier
> <https://www.elsevier.com> to coordinate our development and delivery of
> new products and services, and we look forward to our new access to data,
> products, and additional resources that this change facilitates. (See Gregg
> Gordon’s Elsevier
> <https://www.elsevier.com/connect/ssrn-the-leading-social-science-and-humanities-repository-and-online-community-joins-elsevier>
> Connect
> <https://www.elsevier.com/connect/ssrn-the-leading-social-science-and-humanities-repository-and-online-community-joins-elsevier>
> post)
>
>
>
> Like SSRN, Mendeley and Elsevier are focused on creating tools that
> enhance researcher workflow and productivity. SSRN has been at the
> forefront of on-line sharing of working papers. We are committed to
> continue our innovation and this change will enable that to happen more
> quickly. SSRN will benefit from access to the vast new data and resources
> available, including Mendeley’s reference management and personal library
> management tools, their new researcher profile capabilities, and social
> networking features. Importantly, we will also have new access for SSRN
> members to authoritative performance measurement tools such as those
> powered by Scopus <https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus> and Newsflo
> <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740=http://www.newsflo.net>
> (a global media tracking tool). In addition, SSRN, Mendeley and Elsevier
> together can cooperatively build bridges to close the divide between the
> previously separate worlds and workflows of working papers and published
> papers.
>
>
>
> We realize that this change may create some concerns about the intentions
> of a legacy publisher acquiring an open-access working paper repository. I
> shared this concern. But after much discussion about this matter and others
> in de

[GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

[Stevan Harnad]

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

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

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Paul Walk <paul.w...@bath.edu> wrote:

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

Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[Stevan Harnad]

Shame on SSRN.

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

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

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

Stevan Harnad



On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk <
bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi> wrote:

> This is an interesting news item which should interest the readers of this
> list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale.
>
> Bo-Christer Björk
>
>
>  Forwarded Message 
> Subject: Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman
> Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Michael C. Jensen <ad...@ssrn.com> <ad...@ssrn.com>
> Reply-To: supp...@ssrn.com
> To: bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi
>
> [image: Web Bug from
> http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/TrackEmailOpening.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740]
>
> <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740=http://www.ssrn.com>
> Dear SSRN Authors,
>
> SSRN announced today that it has changed ownership. SSRN is joining
> Mendeley <https://www.mendeley.com/?signout> and Elsevier
> <https://www.elsevier.com> to coordinate our development and delivery of
> new products and services, and we look forward to our new access to data,
> products, and additional resources that this change facilitates. (See Gregg
> Gordon’s Elsevier Connect
> <https://www.elsevier.com/connect/ssrn-the-leading-social-science-and-humanities-repository-and-online-community-joins-elsevier>
> post)
>
> Like SSRN, Mendeley and Elsevier are focused on creating tools that
> enhance researcher workflow and productivity. SSRN has been at the
> forefront of on-line sharing of working papers. We are committed to
> continue our innovation and this change will enable that to happen more
> quickly. SSRN will benefit from access to the vast new data and resources
> available, including Mendeley’s reference management and personal library
> management tools, their new researcher profile capabilities, and social
> networking features. Importantly, we will also have new access for SSRN
> members to authoritative performance measurement tools such as those
> powered by Scopus <https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus> and Newsflo
> <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740=http://www.newsflo.net>
> (a global media tracking tool). In addition, SSRN, Mendeley and Elsevier
> together can cooperatively build bridges to close the divide between the
> previously separate worlds and workflows of working papers and published
> papers.
>
> We realize that this change may create some concerns about the intentions
> of a legacy publisher acquiring an open-access working paper repository. I
> shared this concern. But after much discussion about this matter and others
> in determining if Mendeley and Elsevier would be a good home for SSRN, I am
> convinced that they would be good stewards of our mission. And our
> copyright policies are not in conflict -- our policy has always been to
> host only papers that do not infringe on copyrights. I expect we will have
> some conflicts as we align our interests, but I believe those will be
> surmountable.
>
> Until recently I was convinced that the SSRN community was best served
> being a stand-alone entity. But in evaluating our future in the evolving
> landscape, I came to believe that SSRN would benefit from being more
> interconnected and with the resources available from a larger organization.
> For example, there is scale in systems administration and security, and
> SSRN can provide more value to users with access to more data and resources.
>
> On a personal note, it has been an honor to be involved over the past 25
> years in the founding and growth of the SSRN website and the incredible
> community of authors, researchers and institutions that has made this all
> possible. I consider it one of my great accomplishments in life. The
> community would not have been successful without the commitment of so many
> of you who have contributed in so many ways. I am proud of the community we
> have created, and I invite you to continue your involvement and support in
> this effort.
>
> The staff at SSRN are all staying (including Gregg Gordon, CEO and
> myself),

Re: [GOAL] The Open Access Interviews: Sir Timothy Gowers, Mathematician

[Stevan Harnad]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:29 AM, Richard Poynder  wrote:

> As the use of green open access policies looks increasingly like a failed
> strategy, and as universities, research funders, and governments in Europe
> seek to engineer a mass “flipping” of subscription journals to gold OA...
>
>
>
>
> http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/the-open-access-interviews-sir-timothy.html
>

Failed strategy? Before taking that at face value, please do have a look at:

Evolutionarily Stable Strategies

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

[GOAL] Tribute to Timbl (Tim Berners-Lee) at WWW2016 (Montreal)

[Stevan Harnad]

*Introducing Tim Berners-Lee
*
WWW2016  Keynote Speaker
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1175-.html

*I.*
Jim Hendler,
has strictly allotted me exactly three sentences
to introduce Tim Berners-Lee,
and now I’ve gone and used up one of them *telling* you that,
but fortunately,
because of the nature of language
*Comma *
I can still add that each of us is, in a sense, unique,
but the uniqueness of some of us
approaches the cosmic;
*Pause *
and Tim Berners-Lee has changed the world
for all future generations,
forever
*Period.*

*II.*
Nor can we remind ourselves enough
*Comma *
that although,
because of today’s absurd intellectual property and patent laws,
Tim’s uniqueness *might* have been that he became the world’s richest man
*Pause *
he has instead opened his contribution to every one of us, and to all
future generations
*Comma*
opening access to the web, world-wide,
opening the door to open science, open data, open knowledge,
on a scale for which the only analogy in human history
is the advent of language itself
*Period.*

*III.*
Thanks to Dame Wendy Hall,
we can call Sir Tim Berners-Lee our colleague
at the University of Southampton, Hants
*Open Parenthesis*
(although his physical body spends rather more real-time in Cambridge,
Mass),
*Close Parenthesis*
but if Southampton has made some contributions of its own to Open Access
those contributions,
like so much of what is being done by just about everyone on the planet
today
would not have been possible
without the gift
and the gifts
of Sir Tim Berners-Lee
*Period.*
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] [sparc-oaforum] Journal-flipping report open for public comments

[Stevan Harnad]

This is just a reminder that the preliminary draft of "Converting Scholarly
Journals to Open Access," by David Solomon, Bo-Christer Björk, and Mikael
Laakso, is open for public comments.

> https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/programs/journal-flipping/public-consultation/
>
> For more details, see the March 15 announcement.
>
> https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/programs/journal-flipping/call-for-public-comments/
>
> In about a month, we'll have to close the public comment period, or at
> least move on to the next phase of preparing the revised report for
> publication. If you have any comments to add, or if you want to share this
> draft with others who might have comments, please do so in the next few
> weeks.
> sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.org
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum


I've appended my (uncited) critique of 2007 to this report as a comment.

*Gold Conversion: A Prisoners' Dilemma?*



*SUMMARY: **Given the undeniable, irreversible and growing **clamour*
* for Open Access (**OA*
*) worldwide, journal
publishers face two **Prisoners' Dilemmas*
*.*

*(1) The first concerns whether to continue business as usual, to mounting *
*opprobrium*
* from
the academic community as well as the **tax-paying public*
*, or to **convert directly*
* to **Gold OA*
* now, at the risk
that institutional subscriptions at current prices for incoming journals
may not transmute stably into institutional "memberships" for outgoing
article publication costs at the same institutional price. If publishers
convert from institutional subscriptions to institutional Gold OA
"memberships" today, they counter the opprobrium and lock in current
subscription rates for a year (or whatever duration-deal is agreed with
institutions), but they risk institutional memberships defecting after the
duration elapses, with cost-recovery fragmented to an anarchic individual
author/article level that may not be enough to make ends meet.*


*(2) The second Prisoners' Dilemma facing publishers is that if they
instead counter the opprobrium by converting to **Green OA*
* now (as **62%*
* of them already have done), **Green
OA Self-Archiving Mandates* *
may still force their conversion to Gold eventually, but because
access-provision and archiving (and their costs) will by then be performed
by the distributed network of mandated Green OA **Institutional
Repositories* *, the revenues (and expenses) of
journal publishing then may be **reduced*
*
from what they are now. (Perhaps this can all be integrated into just a
single Prisoners' Dilemma -- or perhaps it is not a Prisoners' Dilemma at
all: just the **optimal and inevitable* *
outcome of the powerful new potential unleashed by the online medium for
the communication of peer-reviewed scholarly and scientific research.)*



Although I no longer write much about it -- because there are strong
reasons for according priority to Green OA
 Self-Archiving first, and I am ever
fretful about doing anything that might instead help get us bogged down,
yet again, in passive, pre-emptive speculation
 rather
than practical action -- I too expect and welcome an eventual
transition to Gold
OA  journal
publishing, and have done so from the very beginning
.


The question, of course, is how we get there from here. My own expectation
(based on much-rehearsed  reasons
and supporting evidence) is that it will be the eventual cancellation
pressure from mandated Green OA that both forces and funds the transition

to Gold OA, with the institutional cancellation savings paying the
institutional Gold OA publication fees. But this scenario is predicated on
two necessary prior conditions: (a) universal Green OA and (b) universal
journal cancellations.


This scenario for converting to Gold OA does not work if it is not
universal; in particular, it cannot unfold "gradually" and piecemeal,
either journal by journal or institution by institution. The three 

Re: [GOAL] [BOAI] FW: [accesouvert] Pour une science ouverte à tous

[Stevan Harnad]

Dear Marin,

You are right. I have been living too long in the desert.

Yes, of course I agree that a law requiring all scientific articles and their 
data to be 
made openly accessible would be action and would be positive.

My apologies if my grumpy posting implied otherwise.

I thank you and the far more attentive and patient Hélène Bosc for pointing 
this out to me.

Stevan Harnad

> On Mar 27, 2016, at 5:53 AM, Marin Dacos <marin.da...@openedition.org> wrote:
> 
> Let’s hope it leads to concrete implementation sooner than  the “Berlin 
> Declaration <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march05/harnad/03harnad.html>”
> of 2003 (still not implemented in 2016).
> 
> But let’s also remember that it is not declarations or petitions 
> <http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0934.html> or even 
> attention 
> that OA has lacked since at least 1994 
> <http://poynder.blogspot.ca/2014/06/the-subversive-proposal-at-20.html>: 
> It’s action.
> ​This petition is action. French Senate will soon discuss the "Digital Law", 
> which includes two articles :
> - 17th article is allowing researchers to deposit their articles in open 
> archives, even if signed contrats with publishers explicitly forbids that : 
> the French Law will give a new right to authors ;
> - 18thbis article is allowing text and data mining for researchers.
> If the Senate votes this law, it will be far more easy to convince 
> universities and researchers to deposit their articles in open archives. As 
> you know, many people think they are not allowed to do things.
> Best regards,
> Marin Dacos
> 
> 
> 
> The 22+ years needlessly lost so far are irretrievable. The question (for 
> future historians <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december99/12harnad.html>) 
> will be how many more were lost, since 2016, until the optimal, inevitable 
> and obvious 
> outcome — fully within reach for decades — was at last grasped?
> 
> After all, OA is not (and never has been) rocket science. It’s just  raincoat 
> science 
> <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/179-Raincoat-Science.html>.
> 
> But I’m just repeating myself...
>  
> 
> SH
> 
>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: Stevan Harnad <mailto:amscifo...@gmail.com>
>>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <mailto:goal@eprints.org>
>>> Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 3:25 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [GOAL]FW: [accesouvert] Pour une science ouverte à tous
>>> 
>>> Too verbose and vague: All scientific and scholarly research must be made 
>>> freely accessible to everyone online immediately upon passing peer review.
>>> 
>>> SH
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 3:10 AM, BAUIN Serge <serge.ba...@cnrs.fr 
>>> <mailto:serge.ba...@cnrs.fr>> wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> (sorry for cross posting)
>>>> 
>>>> For those who can read French or can have a short French text easily 
>>>> explained.
>>>> 
>>>> As you may be aware of, a law is under scrutiny now in France with two 
>>>> articles concerning scientific publications.
>>>> One is about open access and the right for authors to deposit their papers 
>>>> in a an OA repository (very similar to the German law), the second one 
>>>> about TDM rights (very similar to the English law).
>>>> The French law has been adopted by the « Assemblée Nationale » (lower 
>>>> chamber) and is now in the hands of the « Sénat » (higher chamber).
>>>> Lobbying by some publishers endangers a proper voting in the Sénat.
>>>> An opinion column signed by 33 top level scientists, including 3 Nobel 
>>>> price and a Fields medal laureates, has been published in « Le Monde 
>>>> <http://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2016/03/07/pour-une-science-ouverte-a-tous_4878011_1650684.html?xtmc=pour_une_science_ouverte_a_tous=4>
>>>>  » early this month.
>>>> The decision has been taken to turn this column into a petition to be 
>>>> addressed to Thierry Mandon, Junior Minister for Higher Education and 
>>>> Research.
>>>> 
>>>> You can sign it and have it signed if you will.
>>>> 
>>>> All the best
>>>> 
>>>> Serge
>>>> 
>>>> De : Emilien RUIZ <emilien.r...@univ-lille3.fr 
>>>> <mailto:emilien.r...@univ-lille3.fr>>
>>>> Répondre à : Emilien RUIZ <emilien.r...@univ-lille3.fr 
>>>> <mailto:emilien.r...@univ-lille3.fr>>
>>>> Date : Fri, 25 Mar 2016 16:37:36 +01

Re: [GOAL] FW: [accesouvert] Pour une science ouverte à tous

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mar 26, 2016, at 11:07 AM, Hélène.Bosc <hbosc-tcher...@orange.fr> wrote:

> Stevan,
> Problably it's too verbose and could have been more clearly written! But we 
> are lucky in France
> to have such a level of understanding of Open Access! This column published 
> in le Monde is a
> way to educate policy makers (and others) !
> Perhaps it's not a perfect document but it exists! And it's more complete and 
> true
> (talking about OA)  that this one : 
> http://openaccess.mpg.de/2121558/MPDL_Open_Access_White_Paper 
> <http://openaccess.mpg.de/2121558/MPDL_Open_Access_White_Paper>! 
> Hélène Bosc

Hélène,

You are absolutely (as well as relatively) right!

Let’s hope it leads to concrete implementation sooner than  the “Berlin 
Declaration <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march05/harnad/03harnad.html>”
of 2003 (still not implemented in 2016).

But let’s also remember that it is not declarations or petitions 
<http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0934.html> or even 
attention 
that OA has lacked since at least 1994 
<http://poynder.blogspot.ca/2014/06/the-subversive-proposal-at-20.html>: 
It’s action.

The 22+ years needlessly lost so far are irretrievable. The question (for 
future historians <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december99/12harnad.html>) 
will be how many more were lost, since 2016, until the optimal, inevitable and 
obvious 
outcome — fully within reach for decades — was at last grasped?

After all, OA is not (and never has been) rocket science. It’s just  raincoat 
science 
<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/179-Raincoat-Science.html>.

But I’m just repeating myself...

SH

> - Original Message - 
>> From: Stevan Harnad <mailto:amscifo...@gmail.com>
>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <mailto:goal@eprints.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 3:25 PM
>> Subject: Re: [GOAL]FW: [accesouvert] Pour une science ouverte à tous
>> 
>> Too verbose and vague: All scientific and scholarly research must be made 
>> freely accessible to everyone online immediately upon passing peer review.
>> 
>> SH
>> 
>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 3:10 AM, BAUIN Serge <serge.ba...@cnrs.fr 
>> <mailto:serge.ba...@cnrs.fr>> wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> (sorry for cross posting)
>>> 
>>> For those who can read French or can have a short French text easily 
>>> explained.
>>> 
>>> As you may be aware of, a law is under scrutiny now in France with two 
>>> articles concerning scientific publications.
>>> One is about open access and the right for authors to deposit their papers 
>>> in a an OA repository (very similar to the German law), the second one 
>>> about TDM rights (very similar to the English law).
>>> The French law has been adopted by the « Assemblée Nationale » (lower 
>>> chamber) and is now in the hands of the « Sénat » (higher chamber).
>>> Lobbying by some publishers endangers a proper voting in the Sénat.
>>> An opinion column signed by 33 top level scientists, including 3 Nobel 
>>> price and a Fields medal laureates, has been published in « Le Monde 
>>> <http://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2016/03/07/pour-une-science-ouverte-a-tous_4878011_1650684.html?xtmc=pour_une_science_ouverte_a_tous=4>
>>>  » early this month.
>>> The decision has been taken to turn this column into a petition to be 
>>> addressed to Thierry Mandon, Junior Minister for Higher Education and 
>>> Research.
>>> 
>>> You can sign it and have it signed if you will.
>>> 
>>> All the best
>>> 
>>> Serge
>>> 
>>> De : Emilien RUIZ <emilien.r...@univ-lille3.fr 
>>> <mailto:emilien.r...@univ-lille3.fr>>
>>> Répondre à : Emilien RUIZ <emilien.r...@univ-lille3.fr 
>>> <mailto:emilien.r...@univ-lille3.fr>>
>>> Date : Fri, 25 Mar 2016 16:37:36 +0100
>>> À : "d...@groupes.renater.fr <mailto:d...@groupes.renater.fr>" 
>>> <d...@groupes.renater.fr <mailto:d...@groupes.renater.fr>>, 
>>> "accesouv...@groupes.renater.fr <mailto:accesouv...@groupes.renater.fr>" 
>>> <accesouv...@groupes.renater.fr <mailto:accesouv...@groupes.renater.fr>>
>>> Objet : [accesouvert] Pour une science ouverte à tous
>>> 
>>> Bonjour à toutes et tous,
>>> 
>>> Constatant le poids politique d'un très petit nombre d'éditeurs privés et 
>>> leur activisme contre la loi auprès des cabinets (Recherche, Education, 
>>> Culture, Premier Ministre, Elysée), nous avons décid

Re: [GOAL] FW: [accesouvert] Pour une science ouverte à tous

[Stevan Harnad]

Too verbose and vague: All scientific and scholarly research must be made
freely accessible to everyone online immediately upon passing peer review.

SH

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 3:10 AM, BAUIN Serge  wrote:

> Dear all,
> (sorry for cross posting)
>
> For those who can read French or can have a short French text easily
> explained.
>
> As you may be aware of, a law is under scrutiny now in France with two
> articles concerning scientific publications.
> One is about open access and the right for authors to deposit their papers
> in a an OA repository (very similar to the German law), the second one
> about TDM rights (very similar to the English law).
> The French law has been adopted by the « Assemblée Nationale » (lower
> chamber) and is now in the hands of the « Sénat » (higher chamber).
> Lobbying by some publishers endangers a proper voting in the Sénat.
> An opinion column signed by 33 top level scientists, including 3 Nobel
> price and a Fields medal laureates, has been published in « Le Monde
> 
>  »
> early this month.
> The decision has been taken to turn this column into a petition to be
> addressed to Thierry Mandon, Junior Minister for Higher Education and
> Research.
>
> You can sign it and have it signed if you will.
>
> All the best
>
> Serge
>
> De : Emilien RUIZ 
> Répondre à : Emilien RUIZ 
> Date : Fri, 25 Mar 2016 16:37:36 +0100
> À : "d...@groupes.renater.fr" , "
> accesouv...@groupes.renater.fr" 
> Objet : [accesouvert] Pour une science ouverte à tous
>
> Bonjour à toutes et tous,
>
> Constatant le poids politique d'un très petit nombre d'éditeurs privés et
> leur activisme contre la loi auprès des cabinets (Recherche, Education,
> Culture, Premier Ministre, Elysée), nous avons décidé, avec les co-auteurs
> de la tribune parue dans *Le Monde *le 7 mars dernier, de la transformer
> en pétition sur Change.org, afin de collecter la signature des "chercheurs
> de terrain". Notre objectif est d'atteindre plusieurs milliers de
> signatures avant le vote de la loi.
>
>
> https://www.change.org/p/thierry-mandon-education-gouv-fr-pour-une-science-ouverte-%C3%A0-tous
>
>
>
> Si vous partagez le point de vue de ce texte, n'hésitez pas à le signer et
> à le diffuser.
>
> Bien cordialement,
> --
> *Émilien Ruiz*
> Maître de conférences en histoire contemporaine
> Université Lille 3 - IRHiS (UMR 8529)
> Site web  | Page professionnelle
> 
>
>
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Blog: Could the HEFCE policy be a Trojan Horse for gold OA?

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Danny Kingsley  wrote:

> 
>
> Hello all,
>
> A new Unlocking Research blog published today “ Could the HEFCE policy be
> a Trojan Horse for gold OA?” -
> https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=488 is arguing that
> changes to the HEFCE policy are moving it from a green policy towards a
> gold one.
>

*Defending Green Turf*

There's no second-guessing human nature. And it's a no-brainer to guess
that publishers will do all they can to circumvent the HEFCE/REF
immediate-Green policy to steer it toward Gold and Hybrid-Gold.

But here are a few defensive strategies that could help:

1. The authors are the ones who know first when their papers are accepted:
Implement a database of dated acceptance letters at the departmental level.

2. Do a REF rank-order exercise (not a "top four" exercise) every year,
consisting of an author-ranked list of that year's publications, by order
of likelihood of submitting for REF, together with acceptance date and
publication date. Store and display that list permanently and publicly in
the institutional repository as REF count-down, highlighting what risks
being ineligible. (HEFCE will be accommodating; its goals are the right
ones, and where temporary flexibility helps guide academic practice and
culture toward the goal of Green rather than Fool's Gold, they will provide
it.)

3. Do a monthly SCOPUS and WoS search for institutional published papers
and follow up on all missing papers (perhaps at the departmental level
rather than the library level -- wherever it is more effective).

4. Provide no funding for Gold or Hybrid-Gold.




>
>
> A teaser:
> **
> The HEFCE Policy for open access in the post-2014 Research Excellence
> Framework  kicks in 9
> weeks from now. The policy states that, to be eligible for submission to
> the post-2014 REF, authors’ final peer-reviewed manuscripts of journal
> articles and conference proceedings with an ISSN must have been deposited
> in an institutional or subject repository on acceptance for publication.
> Deposited material should be discoverable, and free to read and download,
> for anyone with an internet connection.
>
> The *goal* of the policy is to ensure that publicly funded (by HEFCE)
> research is publicly available. The *means* HEFCE have chosen to favour
> is the green route – by putting the AAM into a repository. This does not
> involve any payment to the publishers. The *timing *of the policy – at
> acceptance – is to give us the best chance of obtaining the author’s
> accepted manuscript (AAM) before it is deleted, forgotten or lost by the
> author. 
>
> ***
> Enjoy!
>
> Danny
>
>
> Dr Danny Kingsley
> Head of Scholarly Communications
> Cambridge University Library
> West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
> P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
> M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
> E: da...@cam.ac.uk
> T: @dannykay68
> ORCID iD: -0002-3636-5939
>
>
>
>
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Blog: Could the HEFCE policy be a Trojan Horse for gold OA?

[Stevan Harnad]

PS

5. Stress cultivating the habit of self-deposit rather than proxy deposit.

6. Reward with regularly published and updated impact statistics
(downloads, citations, etc.) in the institutional repository


On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Danny Kingsley <da...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> 
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> A new Unlocking Research blog published today “ Could the HEFCE policy
>> be a Trojan Horse for gold OA?” -
>> https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=488 is arguing that
>> changes to the HEFCE policy are moving it from a green policy towards a
>> gold one.
>>
>
> *Defending Green Turf*
>
> There's no second-guessing human nature. And it's a no-brainer to guess
> that publishers will do all they can to circumvent the HEFCE/REF
> immediate-Green policy to steer it toward Gold and Hybrid-Gold.
>
> But here are a few defensive strategies that could help:
>
> 1. The authors are the ones who know first when their papers are accepted:
> Implement a database of dated acceptance letters at the departmental level.
>
> 2. Do a REF rank-order exercise (not a "top four" exercise) every year,
> consisting of an author-ranked list of that year's publications, by order
> of likelihood of submitting for REF, together with acceptance date and
> publication date. Store and display that list permanently and publicly in
> the institutional repository as REF count-down, highlighting what risks
> being ineligible. (HEFCE will be accommodating; its goals are the right
> ones, and where temporary flexibility helps guide academic practice and
> culture toward the goal of Green rather than Fool's Gold, they will provide
> it.)
>
> 3. Do a monthly SCOPUS and WoS search for institutional published papers
> and follow up on all missing papers (perhaps at the departmental level
> rather than the library level -- wherever it is more effective).
>
> 4. Provide no funding for Gold or Hybrid-Gold.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> A teaser:
>> **
>> The HEFCE Policy for open access in the post-2014 Research Excellence
>> Framework <http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2014/201407/> kicks in 9
>> weeks from now. The policy states that, to be eligible for submission to
>> the post-2014 REF, authors’ final peer-reviewed manuscripts of journal
>> articles and conference proceedings with an ISSN must have been deposited
>> in an institutional or subject repository on acceptance for publication.
>> Deposited material should be discoverable, and free to read and download,
>> for anyone with an internet connection.
>>
>> The *goal* of the policy is to ensure that publicly funded (by HEFCE)
>> research is publicly available. The *means* HEFCE have chosen to favour
>> is the green route – by putting the AAM into a repository. This does not
>> involve any payment to the publishers. The *timing *of the policy – at
>> acceptance – is to give us the best chance of obtaining the author’s
>> accepted manuscript (AAM) before it is deleted, forgotten or lost by the
>> author. 
>>
>> ***
>> Enjoy!
>>
>> Danny
>>
>>
>> Dr Danny Kingsley
>> Head of Scholarly Communications
>> Cambridge University Library
>> West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
>> P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
>> M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
>> E: da...@cam.ac.uk
>> T: @dannykay68
>> ORCID iD: -0002-3636-5939
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Quo vadere?

[Stevan Harnad]

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Arthur Sale <a...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> Christian Gutknecht <christian.gutkne...@bluewin.ch> wrote:
>
> I really like the idea to let researchers feel that subscription is an
> outdated model. And an easy way to do that without upsetting them too much,
> is to cancel subscriptions and get rid of the Big Deals.
>
> I don’t have access to the raw data now apart from knowing that we fulfill
> 13,000+ requests a year, but the University of Tasmania has operated a free
> unlimited-quantity service for 15 years, funded pay-per-view centrally (ie
> in replacement for subscriptions).
>
> Let me make sure I understand this, Arthur: Are you saying UTas has
> cancelled all journal subscriptions, and has just just pay per view?
>
> *[ahjs] Of course not. That would be the height of stupidity until open
> access is 100%. *
>

That seems to be your answer to the question raised by Christian.


*But it has enabled us to reduce our subscriptions significantly to those
> that are economically justifiable, and to measure this against access
> rates. Freed up money can be used for pay per view, and the economics
> actually do stack up, Stevan. Nobody reads paper journals any more. For one
> thing by the time they get to Tasmania they are obsolete.*
>

My own campaign for OA began, in 1998 with ritually repeating
"subscription/license/PPV" to distinguish the hydra-headed forms of "toll
access" from (what eventually became) "OA," meaning the opposite:
"toll-free access."

Eventually, to simplify, "subscriptions" became the shortened portmanteau
for "subscription/license/PPV."

If, in the 1990's, it had turned out that the growing institutional library
budget crisis that prevented institutions from being able to afford
toll-access to all (or most, or much, or enough) of the research their
users needed could be solved by simply shifting subscription tolls and
license tolls by PPV tolls, I rather doubt that that the subsequent decades
of quest for OA (toll-free access) would have ensued.

Perhaps it was all just a big miscalculation (or failure to do the right
calculation)? (I must say that I rather doubt it, but I certainly have not
done the calculations.)

I would add, though, that not only has reading journals on paper become
obsolete in the online era, but so has the idea of waiting days for PPV
access instead of just clicking.

