[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized
Hi all, Thanks for the various responses about positive things for which publishers should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized. I'm on the road for a bit (so won't be able to stay so actively involved in the discussion although I will continue to read/reflect with interest!), but thought it might be helpful to do a little round-up of some of the ideas that have surfaced. So in no particular order... Peter B - thanks for the constructive thought piece, and suggestion for an open access journal in remote sensing. I'm sure all the publishers on this list have taken note! In the interim if you would like your article to be published in one of our established journals you could make it freely available for non-commercial reuse through our sponsorship (i.e. hybrid oa) option. I note your (and David's and Jan's and Peter M-R's) preference for a CC-BY licensing option. We are currently in a test and learn phase and experimenting with a number of licensing options. Reme - you would like all publishers to allow immediate green oa posting. What do you think some of the potential concerns about this might be, and how might those concerns be alleviated? Stevan - You want the same. With our posting policy our intent is certainly not to confuse or intimidate authors, but to ensure the sustainability of the journals in which they choose to publish. Perhaps the Finch group will shed light on how to solve this challenge! Falk - you asked under what conditions Elsevier would be willing to change the business model from subscriptions to OA. I'm not quite sure about the scope of your question, so will answer at two levels of granularity. We already use both open access and subscription (and other!) business models and will continue to do so. If you are thinking of the conditions to flip the business model of an individual journal title, then we - and other publishers too, no doubt - will be very interested to participate in and learn from initiatives such as SCOAP3. Bernhard - you asked if our posting agreements involve payments to Elsevier by the funding bodies and/or authors and/or authors institutions. If an institution is willing to use an embargo period before the manuscript is made publicly available, then no payment is involved. Some funders/institutions prefer to make manuscripts available before the article's embargo period has expired, and in these cases sometimes a gold oa agreement or a blended gold/green agreement is more suitable. I'm happy to talk offline if you (or anyone else on the list) would like to explore further. Keith - one of your questions was how to get free access to researchers and the public everywhere. What are your thoughts on initiatives such as Research4Life (http://www.research4life.org/) or the APS programme to provide free access in public libraries (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=419118)? Good initiatives worth celebrating? Laurent - thank you for the suggestion that a clause allowing full data mining should be a systematic component of any subscription agreement, in particular in the case of big deals or national license programs. David - you provided helpful examples of publishers using gold oa publishing models (and this is another opportunity to draw attention to the wide array of signatories for the STM statement that publishers support sustainable open access http://www.stm-assoc.org/publishers-support-sustainable-open-access/). Also constructive are your comments that support publishers who make obvious which papers are oa, and your encouragement for publishers to invest in order to get their various back office processes in order. I also note your (and Jan's and Peter M-R's and Peter's) strong preference for CC-BY licensing. Dan - you noted schema.org and suggested that authors should not only post articles but standardized metadata for them as well. Is there a potential supportive role for librarians and/or publishers to play here? How might they be encouraged/incentivized to play it? Sally - great to see you taking active part in this discussion!! Peter M-R - You are frustrated by, and distrust, publishers. Despite this it may still be more practical to work with us to evolve the current system into one more to your liking than to create a completely new one. Either way we agree absolutely that content mining is essential to advance science, but perhaps will need to agree to disagree (at least for the time being) about the best tactics to enable this to happen more broadly. Jan - thank you for the constructive suggestion to make all the journal material available with delayed open access (CC-BY, fully re-usable and mine-able) after a reasonable embargo period. Why do you suppose it is that more publishers have not done just this, and are there any ways to offer reassurance or otherwise help to overcome any real or perceived barriers? Eric - thanks for the constructive posting just
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized
To answer Alicia Wise's query, 6 proposals of positive things from publishers that should be encouraged : Allow systematically and under no condition and at no cost depositing the peer-reviewed postprint – either the author's refereed, revised final draft or — even better for the Publishers publicity — the publisher's version of record in the author's institutional repository. Remove from authors' contracts the need to sign away their rights and transform it into a non exclusive license of their rights. Agree that by default, part of the rights on an article belong to the author's Institution if public and/or to the Funding organization, if public. Reduce significantly (or at least freeze for 5 years) the purchasing cost of periodicals, then increase at the real inflation rate, officially measured in Western countries (1-3 % per year). Reduce significantly the number of periodical titles published, aiming for excellence and getting rid of the mediocre title which are bundled in Elsevier's Big Deals and similar deals by other publishers. This would reduce their monopolistic position. Reward Institutions for the work provided by reviewers, editors and… authors, either directly or indirectly through lower subscription costs. Bernard Rentier___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized