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

[GOAL] Re: Quo vadere?

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Arthur Sale <a...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

Christian Gutknecht <christian.gutkne...@bluewin.ch> wrote:
>
> I really like the idea to let researchers feel that subscription is an
> outdated model. And an easy way to do that without upsetting them too much,
> is to cancel subscriptions and get rid of the Big Deals.
>
> I don’t have access to the raw data now apart from knowing that we fulfill
> 13,000+ requests a year, but the University of Tasmania has operated a free
> unlimited-quantity service for 15 years, funded pay-per-view centrally (ie
> in replacement for subscriptions).
>

Let me make sure I understand this, Arthur: Are you saying UTas has
cancelled all journal subscriptions, and has just just pay per view?

This page seems to suggest otherwise:

http://rk9dr6cc2p.search.serialssolutions.com/?L=RK9DR6CC2P=JOURNALS


> It is very much used, and regarded as a keystone of library research
> support. It simply is not true that academics are devoted to instant
> access, and they are prepared to wait a day or two to read the papers they
> think are relevant.
>

If UTas had indeed cancelled all journal subscriptions, as Christian
suggested, then I would have asked:

What about the papers they are not sure are relevant, or only want to skim
quickly? Can UTas afford to pay (and authors afford to wait?)

The answer means something different if this is the only way they can
access content (apart from what is already OA on the Web) (because all UTas
submissions have been cancelled)  or if this is merely a supplement to UTas's
subscription content
<http://rk9dr6cc2p.search.serialssolutions.com/?L=RK9DR6CC2P=JOURNALS>.

(My guess is that if universities could keep their users happy cancelling
all their journals, and it turned out that they could afford pay-per-view
for all articles their users ever wanted, then this solution would not only
be happening at UTas. But I'm ready to be proved wrong, if that's what you
are saying.)


> Of course they use alert services, metadata, etc in making the judgment,
> but if they think a paper is worth reading in full (it may not be after
> they have read it but nobody cares) they have no hesitation in using the
> university’s service. The economics do stack up, and I am proud to have
> introduced it in about 1998.
>
> See http://www.utas.edu.au/library/research/document-delivery and
> http://www.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/65611/Document-Delivery-Service-online-guide-v10.7.12.pdf
> .
>

*"Does your results list include a hit for University of Tasmania? If so,
please check our online catalogue before placing your request.*
*If the journal title is not held in the University of Tasmania Library,
click to request." *

Stevan Harnad


> For context, the University is in the top ten Australian universities for
> research, and in student size modest (27,000 students, 18% of whom are from
> outside Australia).
>
> If someone wants to mine the data, contact the University Librarian.
>
>
>
> Arthur Sale
>
> University of Tasmania, Australia
>
>
>
> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 5 January 2016 02:24 AM
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Quo vadere?
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Christian Gutknecht <
> christian.gutkne...@bluewin.ch> wrote:
>
> Stevan,
>
>
>
> *[ahjs] *…
>
>
>
> But I really like the idea to let researchers feel that subscription is an
> outdated model. And an easy way to do that without upsetting them too much,
> is to cancel subscriptions and get rid of the Big Deals. With the free
> money the library then can create two kind of funds: One is the Gold OA
> fund (incl. hybrid options but with a cap) and one is the fund for costs
> resulting getting access to documents that are not longer available via
> subscription (like costs for pay-per-view, document delivery, individual
> subscription of a really important journal).. Because librarians constantly
> overestimate the importance of their subscriptions and especially the Big
> Deals where they buy/rent a lot of stuff that is never used by their
> community. I think most libraries would find out that researchers would get
> along quite well with this option
>
>
>
> Christian, I strongly suggest that you look into the actual costs of such
> a proposal (replacing subscriptions by pay-to-view costs, per paper).
>
>
>
> We are in the online era, when scholars are accustomed to reaching content
> immediately with one click, and browsing it to see whether it's even worth
> reading. A scholar may look at dozens of papers a day this way. That's what
> they do with their i

[GOAL] Re: Quo vadere?

[Stevan Harnad]

Dana, the question is not about whether pay-per-view or interlibrary loan
should be available (they are, and should be).

The question is *whether all subscriptions canbe cancelled in favor of a
complete reliance of PPV/ILL* + Gold OA fees.

I think the answer to is probably a resounding "no," but *the option has
never been tested *-- not by U Tasmania and not by CalTech!


Stevan


On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Roth, Dana L. <dzr...@caltech.edu> wrote:

> I fully agree with Arthur Sale.  We initiated a 'photocopy request'
> service over 40 years ago, and quickly found that researchers primarily
> wanted to 'take care' of the request and were, over the years, quite
> willing to accommodate a one to two delay in actually receiving the
> photocopy.
>
>
> Dana L. Roth
>
> dzr...@caltech.edu
>
> Special Projects Librarian
>
> Caltech  1-32
>
> 1200 E. California Blvd.
>
> Pasadena, CA 91125
>
> 626-395-6423
>
>
> --
> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org <goal-boun...@eprints.org> on behalf of
> Arthur Sale <a...@ozemail.com.au>
> *Sent:* Monday, January 4, 2016 2:19 PM
> *To:* 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Quo vadere?
>
>
> I don’t have access to the raw data now apart from knowing that we fulfill
> 13,000+ requests a year, but the University of Tasmania has operated a free
> unlimited-quantity service for 15 years, funded pay-per-view centrally (ie
> in replacement for subscriptions). It is very much used, and regarded as a
> keystone of library research support. It simply is not true that academics
> are devoted to instant access, and they are prepared to wait a day or two
> to read the papers they think are relevant. Of course they use alert
> services, metadata, etc in making the judgment, but if they think a paper
> is worth reading in full (it may not be after they have read it but nobody
> cares) they have no hesitation in using the university’s service. The
> economics do stack up, and I am proud to have introduced it in about 1998.
>
> See http://www.utas.edu.au/library/research/document-delivery and
> http://www.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/65611/Document-Delivery-Service-online-guide-v10.7.12.pdf.
>
> <http://www.utas.edu.au/library/research/document-delivery>
> Document Delivery - Library - University of Tasmania ...
> <http://www.utas.edu.au/library/research/document-delivery>
> www.utas.edu.au
> Document Delivery You are here. UTAS Home ; Library ; Researchers ;
> Document Delivery; Over 13,000 requests are submitted via our Document
> Delivery service per year.
>
> For context, the University is in the top ten Australian universities for
> research, and in student size modest (27,000 students, 18% of whom are from
> outside Australia).
>
> If someone wants to mine the data, contact the University Librarian.
>
>
>
> Arthur Sale
>
> University of Tasmania, Australia
>
>
>
> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 5 January 2016 02:24 AM
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Quo vadere?
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Christian Gutknecht <
> christian.gutkne...@bluewin.ch> wrote:
>
> Stevan,
>
>
>
> *[ahjs] *…
>
>
>
> But I really like the idea to let researchers feel that subscription is an
> outdated model. And an easy way to do that without upsetting them too much,
> is to cancel subscriptions and get rid of the Big Deals. With the free
> money the library then can create two kind of funds: One is the Gold OA
> fund (incl. hybrid options but with a cap) and one is the fund for costs
> resulting getting access to documents that are not longer available via
> subscription (like costs for pay-per-view, document delivery, individual
> subscription of a really important journal).. Because librarians constantly
> overestimate the importance of their subscriptions and especially the Big
> Deals where they buy/rent a lot of stuff that is never used by their
> community. I think most libraries would find out that researchers would get
> along quite well with this option
>
>
>
> Christian, I strongly suggest that you look into the actual costs of such
> a proposal (replacing subscriptions by pay-to-view costs, per paper).
>
>
>
> We are in the online era, when scholars are accustomed to reaching content
> immediately with one click, and browsing it to see whether it's even worth
> reading. A scholar may look at dozens of papers a day this way. That's what
> they do with their institutional licensed content. You are imagining
> (wi

[GOAL] Re: Quo vadere?

[Stevan Harnad]

gt; subscription of a really important journal).. Because librarians constantly
> overestimate the importance of their subscriptions and especially the Big
> Deals where they buy/rent a lot of stuff that is never used by their
> community. I think most libraries would find out that researchers would get
> along quite well with this option
>

Christian, I strongly suggest that you look into the actual costs of such a
proposal (replacing subscriptions by pay-to-view costs, per paper).

We are in the online era, when scholars are accustomed to reaching content
immediately with one click, and browsing it to see whether it's even worth
reading. A scholar may look at dozens of papers a day this way. That's what
they do with their institutional licensed content. You are imagining
(without any data at all) that the cost of doing this via pay-per-view, at
the usual $30 or so per paper, would amount to less cost for an institution
than its current licensing costs.

Please repeat this proposal once you have done the arithmetic and have the
evidence. (It won't be enough to find out the license costs and the
pay-per-view costs. You will also have to monitor the daily usage, per
discipline, of a sufficient representative sample of researchers.
Until then, subscription cancellation is not an option for institutions
today. (But with universal immediate-deposit
<http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/>
it will be.)

As Thomas mentioned it’s really easy these days to get to the papers by
> simply asking the author. Also Researchgate and academia.edu close the
> gap where IRs fail to provide access.
>

The ease and immediacy of online access to which institutional authors are
now accustomed is for *licensed (+ OA) content*. Find the actual  user data
for *unlicensed, non-OA* content. And prepare to discover that
copy-requests -- for which you have expressed pessimism when they are
Button-based -- may turn out to be much less immediate or reliable if they
must be mediated by email address search and waiting to see whether the
author responds then when they are requested. With immediate deposit and
the Button, the request is just one click for the user and one for the
author...

The advantage in this approach is that libraries clearly set the incentive
> to Gold OA without the need of additional budget. It doesn’t say, don’t
> publish in subscription journals, it’s just says that subscription is
> something that isn't supported by default anymore. And changing the default
> really can make the difference, as there will immediate (Hybrid) Gold OA.
>

It seems to me that you, too, are in favour of constraining authors'
journal choice, based on economics rather than quality, though you
(rightly) consider it a violation of academic freedom if done one way, yet
(incoherently) not if done the other way...

To be honest, I rather have a flip RIGHT NOW with the existing "grotesquely
> inflated total expenditure“, then going on like this for years where we
> spend the money anyway to the Closed Access publishers and get nothing in
> return. It’s not that I’m not concerned about the costs in the Gold OA
> world. But the current situation is with the subscription business is
> already so bad, it can’t get worse.
>

The trouble is not only that such a "flip" is inconceivable (given that the
world has P publishers publishing Ji journals each, and I institutions,
subscribing to Jj journals each, making the "flip" an oligopolistic Escher
impossible-figure of multiple providers and multiple user-institutions),
but for reasons that are evident upon just a little reflection, even
on the counterfactual
miracle premise
<https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr=8I2KVre3JIeN8QfaipeIAg_rd=ssl#q=McNopoly+harnad>
of a global "flip" it would all immediately be destabilized because of
institutional defections, flopping soon after it flipped.

But yes, for what it's worth, a redistribution of the current institutional
expenditure on subscriptions in exchange for Gold OA at the same price
would certainly be better than the status quo -- if only it weren't an
unsustainable counterfactual fantasy.

In contrast, universally mandated immediate-deposit (plus Green OA and
Almost-OA via the Button) generating subscription collapse and sustainable
fair-gold is not a fantasy but a viable practical agenda.

PS: Okay, it can get worse: Paying for Hybrid Gold and keeping the
> subscriptions like it’s currently done in UK is really not sustainable. But
> that was clear from the beginning. Maybe it becomes better when offsetting
> agreements are set in place.
>

All just unreflective and unrealistic fantasy, I'm afraid. Apparently it
will be reality (rather than heeding archivangelists) that sets us on a
viable path to the optimal. inevitable outcome of fair gold, sooner or
later...

Your We

[GOAL] Quo vadere?

[Stevan Harnad]

HF/USD to Elsevier, Springer and Wiley only for
> Journal subscriptions.
>
> The situation becomes even more absurd, when you learn that in 2014 there
> were 176 publications authored by the University of Zurich that were
> published by PLOS (which by the way already is the half of what the
> University of Zurich publishes with Wiley!). But there is only little
> institutional funding for APCs explicitly limited to humanities. So all
> authors who wish publish with PLOS have to throw in additional money by
> their own research budget, because the library claims to have no additional
> money for large scale Gold OA funding. Fortunately for the sake of OA,
> Swiss authors are willing to pay with the own budget that because the
> financial situation isn’t that bad. But think about the chance and the
> boost for OA, if the University of Zurich would shift all or at least a
> part of the money from the journal subscriptions and create a publisher
> neutral Open Access funds.
>
> So I think we can and should promote more Green OA and care about a better
> compliance. But if we really want to speed up the transition to Gold OA we
> really should consider to give the subscription money a new purpose and use
> it in a coordinated way to force the publishers to change their business
> model. And as I heard this was Berlin 12 about.
>
> Best regards
>
> Christian Gutknecht
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 31.12.2015 um 19:15 schrieb Stevan Harnad <har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk>:
>
>
> On Dec 31, 2015, at 10:59 AM, Thomas Krichel <kric...@openlib.org> wrote:
>
>  Stevan Harnad writes
>
> 1. Actually, no one really knows why it is taking so long to reach the
> optimal and inevitable outcome -- universal OA --
>
>
>  oh I know. It's because libraries are spending money on subscriptions.
>  And as long as they do, OA remains evitable.
>
>
> That’s about as useful as saying that "I know why there is poverty:
> because the rich are rich and the poor are poor."
>
> Not only is it not possible to treat “libraries” as if they were a monolith
> any more than it is possible to treat “authors” as a monolith,
> but it is completely out of the question for a university library
> to cancel subscriptions while its users have no other means to
> access that content.
>
> (Please don’t reply that they do cancel what they cannot afford: that is
> not relevant. Libraries subscribe to as much content that their users need
> as they can afford to subscribe to.)
>
> The only way to make subscriptions cancellable is to first mandate
> and provide (universal — not just local) Green OA
> <http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/>
> .
>
> SH
>
> ___
> 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
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *C2 Trinity Gate, Epsom Road Guildford, Surrey, GU1 3PW United Kingdom +44
> 1483 579525 <%2B44%201483%20579525> (landline) +44 7525 026991
> <%2B44%207525%20026991> (mobile) Noordland 44 2548 WB Den Haag The
> Netherlands +31 707611166 <%2B31%20707611166>*
>
> ___
> 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] "Yawanna know wush wrong with this damn planet...?."

[Stevan Harnad]

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Richard Poynder <ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk
> wrote:

[1|no official OA organisation was ever created in order to reach
> democratic consensus on a coherent and coordinated set of policies and
> solutions.
>
[2]That is why OA advocates... have spent the last 13 years arguing with
> one another.
>
[3] And that is why governments and research funders are now taking charge
> and coming up with solutions that will likely prove less than optimal.
>
[4] open access should be viewed as a prelude to a much wider reform


1. Actually, no one really knows why it is taking so long to reach the
optimal and inevitable outcome -- universal OA --  though there are plenty
of confident (and competing) diagnoses. There have been plenty of OA
organizations, but no consensus. If someone knows how an "official
organization" can solve this problem then I can think of some far more
pressing problems -- like poverty, disease, war, racism, cruelty to animals
-- that I'd like to see the solution applied to.

2. OA advocates are a small minority in the scholarly/scientific world. As
to why they disagree, see above.

3. Governments and research funders (and universities) are organizations
too. None of them is universal or omnipotent, hence in a position to "take
charge.". Nor have they reached a consensus. Some of their tentatives (the
UK's Finch Fiasco, the Netherlands Dekker Debacle) have been less promising
than others (the UK's HEFCE/REF Policy, Belgium's FNR Policy) and some are
still uncertain (the US OSTP Policy).

4. Let's settle for universal OA before demanding "much wider reform." (13
years' wait for just OA seems long enough already without insisting on
conquering poverty too...)

Stevan Harnad


> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Velterop
> *Sent:* 31 December 2015 11:29
> *To:* goal@eprints.org
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode
>
>
>
> The mistake is to think of open access as a 'movement' with coherent and
> coordinated policies and providing solutions. It isn't and it won't.
> Individual advocates may propose (partial) solutions, propose compromises,
> propose different interpretations of the idea, et cetera, but they are
> individuals, not 'the OA movement'.
>
> Open access is much more akin to an emerging zeigeist, detected and
> recognised early by some, who deemed it worth while to define, propagate,
> and advocate the idea, which is gradually, albeit slowly, finding wider
> support. Different OA enthusiasts have different ideas as to what it is,
> have different expectations, see different opportunities or purposes, even
> have different definitions. Some see it as a way to reduce costs, others as
> a way to change business model and even increase income, yet others as a
> way to reform the entire publishing system, and some even primarily as a
> way to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of scientific
> communication.
>
> I myself see open access as the prelude to a much needed but much wider
> reform of the way scientific knowledge is recorded, published, promulgated
> and used, even including the way peer review is organised and carried out
> (I favour methods such as this one:
> http://about.scienceopen.com/peer-review-by-endorsement-pre/), in order
> to make the most, world-wide, in society at large and not just in academic
> circles, of the scientific knowledge that is generated and of insights that
> are gained. Open access is the first, necessary, step, but by no means the
> final goal.
>
> "Some may think that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" as John
> Lennon famously sang. I hope I'm not the only one, anyway.
>
> Jan Velterop
>
> On 31/12/2015 08:16, Richard Poynder wrote:
>
> I don’t think it matters whether or not it is a rubbish argument. If that
> is what politicians believe, or how they want to justify their decisions,
> then the strength or weakness of the argument is not the key factor. And as
>Andrew Odlyzko points out, it may be more a case of protecting
> jobs than tax receipts. Certainly the UK has talked in terms of supporting
> the publishing industry, and The Netherlands will (as you say) have that in
> mind. Both these countries are in the vanguard of pushing for national
> deals with publishers, and both are seeking to persuade other countries to
> do the same — as was doubtless what the UK sought to do in 2013 when it had
> G8 Presidency:
> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/g8-science-ministers-statement.
>
>
>
> That said, this CNI presentation argues that the US and Europe could be
> moving in different directions with OA:
> https://www.cni.org/topics/e-journals/is-gold-open-access-sustai

[GOAL] Re: "Yawanna know wush wrong with this damn planet...?."

[Stevan Harnad]

> On Dec 31, 2015, at 10:59 AM, Thomas Krichel <kric...@openlib.org> wrote:
> 
>  Stevan Harnad writes
> 
>> 1. Actually, no one really knows why it is taking so long to reach the
>> optimal and inevitable outcome -- universal OA --
> 
>  oh I know. It's because libraries are spending money on subscriptions.
>  And as long as they do, OA remains evitable.

That’s about as useful as saying that "I know why there is poverty:
because the rich are rich and the poor are poor."

Not only is it not possible to treat “libraries” as if they were a monolith
any more than it is possible to treat “authors” as a monolith, 
but it is completely out of the question for a university library
to cancel subscriptions while its users have no other means to
access that content. 

(Please don’t reply that they do cancel what they cannot afford: that is 
not relevant. Libraries subscribe to as much content that their users need 
as they can afford to subscribe to.)

The only way to make subscriptions cancellable is to first mandate 
and provide (universal — not just local) Green OA 
<http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/>.

SH

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

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[Stevan Harnad]

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 5:24 AM, David Prosser 
wrote:

> While we huff and puff about Berlin 12 and ridiculous suggestions that the
> entire open access movement is slipping ‘into closed mode’, Elsevier is
> having confidential meetings with UK Government Ministers of State.
> Meetings that are apparently not covered by the Freedom of Information Act:
>
>
> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/302242/response/745563/attach/3/FOI%20Request%20ref%20FOI2015%2025797%20Meetings%20between%20BIS%20officials%20ministers%20and%20Elsevier%20Thompson%20Reuters.pdf
>
> I know which of these cases of ‘secrecy’ I find more concerning. -- David
>

Spot-on, David.

Elsevier's "confidential" lobbying and deal-making

-- especially
with the UK's gullible government that led to the infamous Finch fiasco

(not
yet over, but damage-limited now by the HEFCE/REF2020 immediate-deposit
mandate
)
-- is where the real action (and damage) is.

The endless, empty Berlin/Max-Planck performance series is of no interest
or consequence.

The silly sniping at EOS by PM-R & RA are just light entertainment at a
time when there is no substantive OA news to report.

*Ceterum censeo*,* if effective immediate-deposit mandates are adopted by
all funders and institutions, the Elsevier lobbying will be completely
unavailing and ineffectual. *

Of course Elsevier knows this, and hence the thrust of their "confidential"
lobbying is transparent to anyone who has been paying attention:

(1) Show "confidential" financial data that make it look as if OA can be
had at no extra cost over current expenditures,

(2) in the form of paid Gold OA,

(3) if funders and institutions simply "leave it to us
"
[publishers] to manage a "gradual transition" (certainly not a "flip."
which publishers know full well would be highly unstable and impermanent,
and would quickly transform into a "flop" because of institutional, funder
and national defections)

*(4) and, most important, desist from mandating  immediate Green OA, which
would -- they never cease to bray -- destroy the entireêer-reviewed
research journal publication system.*


That's about it. It's all bogus, and easily shown to be bogus, but as long
as the publishing lobby can make its pitch behind closed doors, with no one
to provide the evidence that it's bogus, they can keep retarding progress.

But I can't say it enough:

If all funders and institutions just go ahead and mandate immediate-deposit
(not even necessarily immediate-OA, thanks to the Button) *then there is
absolutely nothing publishers and the publishing lobby can do to stop all
the dominoes from falling* -- all the way from universal OA to the phasing
out of everything except peer review to the conversion to Fair Gold with
all the re-use rights the open data people are seeking.

And that's not "destroying the entire peer-reviewed research journal
publication system" but updating it to what is possible today, but
prevented by the publishers' strangle-hold on the obsolete status quo.

Harnad, S (2014) The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions
unsustainable: Mandate Green Open Access

. *LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog **4/28 *


 SH


>
> On 21 Dec 2015, at 10:06, Richard Poynder 
> wrote:
>
> The 12th Berlin Conference was held in Germany on December 8th and 9th.
> ​The focus of the conference was on “the transformation of subscription
> journals to Open Access, as outlined in a recent white paper by the Max
> Planck Digital Library”.
>
>
>
> In other words, the conference discussed ways of achieving a mass
> “flipping” of subscription-based journals to open access models.
>
>
>
> Strangely, Berlin 12 was "by invitation only". This seems odd because
> holding OA meetings behind closed doors might seem to go against the
> principles of openness and transparency that were outlined in the 2003
> Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and
> Humanities.
>
>
>
> Or is it wrong and/or naïve to think that open access implies openness and
> transparency in the decision making and processes involved in making open
> access a reality, as well as of research outputs?
>
>
>
> Either way, if the strategy of flipping journals becomes the primary means
> of achieving open access can we not expect to see non-transparent and
> secret processes become the norm, with the 

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[Stevan Harnad]

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Richard Poynder 
wrote:


>  However, the way I see it is that as research funders (like Max Planck
> and RCUK), governments and publishers increasingly come to accept the
> inevitability of open access so the way in which it is achieved, and the
> way in which the details (and costs) are negotiated, are likely to become
> increasingly non-transparent (much as Big Deals have always been). And to
> me the invite-only nature of Berlin 12 foreshadows this development.
>

But none of this need happen if funders and institutions simply mandate
immediate-deposit (effectively and enforceably, as Liege/HEFCE/REF2020
does).

I don't think you are on the right track, Richard, when you object to
deposit mandates as coercive, or contrary to academic freedom -- especially
when the alternative is just a vague "don't make secret deals with
Elsevier."

 I also anticipate that the OA big deals being put in place, and the
> various journal “flipping” arrangements being proposed, will be more to the
> benefit of publishers than to the research community.
>

You're certainly right about that. And so...?


>  As Keith Jeffery puts it, “We all know why the BOAI principles have been
> progressively de-railed. One explanation given to me at an appropriate
> political level was that the tax-take from commercial publishers was
> greater than the cost of research libraries.” http://bit.ly/1OslVFW.
>

That's probably simplistic. Which country's tax revenues? OA is a global
matter.

But certainly some bogus financial reckoning and deal is being
confidentially offered by the publisher lobby, and credulously swallowed by
uninformed government reps (e.g., the Finch fiasco in the UK and -- in the
other country with a substantial publisher presence: the Netherlands) whose
only sense is that OA would be a "good thing," but no realistic idea of how
or why..

 The question is: how could the open access have avoided this? What can it
> do right now to mitigate the effects of these developments?
>

Researchers could have avoided it by providing immediate Green OA.

Absent that, institutions and funders could have avoided it by mandating
Green OA.

And it can still by avoided by institutions and funders mandating Green OA.

Vincent-Lamarre, Philippe, Boivin, Jade, Gargouri, Yassine, Larivière,
Vincent and Harnad, Stevan (2016, in press) Estimating Open Access Mandate
Effectiveness:  The MELIBEA Score.
 *Journal
of the  Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST)* (in
press) http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/

Swan, Alma; Gargouri, Yassine; Hunt, Megan; & Harnad, Stevan (2015) *Open
Access Policy: Numbers, Analysis, Effectiveness*. *Pasteur4OA Workpackage 3
Report.*http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/375854/

Harnad, Stevan (2015) Open Access: What, Where, When, How and Why. In: *Ethics,
Science, Technology, and Engineering: An International Resource* eds. J.
Britt Holbrook & Carl Mitcham, (2nd edition of* Encyclopedia of Science,
Technology, and Ethics*, Farmington Hills MI: MacMillan Reference)
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/361704/

Harnad, Stevan (2015) Optimizing Open Access Policy. *The Serials Librarian*,
69(2), 133-141 http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/381526/


S.H.


> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *David Prosser
> *Sent:* 30 December 2015 10:24
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode
>
>
>
> While we huff and puff about Berlin 12 and ridiculous suggestions that the
> entire open access movement is slipping ‘into closed mode’, Elsevier is
> having confidential meetings with UK Government Ministers of State.
> Meetings that are apparently not covered by the Freedom of Information Act:
>
>
>
>
> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/302242/response/745563/attach/3/FOI%20Request%20ref%20FOI2015%2025797%20Meetings%20between%20BIS%20officials%20ministers%20and%20Elsevier%20Thompson%20Reuters.pdf
>
>
>
> I know which of these cases of ‘secrecy’ I find more concerning.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> On 21 Dec 2015, at 10:06, Richard Poynder 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> The 12th Berlin Conference was held in Germany on December 8th and 9th.
> ​The focus of the conference was on “the transformation of subscription
> journals to Open Access, as outlined in a recent white paper by the Max
> Planck Digital Library”.
>
>
>
> In other words, the conference discussed ways of achieving a mass
> “flipping” of subscription-based journals to open access models.
>
>
>
> Strangely, Berlin 12 was "by invitation only". This seems odd because
> holding OA meetings behind closed doors might seem to go against the
> principles of openness and transparency that were outlined in the 2003
> Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and
> Humanities.
>
>
>

[GOAL] "Let them pay or let them wait"

[Stevan Harnad]

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)  wrote:

> Hi Thomas -
>
> All our authors, no matter where in the world they are, have both gold and
> green Open Access publishing options.
>
> With best wishes for a peaceful and relaxing holiday season,
>
> Alicia
>
Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane,
> Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084,
> Registered in England and Wales.


Translation of Alicia’s Xmas message:

"Let them pay (gold fees) or let them wait (green embargoes)."

I add only that they can (if they have any sense at all) completely ignore
all of Elsevier’s absurd, incoherent, and ever-changing double-talk

about green and make their refereed, revised final drafts green OA
immediately upon acceptance for  publication -- by self-archiving them.

With best wishes for a peaceful and relaxing holiday season,

Stevan


> On 22 Dec 2015, at 17:39, Thomas Hervé Mboa Nkoudou 
> wrote:
>
> On this post,
>
>
> http://www.scidev.net/global/publishing/news/elsevier-african-open-access-journal.html,
>
>
> Elsevier plans an African Open Journals, using the Gold voice. But for me,
> it is not the right way for us (Africa).
>
> I want all GOAL members to join me in an open letter adressed to Elsevier,
> with the objective to claim the full green voice for Africa.
>
> Since I am an African searcher, your support will be helpful
>
>
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Open Access, Almost-OA, OA Policies, and Institutional Repositories

[Stevan Harnad]

*Anna Clements said...*

Two points :

1. I agree with Stevan - CRIS complement IRs and are not competitors.

2. You mention assessment and ERA in particular. I have no experience of
this assessment model but I can say that since the introduction of the
post-2014 REF OA policy by HEFCE, the amount of full-text we have in our
CRIS-IR and the engagement we now have witb researchers has sky-rocketed. I
auspect this is repeated throughout the UK. So assessment ... yes is a
stick but it has also proved to be a game changer in the UK... and we
should give enormous credit to HEFCE for introducing the policy and not
bowing to pressure from some to retreat from deposit on acceptance.

December 02, 2015 8:40 p.m.



*Marc Couture said...*

Having worked very hard in the last year to convince researchers in my
university to deposit their papers, I can attest that the availability of
the Button is of utmost importance to defuse one of the more commonly
objections stated by researchers who don’t use the repository: fear of
copyright infringement. I seem to never cease to repeat: "deposit in all
cases and, in case of doubt, choose dark access". When they do so,
depositors are invited to ask the copyright office of the university (by
clicking a single link) to verify for them if open access is allowed,
perhaps after an embargo, or by using a different version of the paper or
asking the editor a permission, usually allowed on request. The important
thing here is: that makes these researchers start depositing, in dark an
open access as well.


Now to lawyers thinking “it is unlawful”. One has to realize that all a
lawyer can say in copyright matters, except for a small number of cases
where a higher court decision undoubtedly applies, is that something is
“probably” (or not) covered by the fair dealing (or fair use) exception.
Although there are excellent reasons, based upon previous rulings, to
believe that its use is legal, no one really knows how a judge, or a
Supreme Court, would rule in a case involving the Button. And perhaps we
will never know.


The actual decision to “take the risk” is up to the manager of the
repository, or whoever takes these decisions. As someone said
(unfortunately, I didn’t find the actual text, so I can’t attribute it):
when a university has its floors cleaned, there’s a risk that, even with
all precautions taken, someone will fall and sue. But universities don’t
stop cleaning their floors. Why are some of them so risk-adverse when it
concerns copyright? Fortunately, I’m not aware on many instances of
universities forbidding the implementation of the Button.


*Disclosure*. I’m one of the authors (along Harnad and Rodrigues) of the
book chapter, cited in the text, which links the use of the Button to fair
dealing provisions in UK-inspired jurisdictions (Canada, notably).

December 02, 2015 5:38 p.m.

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

[GOAL] Re: Open Access, Almost-OA, OA Policies, and Institutional Repositories

[Stevan Harnad]

*On Horses, Water, and Life-Span*

*"I have a feeling that when Posterity looks back at the last decade of the
2nd A.D. millennium of scholarly and scientific research on our planet, it
may chuckle at us... I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind as
to what the optimal and inevitable outcome of all this will be: The
[peer-reviewed journal| literature will be free at last online, in one
global, interlinked virtual library
... and its [peer
review] expenses will be paid for up-front, out of the
[subscription-cancelation] savings. The only question is: When? This piece
is written in the hope of wiping the potential smirk off Posterity's face
by persuading the academic cavalry, now that they have been led to the
waters of self-archiving, that they should just go ahead and drink!"* Free
at Last: The Future of Peer-Reviewed Journals
 (Harnad 1999)

I must admit I've lost interest in following the Open Access Derby. All the
evidence, all the means and all the stakes are by now on the table, and
have been for some time. Nothing new to be learned there. It's just a
matter of time till it gets sorted and acted upon; the only lingering
uncertainty is about how long that will take, and that is no longer an
interesting enough question to keep chewing on, now that all's been said,
if not done.

A few little corrections and suggestions on Richard's paper:

(1) The right measure of repository and policy success is *the percentage
of an institution's total yearly peer-reviewed research article output that
is deposited as full text immediately upon acceptance for publication*.
(Whether the deposit is immediately made OA is much less important, as long
as the copy-request Button is (properly!) implemented. Much less important
too are late deposits, author Button-request compliance rates, or other
kinds of deposited content. Once all refereed articles are being deposited
immediately, all the rest will take care of itself, sooner or later.)

(2) CRIS/Cerif research-asset-management tools are complements to
Institutional Repositories, not competitors.

(3) The Australian ERA policy was a (needless) flop for OA. The UK's
HEFCE/Ref2020 policy, in contrast, looks like it can become a success.
(None of this has anything to do with the pro's or con's of either research
evaluation, citations, or metrics in general.)

(4) No, "IDOA/PEM" (Deposit mandates requiring immediate deposits for
research evaluation or funding, with the Button) will not increase "dark
deposit," they will increase *deposit* -- and mandate adoption, mandate
compliance, OA, Button-Use, Almost-OA, access and citations. They will also
hasten the day when universal IDOA/PEM will make subscriptions cancellable
and unsustainable, inducing conversion to fair-Gold OA (instead of today's
over-priced, double-paid and unnecessary Fool's-Gold OA. But don't ask me
"how long?" I don't know, and I no longer care!)

(5) The few anecdotes about unrefereed working papers are completely
irrelevant. OA is about peer-reviewed journal articles. Unrefereed papers
come and go. And eprints and dspace repositories clearly tag papers as
refereed/unrefereed and published/unpublished. (The rest is just about
scholarly practice and sloppiness, both from authors and from users.)

(6) At some point in the discussion, Richard, you too fall into the usual
canard about impact-factor and brand, which concerns only Gold OA, not OA.

*RP:* *"Is the sleight of hand involved in using the Button to promote the
IDOA/PEM mandate justified by the end goal — which is to see a
proliferation of such mandates? Or to put it another way, how successful
are IDOA/PEM mandates likely to prove?"*

No sleight of hand -- just sluggishness of hand, on the part of (some)
authors (both for Button compliance and mandate compliance) and on the part
of (most) institutions and funders (for the design and adoption of
successful IDOA/PEM mandates (with Button). And the evidence is all
extremely thin, one way or the other. Of course *successful* IDOA/PEM
mandates (with Button) are (by definition!) better than relying on email
links at publisher sites. "Successful" means near 100% compliance rate for
immediate full-text deposit. And universal adoption of successful IDOA/PEM
mandates (with Button) means universal adoption of successful IDOA/PEM
mandates (with Button). (Give me that and worries about author
Button-compliance will become a joke.)

The rest just depends on the speed of the horses -- and I am not a betting
man (when it comes to predicting how long it will take to reach the optimal
and inevitable). (Not to mention that I am profoundly against horse-racing
and the like -- for humanitarian reasons that are infinitely more important
than OA ever was or will be.)

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:32 AM, Richard Poynder 
wrote:

> How many of the documents indexed in “open” repositories are 

[GOAL] Re: Open Access Network Austria (OANA): 16 Recommendations for 100% Open Access in 2025

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Reckling, Falk 
wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
> a working group of the Open Access Network Austria (OANA) has published 16
> recommendations how to shift the academic publication system in Austria to
> full (Gold) Open Access until 2025, see here:
> http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.34079
>
>
>
> We are very thankful if you could share the paper with your communities.
>
>
>
> Feedback is very welcome !
>
>
>
> In addition to that and as the first public funding agency, the Austrian
> Science Fund (FWF) now supports the Open Library of Humanities (OLH):
> https://about.openlibhums.org/2015/11/30/austrian-science-fund-fwf-commits-to-four-years-of-funding-for-olh/
>
>

Bravo! And now here are the 16 OANA recommendations re-ordered by order of
priority so that they will actually work! -- SH

*(10) [MANDATE AND] Support self-archiving*

>From 2016 onward, until complete conversion to Open Access publication
(Gold Open Access),


*(9) Registration of repositories*

By 2018, all research organisations should have publicly accessible and
internationally registered repositories.


*(15) Monitoring during implementation*

A target of 80% (Green and Gold Access) of the total publication output
should be achieved by 2020 and 100% Gold Open Access should be achieved by
2025 for all academic publications in Austria. This should be accompanied
by a monitoring process of the BMWFW (Federal Ministry of Science, Research
and Economy).


*(1) Introduce Open Access policy*

By 2017, all research and funding organisations financed by public sources
should officially adopt and implement their own Open Access Policy and sign
the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and
Humanities. From 2020 onward, the Open Access Policy should be obligatory
for all members of the institutions.

*(2) Create cost transparency*

>From 2016 to 2018, research and funding organisations should provide a
comprehensive and transparent overview of the costs of the current
publication system. On this basis, a permanent group of experts should be
established. One of their tasks will be to coordinate the research and
funding organisations by monitoring the costs of publication.

*(3) Reorganise publishing contracts*

(a) From 2016 onward, license agreements with publishers should be
concluded in a manner that the research publications of authors from
Austria are automatically published Open Access. (b) All contracts from
2020 onward should include this clause. (c) Contracts and prices should be
made public. (d) In their negotiations with publishers, the Austrian
Academic Library Consortium (KEMÖ) should be supported by the executives of
the research organisations.

*(4) Introduce publication funds*

By 2018, all research and funding organisations should establish
transparent publication funds to cover author fees for Open Access.

*(5) Reorganise publication venues*

When scholarly publication venues are funded by public resources, the
funding conditions should be such that the publication venues can be
transformed to Open Access at the latest from 2020 onward.

*(6) Merging the publication infrastructure*

Until 2020, research policy-makers should provide financial incentives
which, by pooling resources, will permit the establishment of
inter-institutional publication structures for publishing high-quality
international Open Access venues in Austria.

*(7) Support international cooperation*

>From 2017 onward, all research and funding organisations in Austria should
participate jointly in international initiatives that promote high-quality
non-commercial publication models and infrastructures.

*(8) Provide start-up capital*

Public funds – as start-up capital - should be available to commercial
providers who want to switch to Open Access or plan new start-ups. This
step will enable some providers from Austria to establish themselves on the
international market.

secondary publishing of quality-tested articles should be actively pursued
(Green Open Access).

*(11) Offer training programmes*

>From 2016 onward, all research organisations should prepare and provide
training programmes for Open Access and Open Science.

*(12) Acknowledging Open Access / Open Science*

>From 2018 onward, Open Access and Open Science activities should always be
honoured in the curricula of scholars of all fields, and alternative
evaluation systems should be taken into account.

*(13) Expand the scope of the copyright reform of 2015*

Austrian legislators should modify the copyright law by 2018 so that,
independent of the form and place of publication, authors of scholarly
publications will have the right to place their publication in a repository
and render the original version of their publication freely accessible
after a maximum embargo period of 12 months. Furthermore, large bodies of
data should be made available for scholarly purposes with no restrictions
in terms of search, networking 

[GOAL] WoS, SCOPUS, Google Scholar and finding OA papers and their proportion

[Stevan Harnad]

In “Web of Science, Scopus, and Open Access: What they are doing right and
what they are doing wrong
”
 Ryan Regier discusses the current capacities and limitations
of WoS,SCOPUS, Google Scholar in finding OA papers and their proportions
(OA/total). Most of the discussion is about Gold OA, but Regier notes that
GS can be used for Green OA, though inefficient.

I would add that the way to find just about all OA articles and to
calculate the proportion of a university’s total articles that are OA is
not to (1) seek them or (2) their proportion in WoS or SCOPUS. That way,
the only OA articles you’ll find are the Gold OA ones, and their
proportion.

Yes, google scholar (GS) is the way an individual researcher can find OA
articles on a particular topic, and yes the search, as well as the
calculation of the proportion has to be done by hand (to see which hits
have an OA version). This is much more useful than WoS or SCOPUS, because
it covers Green OA too, but it requires a lot of manual work that could be
reduced as soon as GS does a little tweaking of data and metadata it
already has (author name, institution, pub date), even to an approximation.

Already (to a very crude approximation) I can get all the GS articles on
“slender loris” (3200) narrow it down to 2014-2015 (198) or to (“slender
loris” “university of illinois”) (42) or to (“slender loris” “university of
illinois”) 2014-2015 (2).

Combining WoS or SCOPUS data and GS I could also get an approximate
estimate of OA/total output, for an individual university, per year,
without reaching the GS robot limit for an institution.

Tedious. inefficient, and very approximate, admittedly, but a taste of
what’s to come (and what GS can and will make much easier and more
efficient) — once universities and funders do their part, which is to adopt
strong, effective Green OA mandates.

Vincent-Lamarre, Philippe, Boivin, Jade, Gargouri, Yassine, Larivière,
Vincent and Harnad, Stevan (2016) Estimating Open Access Mandate
Effectiveness: The MELIBEA Score . *Journal
of the Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) (in
press)*
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: New mandate from main Dutch funder NWO

[Stevan Harnad]

Bravo to NWO! I’ve updated the policy in ROARMAP: 
http://roarmap.eprints.org/241/

Now the only tweak it needs is to make it deposit immediately on acceptance
rather than just upon publication (which can be months and months later).

SH

> On Nov 26, 2015, at 7:31 AM, Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)  wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
>  
> This might interest you. Today, the main Dutch research
> funder NWO issued a new tighter Open Access mandate:
>  
> http://www.nwo.nl/en/news-and-events/news/2015/from-as-soon-as-possible-to-immediate-open-access.html
>  
> 
>  
> Best,
> Jeroen
>  
>  
>   
> scholarly communication: tools database  | 
> survey 
> 
> Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences
> Utrecht University Library 
> email: j.bos...@uu.nl 
> telephone: +31.30.2536613
> mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands
> visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3. Utrecht
> web: Jeroen Bosman 
> 
> twitter:@geolibrarianUBU / @jeroenbosman
> -
>  
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org 
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal 
> 
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Instistence by researchers that we do not make metadata

[Stevan Harnad]

1. HEFCE requires immediate deposit (not immediate OA). so it is not in
conflict with *Nature's* & *Science's* PR practices. (N has a 6-month
embargo

on OA; S has none

.)

2. In any case, the 3-month grace-period would have been plenty of time for
N & S to do their PR even if the HEFCE rule had been immediate OA (which it
is not).

3. This "Ingelfinger Rule " (designed to
enhance paid circulation, not to enhance access) is a rule better honored
in the breach: Very, very little good scholarship or science is done via PR
rather than substance, especially in the online era.

SH

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Clement-Stoneham Geraldine <
geraldine.clement-stone...@headoffice.mrc.ac.uk> wrote:

> Danny,
>
>
>
> Some journals like to control the way information is being published about
> new papers, and therefore impose a strict press embargo period (another
> embargo, nothing to do with green OA embargo period). This sometime
> referred to as the “Ingelfinger rule” (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingelfinger_rule).
>
>
>
> All of this is well orchestrated, with a press pack made available so that
> coverage is reflecting accurately the research, and is advertised to
> authors as the added value offered by the publishers if they chose to
> submit their paper to them. This explains why you often see papers
> published in Nature, or Science, all making the headlines of daily press on
> the same day. The downside of course is that they do act as “gagging
> orders”, which can make it tricky for researchers to talk about their
> research once the paper has been accepted, but not yet published (which can
> go for weeks/months).
>
>
>
> One of the issues with the HEFCE requirement to add article metadata to a
> repository at the acceptance stage, was that this could inadvertently
> breach such publishers’ embargo by release some (even if not much)
> information about the paper ahead of time. I believe this is what your
> researcher is concerned about. I am not sure that at this stage there is a
> way around it, but it would deserve a wider conversation. Less traditional
> journals such as eLife have deliberately done away with such embargo, and
> indeed encourage authors to discuss their research as soon as they wish,
> which seems to be better aligned with “open science” principles.
>
>
>
> You’ll find more details for the journal you named here
>
>
>
> http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/embargo.html
>
> http://www.nejm.org/page/author-center/embargo
>
> http://www.cell.com/cell/authors#prepub
>
>
>
> and eLife’s policy
>
> http://elifesciences.org/elife-news/authors-the-media-and-elife
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Geraldine
>
>
>
>
>
> *Geraldine Clement-Stoneham*
>
> Knowledge and Information Manager
>
> Medical Research Council
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 207 395 2272
>
> Mobile: +44 79 00 136 319
>
> geraldine.clement-stone...@headoffice.mrc.ac.uk
>
>
>
>
>
> This email may have a protective marking, for an explanation please see
> http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/Informationandstandards/Documentmarking/index.htm
>
> We use an electronic filing system. Please send electronic versions of
> documents, unless paper is specifically requested.
> _
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> __
>
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Instistence by researchers that we do not make metadata

[Stevan Harnad]

> On Nov 26, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Thom Blake <thom.bl...@york.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> Hello Stevan,
> 
> HEFCE does not require immediate OA but it does, very reasonably,
> expect immediate 'discoverability' on deposit (i.e. acceptance).
> This is where the conflict comes in. The 3 months should be enough
> time for publication but sadly this isn't always the case. 

Nope, it’s deposit of the full-text and “discoverability" of the metadata 
(Title, author, etc.) 
on acceptance (+ 3). Nothing whatsoever to do with the Ingelfinger Rule.

Difficult to understand how there can be misunderstanding of something so clear 
and simple.

Best wishes,

Stevan

> 
> All the best,
> Thom
> ​-- 
> Thom Blake
> Research Support Librarian
> Information Services
> University of York
> LFA/215 Harry Fairhurst Building
> Heslington, York, YO10 5DD
> +44 (0)1904 324170
> ORCID: -0001-5507-9738
> 
> 
> Web: www.york.ac.uk/library/info-for/researchers/ 
> <http://www.york.ac.uk/library/info-for/researchers/>
> Email disclaimer: http://www.york.ac.uk/docs/disclaimer/email.htm 
> <http://www.york.ac.uk/docs/disclaimer/email.htm>
> 
> On 26 November 2015 at 17:21, Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:amscifo...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 1. HEFCE requires immediate deposit (not immediate OA). so it is not in 
> conflict with Nature's & Science's PR practices. (N has a 6-month embargo 
> <http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php?jtitle=nature=0028-0836=Nature+Publishing+Group=Nature+Publishing+Group=%7C=simple=en==journal=4008>
>  on OA; S has none 
> <http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php?jtitle=science=0036-8075=American+Association+for+the+Advancement+of+Science=American+Association+for+the+Advancement+of+Science=%7C=simple=en==journal=4>.)
> 
> 2. In any case, the 3-month grace-period would have been plenty of time for N 
> & S to do their PR even if the HEFCE rule had been immediate OA (which it is 
> not).
> 
> 3. This "Ingelfinger Rule <http://cogprints.org/1703/>" (designed to enhance 
> paid circulation, not to enhance access) is a rule better honored in the 
> breach: Very, very little good scholarship or science is done via PR rather 
> than substance, especially in the online era.
> 
> SH
> 
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Clement-Stoneham Geraldine 
> <geraldine.clement-stone...@headoffice.mrc.ac.uk 
> <mailto:geraldine.clement-stone...@headoffice.mrc.ac.uk>> wrote:
> Danny,
> 
>  
> 
> Some journals like to control the way information is being published about 
> new papers, and therefore impose a strict press embargo period (another 
> embargo, nothing to do with green OA embargo period). This sometime referred 
> to as the “Ingelfinger rule” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingelfinger_rule 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingelfinger_rule>).
> 
>  
> 
> All of this is well orchestrated, with a press pack made available so that 
> coverage is reflecting accurately the research, and is advertised to authors 
> as the added value offered by the publishers if they chose to submit their 
> paper to them. This explains why you often see papers published in Nature, or 
> Science, all making the headlines of daily press on the same day. The 
> downside of course is that they do act as “gagging orders”, which can make it 
> tricky for researchers to talk about their research once the paper has been 
> accepted, but not yet published (which can go for weeks/months).
> 
>  
> 
> One of the issues with the HEFCE requirement to add article metadata to a 
> repository at the acceptance stage, was that this could inadvertently breach 
> such publishers’ embargo by release some (even if not much) information about 
> the paper ahead of time. I believe this is what your researcher is concerned 
> about. I am not sure that at this stage there is a way around it, but it 
> would deserve a wider conversation. Less traditional journals such as eLife 
> have deliberately done away with such embargo, and indeed encourage authors 
> to discuss their research as soon as they wish, which seems to be better 
> aligned with “open science” principles.
> 
>  
> 
> You’ll find more details for the journal you named here
> 
>  
> 
> http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/embargo.html 
> <http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/embargo.html>
> http://www.nejm.org/page/author-center/embargo 
> <http://www.nejm.org/page/author-center/embargo>
> http://www.cell.com/cell/authors#prepub 
> <http://www.cell.com/cell/authors#prepub>
>  
> 
> and eLife’s policy
> 
> http://elifesciences.org/elife-news/authors-the-media

[GOAL] Re: Inside Higher Ed: All six editors and all 31 editorial board members of Lingua resign over Elsevier

[Stevan Harnad]

"Remove Access" would of course be absurd, and completely contrary to the
spirit of OA (but that's not what J-CG meant).

"Cease to Pay for Access," on the other hand, is a call for a perfectly
valid and longstanding judgment-call by library serial acquisitions
committees, in consultation with their user community, as to how they spend
their serials budget.

The valuable historical service Jeffery Beall is providing by warning about
scam Gold OA journals (though it would be even more useful if extended to
all journals, whether OA or toll-access) is compromised by his inexplicable
hostility to OA itself and his equally inexplicable fealty to subscription
publishers and their M.O.

But calling an Open Access advocate the equivalent of a book-banner takes
the (vegan) cake...

SH

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Beall, Jeffrey 
wrote:

> I think that Guedon's advice to "Remove access to *Lingua* going forward"
> is the moral equivalent of a book banning.
>
>
>
> There's no moral difference between saying "Remove access to *Lingua*"
> and saying "Remove the book *Heather Has Two Mommies*."
>
>
>
> I understand that all book banners (and journal banners) think they are
> doing the right thing and helping society.
>
>
>
> I think it is shameful for anyone, especially a librarian, to call for the
> removal of content from a library.
>
>
>
> Guedon is the modern-day equivalent of a book banner. He is pressuring
> libraries to ban serials, the same, morally, as banning books.
>
>
>
> Jeffrey Beall
>
> University of Colorado Denver
>
>
>
> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Richard Poynder
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 12, 2015 11:59 PM
> *To:* 'Global Open Access List' 
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Inside Higher Ed: All six editors and all 31 editorial
> board members of Lingua resign over Elsevier
>
>
>
> *I am posting this message on behalf of Jean-Claude Guédon:*
>
>
>
>
>
> The article below (thanks to Colin Steele) is an example of a courageous
> move that must be supported by the libraries.
>
> With regard to the *Lingua* (now *Glossa*) editorial board, libraries
> could, for example,
>
> 1. Remove access to* Lingua* going forward (keep access to archive up to
> December 31st, 2015) if caught in a Big Deal; remove *Lingua* from
> subscriptions, starting in 2016, if not in a Big Deal
>
> 2. Support *Glossa* (the new journal) financially,
>
> 3. Promote *Glossa* widely. ERIH is already classifying the new journal
> at the level of its current status by arguing that the quality of a journal
> is linked to the editors and editorial board, and not to the publisher.
>
> Researchers in linguistics, of course, should boycott Elsevier's *Lingua*
> from now on.
>
> This event also demonstrates the importance for Learned and scientific
> societies not to sell the title of their journals to publishers. So long as
> we foolishly evaluate research according to the place where it is published
> (i.e. a journal title), publishers will hold a strong trump card.
>
> Finally, this event displays the incredible behaviour of the
> multinational, commercial, publishers with particular clarity. These are
> not the friends of the scientific communication system we need.
>
>
>
> >>
>
>
>
> Extract from *Inside Higher Ed* article:
>
>
>
> “All six editors and all 31 editorial board members of *Lingua*, one of
> the top journals in linguistics, last week resigned to protest Elsevier's
> policies on pricing and its refusal to convert the journal to an
> open-access publication that would be free online. As soon as January, when
> the departing editors' noncompete contracts expire, they plan to start a
> new open-access journal to be called *Glossa*.”
>
>
>
> The article can be read in full here:
>
>
>
>
> https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/02/editors-and-editorial-board-quit-top-linguistics-journal-protest-subscription-fees
>
>
>
> For a list of some of the other coverage of this issue see here:
> http://kaivonfintel.org/2015/11/05/lingua-roundup/
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] CRIS/CERIF-based in-house alternative to selling out to Elsevier's PURE Bad Deal

[Stevan Harnad]

On Nov 11, 2015, at 3:58 PM, Lucie Burgess 
wrote:

Dear Stevan, all
> I would be very interested to hear more about good (particularly
> open-source if available) in-house university CRIS systems, from anyone who
> is willing to share this information. We are working on a review of our
> systems for open access, research data management and REF reporting/ funder
> compliance at the moment and this would be valuable input.
> 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
> 


*Reply from Keith Jeffery of EOS (Enabling Open Scholarship
):*
*From: *Keith Jeffery 
*Date: *November 13, 2015 at 6:14:22 AM GMT-5
*Subject: **RE: Liege-type policy at Kings College London*

Stevan, Lucie –

The euroCRIS president responded to my email to the board.  To cut a long
story short CINECA (Italy) have a system named IRIS

supporting 60 universities at the moment.  They plan to make it available
openly in CERIF mode first half 2016.  I’ll keep track of it!

Best
Keith
Keith G Jeffery Consultants
Prof Keith G Jeffery
E: keith.jeff...@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
T: +44 7768 446088
S: keithgjeffery
Past President ERCIM www.ercim.eu   (keith.jeff...@ercim.eu)
Past President euroCRIS www.eurocris.org
Past Vice President VLDB www.vldb.org
Fellow (CITP, CEng) BCS www.bcs.org
Co-chair RDA MIG https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/metadata-ig.html
Co-chair RDA MSDWG
https://rd-alliance.org/working-groups/metadata-standards-directory-working-group.html
Co-chair RDA DICIG
https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/data-context-ig.html
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: PURE nonsense

[Stevan Harnad]

> On Nov 11, 2015, at 3:58 PM, Lucie Burgess <lucie.burg...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk> 
> wrote:
> 
> Dear Stevan, all
> 
> I would be very interested to hear more about good (particularly open-source 
> if available)
> in-house university CRIS systems, from anyone who is willing to share this 
> information.
> We are working on a review of our systems for open access, research data 
> management
> and REF reporting/ funder compliance at the moment and this would be valuable 
> input.

Preliminary reply from Keith Jeffery:

> From: Keith Jeffery <keith.jeff...@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk>
> Date: November 12, 2015 at 12:36:23 PM GMT-5
> To: Stevan Harnad <har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> Cc: "Lucie Burgess (lucie.burg...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk)" 
> <lucie.burg...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk>
> Subject: RE: Liege-type policy at Kings College London
> 
> Stevan, Lucie –
>  
> There are many functionally equivalent CRIS but they are ‘homebrew’ or 
> developed for a
> particular organisation by a particular software company.  Typical examples 
> are systems
> in Czech Republic and Slovakia.  What they share is they all use CERIF and so 
> can interoperate.
>  
> euroCRIS is currently building a reference model CRIS which I believe will be 
> made available
> to euroCRIS members (euroCRIS as a community is currently meeting in 
> Barcelona and
> I understand the board will take decisions while there).  It will be based on 
> the CRIS developed
> by EKT in Greece (where they are rolling it out to all the universities and 
> research labs with an
> aggregator CRIS at EKT for the ministry).
>  
> Let me check with euroCRIS colleagues the exact state of play on this and get 
> back to you
> Best
> Keith

Another excerpt from Keith Jeffery:

> PURE is a product from Atira (DK) spun out from Aalborg University and they 
> were then taken 
> over by Elsevier.  
> 
> (Thomson Reuters took over the CONVERIS system from AVEDAS for the same 
> reason).  
> 
> … both use CERIF which... has referential and functional integrity and the 
> concept of relationships 
> between base entities(objects))
>  
> One great advantage is that in CERIF date/time information is recorded not on 
> the base 
> object records (digital object y has an attribute date/time and an attribute 
> value person x) 
> but on the relationships between them – person x deposited digital object y 
> between 
> date/time 1 and date/time 2 (these may be the same of course).   
> Note that person x may not be the author  (and a separate CERIF relationship 
> would link 
> digital object and person in role author – or even primary author or 30% 
> author or…)
>  
> This... has a very large effect when analysing research performance and when 
> utilising 
> catalogs (built on CERIF) in e-Research infrastructures and VREs.