** Cross-Posted ** On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) a.w...@elsevier.com wrote: ...you would like all publishers to allow immediate green oa posting. What do you think some of the potential concerns about this might be, and how might those concerns be alleviated? ...With our posting policy our intent is certainly not to confuse or intimidate authors, but to ensure the sustainability of the journals in which they choose to publish. Perhaps the Finch group will shed light on how to solve this challenge! The concern is not about Elsevier's business goals but about the *meaning* of a self-contradictory publisher agreement (sic) on the rights (sic) retained (sic) by Elsevier authors that states: [As Elsevier author you retain] the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your personal or institutional website or server for scholarly purposes and then follow it by a clause that contains the following piece of unmitigated FUD that (if authors and institutions don't ignore it completely, as they should) contradicts everything that came before it: (but not in... institutional repositories with mandates for systematic postings unless there is a specific agreement with the publisher). An author right is either retained or it is not. And if it is a right, and it is retained, and a publisher agreement formally states that it is retained, then the author can exercise that retained right irrespective of whether the author's institution mandates that the author should exercise that retained right. It is as simple as that. And any attempt by Elsevier to defend retaining the clause is just more FUD: A right is a right (and a formal publisher agreement attesting that it is a right is only an agreement) only if the agreed author right can be exercised without requiring further publisher agreement. Stevan Harnad ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized
On 15 May 2012 00:59, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) a.w...@elsevier.com wrote: Dan – you noted schema.org and suggested that authors should not only post articles but standardized metadata for them as well. Is there a potential supportive role for librarians and/or publishers to play here? How might they be encouraged/incentivized to play it? The single biggest supportive role publishers could play right now, is to unambiguously clarify that institutional mandates don't affect author's rights to post to websites and repositories. How might publishers be persuaded to do this? Why guess, when we can ask them directly - what would it take to see the following change?: He is correct that all our authors can post voluntarily to their websites and institutional repositories. Posting is also fine where there is a requirement/mandate AND we have an agreement in place. Just replace AND with , regardless of whether and we're good to go. Without that, no end of confusion. On the metadata front, publishers will likely want to make sure there are useful entry points into their various Web sites (by topic, author etc.) that HTML-oriented per-article metadata can usefully include. Assuming they have some use for greater incoming Web traffic... cheers, Dan ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized
To answer Alicia Wise's query, 6 proposals of positive things from publishers that should be encouraged : 1. Allow systematically and under no condition and at no cost depositing the peer-reviewed postprint â either the author's refereed, revised final draft or â even better for the Publishers publicity â the publisher's version of record in the author's institutional repository. 2. Remove from authors' contracts the need to sign away their rights and transform it into a non exclusive license of their rights. 3. Agree that by default, part of the rights on an article belong to the author's Institution if public and/or to the Funding organization, if public. 4. Reduce significantly (or at least freeze for 5 years) the purchasing cost of periodicals, then increase at the real inflation rate, officially measured in Western countries (1-3 % per year). 5. Reduce significantly the number of periodical titles published, aiming for excellence and getting rid of the mediocre title which are bundled in Elsevier's Big Deals and similar deals by other publishers. This would reduce their monopolistic position. 6. Reward Institutions for the work provided by reviewers, editors and⦠authors, either directly or indirectly through lower subscription costs. Bernard Rentier [ Part 2: Attached Text ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized
** Cross-Posted ** On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 12, 2012, Alicia Wise (Elsevier Director of Universal Access) wrote: It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops its you may if you wish but not if you must clause, which is not only incoherent, but intimidates authors. Stevan, Could you please explain this clause? (This is my ignorance as I don't publish with Elevier and so am unfamiliar with their author-side contracts). Does it mean that Elsevier sometimes allows Green Open Access and sometimes don't? It means that Elsevier formally endorses its authors' right to make their final, peer-reviewed drafts Open Access immediately upon publication (no embargo) by posting them on their institutional website (Green Gratis OA) -- but not in institutional repositories with mandates for systematic postings. The distinction between an institutional website and an institutional repository is bogus. The distinction between nonmandatory posting (allowed) and mandatory posting (not allowed) is arbitrary nonsense. (You retain the right to post if you wish but not if you must!) The systematic criterion is also nonsense. (Systematic posting would be the institutional posting of all the articles in the journal; but any single institution only contributes a tiny, arbitrary fraction of the articles in any journal, just as any single author does; so the mandating institution would not be a 3rd-party free-rider on the journal's content: its researchers would simply be making their own articles OA, by posting them on their institutional website, exactly as described.) This systematic clause is hence pure FUD, designed to scare or bully or confuse institutions into not mandating posting, and authors into not complying with their institutional mandates. (There are also rumours that in confidential licensing negotiations with