>  
> 
> 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: Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com <mailto:amscifo...@gmail.com>>
> Reply-To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org 
> <mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
> Date: Wednesday, 11 November 2015 19:36
> To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org 
> <mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: PURE nonsense
> 
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Lucie Burgess 
> <lucie.burg...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk <mailto:lucie.burg...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk>> 
> wrote:
>  
>> I think it’s worth noting that HEFCE has in fact changed its policy to ‘the 
>> published version’ rather than the author accepted manuscript for open 
>> access articles published under the ‘gold’ route, hence delaying open access 
>> to the article until it is published. See: 
>> http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/Year/2015/CL,202015 
>> <http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/Year/2015/CL,202015>/ and scroll to the heading 
>> ‘gold open access outputs’.
> 
> More's the pity. But the lost OA time is the author's, since the Gold OA 
> articles have no OA embargo. Nothing changes for articles published in 
> subscription journals. 
> 
> (But it's still a waste of money to pay for pre-Green Fool's Gold -- and now 
> a waste of time too.)
&

[GOAL] PURE nonsense

[Stevan Harnad]

PURE is a Trojan Horse from Elsevier
 that (some) UK institutions have
allowed to enter their portals. It is a trick, by Elsevier, to insinuate
themselves into and retain control of everything they can: access, timing
of access, fulfillment of mandates, research assessment, everything. The
ploy was to sneak in via CRIS’s, which are systems for institutions wishing
to manage and monitor their metadata on all their functions.

Notice that the following passage from KCL's OA Policy

makes no mention of timing:

In internal evaluation procedures it will be expected that all publications
> considered as part of appraisal or promotional assessments, will have a
> metadata record in the Research Information System, Pure, with either the
> full text article attached and downloadable from the Research Portal, or a
> link to the Open Access article on the journal’s web site.


What Pure is in reality designed to do is to make sure that *the full text
is not openly accessible until after the publisher embargo on Open Access*.

In point of fact, the battle for OA has long shifted to the arena of
timing: The 1-year (or longer) embargo is the one to beat. Access after the
embargo elapses is a foregone conclusion (publishers have already
implicitly conceded on it, without overtly saying so). But *access
embargoed for 12 months is not OA*. Publishers want to make sure (1) there
is no OA before the embargo elapses, (2) the embargo is as long as
possible, and even after the embargo, (3) access should be via the
publisher website, or at least controlled in some way by the publisher.

That’s exactly what PURE + CRIS does.

And (some) UK institutions (under pressure from Finch’s fatal foolishness —
likewise originating from the publisher lobby) have been persuaded that
PURE will not only provide all the OA they want, but will take a lot of
other asset-management tasks off their shoulders.

It’s a huge scam, masquerading as OA, and its only real function is to
strengthen the perverse status quo — of ceding the control of university
research access to publishers — even more than they had before.

It won’t succeed, of course, because HEFCE/REF2020 has nailed down the
timing of full-text deposit as having to be made within 3 months of
acceptance (not publication) for eligibility for REF2020, which a metadata
promissory note from Elsevier will not fullfill. My hope is that
universities will be as anxious as they have been for 30 years now not to
risk REF ineligibility by failing to comply with this very specific
requirement.

(And the institution’s copy-request Button

will
take care of the rest, as long as all full-texts are deposited within
Acceptance + 3.)

(I think it was a mistake on HEFCE/REF’s part to state formally that there
is no need to archive the dated acceptance letter that defines the
acceptance date, but again I trust in the anxiety of universities to comply
with REF2020 eligibility requirements to draw the rational conclusion that
is indeed within 3 months of acceptance that deposit must be done for
eligibility, and not 12 months after publication.)

As you will see from the ROARMAP data below, KCL’s OA policy
 alone is not compliant with the
requirement for REF2020 eligibility, and the above extract does not change
that one bit!

Best wishes,

Stevan


King's College London
GeneralCountry:Europe > Northern Europe > United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland
Policymaker
type:Research organisation (e.g. university or research institution)Policymaker
name:King's College LondonPolicymaker URL:http://www.kcl.ac.uk/index.aspxPolicy
URL:
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/governancezone/InformationPolicies/Open-Access-Policy.aspxRepository
URL:https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/Policy adoption date:16 July 2012Source
of policy:Administrative/management decision
Policy TermsDeposit of item:RequiredLocus of deposit:Institutional
RepositoryDate of deposit:When publisher permitsContent types specified
under the mandate:Peer-reviewed manuscriptsJournal article version to be
deposited:Not SpecifiedCan deposit be waived?:Not specifiedMaking deposited
item Open Access:RequiredCan making the deposited item Open Access be
waived?:Not SpecifiedDate deposit to be made Open Access:When publisher
permits
Other DetailsIs deposit a precondition for research evaluation (the
'Liège/HEFCE Model')?:YesRights holding:Not MentionedCan rights retention
be waived?:Not specifiedCan author waive giving permission to make the
article Open Access?:Not specifiedPolicy's permitted embargo length for
science, technology and medicine:6 monthsPolicy's permitted embargo length
for humanities and social 

[GOAL] Re: Need for a new beginning

[Stevan Harnad]

Just to add that I too agree completely with Chris and Jan. Éric (perhaps
out of legal or commercial caution) responded to Beall in a polite deadpan
style, but Beall's posting cannot be described as anything less that
outrageous. A tendentious public query about undeclared interests coupled
with a gratuitous insinuation of racism.

Stevan

On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Jan Velterop  wrote:

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

[GOAL] Bernard Rentier on Green OA Mandates

[Stevan Harnad]

Institutional repositories: it’s a matter of sticks and carrots
*By Bernard Rentier*
*Research Europe*
*10-09-2015*


*http://www.researchresearch.com/index.php?articleId=1354635=com_news=rr_2col=article
*
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Optimizing Open Access Policy

[Stevan Harnad]

Harnad, Stevan (2015) Optimizing Open Access Policy. *Serials Review* (in
press) http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/381526/


Abstract
This overview of the current status of Open Access (OA) to peer-reviewed
research describes the steps that need to be taken to achieve universal OA.
Policy initiatives by universities and funding agencies as well as
adaptations by publishers have resulted in some progress toward universal
OA, but a significant portion of research remains inaccessible to its
would-be users because of subscription barriers. Institutions are forced to
support both journal subscriptions and “Gold OA” author publication fees;
this is not affordable or sustainable. More and stronger OA mandates will
accelerate the provision of universal “Green OA” (author self-archiving)
and an eventual transition to affordable, sustainable Gold OA, in which
author fees replace institutional subscription fees to cover the remaining
essential costs of journal publication. To accelerate progress, more
institutions and funders need to adopt effective OA mandates. All
universities and funders should require: (1) institutional deposit of the
(2) final draft immediately on acceptance for publication; and urge (but
not require):  (3) immediate OA, (4) author rights-retention, (5)
minimization of allowable embargo length, (6) implementation of the
copy-request Button, (7) provision of rich usage and citation metrics, and
(8) having the repository deposit of publications be the locus for
institutional performance review as well as funding applications and
renewals.
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Predatory Publishing: A Modest Proposal

[Stevan Harnad]

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:24 AM, David Prosser 
wrote:

> To get an idea of the size of the problem of ‘predatory' publishers, does
> anybody know:
>
> a) the proportion of papers published each year in ‘predatory’ publishers
> compared to the total number of papers published worldwide; or even
>
> b) the proportion of papers published each year in ‘predatory’ publishers
> compared to the total number of papers published as Gold OA worldwide.
>
> If I had to guess, I would say that both proportions are tiny.
>

Richard may be over-estimating the size of the problem, but he is not
inventing it, and I doubt it's tiny.

And the right comparison is as a percentage of paid Gold, not Gold.

SH


>
> On 9 Sep 2015, at 09:42, Richard Poynder 
> wrote:
>
> What many now refer to as predatory publishing first came to my attention
> 7 years ago, when I interviewed a publisher who — I had been told — was
> bombarding researchers with invitations to submit papers to, and sit on the
> editorial boards of, the hundreds of new OA journals it was launching.
>
>
>
> Since then I have undertaken a number of other such interviews, and with
> each interview the allegations have tended to become more worrying — e.g.
> that the publisher is levying article-processing charges but not actually
> sending papers out for review, that it is publishing junk science, that it
> is claiming to be a member of a publishing organisation when in reality it
> is not a member, that it is deliberately choosing journal titles that are
> the same, or very similar, to those of prestigious journals (or even
> directly cloning titles) in order to fool researchers into submitting
> papers to it etc. etc.
>
>
>
> The number of predatory publishers continues to grow year by year, and yet
> far too little is still being done to address the issue.
>
>
>
> Discussion of the problem invariably focuses on the publishers. But in
> order to practise their trade predatory publishers depend on the
> co-operation of researchers, not least because they have to persuade a
> sufficient number to sit on their editorial boards in order to have any
> credibility. Without an editorial board a journal will struggle to attract
> many submissions.
>
>
>
> Is it time to approach the problem from a different direction?
>
>
>
> More here:
> http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/predatory-publishing-modest-proposal.html
>
>
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
>
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Predatory Publishing: A Modest Proposal

[Stevan Harnad]

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Lars Bjørnshauge  wrote:

> Hi all
>
> if you look at Walt Crawfords fantastic work on OA-journals (
> http://citesandinsights.info/) I think it fair to say that we are talking
> about 5% of papers published in  fully OA-journals charging APCs - I have
> not done the exact calculations
>

The PDF is hard to navigate, but I don't see how even a ball-park of 5% is
the figure for the ratio of predatory-paid-gold to paid-gold articles
published (annually, of course).

How was the calculation done? and for what time-base?

If the ratio turned out to be 5% I would call it small (not "tiny," but
small!), especially because the ratio of paid-gold articles (not all gold
articles) to all articles annually is probably also small.

But instead of discussing likely adjectives, would it not be more useful to
see and discuss the data?

SH

>
> cheers
>
> Lars Bjørnshauge
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:46 PM, David Prosser 
> wrote:
>
>> Of course being trapped by a predatory publisher is a terrible thing for
>> an individual.  Just as sending your bank details to a Nigerian oil scammer
>> and ending up being ripped off is a terrible thing.  And some of these
>> ‘publishers’ are behaving reprehensibly.
>>
>> But I think we have the right to know the size of the problem.  Is this
>> happening to tens, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of authors?  You
>> are asking us as a community to invest time and effort into providing
>> solutions - let’s know how much of a problem it is first.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On 9 Sep 2015, at 13:29, Richard Poynder 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>>
>>
>> Even if anyone knows the answers to your questions they will not capture
>> the nature and size of the problem of predatory publishing, not least
>> because the way in which these companies extract money from researchers is
>> mutating all the time.
>>
>>
>>
>> For instance, some have started to impose “withdrawal fees”. This means
>> that when a researcher suddenly realises that they have submitted their
>> paper to a publisher they would have been advised not to do business with,
>> or when their institution says that it is not prepared to pay the APC
>> because the publisher is on Beall’s list, then the researcher will want to
>> withdraw it. But when they try to do so they may suddenly discover that
>> their paper is now a hostage. They will be told they must either pay the
>> APC, or pay a withdrawal fee. Since the latter will be lower than the
>> former, this is likely the option they will go for.
>>
>>
>>
>> Clearly, the latter transaction will be invisible, yet the researcher
>> will be out of pocket and the publisher will have increased its revenue,
>> and will as a result be able to grow and expand as a result, and devise new
>> ways of extracting money as it grows.
>>
>>
>>
>> If we are only concerned about how many papers are being published in
>> journals listed by Beall relative to all papers being published then your
>> questions may be good and relevant ones. But if we are concerned about the
>> impact that this activity is having on individuals then I think your
>> questions do not go far enough.
>>
>>
>>
>> For more on this see: http://goo.gl/gybP9G
>>
>>
>>
>> If the above link does not take you directly to the comments I am
>> referring to, they are the last 5 comments below the interview.
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard Poynder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org
>> ] *On Behalf Of *David Prosser
>> *Sent:* 09 September 2015 11:25
>> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
>> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Predatory Publishing: A Modest Proposal
>>
>>
>>
>> To get an idea of the size of the problem of ‘predatory' publishers, does
>> anybody know:
>>
>>
>>
>> a) the proportion of papers published each year in ‘predatory’ publishers
>> compared to the total number of papers published worldwide; or even
>>
>>
>>
>> b) the proportion of papers published each year in ‘predatory’ publishers
>> compared to the total number of papers published as Gold OA worldwide.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If I had to guess, I would say that both proportions are tiny.
>>
>>
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9 Sep 2015, at 09:42, Richard Poynder 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> What many now refer to as predatory publishing first came to my attention
>> 7 years ago, when I interviewed a publisher who — I had been told — was
>> bombarding researchers with invitations to submit papers to, and sit on the
>> editorial boards of, the hundreds of new OA journals it was launching.
>>
>>
>>
>> Since then I have undertaken a number of other such interviews, and with
>> each interview the allegations have tended to become more worrying — e.g.
>> that the publisher is levying article-processing charges but not actually
>> sending papers out for review, that it 

[GOAL] Re: English version of the report “Open Science in Poland 2014. A Diagnosis”

[Stevan Harnad]

On Aug 21, 2015, at 9:16 AM, Lidia Stępińska-Ustasiak 
l.stepinska-ustas...@icm.edu.pl wrote:
 Dear Stevan,
 
 I’m pleased to present the English version of the report “Open Science
 in Poland 2014. A Diagnosis”, prepared by the Open Science Platform team.
 
 It is just a puzzle of a picture of OA in Europe, but I hope it might be 
 useful 
 for researchers (and other people interested in OA) analyzing scholarly 
 communication. 
 
 The aim of the report is to present a comprehensive overview of the
 current state of openness in Polish science. We present the
 institutional context of Open Science in Poland and  analyse its
 selected legal aspects, as well as describe the current e-infrastructure
 of Open Access. The report also summarize the results of desk research and of
 surveys of Polish scientific journals and Polish scientists conducted
 for the purpose of the report.
 
 The picture presented in the report shows the strengths and limitations
 of Open Access in Poland. The specific OA model in Poland is mainly
 based on grass-root initiatives implemented by publishers of scientific
 journals, researchers themselves, institutions providing IT solutions,
 and several institutions managing repositories. While Poland still lacks
 institutional OA strategies and policies, both on the governmental and
 institutional level, the number of publications in OA is growing
 dynamically. According to the report, in 2014 there were 947 OA journals
 in Poland.
 
 The report is available on the Open Science Platform website
 (http://pon.edu.pl/index.php/nasze-publikacje?pubid=16 
 http://pon.edu.pl/index.php/nasze-publikacje?pubid=16)  under the
 Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 PL licence.
 
 Please share this report within the Open Access community.
 
 If you have any questions or comments, I’d be grateful for contact.
Dear Lidia,

Many thanks for the report. I will branch this reply to GOAL, BOAI  SOAF

I would say that the measure of OA success in Poland is definitely not 
the number of (“Gold”) OA journals but rather the proportion of all refereed 
journal articles published yearly by Polish authors that is OA within the year
of publication.

And the way to maximize that proportion OA is for Polish institutions
and funders to mandate (require) that all refereed journal articles by
Polish authors be deposited in their institutional OA repository 
immediately upon acceptance for publication, as a prerequisite for 
research performance review and research funding. (All institutions 
should also implement the copy-request Button 
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/.)

Best wishes,
Stevan Harnad 

Vincent-Lamarre, P, Boivin, J, Gargouri, Y, Larivière, V and Harnad, S (2015) 
Estimating Open Access Mandate Effectiveness: 
Journal of the  Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) (in 
press) 
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/ http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/

Swan, A; Gargouri, Y; Hunt, M;  Harnad, S (2015) Open Access Policy: 
Numbers, Analysis, Effectiveness. Pasteur4OA Workpackage 3 Report. 
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/375854/ http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/375854/

Harnad, S (2015) Open Access: What, Where, When, How and Why. 
In: Ethics, Science, Technology, and Engineering: An International Resource
 eds. J. Britt Holbrook  Carl Mitcham, 2nd ed. of Encyclopedia of Science, 
Technology, 
and Ethics, Farmington Hills MI: MacMillan Reference
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/361704/ http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/361704/ 

Sale, A., Couture, M., Rodrigues, E., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2014) 
Open Access Mandates and the Fair Dealing Button. In: 
Dynamic Fair Dealing: Creating Canadian Culture Online 
(Rosemary J. Coombe  Darren Wershler, Eds.) 
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/ http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/

Harnad, S (2015) Optimizing Open Access Policy. Serials Review (in press)
 Regards,
 Lidia Stępińska-Ustasiak
 Open Science Platform
 Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and Computational Modelling
 University of Warsaw
 + 48 791 177 032
 l.stepinska-ustas...@icm.edu.pl mailto:l.stepinska-ustas...@icm.edu.pl
 @OpenSciPlatform
 @Lidia_Stepinska
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Kudos to Oxford for Act On Acceptance System for HEFCE/REF2020

[Stevan Harnad]

*From: *Aran Lewis a.le...@mdx.ac.uk
*Subject: **Re: Kudos to Oxford for Act On Acceptance System for
HEFCE/REF2020*
*Date: *August 19, 2015 at 12:10:10 PM GMT-4
*To: *jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk


“Now all that's needed in order to monitor and ensure compliance is to make
the date-of-acceptance (year, month, day) field in the Oxford repository
(ORA) a mandatory field ”

Middlesex University Research Repository has introduced this feature with
the help of our excellent hosting and support service at ULCC, who provided
the multiple date solution we are using. Full acceptance date is now a
mandatory field in our Eprints repository for articles and conference
papers. Our explanation to depositors is here -
https://mdxrepos.wordpress.com/2015/08/07/repository-changes-for-post-2014-ref/.
So far depositors have complied without complaint – we’ll see if that
continues when the majority come back from their holidays! At least we know
it works, as deposits have continued, and we can monitor and report
regularly and efficiently on compliance.

Regards, Aran Lewis
Senior Cataloguer and Repository Manager
Sheppard Library
Middlesex University
The Burroughs
London NW4 4BT

020 8411 2115 (Mon, Wed, Fri)
020 8767 3516 (Tue, Thu)
a.lewis[at]mdx.ac.uk

http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk

*From:*  Stevan Harnad
*Sent:* 12 August 2015 15:33
*To:* jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
*Subject:* Kudos to Oxford for Act On Acceptance System for HEFCE/REF2020

Kudos to the University of Oxford!

Although the Oxford 2013
http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/wp-uploads/2013/03/Statement-on-Open-Access-at-the-University-of-Oxford-Approved-by-Council-on-11-March-2013.pdf
Statement
on Open Access had been rather weak and vague, it has now been reinforced
by *Open Access Oxford*'s 2015
http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/oxford-prepares-for-act-on-acceptance/ system
for implementing HEFCE/REF2020
https://www.google.ca/webhp?tbm=blggws_rd=crei=j1LLVayoLMX2-AGVkaiADw#tbm=blgq=hefce+ref+site:openaccess.eprints.org,
and this time it's the optimal system.

Now all that's needed in order to monitor and ensure compliance is to *make
the date-of-acceptance (year, month, day) field in the Oxford repository
(ORA http://roar.eprints.org/992/) a mandatory field* (and advise authors
to make sure to retain their acceptance letter for possible audit).

The repository software can then calculate the (likewise mandatory) deposit
date D and the Acceptance date A and subtract D - A. *If D - A  3 (months)
then the article is HEFCE-compliant and eligible for REF2020. *

If D - A  3 then the author is alerted that the article risks not being
eligible for REF2020 and that for future articles D - A must be less than 3
months.

*Automated D-A monitoring and feedback to authors should be continuous and
immediate.*

HEFCE/REF2020 will probably be flexible about the start-up 1-2 years, but
not longer than that. Oxford is right to get the system in place as early
as possible.
Vincent-Lamarre, Philippe, Boivin, Jade, Gargouri, Yassine, Larivière,
Vincent and Harnad, Stevan (2015) Estimating Open Access Mandate
Effectiveness: I. The MELIBEA Score
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203. *Journal
of the  Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST)* (2015,
in press) /

Swan, Alma; Gargouri, Yassine; Hunt, Megan;  Harnad, Stevan (2015) Open
Access Policy: Numbers, Analysis, Effectiveness
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/375854/. *Pasteur4OA Workpackage 3 Report*.

*Oxford prepares for ‘Act on Acceptance’
http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/oxford-prepares-for-act-on-acceptance/*





*We are continuing as planned with preparations for a single, simple
message for open access: Act on Acceptance. Over the summer, we are putting
in place mechanisms to ensure all researchers employed by the collegiate
University are able to deposit their article manuscripts in our
repository ORA http://ora.ox.ac.uk/ within 3 months of acceptance by the
journal - to meet HEFCE’s OA requirements and the general push to improve
the accessibility of research.Research Services, the Libraries and IT
Services are in the middle of this work, and will be producing materials
and guidance for departments  researchers from Autumn 2015. This is when
our campaign around ‘act on acceptance’ will begin so as to be ready for
HEFCE’s policy start date of 1 April 2016. We will provide further
information later in the summer.If you have any questions please contact
our email helpline: open-access-enquir...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk
http://openaccess.eprints.org/open-access-enquir...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk.*
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: OA Provision vs. OA Semiology

[Stevan Harnad]

Apologies, the URL lacked a “.”

It should have been Paid Gold OA Versus Free Gold OA: Against Color Cacophony 
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1003-.html (2013)

(Although Hélène’s was an under-estimate, it was not quite as great an 
under-estimate
as that!)

SH

 On Aug 19, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Hélène.Bosc hbosc-tcher...@orange.fr wrote:
 
 Looking at the graphs that are in  Paid Gold OA Versus Free Gold OA: Against 
 Color Cacophony http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1003-html 
 I see that I was really  under the truth when I said in my previous message 
 of the 15th  August that OA f
 ree, colored and hightly precious terminology has been discussed more than 
 100 times .
 I should have said :  1000 times!
 Hélène Bosc
 - Original Message - 
 From: Stevan Harnad mailto:amscifo...@gmail.com
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) mailto:goal@eprints.org
 Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 1:42 PM
 Subject: [GOAL] OA Provision vs. OA Semiology
 
 The purpose of terminology and definitions is to clarify and simplify their 
 referents.
 
 The BBB description of OA, based on the first B in 2002 
 http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read, was updated in 2008 
 http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/08/greengold-oa-and-gratislibre-oa.html
  to distinguish Green
 from Gold OA and Gratis from Libre OA, exactly along the lines described:
 
 See also:
 
 On Diamond OA, Platinum OA, Titanium OA, and Overlay-Journal OA, 
 Again http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/993-.htmland
 Paid Gold OA Versus Free Gold OA: Against Color Cacophony 
 http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1003-html (2013)
 
 And, to repeat: 
 
 There is no Platinum OA. OA is about access, not about funding mechanisms
 (of which there are three: subscription fee, publication fee, or subsidy
 [the latter not to be confused with gratis])
 
 After at least a decade and a half I think it would be a good idea to stop 
 fussing about what
 to call it, and focus instead on providing it...
 
 
 Stevan Harnad

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

[GOAL] OA Provision vs. OA Semiology

[Stevan Harnad]

The purpose of terminology and definitions is to clarify and simplify their
referents.

The BBB description of OA, based on the first B in 2002
http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read, was updated in 2008
http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/08/greengold-oa-and-gratislibre-oa.html
to
distinguish Green from Gold OA and Gratis from Libre OA, exactly along the
lines described:

See also:

On Diamond OA, Platinum OA, Titanium OA, and Overlay-Journal OA,
Again http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/993-.html

and

Paid Gold OA Versus Free Gold OA: Against Color Cacophony
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1003-html (2013)


And, to repeat:

There is no Platinum OA. OA is about access, not about funding mechanisms

(of which there are three: subscription fee, publication fee, or subsidy

[the latter not to be confused with gratis])


 After at least a decade and a half I think it would be a good idea to stop
 fussing about what to call it, and focus instead on providing it...


Stevan Harnad

On Aug 19, 2015, at 3:00 AM, MIGUEL ERNESTO NAVAS FERNANDEZ 
 miguel.na...@ub.edu wrote:
 Dear all,
 I would like to answer to the definitions given by Stevan Harnad:
 1. Green OA means OA provided by the author (usually by self-archiving the
 refereed, revised, accepted final draft in an OA repository)
 2. Gold OA means OA provided by the journal (often for a publication fee)
 3. Gratis OA means free online access.
 4. Libre OA means Gratis OA plus various re-use rights
 I agree with the idea that we should use the same official definitions,
 but when those a) are not clear, b) look contradictious and c) fail to
 represent reality, then we should clarify them a little.
 And I think that they are not clear (what does a color name mean?), look
 contradictious (OA cannot be only gratis according to BBB definitions) and
 c) they fail to represent reality if they do not consider OA-ACP (Platinum
 OA) and OA+APC (Commercial OA) as different things.
 I will explain myself.
 First, I don't agree with statements 3 and 4. According to the last
 official OA definition given by at Bethesda (
 http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm#definition), An Open
 Access Publication[1] is one that meets the following two conditions:
 1) The author(s) and copyright holder(s) grant(s) to all users a free,
 irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual right of access to, and a license to
 copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make
 and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible
 purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship[2], as well as the
 right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use.
 2) A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials,
 including a copy of the permission as stated above, in a suitable standard
 electronic format is deposited immediately upon initial publication in at
 least one online repository that is supported by an academic institution,
 scholarly society, government agency, or other well-established
 organization that seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution,
 interoperability, and long-term archiving (for the biomedical sciences,
 PubMed Central is such a repository).
 Reading only 1), Open Access = free access + re-use rights. Free access
 only is not OA. Therefore, gratis OA would not exist, for it is not OA
 yet. In other words, Gratis OA should be called free or gratis access,
 and Libre OA should be called just OA. The use of gratis and libre is
 given by the open software culture, not by OA official definitions.
 That said, if a majority of researchers is using gratis OA or libre OA
 (as the mentioned Peter Suber does, for instance), I am not going to fight
 them back. I will accept what is used by the majority. But then I don't
 understand that belligerence when other terms as Platinum appear.
 Second, it is true that Platinum is not official, but no one can deny
 that Gold OA journals published by universities and public research bodies
 at no cost for the author are a different thing from Gold OA journals
 published by commercial enterprises, including hybrid journals. That
 doesn't seem logical for me. It would be as calling full, hybrid and
 embargo journals the same OA with no difference among them (if hybrid and
 embargo journals are really OA, something that I doubt). You can call it
 OA with APC vs. subsidized OA or something like that, but we need a
 name, and Platinum doesn't seem inappropriate for me. Anyone has a better
 name?
 I don't see a reason for not using a clear name to make them different.
 For instance, journals published by Scielo and many LAC universities do not
 charge authors at all, while PLoS charges from $1,350 to $2,900, Taylor and
 Francis $2,950, Springer €3,000, Elsevier from $500 to $5,000... I don't
 want to start a political / ethical discussion here, I just want to state
 that these types of OA are different and need

[GOAL] Re: OA Provision vs. OA Semiolog

[Stevan Harnad]

1. We are in fact just talking here about (a) which CC license should be
adopted for Libre OA
2. And about (b) how publication costs are covered for Gold OA
(subscription, author fees, or subsidies)
3. A clear understanding of green/gold and gratis/libre OA makes this
all obvious
4. There is no need for more colours, which are intended to clarify and
simplify, not to confuse and complicate
5. Peter Suber and I define green/gold and gratis/libre exactly the same way
6. There is no official definition of OA. There is nothing official about
it. Terminology is for clarity.
7. Citing Jeffrey Beall certainly does not mean endorsement

SH

Taking leave of this rather repetitious and extremely uninformative
discussion

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:56 AM, MIGUEL ERNESTO NAVAS FERNANDEZ 
miguel.na...@ub.edu wrote:

 Dear Stevan and all,

 Thanks for the links. I had read some of them.

 Nevertheless,
 http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/08/greengold-oa-and-gratislibre-oa.html
 is what Peter Suber says,
 http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/993-.html is what you
 say, and http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1003-html is
 yours as well. I of course recognize your expertise in this field, but
 these statements are not official to me. Others, as Jeffrey Bell, wrote
 Gold = free to reader, author pays article processing charge; Platinum =
 free to reader, free to author (
 http://listserv.crl.edu/wa.exe?A2=ind1304L=LIBLICENSE-LF=S=P=77120,
 linked by yourself in one of your articles mentioned).

 Some LAC authors use Platinum OA and Commercial OA (author pays) as
 sub-types of OA, and I don't see why they should be wrong. It's just a way
 to call it.  What would you call it? Subsidized OA? OA without APCs? (just
 asking)

 You wrote There is no Platinum OA. OA is about access, not about funding
 mechanisms. Ok, but, as I wrote before, I think OA was not meant to be
 only gratis. Officialy (BBB) it was meant to be free of access + free to
 use. It's not open if it's not libre. The types gratis and libre came
 after, introduced by some authors (Suber, at least). So Platinum has been
 used by others. Scientists make the names. All scientists by all over the
 world.

 I don't think it is a banal discussion only on names. It's about points of
 view. With all due respect, I think that you and others are using a Western
 point of view, when OA should be treated through a universal point of view.
 Platinum OA is very important in LAC, not that important in Western
 countries, and that's why it is refused by Western authors.

 That's what I think.

 Thanks for your time.

 With kind regards,


 Miguel Navas-Fernández
 PhD Researcher at Universitat de Barcelona
 Member of Acceso Abierto research group
 Associate Editor of DOAJ
 ORCID Linkedin Twitter

 

 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 07:42:44 -0400
 From: Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com
 Subject: [GOAL]  OA Provision vs. OA Semiology
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) goal@eprints.org
 Message-ID:
 CAE7iXOiAjEWG2wi9nZjZU9Akc+=
 b2jxx5nk80h4hghguj7-...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

 The purpose of terminology and definitions is to clarify and simplify their
 referents.

 The BBB description of OA, based on the first B in 2002
 http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read, was updated in 2008
 
 http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/08/greengold-oa-and-gratislibre-oa.html
 
 to
 distinguish Green from Gold OA and Gratis from Libre OA, exactly along the
 lines described:

 See also:

 On Diamond OA, Platinum OA, Titanium OA, and Overlay-Journal OA,
 Again http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/993-.html

 and

 Paid Gold OA Versus Free Gold OA: Against Color Cacophony
 http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1003-html (2013)


 And, to repeat:

 There is no Platinum OA. OA is about access, not about funding mechanisms

 (of which there are three: subscription fee, publication fee, or subsidy

 [the latter not to be confused with gratis])


  After at least a decade and a half I think it would be a good idea to
 stop
  fussing about what to call it, and focus instead on providing it...


 Stevan Harnad


 Aquest correu electrònic i els annexos poden contenir informació
 confidencial o protegida legalment i està adreçat exclusivament a la
 persona o entitat destinatària. Si no sou el destinatari final o la persona
 encarregada de rebre’l, no esteu autoritzat a llegir-lo, retenir-lo,
 modificar-lo, distribuir-lo, copiar-lo ni a revelar-ne el contingut. Si heu
 rebut aquest correu electrònic per error, us preguem que n’informeu al
 remitent i que elimineu del sistema el missatge i el material annex que
 pugui contenir. Gràcies per la vostra col·laboració.

 Este correo electrónico y sus anexos pueden contener información
 confidencial o legalmente protegida y está exclusivamente dirigido a la
 persona o entidad destinataria. Si usted no es

[GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

[Stevan Harnad]

Dear Mr Pettiaux,

I seem to have been archivangelizing for almost as long as you have been
teaching.

If there is one thing I can say with near-certainty it is that the slow
progress toward green and (fair) gold OA has not been because of their
names, nor because of their complexity, because it is all exceedingly
simple (but not if it is conflated with other preconceptions):

The analogies with the free/open software movement are outweighed by the
disanalogies:

1. OA is primarily about journal articles.

2. Journal articles do not consist of executable code but of text.

3. Unlike proprietary software, the *content* of journal articles is, and
always was, open.

4. It's just that you have to pay to *access* the content, because access
to the proprietary *text* is not free.

5. Nor is the text open in the sense of re-publication, re-use, mash-up
rights.

6. Gratis OA seeks to make the text free.

7. Libre OA seeks to make the text open.

Best regards,
Stevan Harnad

1. Green OA means *OA provided by the author* (usually by self-archiving
 the refereed, revised, accepted final draft in an OA repository)

2. Gold OA means OA *provided by the journal* (often for a publication fee)

3. Gratis OA means free online access.

4. Libre OA means Gratis OA plus various re-use rights

... OA is about access, not about funding mechanisms (of which there are
 three: subscription fee, publication fee, or subsidy [the latter not to be
 confused with gratis])

After at least a decade and a half I think it would be a good idea to stop
 fussing about what to call it, and focus instead on providing it...

Stevan Harnad,

Erstwhile Archivangelist


On Aug 17, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Nicolas Pettiaux nico...@pettiaux.be wrote:

Dear Mr Harnad,
 It has taken me some days, even though I had been gently warned, to digest
 your mail and to compose a response.
 Without any doubt, you have been an important and long time actor of and
 around open access. I am indeed a newcomer to this list, but not completely
 a newcomer to the subject.
 I admit that I know much better free software (and have learned and don't
 like the very confusing words open source software that I never use ...
 partly becaue I can always say that in case of doubt, my language is French
 that express better my views with logiciel libre), that I have known and
 worked with for more than 20 years.
 I am basically a teacher. I have been for the last 30 years. I have taught
 (mainly) physics and computing science to people from 7 till 77 (the ones
 reading Tintin ;-). For me, the process of learning as much as the one of
 teaching, is difficult. It requires a lot of energy, time and patience, on
 both sides. And there is no good way, equally good for everyone. For every
 teacher and learner. Every situation is new, different, with its own
 difficulties.
 This GOAL mailing list contains probably a very high concentration of
 people who know OA much better than me, and have done so for much longer
 than I have. And we can read that even for these people, some important
 definitions around OA (eg. green and gold) are NOT the same. Interestingly.
 I also know that the number of people who have never heard of OA, or have
 such a bad and weak idea of OA, even in the limited world of academics,
 around the Universities and research institutions, is probably much larger
 than the number of specialists and informed people.
 I therefore would conclude that the efforts of education around OA is
 large and important.
 One of the way I often comes down to when teaching is using the clear
 wording and definitions, the best I can find, using my own and personnal
 judgement. As well as explaining with differents words.
 Today, I find that the wording green OA and gold OA are not
 self-explanatory. In other word, I consider that the words green and
 gold do not mean anything by themselves and need further explanation. If
 they are not confusing !
 For me, this situation is not the best to explain the OA case and need for
 OA. And it will probably lead to further mails like mine that will upset
 you. ... And block the discussion, as expressed by some people on the list.
 This is sad in a world where most people still need to be educated, in
 general and surely about OA and all its subleties.
 I sometimes wonder if I wo not prefer the simple word free access. With
 free meaning both gratis and libre (freedom), this encompasses what
 Jean-CLaude Guédon says OA is gratis and free access
 With respect to contibuting to OA instead of discussing about OA, I
 personnally like to think about free knowledge (not only research), being
 both gratis and libre, and I am proud to be the initiator and one of the
 actors of the Digithèque Pierre Gilbert, (see
 http://digitheque.ulb.ac.be/fr/digitheque-pierre-gilbert/ ) a place where
 all works by my grand-father are available online freely. He was a poet, an
 historian (aegyptologist and art historian), academician, curator of the
 Belgian Museum of Art

[GOAL] Re: Open peer review at Collabra: QA with UC Press Director Alison Mudditt

[Stevan Harnad]

So many natural questions come to mind; here are a few:

1. This is a new start-up journal, and a megajournal, and an OA journal:
How representative of anything is the initial uptake rate for open peer
review: for quality? for scaleability? for sustainability?

2. On what evidence is it stated that most peer review (with established
journals) involves author anonymity and referee anonymity? (My own guess
would be that most is just optional referee anonymity.)

3. The purpose of referee anonymity is frank reviewing witthout risk of
retribution: How does open review ensure this (rather than the opposite)?
(Should all election voting be open too?)

4. The purpose of author non-anonymity is to allow referees to take into
account the author’s track record in evaluating new work: What evidence is
there that quality control is as good as or better than the current level
when track-record is withheld?

5. Collabra is a “megajournal,” covering many fields: Is the answer to
these questions likely to be the same for all fields?

6. Individual journals, too, have track-records for quality-control
standards. How does one determine the track record of a megajournal: the
average across all fields?

7. Why open peer review rather than open peer commentary following peer
review, revision and acceptance? (The referees can be invited to comment
openly too: I always did this when I edited BBS. And I've never chosen the
anonymity option when reviewing for any journal.)

On the other hand, offering the referees of accepted papers the option of
being named as the referees sounds like a good option, with no down side.

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk
 wrote:

 Earlier this year University of California Press (UC Press) launched a new
 open access mega journal called Collabra.



 One of the distinctive features of Collabra is that its authors can choose
 to have the peer review reports signed by the reviewers and published
 alongside their papers, making them freely available for all to read — a
 process usually referred to as open peer review.



 Since Collabra is offering open peer review on a voluntary basis it
 remains unclear how many papers will be published in this way, but the
 signs are encouraging: the authors of the first paper published by Collabra
 opted for open peer review, as have the majority of authors whose papers
 are currently being processed by the publisher. Moreover, no one has yet
 refused to be involved because open peer review is an option, and no one
 has expressed a concern about it.



 So how does open peer review work in practice and what issues does it
 raise? A short QA with UC Press Director Alison Mudditt is available here:




 http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/open-peer-review-at-collabra-q-with-uc.html



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


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

[GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

[Stevan Harnad]

1. Green OA means *OA provided by the author* (usually by self-archiving
the refereed, revised, accepted final draft in an OA repository)

2. Gold OA means OA *provided by the journal* (often for a publication fee)

3. Gratis OA means free online access.

4. Libre OA means Gratis OA plus various re-use rights

There is no Platinum OA. OA is about access, not about funding mechanisms
(of which there are three: subscription fee, publication fee, or subsidy
[the latter not to be confused with gratis])

After at least a decade and a half I think it would be a good idea to stop
fussing about what to call it, and focus instead on providing it...

Stevan Harnad,
Erstwhile Archivangelist

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Beall, Jeffrey jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu
 wrote:

 For the record, some also use the term platinum open access, which
 refers to open-access publications for which the authors are not charged
 (no charge to the author and no charge to the reader). Using this term
 brings great clarity to discussions of open-access journals and author
 fees. Using gold to refer both to journals that charge authors (gold) and
 those that do not charge authors (platinum) leads to confusion, ambiguity,
 and misunderstanding.

 Some have abused the term gold open access to promote open access,
 proclaiming, for example, that most peer-reviewed open access journals
 charge no fees at all. [1] This misleading statement is based on a 2012
 study that examined a non-representative subset of open-access journals, a
 limited cohort, so conclusions that apply to all OA journals cannot, and
 should not, be drawn from it.

 Jeffrey Beall

 [1].
 http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/open-access-myths-peter-suber-harvard

 -Original Message-
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On
 Behalf Of Danny Kingsley
 Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 8:56 AM
 To: goal@eprints.org
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

 Thanks Helene,

 Yes you are not the first to be confused which was which because I put the
 terms in a different order.

 Gold open access is 'born' open access - because it is published open in
 an open access journal (with or without a cost), or in a hybrid journal
 where the remainder of the journal remains under subscription (always
 incurs a cost). There are many, many times that the terms 'gold open
 access' has been taken to mean 'pay for open access'. Publishers of course
 have done little to dissuade this impression.

 Green open access is 'secondary' open access because it is published in a
 traditional manner (usually a susbcription journal) and a copy of the work
 is placed in a repository - institutional or subject.

 I hope that is a bit clearer. I agree it would not be easy to change. But
 we all used to call things preprints and postprints. That really made no
 sense because post-prints were not yet printed. We do not use those terms
 any more, not in the UK anyway. We use the terms Submitted Manuscript,
 Author's Accepted Manuscript (AAM) and Version of Record (VoR).

 Regards,

 Danny

  -- next part -- An HTML attachment was
  scrubbed...
  URL:
  http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20150814/8a9
  4cdff/attachment-0001.html
 
  --
 
  Message: 2
  Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:28:01 +0200
  From: H?l?ne.Bosc hbosc-tcher...@orange.fr
  Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues
  To: Global Open Access List \(Successor of AmSci\)
goal@eprints.org
  Message-ID: 8A81FFDC57274D9287431EE2740BA515@PCdeHelene
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
 
  Yes there is an appetite for trying to rebuilt the past in changing OA
 names!
  But even if the words Green and Gold can hurt some people it has been
  adopted for years now by all institutions, for example in European
  reports, since 2006. See the last one in June 2015 :
  http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/open-access-scientific-informati
  on
 
  Of course, everybody can rename Green and Gold as well as Open Access.
 But the difficulty will be to get the change worldwide.
 
  Nicolas Pettiaux, for example proposed in a previous mail, Libre
 instead of Open Access!
 
  Therefore mixing his idea with your option, Born Open Access and
  Secondary Open Access could become Born Libre and Trying to get
  Libre... ;-)
 
  BTW, I am not sure that I have well understood what means Green and what
 means Gold in your proposition!
 
  We could play on this list to find best definition and vote for it! But
 the aim of Open Access is not to find the best OA word for 2015, then for
 2016 and for 2020! The aim is to stay clear for all stake holders, at the
 time of important political decisions are taken. Policy makers seem to have
 understood what is Green and what is Gold. They need only to have more
 details on the true Gold and Green roads which really conduct to OA

[GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

[Stevan Harnad]

Perhaps it’s time for our newcomer, Nicolas Pettiaux, to stop posting for
a while and do a little reading to inform himself about OA and its (short)
history. Otherwise he is just making us recapitulate it for him.

 On Aug 14, 2015, at 12:03 PM, Nicolas Pettiaux nico...@pettiaux.be wrote:
 
 Dear
 
 I appreciate these discussions and clarifications. For me, and for most 
 people who are nex to the subjects and I meet, Gold open access and 
 green open access are confusing terms, even though they have been used 
 for a long time in official documents.
 
 Green refers to nature and gold to expensive. What else for newcomers (= 
 most people in fact) ?
 
 And nature is not necessarily cheap, while gold is most of the time 
 expensive.
 
 What is cheap open access ? By cheap open access, I mean the full 
 price of publishing a work (most of the time online only) in such a way 
 that its overal price be as low as possible and ONLY reflect the actual 
 costs ?
 
 The best method I can think of is forget about ANY journals, and 
 consider as publication quality paper a work that is published 
 anywhere online, be it on an institutional (open) repository or any 
 website. Stop counting papers but only refer to their quality as 
 measured for example effective evaluation of a committee made of human 
 beings and not anymore by any accounting technique. Yes, this would 
 suppose that on a per document base, or per person base, a committee 
 would have to do actual work. But this is done already for most grant 
 attribution or tenure selection processes. Maybe not yet by the actual 
 reading of the papers and comments about his own papers an authors would 
 write.
 Comments on a public website where the paper is published could also be 
 taken into account in the evaluation.
 
 Many people agree today to consider that the peer review system does not 
 work anymore due to a too large number of submitted papers and a too 
 large number of journals/reviews.
 
 Is there any other solution than dumping the reviews, the journals, the 
 papers as they are evaluated and listed today ? I am not the one 
 proposing this . I have discussed the subject with Pierre-Louis Lions, a 
 famous French mathematician, professor at the College de France and 
 president of the board of the Ecole Normale supérieure who mentioned 
 such a procedure he would appreciate and support.
 
 Best regards,
 
 Nicolas
 
 -- 
 Nicolas Pettiaux, phd  - nico...@pettiaux.be
 Open@work - Une Société libre utilise des outils libres
 
 ___
 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] Kudos to Oxford for Act On Acceptance System for HEFCE/REF2020

[Stevan Harnad]

Kudos to the University of Oxford! Although the Oxford 2013
http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/wp-uploads/2013/03/Statement-on-Open-Access-at-the-University-of-Oxford-Approved-by-Council-on-11-March-2013.pdf
Statement
on Open Access was rather weak and vague, it has now been reinforced by
Open Access Oxford's 2015
http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/oxford-prepares-for-act-on-acceptance/system
for implementing HEFCE/REF2020
https://www.google.ca/webhp?tbm=blggws_rd=crei=j1LLVayoLMX2-AGVkaiADw#tbm=blgq=hefce+ref+site:openaccess.eprints.org,
and this time it's the optimal system.

Now all that's needed in order to monitor and ensure compliance is to *make
the date-of-acceptance (year, month, day) field in the Oxford repository
(ORA http://roar.eprints.org/992/) a mandatory field* (and advise authors
to make sure to retain their acceptance letter for possible audit).

The repository software can then calculate the (likewise mandatory) deposit
date D and the Acceptance date A and subtract D - A.
*If D - A  3 (months) then the article is HEFCE-compliant and eligible for
REF2020. *
If D - A  3 then the author is alerted that the article risks not being
eligible for REF2020 and that for future articles D - A must be less than 3
months.

*Automated D-A monitoring and feedback to authors should be continuous and
immediate.*

HEFCE/REF2020 will probably be flexible about the start-up 1-2 years, but
not longer than that. Oxford is right to get the system in place as early
as possible.

Vincent-Lamarre, Philippe, Boivin, Jade, Gargouri, Yassine, Larivière,
Vincent and Harnad, Stevan (2015) Estimating Open Access Mandate
Effectiveness: I. The MELIBEA Score
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203. *Journal
of the  Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST)* (2015,
in press) /

Swan, Alma; Gargouri, Yassine; Hunt, Megan;  Harnad, Stevan (2015) Open
Access Policy: Numbers, Analysis, Effectiveness
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/375854/. *Pasteur4OA Workpackage 3 Report*.







*Oxford prepares for ‘Act on Acceptance’
http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/oxford-prepares-for-act-on-acceptance/We are
continuing as planned with preparations for a single, simple message for
open access: Act on Acceptance. Over the summer, we are putting in place
mechanisms to ensure all researchers employed by the collegiate University
are able to deposit their article manuscripts in our repository ORA
http://ora.ox.ac.uk/ within 3 months of acceptance by the journal - to
meet HEFCE’s OA requirements and the general push to improve the
accessibility of research.Research Services, the Libraries and IT Services
are in the middle of this work, and will be producing materials and
guidance for departments  researchers from Autumn 2015. This is when our
campaign around ‘act on acceptance’ will begin so as to be ready for
HEFCE’s policy start date of 1 April 2016. We will provide further
information later in the summer.If you have any questions please contact
our email helpline: open-access-enquir...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk
http://openaccess.eprints.org/open-access-enquir...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk.*
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] The United States Open Government Action Plan

[Stevan Harnad]

The United States Open Government Action Plan

A timely model for all democratic governments.

https://hackpad.com/How-to-participate-in-development-of-the-U.S.-Open-Government-National-Action-Plan-3.0-lYDkyBe1aCZ
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] OA vs CC-BY-NOW

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:

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

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

 Jan Velterop


While the CC-BY-NOW (Libre OA) partisans keep insisting on having it all,
now, thereby playing into the hands of Fools-Gold publishers whilst we
still hardly even have Gratis OA (free access online), those who would be
more than happy to have Gratis OA at long last are working to mandate it,
and to test and optimize mandates for it.

Evidence that insisting prematurely on more results in getting less is
there, in the two published studies, for those who did not already see the
obvious.

Vincent-Lamarre, Philippe, Boivin, Jade, Gargouri, Yassine, Larivière,
Vincent and Harnad, Stevan (2014) Estimating Open Access Mandate
Effectiveness: I. The MELIBEA Score. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/
 (Submitted) http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/

Swan, Alma; Gargouri, Yassine; Hunt, Megan;  Harnad, Stevan (2015) *Open
Access Policy: Numbers, Analysis, Effectiveness*. Pasteur4OA Workpackage 3
Report. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/375854/

Mandating Green Gratis OA is a clear, tried, tested, feasible strategy to
reach 100% Gratis Green OA globally. Do the CC-BY-NOW partisans have a
better or faster way, that's been tried, tested and shown to be feasible?
If so, we would all be very interested to hear what it is.

But don't reply with a journal or publisher that offers CC-BY for a price,
Most people are not buying (rightly). We are talking here about the entire
refereed-research output of the planet's c. 10,000 universities and
research institutions and we need a strategy that *scales*.

Stevan Harnad



 On 22 Jun 2015, at 12:34, Stephen Downes step...@downes.ca wrote:

  as I would define it



 And I would define it as *more* free than licenses thatg allow people to
 charge money for access to the document.



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



 -- Stephen



 *From:* boai-forum-boun...@ecs.soton.ac.uk [
 mailto:boai-forum-boun...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
 boai-forum-boun...@ecs.soton.ac.uk] *On Behalf Of *Jan Velterop
 *Sent:* June-22-15 7:48 AM
 *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 *Cc:* boai-fo...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
 *Subject:* [BOAI] Re: [GOAL] a chronology about open access



 Nice chronology of open access. Unfortunately CC-BY-NC-SA, so itself not
 full open access as I would define it (though better than pay-walled,
 obviously).

 Jan Velterop


 On 22 Jun 2015, at 10:32, marie lebert marie.leb...@gmail.com wrote:

 Dear all:



 https://marielebert.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/openaccesschronology/



 Best regards from France,



 Marie



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

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


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


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

[GOAL] Google Scholar's Anurag Acharya on Repository Indexability

[Stevan Harnad]

Most repository queries and referrals come from google scholar and google
users. So it is crucial to get repository contents well indexed by google.

Here are some tips from Google Scholar's Anurag Acharya:
http://www.or2015.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/or-2015-anurag-google-scholar.pdf

This is a good occasion to repeat also an important fact about Open Access
Repositories:

OA Repositories' problem is not lack of searchability or of indexability or
of search/index tools and services.

Their problem is *lack of OA content.*

The cure is *effective OA mandates* -- not waiting for better search/index
tools.

Vincent-Lamarre, Philippe, Boivin, Jade, Gargouri, Yassine, Larivière,
Vincent and Harnad, Stevan (2015) Estimating Open Access Mandate
Effectiveness: I. The MELIBEA Score.
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/ (JASIST,
in press) http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/

Swan, Alma; Gargouri, Yassine; Hunt, Megan;  Harnad, Stevan (2015) *Open
Access Policy: Numbers, Analysis, Effectiveness*. Pasteur4OA Workpackage 3
Report. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/375854/
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Openness

[Stevan Harnad]

*William Gunn*
https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/-/2008076.publicprofile (Mendeley)
wrote:

“[*E]verything you could post publicly and immediately before, you can do
so now. There's a NEW category of author manuscript, one which now comes
with Elsevier-supplied metadata specifying the license and the embargo
expiration date, that is subject to the embargo. The version the author
sent to the journal, even post peer-review, can be posted publicly and
immediately, which wasn't always the case before…*”

Actually in the 2004-2012
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3771.html Elsevier
policy it *was* the case: Elsevier authors could post their
post-peer-review versions publicly and immediately in their institutional
repositories. This was then obfuscated by Elsevier from 2012-2014
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/961-Some-Quaint-Elsevier-Tergiversation-on-Rights-Retention.html
with
double-talk, and now has been formally embargoed in 2015.

Elsevier authors can, however, post their post-peer-review versions
publicly and immediately on their institutional home page or blog, as well
as on Arxiv or RePeC, with an immediate CC-BY-NC-ND license. That does in
fact amount to the same thing as the 2004-2012 policy (in fact better,
because of the license
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1155-In-Defence-of-Elsevier.html),
but it is embedded in such a smoke-screen of double-talk and ambiguity that
most authors and institutional OA policy-makers and repository-managers
will be unable to understand and implement it.

My main objection is to Elsevier’s smokescreen. This could all be stated
and implemented so simply if Elsevier were acting in good faith. But to
avoid any risk to itself, Elsevier prefers to keep research access at risk
with complicated, confusing edicts.
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Cross Purposes

[Stevan Harnad]

No, the purpose of “repository-focused green open access” is not -- and
never has been -- to prompt libraries to cancel journal subscriptions,
forcing publishers to restrict themselves to coordinating peer review at a
vastly reduced price from that currently charged for journal-focused “gold”
open access
https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/content/elseviers-open-access-edict-exposes-friction-between-green-and-gold-advocates#comment-form
(though that is indeed what I think will be the eventual outcome).

The purpose of green open access, mandated by universities and funders, is
(and always has been) *open access*.

Open access (Gratis
http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/08/greengold-oa-and-gratislibre-oa.html)
means immediate (un-embargoed), free online access to the final
peer-reviewed drafts of peer-reviewed journal articles.

Berners-Lee, T., De Roure, D., Harnad, S. and Shadbolt, N. (2005) Journal
publishing and author self-archiving: Peaceful Co-Existence and Fruitful
Collaboration http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11160/.

Harnad, S. (1995) A Subversive Proposal
http://www.arl.org/scomm/subversive/toc.html. In: Ann Okerson  James
O'Donnell (Eds.) *Scholarly Journals at the Crossroads; A Subversive
Proposal for Electronic Publishing*. Washington, DC., Association of
Research Libraries, June 1995.

Houghton, J.  Swan, A. (2013) Planting the Green Seeds for a Golden
Harvest: Comments and Clarifications on Going for Gold
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january13/houghton/01houghton.html. D-Lib
Magazine 19 (1/2).

Sale, A., Couture, M., Rodrigues, E., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2014) Open
Access Mandates and the Fair Dealing Button
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/. In: *Dynamic Fair Dealing:
Creating Canadian Culture Online* (Rosemary J. Coombe  Darren Wershler,
Eds.)

Vincent-Lamarre, P, Boivin, J, Gargouri, Y, Larivière, V and Harnad, S
(2015) Estimating Open Access Mandate Effectiveness: I. The MELIBEA Score
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/. *JASIST* (in press)
___
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

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Michael Eisen mbei...@gmail.com wrote:

 There's a difference between trying to be inclusive, and redefining goals
 and definitions to the point of being meaningless. I can not tell you how
 many times I hear that the NIH provides open access because they make
 articles freely available after a year. This is not just semantics. The
 belief that the NIH provides open access with its public access policy
 provides real drag on the quest to provide actual open access. You can
 argue about whether or not the policy is a good thing because it's a step
 in the right direction, or a bad thing because it reifies delayed access.
 But calling what the provide open access serves only to confuse people,
 to weaken our objectives and give the still far more powerful forces who do
 not want open access a way to resist pressure for it.


It's nice to be able to agree with Mike Eisen.

Open Access (OA) comes in two degrees
http://www.sparc.arl.org/resource/gratis-and-libre-open-access: *Gratis
OA* is immediate, permanent free online access and *Libre OA* is Gratis OA
plus various re-use rights (up to CC-BY or even public domain).

What both degrees of OA share is that they are both immediate (and
permanent) http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march05/harnad/03harnad.html.

Otherwise, there's just Delayed (Embargoed) Access, which is no more Open
Access than Toll Access is.

To treat Delayed Access as if it were a form of Open Access would be to
reduce OA to meaninglessness (and would play into the hands of publishers
who would like to see precisely that happen).

Stevan Harnad


 On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Heather Morrison 
 heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote:

 hi David,

 Redefining open access and understanding that a great many people are
 moving towards open access in slightly different ways are two different
 things. My post will focus on the benefits of a more inclusive and
 welcoming approach to open access.

 For example, I have been conducting interviews and focus groups with
 editors of small journals that either are, or would like to be, open
 access. Behind the more than 10 thousand journals listed in DOAJ are
 probably much more than 10 thousand such editors, working hard to convince
 colleagues to move to open access, struggling to figure out how to do this
 in order to make ends meet. While some of us have been active and vocal in
 OA discussions and policy formulation, others have been quietly doing this
 work, often contributing a great deal of volunteer effort, over the years.
 We rarely hear from these people, but actively listening and figuring out
 how to provide the support needed for the journals to thrive in an OA
 environment is in the best interests of continuing towards a fully open
 access and sustainable system. These people are OA heroes from my
 perspective, whether their journal is currently OA or not. In my
 experience, when someone says their journal is free online after a year and
 they would like to move to OA, asking about the barriers and what is needed
 to move to OA results in productive discussions.

 OpenDOAR maintains a list of over 2,600 vetted open access archives:
 http://opendoar.org/

 OA archives have made a very great deal of work open access - so much so
 that counting it all is very hard! The thesis, for example, was until
 recently available in perhaps 1 or 2 print copies (that libraries were
 reluctant to lend as they were not replaceable) and microfilm. Today we are
 well on our way to open and online by default for the thesis. arXiv in
 effect flipped high energy physics to full preprint OA close to two decades
 ago. PubMed was an early OA success story making the Medline index
 available for free. In the 1990's I remember how big a deal it was for a
 small Canadian university college to buy access to Medline, and even then
 having access restricted to senior students in biology. Today it's free for
 everyone with internet access. So is Medline Plus, which provides high
 quality free consumer health information. PubMedCentral both makes the
 medical literature available and ensures that it is preserved, working with
 both authors and journals to make this happen. By my calculations, 30% of
 the literature indexed in PubMed is freely available through PubMed 2 years
 after publication (all literature, no restrictions based on funder policy);
 32% after 3 years. For the data, see the Dramatic Growth of Open Dataverse
 http://dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dvn/dv/dgoa download the latest
 spreadsheet and go to the PMC Free tab.