institutions, Elsevier has been trying to link bigger and better pricing deals to the institution's agreeing not to adopt a Green OA mandate.) Along with the majority of publishers today, Elsevier is a Green publisher: It has endorsed immediate (unembargoed) institutional Green OA posting by its authors ever since 27 May 2004: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3771.html Elsevier's public image is so bad today that rescinding its Green light to self-archive after almost a decade of mounting demand for OA is hardly a very attractive or viable option: http://cdn.anonfiles.com/1334923359479.pdf http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#32.Poisoned And double-talk, smoke-screens and FUD are even less attractive: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/822-.html It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops its you may if you wish but not if you must clause, which is not only incoherent, but intimidates authors. (This would also help counteract some of the rather bad press Elsevier has been getting lately...) Stevan Harnad ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: ** Cross-Posted ** On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: Stevan, Could you please explain this clause? (This is my ignorance as I don't publish with Elevier and so am unfamiliar with their author-side contracts). Does it mean that Elsevier sometimes allows Green Open Access and sometimes don't? It means that Elsevier formally endorses its authors' right to make their final, peer-reviewed drafts Open Access immediately upon publication (no embargo) by posting them on their institutional website (Green Gratis OA) -- but not in institutional repositories with mandates for systematic postings. It is exactly this sort of clause - usually badly written - that is widespread in publishers documents (if you can even find them). Just remember that *we* pay for their lawyers' salaries. The strategy is common and exemplified by Ross Mounce's work on licences. Make it complex and make it different from every other publisher. Never use a single community-agreed approach. If the publishers wanted to make it simple and professional it could have been done a decade ago. It's not hard. A protocol and licence saying what could/not be done in Green OA. What I worry about is that the publishers can change the rules whenever they feel like. They are quit capable of saying it's Green just as Wiley has done for highly paid Fully Open Access (not even as green as Stevan is asking for). The point is that these rules are made by people who don't care about scholarly publishing. The sooner we admit we are dealing with an industry every bit as lovable as bankers the sooner we'll put in place *our* rules and not theirs. The distinction between an institutional website and an institutional repository is bogus. Of course it is. Unless you are trying to appear helpful and trying not to be. The distinction between nonmandatory posting (allowed) and mandatory posting (not allowed) is arbitrary nonsense. (You retain the right to post if you wish but not if you must!) Of course it is. It takes a highly paid marketeer to dream that up. The systematic criterion is also nonsense. (Systematic posting would be the institutional posting of all the articles in the journal; but any single institution only contributes a tiny, arbitrary fraction of the articles in any journal, just as any single author does; so the mandating institution would not be a 3rd-party free-rider on the journal's content: its researchers would simply be making their own articles OA, by posting them on their institutional website, exactly as described.) This systematic clause is hence pure FUD, designed to scare or bully or confuse institutions into not mandating posting, and authors into not complying with their institutional mandates. (There are also rumours that in confidential licensing negotiations with institutions, Elsevier has been trying to link bigger and better pricing deals to the institution's agreeing not to adopt a Green OA mandate.) That's why I raised it a few days ago. We are dealing with people many of whose staff have probably never seen a scholarly pub. Along with the majority of publishers today, Elsevier is a Green publisher: It has endorsed immediate (unembargoed) institutional Green OA posting by its authors ever since 27 May 2004: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3771.html But that is no a legally binding contract and that's the problem. Elsevier's public image is so bad today that rescinding its Green light to self-archive after almost a decade of mounting demand for OA is hardly a very attractive or viable option: http://cdn.anonfiles.com/1334923359479.pdf http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#32.Poisoned And double-talk, smoke-screens and FUD are even less attractive: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/822-.html It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops its you may if you wish but not if you must clause, which is not only incoherent, but intimidates authors. (This would also help counteract some of the rather bad press Elsevier has been getting lately...) I actually suspect that no-one reading this list has any power to change Elsevier policy - it's set at boardroom level by people who could be selling soap. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized
Hi all, Stevan Harnad has helpfully summarized Elsevier's posting policy for accepted author manuscripts, but has left out a couple of really important elements. He is correct that all our authors can post voluntarily to their websites and institutional repositories. Posting is also fine where there is a requirement/mandate AND we have an agreement in place. We have a growing number of these agreements. An overview of our funding body agreements can be read here: www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/fundingbodyagreements . These agreements, for example, mean that we post to UKPMC for authors who receive funding from a number of funding agencies including the Wellcome Trust. We deposit manuscripts into PMC for NIH-funded authors. Posting in the arXiv is fine too. We are also piloting open access agreements with a growing number of institutions, including posting in institutional repositories. It is already clear that one size does not fit all institutions, and we are keen to continue learning, listening, and partnering. Our access policies can be read in full at www.elsevier.com/wps/find/intro.cws_home/access_policies (health warning: they are written for those who really enjoy detail) and we've been working on a more friendly and succinct summary too (but this is still a work in progress). With kind wishes, Alicia Dr Alicia Wise Director of Universal Access Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com I Twitter: @wisealic From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust Sent: 13 May 2012 16:51 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: ** Cross-Posted ** On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: Stevan, Could you please explain this clause? (This is my ignorance as I don't publish with Elevier and so am unfamiliar with their author-side contracts). Does it mean that Elsevier sometimes allows Green Open Access and sometimes don't? It means that Elsevier formally endorses its authors' right to make their final, peer-reviewed drafts Open Access immediately upon publication (no embargo) by posting them on their institutional website (Green Gratis OA) -- but not in institutional repositories with mandates for systematic postings. It is exactly this sort of clause - usually badly written - that is widespread in publishers documents (if you can even find them). Just remember that *we* pay for their lawyers' salaries. The strategy is common and exemplified by Ross Mounce's work on licences. Make it complex and make it different from every other publisher. Never use a single community-agreed approach. If the publishers wanted to make it simple and professional it could have been done a decade ago. It's not hard. A protocol and licence saying what could/not be done in Green OA. What I worry about is that the publishers can change the rules whenever they feel like. They are quit capable of saying it's Green just as Wiley has done for highly paid Fully Open Access (not even as green as Stevan is asking for). The point is that these rules are made by people who don't care about scholarly publishing. The sooner we admit we are dealing with an industry every bit as lovable as bankers the sooner we'll put in place *our* rules and not theirs. The distinction between an institutional website and an institutional repository is bogus. Of course it is. Unless you are trying to appear helpful and trying not to be. The distinction between nonmandatory posting (allowed) and mandatory posting (not allowed) is arbitrary nonsense. (You retain the right to post if you wish but not if you must!) Of course it is. It takes a highly paid marketeer to dream that up. The systematic criterion is also nonsense. (Systematic posting would be the institutional posting of all the articles in the journal; but any single institution only contributes a tiny, arbitrary fraction of the articles in any journal, just as any single author does; so the mandating institution would not be a 3rd-party free-rider on the journal's content: its researchers would simply be making their own articles OA, by posting them on their institutional website, exactly as described.) This systematic clause is hence pure FUD, designed to scare or bully or confuse institutions into not mandating posting, and authors
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized
** Cross-Posted ** On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 12, 2012, Alicia Wise (Elsevier Director of Universal Access) wrote: It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops its you may if you wish but not if you must clause, which is not only incoherent, but intimidates authors. Stevan, Could you please explain this clause? (This is my ignorance as I don't publish with Elevier and so am unfamiliar with their author-side contracts). Does it mean that Elsevier sometimes allows Green Open Access and sometimes don't? It means that Elsevier formally endorses its authors' right to make their final, peer-reviewed drafts Open Access immediately upon publication (no embargo) by posting them on their institutional website (Green Gratis OA) -- but not in institutional repositories with mandates for systematic postings. The distinction between an institutional website and an institutional repository is bogus. The distinction between nonmandatory posting (allowed) and mandatory posting (not allowed) is arbitrary nonsense. (You retain the right to post if you wish but not if you must!) The systematic criterion is also nonsense. (Systematic posting would be the institutional posting of all the articles in the journal; but any single institution only contributes a tiny, arbitrary fraction of the articles in any journal, just as any single author does; so the mandating institution would not be a 3rd-party free-rider on the journal's content: its researchers would simply be making their own articles OA, by posting them on their institutional website, exactly as described.) This systematic clause is hence pure FUD, designed to scare or bully or confuse institutions into not mandating posting, and authors into not complying with their institutional mandates. (There are also rumours that in confidential licensing negotiations with institutions, Elsevier has been trying to link bigger and better pricing deals to the institution's agreeing not to adopt a Green OA mandate.) Along with the majority of publishers today, Elsevier is a Green publisher: It has endorsed immediate (unembargoed) institutional Green OA posting by its authors ever since 27 May 2004: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3771.html Elsevier's public image is so bad today that rescinding its Green light to self-archive after almost a decade of mounting demand for OA is hardly a very attractive or viable option: http://cdn.anonfiles.com/1334923359479.pdf http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#32.Poisoned And double-talk, smoke-screens and FUD are even less attractive: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/822-.html It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops its you may if you wish but not if you must clause, which is not only incoherent, but intimidates authors. (This would also help counteract some of the rather bad press Elsevier has been getting lately...) Stevan Harnad ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: ** Cross-Posted ** On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: Stevan, Could you please explain this clause? (This is my ignorance as I don't publish with Elevier and so am unfamiliar with their author-side contracts). Does it mean that Elsevier sometimes allows Green Open Access and sometimes don't? It means that Elsevier formally endorses its authors' right to make their final, peer-reviewed drafts Open Access immediately upon publication (no embargo) by posting them on their institutional website (Green Gratis OA) -- but not in institutional repositories with mandates for systematic postings. It is exactly this sort of clause - usually badly written - that is widespread in publishers documents (if you can even find them). Just remember that *we* pay for their lawyers' salaries. The strategy is common and exemplified by Ross Mounce's work on licences. Make it complex and make it different from every other publisher. Never use a single community-agreed approach. If the publishers wanted to make it simple and professional it could have been done a decade ago. It's not hard. A protocol and licence saying what could/not be done in Green OA. What I worry about is that the publishers can change the rules whenever they feel like. They are quit capable of saying it's Green just as Wiley has done for highly paid Fully Open Access (not even as green as Stevan is asking for). The point is that these rules are made by people who don't care about scholarly publishing. The sooner we admit we are dealing with an industry every bit as lovable as bankers the sooner we'll put in place *our* rules and not theirs.  The distinction between an institutional website and an institutional repository is bogus. Of course it is. Unless you are trying to appear helpful and trying not to be.  The distinction between nonmandatory posting (allowed) and mandatory posting (not allowed) is arbitrary nonsense. (You retain the right to post if you wish but not if you must!) Of course it is. It takes a highly paid marketeer to dream that up. The systematic criterion is also nonsense. (Systematic posting would be the institutional posting of all the articles in the journal; but any single institution only contributes a tiny, arbitrary fraction of the articles in any journal, just as any single author does; so the mandating institution would not be a 3rd-party free-rider on the journal's content: its researchers would simply be making their own articles OA, by posting them on their institutional website, exactly as described.) This systematic clause is hence pure FUD, designed to scare or bully or confuse institutions into not mandating posting, and authors into not complying with their institutional mandates. (There are also rumours that in confidential licensing negotiations with institutions, Elsevier has been trying to link bigger and better pricing deals to the institution's agreeing not to adopt a Green OA mandate.) That's why I raised it a few days ago. We are dealing with people many of whose staff have probably never seen a scholarly pub.  Along with the majority of publishers today, Elsevier is a Green publisher: It has endorsed immediate (unembargoed) institutional Green OA posting by its authors ever since 27 May 2004: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3771.html But that is no a legally binding contract and that's the problem.  Elsevier's public image is so bad today that rescinding its Green light to self-archive after almost a decade of mounting demand for OA is hardly a very attractive or viable option: http://cdn.anonfiles.com/1334923359479.pdf http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#32.Poisoned And double-talk, smoke-screens and FUD are even less attractive: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/822-.html It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops its you may if you wish but not if you must clause, which is not only incoherent, but intimidates authors. (This would also help counteract some of the rather bad press Elsevier has been getting lately...) I actually suspect that no-one reading this list has any power to change Elsevier policy - it's set at boardroom level by people who could be selling soap. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.ukwrote: For my part I will continue my narrow focus on the goal of getting OA (sic) universally provided. It had been my (foolish) fancy that that was GOAL's goal too! I am quite happy for the list members, guided by the moderator, to decide whether or not content mining should be in scope for this list. If they decide not, I'm happy - in conjunction with others - to explore a new list. It may be the best solution. And in any case I should applaud Stevan for having created the GOAL list and also decided to hand it over to RP when the time was right. In Open Source I have termed this the Doctor Who model. ( http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/19/1326254/the-doctor-who-model-of-open-source) [...] PS For the terminologically tipsy: Unrestricted article content-mining, like Google's book content-mining, would allow the extraction and republication of factual data from journal articles by licensees, but it would not provide unlicensed users with access to the full-text. That is very clearly put and effectively exactly what I am asking for. I'm not quite sure what terminology has to do with it - I don't know a formal term for it - yet. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized
On 2012-05-11, at 6:47 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from me. The publishers should withdraw contractual restrictions on content-mining. That's all they need to do. If Alicia Wise can say yes to me unreservedly, I'll be happy. So let's all forget about OA... (If I were a subscription publisher, eager to sustain my income streams, I would certainly be more than happy  to accommodate this low bar in order to put paid to the clamour for OA. It would even help draw users to my paid content, the way Google's book content-mining does!) Human cognition is endlessly puzzling. I'm good on OA but hopeless on human cognition (even though that's my research specialty, not OA!). Social historians will do a better job making sense of it all (but only after the present generation is gone and the web generation has become the senior one). For my part I will continue my narrow focus on the goal of getting OA (sic) universally provided. It had been my (foolish) fancy that that was GOAL's goal too! Back to discussing defamation... Stevan Harnad PS For the terminologically tipsy: Unrestricted article content-mining, like Google's book content-mining, would allow the extraction and republication of factual data from journal articles by licensees, but it would not provide unlicensed users with access to the full-text. (Asking for that too would not just be raising the bar, but asking to take over the whole store.) On 2012-05-11, at 8:11 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote: **Cross-Posted** El 11/05/2012 11:19, Wise, Alicia (Elsevier) asked: [W]hat positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized?   