 These archives have happened because librarians and others have fought
 for the resources to develop the archives, often the policies (there are a
 great many more thesis deposit policies than are listed in ROARMAP), and
 educating anyone who would listen about OA. Many smart people worked on the
 concept and technology, and many if by no means all authors have taken the
 time to deposit their works.

 In the early

[GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

[Stevan Harnad]

Yes, Delayed Access is better than no access. (Toll access is better than
no access too.)

Yes, publisher embargoes have cowed (some) authors into providing Delayed
Access instead of Open Access.

But that does not make Delayed Access Open Access.

And the objective is to provide Open Access, immediately upon acceptance
for publication, not Delayed Access.

That is why Green OA mandates need to be optimized
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/ so as to maximize deposit rate and
minimize deposit latency; and that's also why the copy-request Button
https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy needs to be
implemented to provide Almost-OA, tide over research needs during publisher
embargoes, and hasten the demise of all embargoes, hence delays, forcing
publishers to downsize and convert to Fair-Gold.

(Citations are delayed whether what they cite is Open Access or Delayed
Access.)

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Bo-Christer Björk 
bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi wrote:

 Dear all,

 I agree with Heather that we should take a more inclusive approach to
 Open Access. For most ordinary academics and non-academics all that
 counts is getting access to particular articles they want to read that
 more often than not are identified via references.

 The landscape is not black and white. Most of Green OA for reasons of
 embargoes and author behavior is delayed OA.

 In a study we made a couple of years ago (Delayed Open Access – an
 overlooked high-impact category of openly available scientific literature
 Mikael Laakso and Bo-Christer Björk)  we estimated that of the citations
 (not cited articles) in Web of Knowledge in the last available year:

 80 % pointed to articles in closed subscription journals (of which some
 may be found as green copies)

 6 % pointed to articles in immediate OA journals

 14 % pointed to articles in delayed OA journals with embargo periods of
 max 12 months. This is due to the fact that many of the some 500 delayed
 OA journals that we found were high volume and impact.

 The figures might look a bit different today but the overall picture is
 the same. To me it is clear that the reading of scholarly articles that
 you track via citations is a very important part of the all reading of
 scholarly articles.

 Bo-Christer Björk

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

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

[GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Dana Roth dzr...@library.caltech.edu
wrote:

  Taking Bernard's 'public road' analogy a little further ... one wonders
 his insistence on a 'perfect' solution isn't unfairly denigrating a
 reasonable (at least in the short term) alternative.

 The current situation, where the 'public NIH road' is closed temporarily
 (12 months) and one has to use a 'toll road' to access embargoed articles,
 seems much better than the situation before the creation of PubMed Central
 ... which now has 3.5 million freely available full text articles.


 The 'public NIH road' is NOT closed temporarily (12 months): NIH authors
are not OBLIGED by NIH to wait for 12 months: they are ALLOWED by NIH to
wait for at most 12 months.

What makes the present situation better than before is mandates, not
embargoes.

Mandates, allowable-embargoes and the Button are a means to an end -- a
series of ends, actually:

First, universally mandated immediate-Green-OA (Gratis) or immediate
deposit plus immediate Button-mediated Almost-OA (Gratis)

Second, universal Green OA (Gratis)

Third, subscription cancellation, made possible by universal Green OA
(Gratis)

Fourth, publisher downsizing and conversion to Fair-Gold OA (Libre:
CC-BY-NC-ND or CC-BY, as desired by authors, their institutions and funders)

Stevan Harnad


*From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of
brent...@ulg.ac.be [brent...@ulg.ac.be]

 *Sent:* Monday, June 01, 2015 11:02 AM
 *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

   When I want to drive on a public road, whether it is closed or
 temporarily closed makes no difference to me. It is not open. I can't use
 it.
 Embargo is antinomic to open.

  Bernard Rentier

 Le 1 juin 2015 à 18:26, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com a écrit :

   On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Michael Eisen mbei...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 There's a difference between trying to be inclusive, and redefining goals
 and definitions to the point of being meaningless. I can not tell you how
 many times I hear that the NIH provides open access because they make
 articles freely available after a year. This is not just semantics. The
 belief that the NIH provides open access with its public access policy
 provides real drag on the quest to provide actual open access. You can
 argue about whether or not the policy is a good thing because it's a step
 in the right direction, or a bad thing because it reifies delayed access.
 But calling what the provide open access serves only to confuse people,
 to weaken our objectives and give the still far more powerful forces who do
 not want open access a way to resist pressure for it.


  It's nice to be able to agree with Mike Eisen.

  Open Access (OA) comes in two degrees
 http://www.sparc.arl.org/resource/gratis-and-libre-open-access: *Gratis
 OA* is immediate, permanent free online access and *Libre OA* is Gratis
 OA plus various re-use rights (up to CC-BY or even public domain).

  What both degrees of OA share is that they are both immediate (and
 permanent) http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march05/harnad/03harnad.html.

  Otherwise, there's just Delayed (Embargoed) Access, which is no more
 Open Access than Toll Access is.

  To treat Delayed Access as if it were a form of Open Access would be to
 reduce OA to meaninglessness (and would play into the hands of publishers
 who would like to see precisely that happen).

  Stevan Harnad


 On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Heather Morrison 
 heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote:

 hi David,

 Redefining open access and understanding that a great many people are
 moving towards open access in slightly different ways are two different
 things. My post will focus on the benefits of a more inclusive and
 welcoming approach to open access.

 For example, I have been conducting interviews and focus groups with
 editors of small journals that either are, or would like to be, open
 access. Behind the more than 10 thousand journals listed in DOAJ are
 probably much more than 10 thousand such editors, working hard to convince
 colleagues to move to open access, struggling to figure out how to do this
 in order to make ends meet. While some of us have been active and vocal in
 OA discussions and policy formulation, others have been quietly doing this
 work, often contributing a great deal of volunteer effort, over the years.
 We rarely hear from these people, but actively listening and figuring out
 how to provide the support needed for the journals to thrive in an OA
 environment is in the best interests of continuing towards a fully open
 access and sustainable system. These people are OA heroes from my
 perspective, whether their journal is currently OA or not. In my
 experience, when someone says their journal is free online after a year and
 they would like to move to OA, asking about the barriers and what is needed
 to move to OA results

[GOAL] Re: In Defence of Elsevier

[Stevan Harnad]

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Michael Eisen mbei...@gmail.com wrote:

 I could rewrite that entire plea substituting CC-BY-NC-ND with posting in
 institutional repositories with an embargo. Just because you don't care
 about something does not mean that the rest of the OA community should stop
 caring about it. To me the use of CC-BY-NC-ND is not a step it in the right
 direction - it is an explicit effort on the part of publishers like
 Elsevier to define open access down - to reify a limited license in a way
 that will be difficult to change in the future. Now - before the use of
 CC-BY-NC-ND becomes widespread - is the time to stop it. Later will be too
 late.


On the road from subscription access to Fair-Gold CC-BY, (1) posting with
an embargo and no license is getting almost nowhere, (2) posting with no
embargo and no license is getting further ahead, and (3) posting with
CC-BY-NC-ND is getting still further.

Don't insist on what is not yet within reach, dismissing what already is
within practical reach as not enough.

 Advocating a practical transitional strategy does not mean not caring.

(And it's already late for OA, but no step forward now makes it too late
for any later step forward.)


 On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I beg the OA community to remain reasonable and realistic.

 *Please don't demand that Elsevier agree to immediate CC-BY. *If
 Elsevier did that, I could immediately start up a rival free-riding
 publishing operation and sell all Elsevier articles immediately at cut
 rate, for any purpose at all that I could get people to pay for. Elsevier
 could no longer make a penny from selling the content it invested in.

 CC-BY-NC-ND https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ is
 enough for now. It allows immediate harvesting for data-mining.

 The OA movement must stop shooting itself in the foot by over-reaching,
 insisting on having it all, immediately, thus instead ending up with next
 to nothing, as now.

 As I pointed out in a previous posting, *the fact that Elsevier requires
 all authors to adopt **CC-BY-NC-ND license is a positive step*. Please
 don't force them to back-pedal!

 Please read the terms, and reflect.

 SH

 Accepted Manuscript
 http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-posting-policy#accepted-manuscript


 Authors can share their accepted manuscript:

 *Immediately *


- via their non-commercial personal homepage or blog.
   - by updating a preprint
   
 http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-policies/preprint_lightbox
  in
   arXiv or RePEc with the accepted manuscript.
   - via their research institute or institutional repository for
   internal institutional uses or as part of an invitation-only research
   collaboration work-group.
   - directly by providing copies to their students or to research
   collaborators for their personal use.
   - for private scholarly sharing as part of an invitation-only work
   group on commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement.

 *After the embargo period *


- via non-commercial hosting platforms such as their institutional
   repository.
   - via commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement.

 *In all cases accepted manuscripts should:*


- Link to the formal publication via its DOI
   http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/lightbox-doi.
   - Bear a CC-BY-NC-ND license – this is easy to do, click here
   
 http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/lightbox_attach-a-user-license to
   find out how.
   - If aggregated with other manuscripts, for example in a
   repository or other site, be shared in alignment with our hosting
   policy http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/hosting.
   - Not be added to or enhanced in any way to appear more like, or
   to substitute for, the published journal article.

 How to attach a user license
 http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/lightbox_attach-a-user-license

 Elsevier requires authors posting their accepted manuscript to attach a
 non-commercial Creative Commons user license (CC-BY-NC-ND).  This is easy
 to do. On your accepted manuscript add the following to the title page,
 copyright information page, or header /footer: © YEAR, NAME. Licensed under
 the Creative Commons [insert license details and URL].
 For example: © 2015, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons
 Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/


 You can also include the license badges available from the Creative
 Commons website http://creativecommons.org/about/downloads to provide
 visual recognition. If you are hosting your manuscript as a webpage you
 will also find the correct HTML code to add to your page




 On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Kathleen Shearer 
 m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com wrote:

 (sorry for any cross-posting)

 In its recently

[GOAL] In Defence of Elsevier

[Stevan Harnad]

I beg the OA community to remain reasonable and realistic.

*Please don't demand that Elsevier agree to immediate CC-BY. *If Elsevier
did that, I could immediately start up a rival free-riding publishing
operation and sell all Elsevier articles immediately at cut rate, for any
purpose at all that I could get people to pay for. Elsevier could no longer
make a penny from selling the content it invested in.

CC-BY-NC-ND https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ is enough
for now. It allows immediate harvesting for data-mining.

The OA movement must stop shooting itself in the foot by over-reaching,
insisting on having it all, immediately, thus instead ending up with next
to nothing, as now.

As I pointed out in a previous posting, *the fact that Elsevier requires
all authors to adopt **CC-BY-NC-ND license is a positive step*. Please
don't force them to back-pedal!

Please read the terms, and reflect.

SH

Accepted Manuscript
http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-posting-policy#accepted-manuscript


Authors can share their accepted manuscript:

*Immediately *


   - via their non-commercial personal homepage or blog.
  - by updating a preprint
  
http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-policies/preprint_lightbox
in
  arXiv or RePEc with the accepted manuscript.
  - via their research institute or institutional repository for
  internal institutional uses or as part of an invitation-only research
  collaboration work-group.
  - directly by providing copies to their students or to research
  collaborators for their personal use.
  - for private scholarly sharing as part of an invitation-only work
  group on commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement.

*After the embargo period *


   - via non-commercial hosting platforms such as their institutional
  repository.
  - via commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement.

*In all cases accepted manuscripts should:*


   - Link to the formal publication via its DOI
  http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/lightbox-doi.
  - Bear a CC-BY-NC-ND license – this is easy to do, click here
  http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/lightbox_attach-a-user-license
to
  find out how.
  - If aggregated with other manuscripts, for example in a repository
  or other site, be shared in alignment with our hosting policy
  http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/hosting.
  - Not be added to or enhanced in any way to appear more like, or to
  substitute for, the published journal article.

How to attach a user license
http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/lightbox_attach-a-user-license

Elsevier requires authors posting their accepted manuscript to attach a
non-commercial Creative Commons user license (CC-BY-NC-ND).  This is easy
to do. On your accepted manuscript add the following to the title page,
copyright information page, or header /footer: © YEAR, NAME. Licensed under
the Creative Commons [insert license details and URL].
For example: © 2015, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/


You can also include the license badges available from the Creative Commons
website http://creativecommons.org/about/downloads to provide visual
recognition. If you are hosting your manuscript as a webpage you will also
find the correct HTML code to add to your page




On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Kathleen Shearer 
m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com wrote:

 (sorry for any cross-posting)

 In its recently released “Sharing and Hosting Policy FAQ”, Elsevier
 “recognize(s) that authors want to share and promote their work and
 increasingly need to comply with their funding body and institution's open
 access policies.” However there are several aspects of their new policy
 that severely limit sharing and open access, in particular the lengthy
 embargo periods imposed in most journals- with about 90% of Elsevier
 journals
 http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/121293/external-embargo-list.pdf
  having
 embargo periods of 12 months or greater. This is a significant rollback
 from the original 2004 Elsevier policy which required no embargos for
 making author’s accepted manuscripts available; and even with the 2012
 policy change requiring embargoes only when authors were subject to an OA
 mandate.

 With article processing charges (APCs) that can cost as much as $5000 US
 dollars
 https://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/open-access/sponsored-articles for
 publishing in one of Elsevier’s gold open access titles or hybrid journals,
 this is not a viable option for many researchers around the world.
 Furthermore, the rationale for lengthy embargo periods is to protect
 Elsevier’s subscription revenue. We do not believe that scientific,
 economic and social progress should be hindered in order to protect
 commercial interests. In addition, 

[GOAL] Re: Elsevier: Trying to squeeze the virtual genie back into the physical bottle

[Stevan Harnad]

,
 then just as well, they’ll be more taxpayers to pay the tab for the $450
 billion we spend collectively on research, and on paying the salaries of
 university staff and free though conflating thinkers such as yourself.



 Éric Archambault

 President and CEO, Science-Metrix Inc.

 President and CEO, 1science Inc.















 *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
 Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad
 *Sent:* May-25-15 2:24 PM
 *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 *Subject:* [GOAL] Elsevier: Trying to squeeze the virtual genie back into
 the physical bottle



 *Alicia Wise wrote*
 http://www.elsevier.com/connect/coar-recting-the-record#comment-2037996108
 :



 *Dear Stevan,*



 *I admire your vision and passion for green open access – in fact we all
 do here at Elsevier - and for your tenacity as your definitions and
 concepts of green open access have remain unchanged for more than 15 years.
 We also recognize that the open access landscape has changed dramatically
 over the last few years, for example with the emergence of Social
 Collaboration Networks. This refresh of our policy, the first since 2004,
 reflects what we are hearing from researchers and research institutions
 about how we can support their changing needs. We look forward to
 continuing input from and collaboration with the research community, and
 will continue to review and refine our policy.*



 *Let me state clearly that we support both green and gold OA. Embargo
 periods have been used by us – and other publishers – for a very long time
 and are not new. The only thing that’s changed about IRs is our old policy
 said you had to have an agreement which included embargos, and the new
 policy is you don’t need to do an agreement provided you and your authors
 comply with the embargo period policy. It might be most constructive for
 people to just judge us based on reading through the policy and considering
 what we have said and are saying.*



 *With kind wishes and good night,*

 *Alicia Wise, Elsevier*





 Dear Alicia,



 You wrote:



 *This refresh of our policy [is| the first since 2004... Embargo periods
 have been used by us... for a very long time and are not new. The only
 thing that’s changed about IRs is our old policy said you had to have an
 agreement which included embargos...*



 Is this the old policy that hasn't changed changed since 2004 (when
 Elsevier was still on the side of the angels http://j.mp/OAngelS
 insofar as Green OA was concerned) until the refresh? (I don't see any
 mention of embargoes in it...):



 *Date:** Thu, 27 May 2004 03:09:39 +0100 *

 *From:** Hunter, Karen (ELS-US) *

 *To:** 'harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk http://harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk' *

 *Cc:** Karssen, Zeger (ELS) , Bolman, Pieter (ELS) , Seeley, Mark
 (ELS) *

 *Subject:** Re: Elsevier journal list *



 *Stevan, *



 *[H]ere is what we have decided on post-prints (i.e. published articles,
 whether published electronically or in print): *



 *An author may post his version of the final paper on his personal web
 site and on his institution's web site (including its institutional
 respository). Each posting should include the article's citation and a link
 to the journal's home page (or the article's DOI). The author does not need
 our permission to do this, but any other posting (e.g. to a repository
 elsewhere) would require our permission. By his version we are referring
 to his Word or Tex file, not a PDF or HTML downloaded from ScienceDirect -
 but the author can update his version to reflect changes made during the
 refereeing and editing process. Elsevier will continue to be the single,
 definitive archive for the formal published version. *



 *We will be gradually updating any public information on our policies
 (including our copyright forms and all information on our web site) to get
 it all consistent. *



 *Karen Hunter *

 *Senior Vice President, Strategy *

 *Elsevier *

 *+1-212-633-3787 %2B1-212-633-3787 *

 *k.hunter_at_elsevier.com http://k.hunter_at_elsevier.com*



 Yes, the definition of authors providing free, immediate online access
 (Green OA self-archiving) has not changed since the online medium first
 made it possible. Neither has researchers’ need for it changed, nor its
 benefits to research.



 What has changed is Elsevier policy -- in the direction of trying to
 embargo Green OA to ensure that it does not Elsevier's current revenue
 levels at any risk.



 Elsevier did not try to embargo Green OA from 2004-2012 — but apparently
 only because they did not believe that authors would ever really bother to
 provide much Green OA, nor that their institutions and funders would ever
 bother to require them to provide it (for its benefits to research).



 But for some reason *Elsevier is not ready to admit that Elsevier has now
 decided to embargo Green OA purely to ensure that it does put Elsevier's
 current subscription revenue levels at any risk. *



 Instead

[GOAL] Re: Elsevier: Trying to squeeze the virtual genie back into the physical bottle

[Stevan Harnad]

Mike,


I will respond more fully on your blog:
http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1710


To reply briefly here:


1. The publisher back-pedalling and OA embargoes were anticipated. That’s
why the copy-request Button
https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopywas already created
to provide access during any embargo, nearly 10 years ago, long before
Elsevier and Springer began back-pedalling.


2. Immediate-deposit mandates plus the Button, once adopted universally,
will lead unstoppably to 100% OA, and almost as quickly as if there were no
publisher OA embargoes.


3. For a “way forward,” it is not enough to “look past the present to the
future”: one must provide a demonstrably viable transition scenario to get
us there from here.


4. Green OA, mandated by institutions and funders, is a demonstrably viable
transition scenario.


5. Offering paid-Gold OA journals as an alternative and waiting for all
authors to switch is not a viable transition sceario, for the reasons I
described again yesterday in response to Éric Archambault
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2015-May/003366.html:
multiple journals, multiple subscribing institutions, ongoing access needs,
no coherent “flip” strategy, hence double-payment (i.e., subscription fees
for incoming institutional access to external institutional output plus
Gold publication fees for providing OA to outgoing institutional published
output) when funds are already stretched to the limit by subscriptions that
are uncancellable — *until and unless made accessible by another means.*


6. That other means is 4, above. The resulting transition scenario has been
described many times, starting in 2001
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1,
with updates in 2007 http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/, 2010
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html,  2013
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/353991/,  2014
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/,
and 2015 http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/361704/, keeping pace with ongoing
mandate and embargo developments.


7. An article that is freely accessible to all online under CC-BY-NC-ND is
most definitely OA — Gratis OA
http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/08/greengold-oa-and-gratislibre-oa.html,
to be exact.


8. For the reasons I have likewise described many times before, the
transition scenario is to mandate Gratis Green OA (together with the
Button, for emabrgoed deposits) universally. That universal Green Gratis OA
will in turn make subscriptions cancellable, hence unsustainable, which
will in turn force to downsize to affordable, sustainable Fair-Gold Libre
OA (CC-BY)


9. It is a bit disappointing to hear an OA advocate characterize Green OA
as parasitic on publishers, when OA’s fundamental rationale has been that
publishers are parasitic on researchers and referees’ work as well as its
public funding. But perhaps when the OA advocate is a publisher, the
motivation changes…


Stevan


On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Michael Eisen mbei...@gmail.com wrote:

 Stevan-

 I hate to say I told you so, but  at the Budapest meeting years ago it
 was pointed out repeatedly that once green OA actually became a threat to
 publishers, they would no longer look so kindly on it. It took a while, but
 the inevitable has now happened. Green OA that relied on publishers to peer
 review papers + subscriptions to pay for them, but somehow also allowed
 them to be made freely available, was never sustainable. If you want OA you
 have to either fund publishers by some other means (subsidies, APCs) or
 wean yourself from that which they provide (journal branding). Parasitism
 only works so long as it is not too painful to the host. It's a testament
 to a lot of hard work from green OA advocates that it has become a threat
 to Elsevier. But the way forward is not to get them to reverse course, but
 to look past them to a future that is free of subscription journals.

 Also, I don't view CC-BY-NC-ND as a victory as the NC part is there to
 make sure that no commercial entity - including, somewhat ironically, PLOS
 - can use the articles to actually do anything. So this license makes these
 articles definitively non open access.

 -Mike

 On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 *Alicia Wise wrote*
 http://www.elsevier.com/connect/coar-recting-the-record#comment-2037996108
 :



 *Dear Stevan,*



 *I admire your vision and passion for green open access – in fact we all
 do here at Elsevier - and for your tenacity as your definitions and
 concepts of green open access have remain unchanged for more than 15 years.
 We also recognize that the open access landscape has changed dramatically
 over the last few years, for example with the emergence of Social
 Collaboration Networks. This refresh of our policy, the first since 2004,
 reflects what we are hearing from researchers and research

[GOAL] Elsevier: Trying to squeeze the virtual genie back into the physical bottle

[Stevan Harnad]

 their
metadata tags: author, title, journal, date, URL. The rest is all just
software functionality. And if the full-text is out there, somewhere,
anywhere, and it is OA, then there is no way to stop the rest of this very
welcome and useful functionality.)



*The Arxiv exception.* In prior iterations of the policy, Elsevier tried
(foolishly) to outlaw central deposit. They essentially tried to tell
authors who had been making their papers OA in Arxiv since 1991 that they
may no longer do that. Well, that did not go down very well, so those
legal restrictions have now been replaced by the Arxiv exception:
Authors making their papers OA there (or in RePeC) are now officially
exempt from the Elsevier OA embargo.



Well here we are again: an arbitrary Elsevier restriction on immediate-OA,
based on locus of deposit. The Pandora's box that this immediately opens is
that all a mandating institution need do in order to detoxify Elsevier's OA
embargo completely is to mandate immediate (dark) deposit of all
institutional output in the institutional repository *alongside remote
deposit in Arxiv* (which is already automated through the SWORD software
http://arxiv.org/help/submit_sword). That completely moots all Elsevier
OA embargoes. Yet another example of Elsevier's ineffectual nuisance
stipulations consisting of ad-hoc, pseudo-legal epicycles, all having one
sole objective: to try to scare authors of doing anything that might
possibly pose a risk to Elsevier's current revenue streams, using any words
that will do the trick, even if only for a while, and even if they make no
sense.



What's next, Elsevier? You may use *this* software but not *this*
software?



*The Share Button.* Although it never defines what it means by Share
Button (nor why it is trying to outlaw it), if what Elsevier means is the
Institutional Repository's copy-request Button
https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy, intended to
provide individual copies to individual copy-requestors, then this too is
just a software-facilitated eprint request.



Whenever a user seeks an embargoed deposit, they can click the Button to
send an email to the author to request a copy. The author need merely click
a link in the email to authorize the software to send the copy.



So does Elsevier now want to make yet another nuisance stipulation, so the
Button cannot be called a Share Button, so instead the name of the author
of the embargoed paper has to be made into an email link that notifies the
author that the requestor seeks a copy, with the requestor's email alive,
and clickable, so that inserting the embargoed paper's URL will attach one
copy to the email?



Elsevier is not going to make many friends by trying to force its authors
to do jump through gratuitous hoops in order to accommodate Elsevier's ever
more arbitrary and absurd attempts to contain the virtual ether with
arbitrary verbal hacks.



*There are more.* There are further nuisance tactics in the current
iteration of Elsevier's charm initiative, in which self-serving
restrictions keep being portrayed as Elsevier's honest attempts to
facilitate rather than hamper sharing. One particularly interesting one
that I have not yet deconstructed (but that the attentive reader of the
latest Elsevier documentation will have detected) likewise moots all
Elsevier OA embargoes even more conveniently than depositing all papers in
Arxiv -- but I leave that as an exercise to the reader.



So Alicia, if Elsevier admires [my] vision, let me invite you to consult
with me about present and future OA policy conditions. I'll be happy to
share with you which ones are logically incoherent and technically empty in
today's virtual world. It could save Elsevier a lot of futile effort and
save Elsevier authors from a lot of useless and increasingly arbitrary and
annoying nuisance-rules.



Best wishes,



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

[GOAL] Fwd: Request for clarifications from Elsevier

[Stevan Harnad]

-- Forwarded message --
From: Brian Simboli b...@lehigh.edu
Date: Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: Request for clarifications from Elsevier
To: liblice...@gmail.com, a.w...@elsevier.com, amscifo...@gmail.com


Apologies:  one precision I didn't make; I've added the item in [   ].

Elsevier no longer allows full public access immediately [in an
institutional repository] to an accepted manuscript.

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Brian Simboli b...@lehigh.edu wrote:

 Dr. Wise,

 So that I better understand the emerging controversy about Elsevier's new
 archiving policies, can you publicly address the following questions?

 1.

 Is this correct?

 Elsevier no longer allows full public access immediately to an accepted
 manuscript. It allows on-campus (private) institutional repository
 access, until the embargo period is up. This new policy applies
 retrospectively, which is to say, institutions can be asked to take down
 articles that were posted according to the old policies, with some possible
 negotiable wiggle time to accommodate transitions.

 2.


 is Stevan Harnad correct, or not correct, in claiming in the combox at

 http://www.elsevier.com/connect/coar-recting-the-record

 that

 Since 2004 Elsevier had endorsed authors providing free immediate
 (un-embargoed) access (“Green OA”) by self-archiving in their institutional
 repositories.

 and in implying that a shift in this policy began to evidence itself in
 2012?
  (I assume here that he means, in the sentence above, self-archiving of
 the accepted manuscript.

 3.

 Elsevier construes *embargoed* open access as green archiving?


 Thanks

 Regards,
 Brian Simboli




 --

 Brian Simboli
 Science Librarian
 Information Resources
 E.W. Fairchild Martindale
 Lehigh University
 8A East Packer Avenue
 Bethlehem, PA 18015-3170(610) 758-5003  Fax (610) 758-6524
 E-mail:  b...@lehigh.edu




-- 

Brian Simboli
Science Librarian
Information Resources
E.W. Fairchild Martindale
Lehigh University
8A East Packer Avenue
Bethlehem, PA 18015-3170(610) 758-5003  Fax (610) 758-6524
E-mail:  b...@lehigh.edu
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Fwd: Request for clarifications from Elsevier

[Stevan Harnad]

-- Forwarded message --
From: Brian Simboli b...@lehigh.edu
Date: Thu, May 21, 2015 at 9:53 PM
Subject: Request for clarifications from Elsevier
To: liblice...@gmail.com, a.w...@elsevier.com, amscifo...@gmail.com


Dr. Wise,

So that I better understand the emerging controversy about Elsevier's new
archiving policies, can you publicly address the following questions?

1.

Is this correct?

Elsevier no longer allows full public access immediately to an accepted
manuscript. It allows on-campus (private) institutional repository
access, until the embargo period is up. This new policy applies
retrospectively, which is to say, institutions can be asked to take down
articles that were posted according to the old policies, with some possible
negotiable wiggle time to accommodate transitions.

2.


is Stevan Harnad correct, or not correct, in claiming in the combox at

http://www.elsevier.com/connect/coar-recting-the-record

that

Since 2004 Elsevier had endorsed authors providing free immediate
(un-embargoed) access (“Green OA”) by self-archiving in their institutional
repositories.

and in implying that a shift in this policy began to evidence itself in
2012?
 (I assume here that he means, in the sentence above, self-archiving of the
accepted manuscript.

3.

Elsevier construes *embargoed* open access as green archiving?


Thanks

Regards,
Brian Simboli




-- 

Brian Simboli
Science Librarian
Information Resources
E.W. Fairchild Martindale
Lehigh University
8A East Packer Avenue
Bethlehem, PA 18015-3170(610) 758-5003  Fax (610) 758-6524
E-mail:  b...@lehigh.edu
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: COAR-recting the record

[Stevan Harnad]

I will not do yet another point-by-point rebuttal
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1150-Elsevier-updates-its-article-sharing-policies,-perspectives-and-services.html,
just to have it all once again ignored by Alicia/Elsevier, responding yet
again with nothing but empty jargon and double talk:

*At each stage of the publication process authors can share their
research: before submission, from acceptance, upon publication, and post
publication.*


This “share” is a weasel word. It does not mean OA. It means what authors
have always been able to do, without need of publisher permission: They can
share copies — electronic or paper — with other individuals. That’s the
60-year old practice of mailing preprints and reprints individually to
requesters. *OA means free immediate access online to all would-be users.*

*For authors who want free immediate access to their articles, we continue
to give all authors a choice to publish gold open access with a wide number
of open access journals and over 1600 hybrid titles “*


In other words, now, the only Elsevier-autthorized way authors can provide
OA is to pay extra for it (“Gold OA”).

Since 2004 http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3771.html
Elsevier had endorsed authors providing free immediate (un-embargoed)
access (“Green OA”) by self-archiving in their institutional repositories.
The double-talk began in 2012
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/961-Some-Quaint-Elsevier-Tergiversation-on-Rights-Retention.html
.

Elsevier can’t seem to bring itself to admit quite openly (sic) that they
have (after a lot of ambiguous double-talk) back-pedalled and reneged on
their prior policy, instead imposing embargoes of various lengths. They
desperately want to be perceived as having taken a positive, progressive
step forward. Hence all the denial and double-talk.

They try to say that their decision is “fair” and “evidence based” —
whereas in fact it is based on asking some biassed and ambiguous questions
to some librarians, authors and administrators after having first used a
maximum of ever-changing pseudo-legal gibberish to ensure that they can
only respond with confusion to the confusion that Elsevier has sown.

We cannot get Elsevier to adopt a fair, clear policy (along the lines of
their original 2004 one) but we should certainly publicize as loudly and
widely as possible the disgraceful and tendentious spin with which they are
now trying to sell their unfair, unclear and exploitative back-pedalling.

Stevan Harnad

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) 
a.w...@elsevier.com wrote:

  Hello everyone –



 Just a quick note to draw your attention to our article, posted today in
 Elsevier Connect and in response to yesterday’s statement by COAR:
 http://www.elsevier.com/connect/coar-recting-the-record.  I’ll also
 append the full text of this response below.



 You might also be interested in this Library Connect webinar on some of
 the new institutional repository services we are piloting (
 http://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/articles/2015-01/webinar-institutional-research-repositories-characteristics-relationships-and-roles)
 and reading our policies for yourselves:



- Sharing –
http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-posting-policy
- Hosting - http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/hosting



 With best wishes,

 Alicia

 *COAR-recting the record*

 We have received neutral-to-positive responses from research institutions
 and the wider research community. We are therefore a little surprised that
 COAR has formed such a negative view, and chosen not to feedback their
 concerns directly to us.  We would like to correct the misperceptions.

 Our sharing policy is more liberal in supporting the dissemination and use
 of research:

- At each stage of the publication process authors can share their
research: before submission, from acceptance, upon publication, and post
publication.
- In institutional repositories, which no longer require a formal
agreement to host full text content
- Authors can also share on commercial platforms such as social
collaboration networks
- We provide new services to authors such as the share link which
enables authors to post and share a customized link for 50 days free access
to the final published article
- For authors who want free immediate access to their articles, we
continue to give all authors a choice to publish gold open access with a
wide number of open access journals and over 1600 hybrid titles

 Unlike the claims in this COAR document, the policy changes are based on
 feedback from our authors and institutional partners, they are
 evidence-based, and they are in alignment with the STM article sharing
 principles.  They introduce absolutely no changes in our embargo periods.
 And they are not intended to suddenly embargo and make inaccessible content
 currently available to readers – as we have

[GOAL] Re: Global coalition of organizations denounce Elsevier's new sharing policy

[Stevan Harnad]

Exchange with Alicia Wise, Elsevier:

http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1150-.html

ALICIA WISE, ELSEVIER:

Hi Stevan –

We continue to permit immediate self-archiving in an author’s institutional
repository. This is now true for all institutional repositories, not only
those with which we have agreements or those that do not have mandates. You
are correct that under our old policy, authors could post anywhere without
an embargo if their institution didn’t have a mandate. Our new policy is
designed to be consistent and fair for everybody, and we believe it now
reflects how the institutional repository landscape has evolved in the last
10+ years.

We require embargo periods because for subscription articles, an
appropriate amount of time is needed for journals to deliver value to
subscribing customers before the manuscript becomes available for free.
Libraries understandably will not subscribe if the content is immediately
available for free. Our sharing policy now reflects that reality.

With kind wishes,
Alicia

Dr Alicia Wise
Director of Access  Policy
Elsevier
a.w...@elsevier.com
@wisealic
—

STEVAN HARNAD

Dear Alicia,

Unless I am misunderstanding something, your response seems to be a play on
words (double-talk).

You say Elsevier permits “immediate self-archiving in… all institutional
repositories, not only those with which we have agreements or those that do
not have mandates.”

But “self-archiving” means (and always has meant) Open Access
self-archiving.

Otherwise it would merely mean “depositing,” for which no one needs (or has
ever needed) Elsevier’s permission.

Embargoed depositing is not OA self-archiving (and never was).

So what is new is not the (unneeded) permission from Elsevier to deposit,
but the very new and regressive embargo on making the deposit immediately
OA — in other words, an embargo on the immediate self-archiving that
Elsevier had been officially permitting since 2004.

It is shameful to try to justify this flagrant back-pedalling as being done
“to be consistent and fair for everybody”.

It was clearly done solely to sustain subscriptions at all costs (to
research access, usage and progress). And Elsever should at least admit
that, openly (sic).

Sincerely,

Stevan Harnad


On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Kathleen Shearer 
m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com wrote:

 Please excuse the cross posting.

 For Immediate Release
 Wednesday, May 20, 2015

 Contact:
 Ranit Schmelzer (SPARC)
 202-538-1065
 sparcme...@arl.org

 Katharina Müller (COAR)
 49 551 39-22215
 off...@coar-repositories.org

 -

 *NEW POLICY FROM ELSEVIER IMPEDES OPEN ACCESS AND SHARING*

 *Global coalition of organizations denounce the policy and urge Elsevier
 to revise it*

 *Washington, DC and Göttingen, Germany* – Elsevier’s new sharing and
 hosting policy
 http://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-updates-its-policies-perspectives-and-services-on-article-sharing
  represents a significant obstacle to the dissemination and use of
 research knowledge, and creates unnecessary barriers for Elsevier published
 authors in complying with funders’ open access policies, according to an
 analysis by the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition
 (SPARC) and the Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR).

 “Elsevier’s policy is in direct conflict with the global trend towards
 open access and serves only to dilute the benefits of openly sharing
 research results,” said Heather Joseph, Executive Director of SPARC and
 Kathleen Shearer, Executive Director of COAR, in a joint statement.
 “Elsevier claims that the policy advances sharing but in fact, it does the
 opposite. We strongly urge Elsevier to revise it.”

 The new stance marks a significant departure from Elsevier’s initial
 policy, established in 2004, which allowed authors to self-archive their
 final accepted manuscripts of peer-reviewed articles in institutional
 repositories without delay.  While the stated purpose of the new revision
 is, in part, to roll back an ill-conceived 2012 amendment prohibiting
 authors at institutions that have adopted campus-wide Open Access policies
 from immediate self archiving, the net result of the new policy is that
 Elsevier has placed greater restrictions on sharing articles.

 Twenty-three groups today released the following statement in opposition
 to the policy:

 “On April 30, 2015, Elsevier announced a new sharing and hosting policy
 for Elsevier journal articles. This policy represents a significant
 obstacle to the dissemination and use of research knowledge, and creates
 unnecessary barriers for Elsevier published authors in complying with
 funders’ open access policies. In addition, the policy has been adopted
 without any evidence that immediate sharing of articles has a negative
 impact on publishers’ subscriptions.

 “Despite the claim by Elsevier that the policy advances sharing, it
 actually does the opposite. The policy imposes unacceptably long

[GOAL] Re: Has the OA movement over-reacted to challenges on peer review?

[Stevan Harnad]

 On May 14, 2015, at 5:12 PM, Dana Roth dzr...@library.caltech.edu wrote:
 
 I fail to see how identifying a presumed defect (i.e., DOAJ's listing of a 
 questionable journal) is defamatory.
 
 Since DOAJ, in the past, was essentially clueless (or reluctant to act) about 
 questionable journals, isn't Jeffery Beal doing the community a very 
 important service by alerting us to what might be an unresolved problem?

Neither Jeffrey Beall nor DOAJ is yet performing an authoritative, reliable 
service. 
Both are better than nothing. Neither individually, nor both together, are 
enough, 
if we need to know with high probability whether a journal is legitimate or not.
 Even less so if we need to know the quality (if any) of a new journal (and 
most 
of these Gold OA journals are new).

This is partly because there is no way to know the quality of a new journal, 
whether 
OA or subscription. Only time will tell, and the potential 
authorship/readership will judge
it from its track record, once there is one. (This also applies to 
“mega-journals” like PLOS One, 
which is far too big and uneven to establish a uniform track record.)

But in today’s volume of output, and press to publish-or-perish, authors are 
not waiting, 
and the fashionability (not paired with a real comprehension) of OA has 
conferred a superficial 
legitimacy on quick publication in new OA “journals” on the pretext that it is 
being done for OA 
(when it is really for quick, sure publication).

And, in the background, Green OA is still there, to provide OA, while 
publishing in journals
with track records, their quality standards known, having won their level 
through the test of
time.

To my mind, the Gold OA journal conundrum — solved by neither DOAJ nor Beall — 
is yet
another symptom of a rather unthinking (and unnecessary) rush for what glitters 
(Fools Gold), 
instead of mandating and providing Green OA now and otherwise allowing nature 
to take its course, 
letting Fair Gold OA come once universal Green OA has made subscriptions 
unsustainable, 
forcing the established journals to downsize and convert to Fair Gold.

Meanwhile, for those who want OA now, they need only mandate and provide it, 
without having
to worry about the quality of new journals or the reliability of  Beall or DOAJ.

Ditto for peer-review reform (which is also not a valid pretext for publishing 
in journals without
track records for quality). New forms of peer review need time too, to 
demonstrate that they
work.

Stevan Harnad

 
 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 mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
 http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm 
 http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
 [goal-boun...@eprints.org mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of 
 Jean-Claude Guédon [jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca 
 mailto:jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca]
 Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 9:14 AM
 To: goal@eprints.org mailto:goal@eprints.org
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Has the OA movement over-reacted to challenges on peer 
 review?
 
 Surprisingly, Dr. Schwartz has not yet noticed that a rather open and 
 vigorous debate about OA has been going on for the better part of two 
 decades, including debates among OA supporters. Mr. Beall is absolutely 
 welcomed in this debate, so long as he debates (as opposed to taking 
 potshots, for example).
 
 Furthermore, what I was doing was not intervening in  an OA debate; it was 
 simply reacting to Mr. Beall's defamatory comment about DOAJ  (I am not too 
 surprised... etc.).
 
 DOAJ is an open, transparent, organization that tries to put some good 
 information about OA journals. It has limited resources and it relies on a 
 number of volunteers; in short, it does its best in a very honest fashion. It 
 is not perfect, but few things are perfect in this vale of tears...
 
 Those who see mistakes in the DOAJ list should do as those who see mistakes 
 in Wikipedia: rather than criticize the device, help correct the content.
 
 As for the alleged bullying dimension of my statement, I could not even begin 
 to comment. I do not have the psychiatric credentials of Dr. Schwartz, and 
 would not know how to handle categories that seem to change significantly 
 every decade or so. Let me be clear, however, on one crucial point: bullying 
 (as I understand this term - i.e. a strong individual imposing his/her will 
 on another individual ) was not among my intentions. I was simply rising to 
 the defence of an organization that was inappropriately attacked. It may just 
 be that one's vigour is felt by the other as bullying, but then what 
 about a vigorous ... debate?
 
 In conclusion, thank you for the powerful partisan characterization: this 
 is an evaluation I would never have dared make about myself. face-smile.png 
 
 --
 Jean-Claude Guédon

[GOAL] Re: Fair Golf vs. Fools Gold

[Stevan Harnad]

The subject header should of course have read Fair Gold vs

Apologies for the typo. (Someone will surely find a punny in there...)

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote:

 Predictably, I won’t try to calculate how much a fair Gold OA fee should
 be because (as I have argued and tried to show many times before) I do not
 think there can be a Fair Gold OA fee until Green OA has been universally
 mandated and provided: Pre-Green Gold is Fools Gold
 http://j.mp/foolsGOLDoa.


 Before universal Green OA, there is no need for Gold OA at all — not,  at
 least , if the purpose is to provide OA, rather than to spawn a pre-emptive
 fleet of Gold OA journals (indcluding many “predatory” ones), or a
 supplementary source of revenue for hybrid (subscription/gold) OA
 publishers.


 The reason is that today — i.e., prior to universally mandated Green OA —
 both subscription journals and Gold OA journals continue to perform (and
 fund) functions that will be obsolate after universal Green OA:


 Peers review for free. Apart from that non-expense, here is what has been
 mentioned “*for a small journal publishing only 20 peer-reviewed articles
 per year”*:


 *(a) “top-of-the-line journal hosting”*: Obsolete after universal Green
 OA.


 The worldwide distributed network of Green OA institutional repositories
 hosts its own paper output, both pre and post peer review and acceptance by
 the journal. Acceptance is just a tag. Refereeing is done on the repository
 version. Simple, standard software notifies referees and gives them access
 to the unrefereed draft.


 *(b) “a senior academic to devote just a little less than one full day per
 article”*: This is a genuine function and expense:


 The referees have to be selected, the reports have to be adjudicated, the
 author has to be informed what to do, and the revised final draft has to be
 adjudicated — all by a competent editor. The real-time estimate sounds
 right for ultimately accepted articles — but ultimately rejected articles
 take time too (and for a 20-accepted-articles-per-year journal there will
 need to be a no-fault submission fee
 http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html so that accepted
 authors don’t have to pay for the rejected ones. (Journals with higher
 quality standards will have higher rejection rates.)


 *“(c) a part-time senior support staff at a nice hourly rate to provide
 over 2 days' support per peer-reviewed article”*: Copy-editing is either
 obsolete or needs to be made a separate, optional service. For managing
 paper submissions and referee correspondence, much of this can be done with
 form-letters using simple, standard software. Someone other than the editor
 may be needed to manage that, but at nowhere near 2 days of real time per
 accepted article.


 But perhaps the biggest difference between post-Green Fair Gold and
 pre-Green Fools Gold is the fact that Gold OA fees will be paid out of a
 small portion institutional subscription cancellation savings post-Green,
 whereas pre-Green they have to be paid out of extra funds from somewhere
 else, over and above subscription expenses.


 That, and the fact that there is no need for pre-Green Gold OA and its
 costs, since Green OA can provide OA at no extra cost.


 To summarize: pre-Green Fools Gold is (1) overpriced and (2) unnecessary,
 whereas post-Green Fair Gold will (3) fund itself, because Green will have
 made subscriptions unsustainable.


 And, no, there is no coherent gradual transition from here to there other
 than mandating Green…


 Harnad, S (2014) The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions
 unsustainable: Mandate Green Open Access
 http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/.
 *LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog 4/28 *
 http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/

 On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Reckling, Falk falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at
 wrote:

 That data are supported by an initial funding programme of the Austrian
 Science Fund (FWF) for OA journals in HSS, see:
 http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16462

 best falk
 
 Falk Reckling, PhD
 Strategic Analysis
 Department Head
 Austrian Science Fund (FWF)
 Sensengasse 1
 A-1090 Vienna
 Tel: +43-1-5056740-8861
 Mobile: +43-664-5307368
 Email: falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at

 Web: https://www.fwf.ac.at/en
 Twitter: @FWFOpenAccess
 ORCID: http://orcid.org/-0002-1326-1766

 
 Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org]quot; im
 Auftrag von quot;Heather Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
 Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Mai 2015 15:43
 An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Betreff: [GOAL]  $1, 300 per article or $25, 000 annual subsidy can
 generously support small scholar-led OA journal publishing

 Drawing from interviews and focus groups

[GOAL] Fair Golf vs. Fools Gold

[Stevan Harnad]

Predictably, I won’t try to calculate how much a fair Gold OA fee should be
because (as I have argued and tried to show many times before) I do not
think there can be a Fair Gold OA fee until Green OA has been universally
mandated and provided: Pre-Green Gold is Fools Gold
http://j.mp/foolsGOLDoa.


Before universal Green OA, there is no need for Gold OA at all — not,  at
least , if the purpose is to provide OA, rather than to spawn a pre-emptive
fleet of Gold OA journals (indcluding many “predatory” ones), or a
supplementary source of revenue for hybrid (subscription/gold) OA
publishers.


The reason is that today — i.e., prior to universally mandated Green OA —
both subscription journals and Gold OA journals continue to perform (and
fund) functions that will be obsolate after universal Green OA:


Peers review for free. Apart from that non-expense, here is what has been
mentioned “*for a small journal publishing only 20 peer-reviewed articles
per year”*:


*(a) “top-of-the-line journal hosting”*: Obsolete after universal Green OA.


The worldwide distributed network of Green OA institutional repositories
hosts its own paper output, both pre and post peer review and acceptance by
the journal. Acceptance is just a tag. Refereeing is done on the repository
version. Simple, standard software notifies referees and gives them access
to the unrefereed draft.


*(b) “a senior academic to devote just a little less than one full day per
article”*: This is a genuine function and expense:


The referees have to be selected, the reports have to be adjudicated, the
author has to be informed what to do, and the revised final draft has to be
adjudicated — all by a competent editor. The real-time estimate sounds
right for ultimately accepted articles — but ultimately rejected articles
take time too (and for a 20-accepted-articles-per-year journal there will
need to be a no-fault submission fee
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html so that accepted
authors don’t have to pay for the rejected ones. (Journals with higher
quality standards will have higher rejection rates.)


*“(c) a part-time senior support staff at a nice hourly rate to provide
over 2 days' support per peer-reviewed article”*: Copy-editing is either
obsolete or needs to be made a separate, optional service. For managing
paper submissions and referee correspondence, much of this can be done with
form-letters using simple, standard software. Someone other than the editor
may be needed to manage that, but at nowhere near 2 days of real time per
accepted article.


But perhaps the biggest difference between post-Green Fair Gold and
pre-Green Fools Gold is the fact that Gold OA fees will be paid out of a
small portion institutional subscription cancellation savings post-Green,
whereas pre-Green they have to be paid out of extra funds from somewhere
else, over and above subscription expenses.


That, and the fact that there is no need for pre-Green Gold OA and its
costs, since Green OA can provide OA at no extra cost.


To summarize: pre-Green Fools Gold is (1) overpriced and (2) unnecessary,
whereas post-Green Fair Gold will (3) fund itself, because Green will have
made subscriptions unsustainable.


And, no, there is no coherent gradual transition from here to there other
than mandating Green…


Harnad, S (2014) The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions
unsustainable: Mandate Green Open Access
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/.
*LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog 4/28 *
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Reckling, Falk falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at
wrote:

 That data are supported by an initial funding programme of the Austrian
 Science Fund (FWF) for OA journals in HSS, see:
 http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16462

 best falk
 
 Falk Reckling, PhD
 Strategic Analysis
 Department Head
 Austrian Science Fund (FWF)
 Sensengasse 1
 A-1090 Vienna
 Tel: +43-1-5056740-8861
 Mobile: +43-664-5307368
 Email: falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at

 Web: https://www.fwf.ac.at/en
 Twitter: @FWFOpenAccess
 ORCID: http://orcid.org/-0002-1326-1766

 
 Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org]quot; im Auftrag
 von quot;Heather Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
 Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Mai 2015 15:43
 An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Betreff: [GOAL]  $1, 300 per article or $25, 000 annual subsidy can
 generously support small scholar-led OA journal publishing

 Drawing from interviews and focus groups with editors of small scholar-led
 journals, I've developed one generous model that illustrates how $1,300 per
 article or a $25,000 / year journal subsidy can generously a support small
 open access journal. In brief, for a small journal publishing only 20
 peer-reviewed 

[GOAL] Re: Fair Gold vs. Fools Gold

[Stevan Harnad]

, I agree: There is enough
money to pay for Fair Gold several times over. But it requires Green OA
mandates to downsize journal publishing to Fair Gold, by making
subscriptions unsustainable.

9. If Google Scholar (or another search engine) could quickly and precisely
 index the documents in open access, be they in repositories, or in OA
 journals, it would help the OA movement enormously.


It is doing it already. What Google Scholar does not index is not OA (or
badly tagged by the repositories).

SH


 Jean-Claude Guédon
 Professeur titulaire
 Littérature comparée
 Université de Montréal



   Le jeudi 14 mai 2015 à 14:07 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :

 The subject header should of course have read Fair Gold vs



  Apologies for the typo. (Someone will surely find a punny in there...)


  On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  Predictably, I won’t try to calculate how much a fair Gold OA fee should
 be because (as I have argued and tried to show many times before) I do not
 think there can be a Fair Gold OA fee until Green OA has been universally
 mandated and provided: Pre-Green Gold is Fools Gold
 http://j.mp/foolsGOLDoa.


 Before universal Green OA, there is no need for Gold OA at all — not,  at
 least , if the purpose is to provide OA, rather than to spawn a pre-emptive
 fleet of Gold OA journals (indcluding many “predatory” ones), or a
 supplementary source of revenue for hybrid (subscription/gold) OA
 publishers.


 The reason is that today — i.e., prior to universally mandated Green OA —
 both subscription journals and Gold OA journals continue to perform (and
 fund) functions that will be obsolate after universal Green OA:


 Peers review for free. Apart from that non-expense, here is what has been
 mentioned “*for a small journal publishing only 20 peer-reviewed articles
 per year”*:


 *(a) “top-of-the-line journal hosting”*: Obsolete after universal Green
 OA.


 The worldwide distributed network of Green OA institutional repositories
 hosts its own paper output, both pre and post peer review and acceptance by
 the journal. Acceptance is just a tag. Refereeing is done on the repository
 version. Simple, standard software notifies referees and gives them access
 to the unrefereed draft.


 *(b) “a senior academic to devote just a little less than one full day per
 article”*: This is a genuine function and expense:


 The referees have to be selected, the reports have to be adjudicated, the
 author has to be informed what to do, and the revised final draft has to be
 adjudicated — all by a competent editor. The real-time estimate sounds
 right for ultimately accepted articles — but ultimately rejected articles
 take time too (and for a 20-accepted-articles-per-year journal there will
 need to be a no-fault submission fee
 http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html so that accepted
 authors don’t have to pay for the rejected ones. (Journals with higher
 quality standards will have higher rejection rates.)


 *“(c) a part-time senior support staff at a nice hourly rate to provide
 over 2 days' support per peer-reviewed article”*: Copy-editing is either
 obsolete or needs to be made a separate, optional service. For managing
 paper submissions and referee correspondence, much of this can be done with
 form-letters using simple, standard software. Someone other than the editor
 may be needed to manage that, but at nowhere near 2 days of real time per
 accepted article.


 But perhaps the biggest difference between post-Green Fair Gold and
 pre-Green Fools Gold is the fact that Gold OA fees will be paid out of a
 small portion institutional subscription cancellation savings post-Green,
 whereas pre-Green they have to be paid out of extra funds from somewhere
 else, over and above subscription expenses.


 That, and the fact that there is no need for pre-Green Gold OA and its
 costs, since Green OA can provide OA at no extra cost.


 To summarize: pre-Green Fools Gold is (1) overpriced and (2) unnecessary,
 whereas post-Green Fair Gold will (3) fund itself, because Green will have
 made subscriptions unsustainable.


 And, no, there is no coherent gradual transition from here to there other
 than mandating Green…


 Harnad, S (2014) The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions
 unsustainable: Mandate Green Open Access
 http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/.
 *LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog 4/28 *
 http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/


   On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Reckling, Falk 
 falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at wrote:

 That data are supported by an initial funding programme of the Austrian
 Science Fund (FWF) for OA journals in HSS, see:
 http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16462

 best falk
 
 Falk Reckling, PhD
 Strategic Analysis
 Department Head
 Austrian

[GOAL] Re: Journal Impact Factor will show that embargo hurts the Impact Factor and thus the reputation and value of subscription-based journals

[Stevan Harnad]

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Éric Archambault 
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com wrote:

  Stevan and other proponents of OA are adamant that embargoes are
 unacceptable. It is a huge fight, a very unequal one. What is likely to
 happen to give the final word to these advocates and lead to embargo
 elimination is the fact that embargoed journals are not going to get the
 citations that green-friendly journals are going to get. This will mean
 that embargoed journals are going to receive lower Journal Impact Factors
 (JIF), as computed by Thomson Reuters.


I still hope it will happen sooner than that: not having to wait for
journal publishers to conclude that they are losing citations because of
Green OA embargoes, hence losing authors and subscribers, hence deciding to
stop embargoing Green OA.

Rather, I hope authors, their institutions and their funders will conclude
-- much sooner -- that they are losing citations because of Green OA
embargoes despite mandatory immediate deposit
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/, and that they will (first) implement
their repository's copy-request Button
https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy to provide
almost-OA during the Green OA embargo (and then let nature -- and human
nature -- take its natural course...)

*Not only am I certain that mandating and providing universal
immediate-Green-OA will provide 100% OA (and that that will eventually lead
to subscriptions becoming unsustainable, forcing a transition to universal
Fair-Gold OA) but I am almost as confident that mandating and providing
universal immediate-deposit http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/375854/ plus
immediate Almost-OA via the copy-request Button will have much the same
effect.*


 No need to waste money on Fool's Gold
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/
now; mandating immediate-deposit plus the Button is enough...

SH

Despite all the complaints about the JIF, the JIF is widely used, and a
 lower IF means receiving fewer and sometimes lower quality manuscripts, a
 vicious circle that will erode a journal’s prestige. Embargoes are also
 going to encourage authors to seek publications in gold journals and to
 experiment with new venues that offer a more innovative, more disruptive
 model. This means that publishers who insist on an embargo period are going
 to hurt their journals by lowering their intrinsic value and
 competitiveness. Though research to date has concentrated on how much green
 increases the citedness of individual articles, the same effect can only be
 reflected in aggregate for  journals – this is a mechanical truth. This
 lowering of the impact factor will be helped by the prescribed use of DOI
 from the birth of papers as many publishers are insisting that preprints
 carry the final version DOI and point to the paying version of articles. So
 although publishers may see embargoes as helping to protect the value of
 their subscription-based journals, quite the opposite is very likely to
 happen.



 This is a serious consideration as strictly subscription-based papers
 (with no archiving) have the least impact on average  in 7 out of 22
 academic/scientific fields. See
 http://science-metrix.com/files/science-metrix/publications/d_1.8_sm_ec_dg-rtd_proportion_oa_1996-2013_v11p.pdf
 p.24.



 It is therefore an essential practice to generalize the use of a single
 homogeneous DOI in all archives to help Thomson Reuters accurately compute
 the aggregate impact of papers and of journals, and to monitor the adverse
 effect of embargoes on the reputation of journals.



 Eric Archambault

 Science-Metrix

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


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

[GOAL] Re: Elsevier updates it article-sharing policies, perspectives and services

[Stevan Harnad]

 fees, paid for out of a
fraction of institutions' windfall savings from cancelling all
subscriptions.

And what will make those subscription cancellations possible is exactly
what Elsevier and other publishers are trying to prevent, or at least delay
as long as possible, by embargoing it, namely universal, immediate,
unembargoed Green OA: precisely what the research community is trying to
mandate.