Dr Alicia Wise Director of Universal Access Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com I Twitter: @wisealic On 2012-05-11, at 6:13 AM, Reme Melero wrote: I would recommend the following change in one clause of the What rights do I retain as a journal author*? stated in Elsevier's portal, which says the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your personal or institutional website or server for scholarly purposes*, incorporating the complete citation and with a link to the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the article (but not in subject-oriented or centralized repositories or institutional repositories with mandates for systematic postings unless there is a specific agreement with the publisher. externalLink_3.gifClick here for further information); By this one: the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your personal, institutional website, subject-oriented or centralized repositories or institutional repositories or server for scholarly purposes, incorporating the complete citation and with a link to the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the article I think this could be something to be encouraged, celebrated and recognized! That would be fine. Or even this simpler one would be fine: the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your personal, institutional website or institutional repositories or server for scholarly purposes, incorporating the complete citation and with a link to the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the article The metadata and link can be harvested from the institutional repositories by institution-external repositories or search services, and the shameful, cynical, self-serving and incoherent clause about mandates  for systematic postings  (you may post if you wish but not if you must), which attempts to take it all back, is dropped. That clause -- added when Elsevier realized that Green Gratis OA mandates were catching on -- is a paradigmatic example of the publisher FUD and double-talk that Andrew Adams and others were referring to on GOAL. Dropping it would be a great cause for encouragement, celebration and recognition, and would put Elsevier irreversibly on the side of the angels. Stevan Harnad ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal [ Part 2: Attached Text ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized
[snip] Thought experiment: what if authors posted to their personal sites, but with enough metadata (e.g. http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle) for generic (rather than topical/institutional) search engine discovery to be feasible? Dan (hatless) ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized
On 2012-05-12, at 8:20 AM, Richard Poynder wrote: List members will doubtless correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that the nub of this issue is that Peter Murray-Rust believes that when a research library pays a subscription for a scholarly journal (or a collection of journals) the subscription should give researchers at that institution the right both to read the content with their eyeballs, and to mine it with their machines -- and that this should be viewed as an automatic right. Licensing rights are an excellent topic for the Library licensing list: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum liblicens...@listserv.crl.edu I am not implying that they should not be discussed on the Global Open Access List (GOAL) too, when they are relevant to OA. But it seems to me that when the Director for Universal Access of a rather large publisher posts a query to an open access list about what we wish to encourage publishers to do (and praise), we should encourage and praise measures that will help us reach OA, not measures that are either orthogonal to OA or even potential sops to sweeten the failure to rescind measures that make it harder to reach OA. Stevan Harnad On 11/05/2012 11:19, Wise, Alicia (Elsevier) asked: [W]hat positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized? Dr Alicia Wise Director of Universal Access Elsevier On 2012-05-11, at 6:47 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from me. The publishers should withdraw contractual restrictions on content-mining. That's all they need to do. If Alicia Wise can say yes to me unreservedly, I'll be happy. SH: So let's all forget about OA... Elsevier's shameful, cynical, self-serving and incoherent clause about mandates for systematic postings (you may post if you wish but not if you must), which attempts to take it all back, should be dropped, immediately. That clause -- added when Elsevier realized that Green Gratis OA mandates were catching on -- is a paradigmatic example of the publisher FUD and double-talk. It has no legal force or meaning, but it scares authors. Dropping it would be a great cause for encouragement, celebration and recognition, and would put Elsevier irreversibly on the side of the angels. ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: For my part I will continue my narrow focus on the goal of getting OA (sic) universally provided. It had been my (foolish) fancy that that was GOAL's goal too! I am quite happy for the list members, guided by the moderator, to decide whether or not content mining should be in scope for this list. If they decide not, I'm happy - in conjunction with others - to explore a new list. It may be the best solution. And in any case I should applaud Stevan for having created the GOAL list and also decided to hand it over to RP when the time was right. In Open Source I have termed this the Doctor Who model.(http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/19/1326254/the-doctor-who-model-of-open-s ource ) Â [...] PS For the terminologically tipsy: Unrestricted article content-mining, like Google's book content-mining, would allow the extraction and republication of factual data from journal articles by licensees, but it would not provide unlicensed users with access to the full-text. That is very clearly put and effectively exactly what I am asking for. I'm not quite sure what terminology has to do with it - I don't know a formal term for it - yet. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 [ Part 2: Attached Text ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized
Hi all, I agree that we are mixing up several issues/objectives, and helpfully Keith has identified some of these. I can think of a few others and I suspect there are more strands in this knot which others will hopefully identify. * we are probably conflating needs/practices in different disciplines * we are certainly conflating temporal challenges - how we xxx or yyy in 2012 may be different from the way we do it in 2015 or 2020. Text mining is an example. * we sometimes construct the false dichotomy of an open access world vs. a subscription world - there is already a blend of gold, green, subscription, and other business models, and there will continue to be for awhile (possibly forever) * we conflate pragmatic and idealistic discussions and yet need both * we too often duck the important issue of funding - for example could the dynamics of sustainable gold+green be different from the dynamics of sustainable subscription+green? Could the price be different for gratis gold oa vs. libre gold oa? To refer back to my original query about what positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized let me be cheeky and suggest one. The recent STM public statement that publishers support sustainable open access (http://www.stm-assoc.org/publishers-support-sustainable-open-access/) is one thing I would suggest should be celebrated by others who are also interested in open access. With very kind wishes, Alicia Dr Alicia Wise Director of Universal Access Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com I Twitter: @wisealic -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of keith.jeff...@stfc.ac.uk Sent: 12 May 2012 15:47 To: goal@eprints.org Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized All - I have been following the several threads of argument with interest. As I see it recent postings on this list are mixing up several issues/objectives, confusions, mechanisms for access and utilisation and mechanisms to achieve any kind of OA. Issues and Objectives - 1. how do we get gratis OA (free access to eyeball) for all researchers (and others including the public) everywhere; 2. how do we get libre OA (including data mining and other machine processing of articles) for all researchers (and others including the public) everywhere; 3. how do we get libre OA (including processing of datasets associated with a publication using associated software or other software) for all researchers (and others including the public) everywhere; Confusions -- Confusing each of these objectives is the position (or more accurately different and evolving positions) of the commercial publishers - including the OA publishers - and the learned societies in role publisher. Many allow (1) but Elsevier has the unfortunate 'not if mandated' clause. Attempting to expedite these objectives are mandates by research institutions and funding organisations. However even here there is no clear recommendation emerging on either green (subscription-based) or gold (author pays) for each of (1),(2). It appears clear that gold is more expensive - at least for now - for high production research institutions. There is no settled position yet on whether green or gold for publications are applicable to (3). The situation in each case is not assisted by current legislation in each country on copyright and database right. (3) in the academic environment is becoming convolved with the 'data.gov' agenda and citizen access. The rights of the public to have gratis/libre access to publicly-funded research products is a moralistic backdrop to the whole argument. The commercial publishers understandably wish to preserve their (very profitable) business model as there is a (slow) transition from subscription access to some other model(s) such as author pays access. In a world where ICT is making (re-engineered) processes in business much more effective (including increased offerings), efficient and less costly it is surprising one does not see similar improvements in scholarly communication. Access and Utilisation -- There are requirements (a) to find the article or dataset (with software) of interest and (b) to utilise it effectively (including text-mining or deeper mining of publications and data processing of datasets). Furthermore, in general there are requirements to do this locally (for specific institutional or funder purposes) or globally (find all articles on left-handed widgets'). In all cases metadata is required for effective (in the sense of accuracy
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized
On Sat, May 12, 2012, Alicia Wise (Elsevier Director of Universal Access) wrote: I agree that we are mixing up several issues/objectives, and helpfully Keith has identified some of these.  I can think of a few others and I suspect there are more strands in this knot which others will hopefully identify. The first and foremost issue on the Global Open Access List is Open Access (OA). It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops its you may if you wish but not if you must clause, which is not only incoherent, but intimidates authors. (This would also help counteract some of the rather bad press Elsevier has been getting lately...) * we are probably conflating needs/practices in different disciplines All disciplines need, want, and benefit from OA. It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops its you may if you wish but not if you must clause, which is not only incoherent, but intimidates authors. (This would also help counteract some of the rather bad press Elsevier has been getting lately...) * we are certainly conflating temporal challenges - how we xxx or yyy in 2012 may be different from the way we do it in 2015 or 2020.  