Harnad, S (2014) The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions
unsustainable: Mandate Green Open Access
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/
. *LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog **4/28 *
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad
/


Harnad, S. (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity
Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/.
D-Lib Magazine 16 (7/8)
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html.
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/


Harnad, S. (2009) The PostGutenberg Open Access Journal. In: Cope, B. 
Phillips, A (Eds.) *The Future of the Academic Journal*. Chandos.
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/265617/


Harnad, S. (1997) How to Fast-Forward Serials to the Inevitable and the
Optimal for Scholars and Scientists. *Serials Librarian* 30: 73-81.
(Reprinted in C. Christiansen  C. Leatham, Eds. *Pioneering New Serials
Frontiers: From Petroglyphs to CyberSerials*. NY: Haworth Press, and in
French translation as Comment Accelerer l'Ineluctable Evolution des Revues
Erudites
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Eharnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad97.revues.francais.html
vers
la Solution Optimale pour les Chercheurs et la Recherche
http://www.enssib.fr/eco-doc/harnadinteg.html http://cogprints.org/1695/
The outcome is inevitable, and optimal (for the research community and the
public); the only part that is not predictable (because human rationality
is not always predictable) is how long publishers will succeed in delaying
the optimal and inevitable...

Best wishes,

Stevan


 With kind wishes,



 Alicia



 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:* Repositories discussion list [mailto:
 jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk] *On Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad
 *Sent:* Friday, May 01, 2015 1:24 PM
 *To:* jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
 *Subject:* Re: Elsevier updates it article-sharing policies, perspectives
 and services





 On May 1, 2015, at 7:30 AM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) a.w...@elsevier.com
 wrote:
 Dear Stevan –

 Elsevier supports the need for researchers to share their research and
 collaborate effectively. In light of the recent STM consultation on the
 principles for article sharing,
 http://www.stm-assoc.org/stm-consultations/scn-consultation-2015/ I
 wanted to reach out to you directly to let you know about some changes we
 are making which will enable Elsevier published content to be shared more
 widely. To underpin these efforts we have updated our approach – informed
 by very constructive input from institutions, authors and funders we work
 with - and are now launching new guidelines. I invite you to read our
 article hosting https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/hosting/_nocache
  and article sharing
 http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-posting-policy guidelines
 on Elsevier.com http://elsevier.com/.

 We have published an article on Elsevier Connect
 http://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-updates-its-policies-perspectives-and-services-on-article-sharing,
 our online communication platform to explain some further details behind
 the changes and the new technologies and exciting pilots we are deploying
 to facilitate sharing. As always, we welcome comments or suggestions, and
 are happy to discuss any questions or concerns.  Please do not hesitate to
 contact me.

 With very kind wishes,

 Alicia

 Key highlights

- We continue to support sharing of preprints, accepted manuscripts,
and final publications and provide simple guidelines for authors about how
they can share at each stage of their workflow.


- We are providing a range of options for researchers to share their
work publicly, including a newShare Links
http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/share-link service which
provides 50 days free access to the final article on ScienceDirect.


- We are making it clear that we want to work with hosting platforms,
such as institutional repositories, to make sharing easy and seamless for
researchers.  We will no longer require an agreement with institutional
repositories and instead clarify that self-archived accepted manuscripts
can be used under a CC-BY-NC-ND license and that they can be hosted and
shared privately during the embargo and publically shared after embargo.


- We are also providing a wider

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

[Stevan Harnad]

 such as arXiv, CiteSeerX, PubMedCentral and Scielo. If we had hard data, we
 would certainly find that they cost very little to operate per available
 paper. These are smart models as they present considerable economies of
 scale, reasonable user friendliness and good discoverability, in addition
 to making their metadata available and making papers fairly convenient to
 retrieve. This model of access is great.

 Getting closer to universal access to public knowledge is not a simple
 question of tolls - it comprises subscription costs, publications costs,
 production costs, distribution cost, opportunity costs.

 Eric Archambault







 -Original Message-
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On
 Behalf Of Heather Morrison
 Sent: April-29-15 8:42 PM
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Elsevier (and other traditional publishers) and PLOS

 Elsevier has much in common with Public Library of Science: both are
 scholarly publishing organizations, focused on science, and in my opinion
 both aggressively advocate sometimes for the best interests of scholarship,
 but often primarily for their own business interests.

 If policy-makers are aiming to help traditional publishers like Elsevier
 survive in an open access environment (a goal I am not sure we all agree
 on), then in formulating policies it is important to keep in mind some very
 basic differences.

 PLOS was born digital and open access and with a full commitment to open
 access. Traditional publishers like Elsevier have a legacy of works under
 copyright and a business model that involves selling rights to these works
 and integrated search services (rather a lot of money at that). In the case
 of Elsevier, this involves millions of works over a long period of time.
 Even if every single article Elsevier publishes from today on were open
 access, this would not impact previously published works. Unless I am
 missing something there is no business model for Elsevier to provide access
 to these previously published works free-of-charge. This means that
 traditional publishers like Elsevier are very likely to have to continue
 with a toll access business model even if they move forward with open
 access publishing. This is an essentially different environment from that
 of a full open access publisher like PLOS. It is not realistic to assume
 that a traditional publisher that must maintain a toll access environment
 will behave in the same way that born open access publishers do. PLOS was
 started from a commitment to providing works free-of-charge. Elsevier and
 publishers like Elsevier have thrived in a toll access environment, and
 will have to maintain a toll access environment. There will be far more
 pressure and incentive to revert to toll access for traditional publishers
 than for PLOS. This is why arguments along the lines that PLOS has been
 around for a while, therefore there are no problems with CC-BY, don't
 necessarily apply to a publisher like Elsevier.

 Elsevier, unlike PLOS, does have its own suite of value-added services
 such as Science Direct and Scopus. When friends of PLOS say there is no
 reason not to grant blanket commercial rights to anyone downstream, I think
 it is important to remember that this represents the perspective of one
 type of publisher. Other journals and publishers either provide value added
 services themselves, or receive revenue from providers of such services,
 e.g. payments from journal aggregators.

 Note that while Elsevier has no incentive to provide access to previously
 published works free-of-charge, they are a green publisher and so authors
 from recent years can make their works published with Elsevier freely
 available through institutional archives. This is one thing green open
 access can achieve right now that gold OA cannot. I'd like to acknowledge
 that Stevan Harnad has been right on this point for many, many years.

 I'm still signed on for the Elsevier boycott, in case anyone is wondering:
 http://thecostofknowledge.com/

 best,

 --
 Dr. Heather Morrison
 Assistant Professor
 École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
 University of Ottawa
 http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
 Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
 heather.morri...@uottawa.ca



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

 -
 No virus found in this message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4331/9577 - Release Date: 04/19/15
 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

 ___
 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] Endorsement Is Not Peer Review

[Stevan Harnad]

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:

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



Endorsement is not peer review.

Harnad, S. (1998/2000/2004) The invisible hand of peer review
http://www.nature.com/nature/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html.
*Nature* [online]
(5 Nov. 1998), *Exploit Interactive*
http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue5/peer-review/ 5 (2000): and in Shatz, B.
(2004) (ed.) *Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry*. Rowland  Littlefield. Pp.
235-242. http://cogprints.org/1646/

Harnad, S. (2007) The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/. In: Anna Gacs. The Culture of
Periodicals from the Perspective of the Electronic Age. L'Harmattan.
99-106. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/


Please also see the reference below, on crowd-sourcing.

Stevan Harnad

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

 On 1 May 2015, at 10:10, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote:

 The only essential cost in peer-reviewed research publication in the
 online (PostGutenberg) era is the cost of managing peer review.

 Harnad, S (2014) The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions
 unsustainable: Mandate Green Open Access
 http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/
 . *LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog **4/28 *
 http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/

 Harnad, S. (2014) Crowd-Sourced Peer Review: Substitute or supplement for
 the current outdated system?
 http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/08/21/crowd-sourced-peer-review-substitute-or-supplement/
  *LSE Impact Blog* 8/21 August 21 2014
 http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/08/21/crowd-sourced-peer-review-substitute-or-supplement/
 Harnad, S. (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity
 Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed
 http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/. D-Lib Magazine 16 (7/8)
 http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html.
 http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/




 On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Éric Archambault 
 eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com wrote:

 Heather

 I think using the term toll when what we mean is subscription is
 quite limiting. There is always a toll charged or taken whatever the model
 used to diffuse scientific knowledge. The important question is not about
 toll or profit, it is about seeking an effective knowledge delivery system
 that is as close as possible to universal access to academic and scientific
 knowledge, while doing this relatively efficiently at the system level.
 Like anything else in our money-mediated society, there is a cost
 associated with achieving this objective. Several models are available, all
 with their own tolls.

 PLoS charges tolls at the entry point in the form of Article Processing
 Charge while Elsevier charges tolls in the form of subscription. Both limit
 access at one end of the communication pipeline (to publish, or to read),
 both charge money. Hence, Elsevier and PLoS both are toll access publishers.

 Everything being equal, between the two, the APC model is inherently more
 efficient as it more largely unleashes the $450 billion spent annually by
 governments the world over to support public research. However, it presents
 its own problems of equal access (that is, equal access to the capacity to
 publish equal quality papers) and is likely to perpetuate the North-South
 divide if no steps are taken.

 Gold with no APC is certainly also associated with large tolls, including
 resource allocation inefficiencies, and lack of sustainability which
 reduces the value of the published output (it takes a long time to build a
 reputation for a publication venue and papers in abandoned journals are
 less likely to be read over time). Individuals in the top 5% income bracket
 (e.g. university professors) producing journals is not a model of efficient
 allocation of public money. Finding long term sustainable income to pay for
 the rest of the personnel involved in APC-less gold also present some
 definitive challenges, sustainability being the toughest.

 Hybrid, à la pièce, gold probably present the worse of all worlds as it
 is expensive, paid twice for, and very difficult to discover considering
 that publishers are packaging these papers among the restricted access
 material. These should be duplicated on separate parts of the publishers'
 website and their metadata freely

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

[Stevan Harnad]

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 6:40 AM, Éric Archambault 
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com wrote:



 Assuming one lives in a purely solipsistic universe, you are unanimously
 right.


Solipsism? I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean...

The funder funds the research.
The institution salaries the researcher.
The researcher writes the paper.
The peers review (for free).
The author deposits the final draft in the institutional repository (cost
per paper of tagging, archiving, preservation is near-zero)

The repository is funded by the institution for multiple purposes

The only remaining essential cost of peer-reviewed research publication in
the online (PostGutenberg) era is the cost of managing peer review (around
$200 per paper)


The rest is just coal-stoking, waiting to be phased out as obsolete (but
still clinging desperately to the status quo, its current raison d'être,
and the revenue streams to which it has become accustomed).

No. Tagging, archiving, and preservation's tiny cost will not sustain those
accustomed revenue streams or anything faintly like them, so there is no
point talking about the cost of access-provision (toll). That real cost
today is virtually zero, but the research community has not yet realized it.

(Southampton University as a whole had a very weak Green OA mandate (since
2008 http://roarmap.eprints.org/405/). Now, thanks to HEFCE REF 2020
http://roarmap.eprints.org/362/, it will be much stronger. The subset of
Southampton paper output that has been available as full-text OA since 2003
http://roarmap.eprints.org/406/ is the output of the School of
Electronics and Computer Science (ECS), which has had a strong and
effective OA mandate since 2003. The ECS repository was integrated with the
University repository two years ago. That is why the ratio of accessible
full-texts to mere metadata is still so low. For a better ratio, see other
repositories in ROARMAP with stronger (and longer) mandates.)

Vincent-Lamarre, Philippe, Boivin, Jade, Gargouri, Yassine, Larivière,
Vincent and Harnad, Stevan (2014) Estimating Open Access Mandate
Effectiveness: I. The MELIBEA Score. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/
(Submitted) http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/

Swan, Alma; Gargouri, Yassine; Hunt, Megan;  Harnad, Stevan (2015) *Open
Access Policy: Numbers, Analysis, Effectiveness*. Pasteur4OA Workpackage 3
Report. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/375854/

Don't conflate particular Green OA mandate failures with Green OA's actual
potential, which is exactly as I have described it: The only essential
cost in peer-reviewed research publication in the online (PostGutenberg)
era is the cost of managing peer review.

Ipso et alii.



 *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
 Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad
 *Sent:* May-01-15 5:11 AM
 *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Elsevier (and other traditional publishers) and PLOS



 The only essential cost in peer-reviewed research publication in the
 online (PostGutenberg) era is the cost of managing peer review.



  Harnad, S (2014) The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions
 unsustainable: Mandate Green Open Access
 http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/
 . *LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog 4/28 *
 http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/

 Harnad, S. (2014) Crowd-Sourced Peer Review: Substitute or supplement for
 the current outdated system?
 http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/08/21/crowd-sourced-peer-review-substitute-or-supplement/
  *LSE Impact Blog* 8/21 August 21 2014
 http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/08/21/crowd-sourced-peer-review-substitute-or-supplement/

 Harnad, S. (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity
 Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed
 http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/. D-Lib Magazine 16 (7/8)
 http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html.
 http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/







 On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Éric Archambault 
 eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com wrote:

 Heather

 I think using the term toll when what we mean is subscription is quite
 limiting. There is always a toll charged or taken whatever the model used
 to diffuse scientific knowledge. The important question is not about toll
 or profit, it is about seeking an effective knowledge delivery system that
 is as close as possible to universal access to academic and scientific
 knowledge, while doing this relatively efficiently at the system level.
 Like anything else in our money-mediated society, there is a cost
 associated with achieving this objective. Several models are available, all
 with their own tolls.

 PLoS charges tolls at the entry point in the form of Article Processing
 Charge while Elsevier charges tolls in the form of subscription. Both limit
 access at one end of the communication

[GOAL] Re: Elsevier updates it article-sharing policies, perspectives and services

[Stevan Harnad]

On May 1, 2015, at 7:30 AM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) a.w...@elsevier.com
 wrote:
 Dear Stevan –

 Elsevier supports the need for researchers to share their research and
 collaborate effectively. In light of the recent STM consultation on the
 principles for article sharing,
 http://www.stm-assoc.org/stm-consultations/scn-consultation-2015/ I
 wanted to reach out to you directly to let you know about some changes we
 are making which will enable Elsevier published content to be shared more
 widely. To underpin these efforts we have updated our approach – informed
 by very constructive input from institutions, authors and funders we work
 with - and are now launching new guidelines. I invite you to read our
 article hosting https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/hosting/_nocache
  and article sharing
 http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-posting-policy guidelines
 on Elsevier.com http://elsevier.com/.

 We have published an article on Elsevier Connect
 http://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-updates-its-policies-perspectives-and-services-on-article-sharing,
 our online communication platform to explain some further details behind
 the changes and the new technologies and exciting pilots we are deploying
 to facilitate sharing. As always, we welcome comments or suggestions, and
 are happy to discuss any questions or concerns.  Please do not hesitate to
 contact me.

 With very kind wishes,

 Alicia

 Key highlights

- We continue to support sharing of preprints, accepted manuscripts,
and final publications and provide simple guidelines for authors about how
they can share at each stage of their workflow.


- We are providing a range of options for researchers to share their
work publicly, including a newShare Links
http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/share-link service which
provides 50 days free access to the final article on ScienceDirect.


- We are making it clear that we want to work with hosting platforms,
such as institutional repositories, to make sharing easy and seamless for
researchers.  We will no longer require an agreement with institutional
repositories and instead clarify that self-archived accepted manuscripts
can be used under a CC-BY-NC-ND license and that they can be hosted and
shared privately during the embargo and publically shared after embargo.


- We are also providing a wider range of ways for researchers to share
their work privately during the journal’s embargo period, such as in
private workgroups on sites such as Mendeley and MyScienceWork.


 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*


Dear Alicia,

I've looked over the latest Elsevier revision of its policy on author OA
self-archiving, as requested.

The essential points of the latest policy revision are two:

*I.* Elsevier still endorses both immediate-deposit and immediate-OA, for
the pre-refereeing preprint, anywhere (author's institutional home page,
author's institutional repository, Arxiv, etc.).

*II.* Elsevier still endorses immediate-deposit and immediate-OA for the
refereed postprint on the author's home page or in Arxiv, *but
not immediate-OA in the author's institutional repository, where OA is
embargoed.*


You asked for my comments. Here they are:

(1) Elsevier should state quite explicitly that its latest revision of its
policy on author OA self-archiving has taken a very specific step backward
from the policy first adopted in 2004
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3771.html:

*An author may post his version of the final paper on his personal web
site *
*and on his institution's web site (including its institutional
respository). *
*Each posting should include the article's citation and a link to the *
*journal's home page (or the article's DOI). The author does not need our *
*permission to do this, but any other posting (e.g. to a repository *
*elsewhere) would require our permission. By his version we are
referring *
*to his Word or Tex file, not a PDF or HTML downloaded from ScienceDirect
- *
*but the author can update his version to reflect changes made during the *
*refereeing and editing process. Elsevier will continue to be the single, *
*definitive archive for the formal published version. *


Elsevier has withdrawn its endorsement of immediate-OA in the author's
institutional repository. It's best not to try to conceal this in language
that makes it sound as if Elsevier is taking positive steps in response to
the demand for OA.

(2) The distinction between the author's institutional home page and the
author's institutional repository is completely arbitrary and empty. Almost
no one consults either a home page or a repository directly. The deposits
and links are simply *harvested* by Google and Google Scholar (and other
harvesters), and that's where users 

[GOAL] Evidence-Based vs. Ideology-Based Open Access Policy

[Stevan Harnad]

In my own opinion there have been four main reasons for the exceedingly
slow growth of OA (far, far slower than it could have been) — (1) author
inertia and needless copyright worries, (2) publisher resistance via
lobbying and OA embargoes, (3) premature and needless fixation on Gold OA
publishing and (4) premature and needless fixation on Libre OA (re-use
rights, CC-BY).

By far the most urgent and yet fully and immediately reachable objective
has always been free online access to refereed journal articles (“Gratis
OA”), which could long ago have been provided by authors as Green OA
(exactly as computer scientists spontaneously began doing in the 1980s with
anonymous ftp archiving, and physicists began doing in the 1990s with XXX
(then Arxiv).

Instead, authors in most other fields have proved extremely sluggish —
because of (1), and eventually also (2) -- and the public campaign for OA
became needlessly and counterproductively focussed on Gold OA and Libre OA,
which were neither as urgently needed as Gratis OA, nor could they be as
easily provided as Gratis OA.

OA mandates by funders and institutions then began to be recommended and
adopted, but these too have been exceedingly slow in coming, and needlessly
weak, having gotten needlessly wrapped up in Libre and Gold OA, even though
Gratis Green OA is the easiest, most effective and most natural thing to
mandate.

And the irony is that this premature and needless fixation on Libre and
Gold OA (which still persists) has not only helped slow the progress of
Gratis Green OA, but it has also slowed its very own progress.

Because the fastest and surest way to Libre, Fair-Gold OA is to first
mandate Gratis Green OA -- which, once it is being universally provided,
will usher in Libre, Fair-Gold quickly and naturally. This is evident to
anyone who simply thinks it through.

Instead, we now continue to be bogged down in (1) - (4), with many weak and
wishy-washy OA policies, Fools’ Gold (as well as predatory junk Gold OA)
(3) from publishers clouding the landscape, and an almost superstitious
obsession with a Libre OA (2) that most research and researchers don’t need
anywhere near as urgently as they need Gratis OA itself.

Meanwhile, hardly noticed, is the fact that mandates could be incomparably
stronger and more effective if they simply focussed on requiring Green
Gratis OA, in institutional (not institution-external) repositories, where
institutions can monitor and ensure compliance by designating
immediate-deposit as the sole mechanism for submitting publications for
research evaluation (as Liege and HEFCE have done) and implementing the
copy-request Button as the antidote against publisher OA embargoes.

In yet another effort to try to get mandates on the right track — requiring
Gratis Green OA — we have now analyzed the few existing OA policies’
effectiveness to identify which conditions maximize compliance, in the hope
that the research community can at last be persuaded to adopt
evidence-based policies instead of ideology-driven ones:

Vincent-Lamarre, Philippe, Boivin, Jade, Gargouri, Yassine, Larivière,
Vincent and Harnad, Stevan (2015) Estimating Open Access Mandate
Effectiveness: I. The MELIBEA Score http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/.

Swan, Alma; Gargouri, Yassine; Hunt, Megan;  Harnad, Stevan (2015) Open
Access Policy: Numbers, Analysis, Effectiveness
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/375854/. Pasteur4OA Workpackage 3 Report.

Here is a quick little history of OA, particularly highlighting
Southampton’s contribution:

Carr, L., Swan, A. and Harnad, S. (2011) Creating and Curating the
Cognitive Commons: Southampton’s Contribution.
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21844/ In: *Curating the European
University *
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Open Access Policy: Numbers, Analysis, Effectiveness

[Stevan Harnad]

Swan, Alma, Gargouri, Yassine, Hunt, Megan and Harnad, Stevan (2015) Open
Access Policy: Numbers, Analysis, Effectiveness. *Pasteur4OA Work Package 3
report: Open Access policies *http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/375854/
The PASTEUR4OA project analyses what makes an Open Access (OA) policy
effective. The total number of institutional or funder OA policies
worldwide is now 663 (March 2015), over half of them mandatory. ROARMAP,
the policy registry, has been rebuilt to record more policy detail and
provide more extensive search functionality. Deposit rates were measured
for articles in institutions' repositories and compared to the total number
of WoS-indexed articles published from those institutions. Average deposit
rate was over four times as high for institutions with a mandatory policy.
Six positive correlations were found between deposit rates and (1)
Must-Deposit; (2) Cannot-Waive-Deposit; (3)
Deposit-Linked-to-Research-Evaluation; (4) Cannot-Waive-Rights-Retention;
 (5) Must-Make-Deposit-OA (after allowable embargo) and (6) Can-Waive-OA.
For deposit latency, there is a positive correlation between earlier
deposit and (7) Must-Deposit-Immediately as well as with (4)
Cannot-Waive-Rights-Retention and with mandate age. There are not yet
enough OA policies to test whether still further policy conditions would
contribute to mandate effectiveness but the present findings already
suggest that it would be useful for current and future OA policies to adopt
the seven positive conditions so as to accelerate and maximise the growth
of OA.
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] HEFCE/REF Exception Applies to Open Access Date, Not to Deposit

[Stevan Harnad]

As clearly stated in the Review of the Implementation of the RCUK Policy on
Open access
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/RCUK-prod/assets/documents/documents/Openaccessreport.pdf
, the HEFCE/REF exception is not to the deposit requirement but to the OA
requirement, and that makes all the difference in the world:

  HEFCE Post-2014 REF Guidelines for Open Access

The following exceptions deal with cases where deposit of the output is
possible, but there are issues to do with meeting the access requirements.
In the following cases, the output will still be required to meet the
deposit and discovery requirements, but not the access requirements. A
closed-access deposit will be required, and the open access requirements
should be met as soon as possible.

   1.

   The output depends on the reproduction of third party content for which
   open access rights could not be granted (either within the
specified timescales,
   or at all)
2.

   The publication concerned requires an embargo period that exceeds the
   stated maxima, and was the most appropriate publication for the output.
3.

   The publication concerned actively disallows open- access deposit in a
   repository, and was the most appropriate publication for the output.”

www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2014/201407/#d.en.8677

No publisher can block deposit; all they can do is embargo the date on
which access to the deposit is set as Open Access (OA).

All REF submissions must be deposited immediately upon acceptance for
publication -- embargo or no embargo. The length of the allowable OA
embargo, and exemptions from it, are an entirely separate matter.

Immediate-deposit allows a uniform mandate to be adopted by all
institutions and funders, regardless of publisher OA embargo policy.

Once deposited, even if embargoed, access to an individual copy for
research purposes can nevertheless be requested and provided on a
one-to-one basis by one click each from the requestor to request and one
click from the author to comply, thanks to the institutional repositories'
copy-request Button.

But only if the papers are deposited.

Sale, Arthur, Couture, Marc, Rodrigues, Eloy, Carr, Les and Harnad, Stevan
(2014) Open Access Mandates and the Fair Dealing Button
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/268511/. In: Dynamic Fair Dealing: Creating
Canadian Culture Online (Rosemary J. Coombe  Darren Wershler, Eds.).
University of Toronto Press.
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Canada's Tri-Agency OA Mandate

[Stevan Harnad]

http://www.science.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=Enn=415B5097-1

This OA Policy is now improved, but to be optimal it would need to require
immediate deposit (upon acceptance for publication), not only after the
allowable 12-month embargo has elapsed.

It would also help to integrate and align it with university OA mandates to
require deposit n the university IRs, not central ones (to which it can
then be automatically exported).

That would also empower universities to monitor and ensure timely
compliance.
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] UK HEFCE/REF Open Access Policy FAQs

[Stevan Harnad]

HEFCE/REF have updated the FAQs for their Open Access Policy:
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/rsrch/rinfrastruct/oa/faq/

The HEFCE/REF OA policy is excellent: very well thought out, clearly
explained, and implementable by one and all (both institutions and
funders).

It is an implementation of the Liège model for aligning and harmonizing all
OA policies, and especially for the all-important evaluation/assessment
contingencies as well as compliance-monitoring.

In my view, by far the fastest and surest way to reach universal OA
globally is for all institutions and funders to adopt this model.

Here are what I think are the three most important of the FAQ items for the
HEFCE/REF OA Policy:


*3. What is meant by the date of acceptance? (NEW)*
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/rsrch/rinfrastruct/oa/faq/#


*5. Why does the policy state that deposit on acceptance is required?*
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/rsrch/rinfrastruct/oa/faq/#


*37. What supporting information and evidence of meeting the deposit,
discovery, access and exceptions should institutions retain?*
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/rsrch/rinfrastruct/oa/faq/#


(Unmentioned, but all-important too, is the fact that although all the
articles deposited immediately upon acceptance may not be immediately OA,
they are nevertheless immediately accessible once deposited in the
institutional repository, via the repositories' copy-request Button (eprints
http://wiki.eprints.org/w/RequestEprint, dspace
https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy), with one click
from the requestor and one click from the author.)

*Stevan Harnad*

Begin forwarded message:


 *Date: *February 10, 2015 at 9:02:59 AM GMT-5
 *From: *Ben Johnson (HEFCE) b.john...@hefce.ac.uk
 *Subject: **Update to REF Open Access FAQs*
 *To: *jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk

 Dear colleagues,

 I write to let you know that the FAQs for the Policy for Open Access in
 the next REF have just been updated:
 http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/rsrch/rinfrastruct/oa/faq/

 New questions are marked as ‘NEW’.

 I’m aware this email is going to a fairly large group, so we’re looking to
 establish a more effective means of keeping you updated about these
 changes. We’ll be in touch about this. In the meantime, I’d be very
 grateful if you could pass this to the relevant contact within your
 institution.

 As ever, if you have any queries about this, please email
 openacc...@hefce.ac.uk

 Best wishes,

 Ben


 *Ben Johnson*Policy Adviser (Research)
 HEFCE, Northavon House,
 Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1QD
 0117 931 7038
 b.john...@hefce.ac.uk
 www.hefce.ac.uk
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Simon Says Peer Review

[Stevan Harnad]

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Dana Roth dzr...@library.caltech.edu
 wrote:

 I thought it might be interesting to see the extent to which a major
 society publisher values peer review:





 What’s New With *Physical Review*—Winter 2015

 142 Outstanding Referees Announced



 The editors of the APS journals have selected 142 Outstanding Referees for
 2015, out of the more than *60,000* currently active referees.



 The highly selective Outstanding Referee program recognizes scientists who
 have been exceptionally helpful in assessing manuscripts for publication in
 the APS journals.



 A listing of the ‘Outstanding Referees’ dating from 2008 is given at:
 http://journals.aps.org/OutstandingReferees?utm_source=emailutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=winter-newsletter2015



 Dana L. Roth
 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


And they're right. But they are physics publishers and editors, not the
physics community itself. I don't know whether it's most, but *many*
physicists don't think peer review is worth much, claim to be satisfied
with unrefereed preprints in Arxiv, and claim that the only reason they
keep publishing in peer-reviewed journals is to keep their promotion
committees happy.

I am pretty sure they are wrong, and have many times explained why I think
they're wrong, but nevertheless, that's what many keep saying and thinking.

(What they are actually *doing*, on the other hand, is *exactly* what they
(and everyone else) have been doing all along, namely, submitting all their
unrefereed preprints to peer-reviewed journals; they are merely
supplementing this by *also* making their unrefereed preprints OA, and,
once they are refereed, revised and accepted, making their refereed
postprints OA too...)

Calls to mind Simon Says or Do as I do, not as I say I do...:
http://j.mp/SaysSimon

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