Text mining is an example. OA is needed now, not in 2015 or 2020. It will be very helpful if... * we sometimes construct the false dichotomy of an open access world vs. a subscription world - there is already a blend of gold, green, subscription, and other business models, and there will continue to be for awhile (possibly forever) OA is not a business model, it is Open Access. It will be very helpful if... * we conflate pragmatic and idealistic discussions and yet need both A purely pragmatic issue: It will be very helpful if... * we too often duck the important issue of funding - for example could the dynamics of sustainable gold+green be different from the dynamics of sustainable subscription+green?  Could the price be different for gratis gold oa vs. libre gold oa? Subscription publishing is being paid for via subscriptions. If and when subscriptions become unsustainable, because institutions have cancelled them, publishing can convert to Gold OA and the institutions will have the windfall subscription cancellation savings to pay for it. But for now: It will be very helpful if... To refer back to my original query about what positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized let me be cheeky and suggest one.  The recent STM public statement that publishers support sustainable open access (http://www.stm-assoc.org/publishers-support-sustainable-open-access/) is one thing I would suggest should be celebrated by others who are also interested in open access. Statements of support are always welcome. But as we are talking pragmatics rather than ideology: It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops its you may if you wish but not if you must clause, which is not only incoherent, but intimidates authors. (This would also help counteract some of the rather bad press Elsevier has been getting lately...) http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/822-.html Stevan Harnad Begin forwarded message: From: Stevan Harnad List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: May 11, 2012 8:11:19 AM EDT To: Global Open Access List \(Successor of AmSci\) goal@eprints.org Subject: [GOAL] Elsevier's query re: positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized El 11/05/2012 11:19, Wise, Alicia (Elsevier) asked: [W]hat positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized? Dr Alicia Wise Director of Universal Access Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com I Twitter: @wisealic On 2012-05-11, at 6:13 AM, Reme Melero wrote: I would recommend the following change in one clause of the  What rights do I retain as a journal author*? stated in Elsevier's portal, which says the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your personal or institutional website or server for scholarly purposes*, incorporating the complete citation and with a link to the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the article (but not in subject-oriented or centralized repositories or institutional repositories with mandates
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized
I object to the notion of sustainable applied to publications for two reasons : 1. Scientific research is unsustainable and has been so since at least the 17th century. 2. Peer-reviewing research results and making resulting version available to all interested is an integral part of the research process. Building on the shoulders of giants requires this. Therefore, why ask of the publishing phase to be sustainable when the rest of the research process is not sustainable? Let us have subsidized publishing to complete subsidized research. Jean-Claude Guédon -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal Le samedi 12 mai 2012 à 17:11 +0100, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) a écrit : Hi all, I agree that we are mixing up several issues/objectives, and helpfully Keith has identified some of these. I can think of a few others and I suspect there are more strands in this knot which others will hopefully identify. * we are probably conflating needs/practices in different disciplines * we are certainly conflating temporal challenges - how we xxx or yyy in 2012 ma y be different from the way we do it in 2015 or 2020. Text mining is an example . * we sometimes construct the false dichotomy of an open access world vs. a subsc ription world - there is already a blend of gold, green, subscription, and other business models, and there will continue to be for awhile (possibly forever) * we conflate pragmatic and idealistic discussions and yet need both * we too often duck the important issue of funding - for example could the dynam ics of sustainable gold+green be different from the dynamics of sustainable subs cription+green? Could the price be different for gratis gold oa vs. libre gold oa? To refer back to my original query about what positive things are established sc holarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and f uture scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized let me be cheeky and suggest one. The recent STM public statement that publish ers support sustainable open access (http://www.stm-assoc.org/publishers-support -sustainable-open-access/) is one thing I would suggest should be celebrated by others who are also interested in open access. With very kind wishes, Alicia Dr Alicia Wise Director of Universal Access Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com I Twitter: @wisealic -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of ke ith.jeff...@stfc.ac.uk Sent: 12 May 2012 15:47 To: goal@eprints.org Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: positive things from publishers that s hould be encouraged, celebrated, recognized All - I have been following the several threads of argument with interest. As I see i t recent postings on this list are mixing up several issues/objectives, confusio ns, mechanisms for access and utilisation and mechanisms to achieve any kind of OA. Issues and Objectives - 1. how do we get gratis OA (free access to eyeball) for all researchers (and oth ers including the public) everywhere; 2. how do we get libre OA (including data mining and other machine processing of articles) for all researchers (and others including the public) everywhere; 3. how do we get libre OA (including processing of datasets associated with a pu blication using associated software or other software) for all researchers (and others including the public) everywhere; Confusions -- Confusing each of these objectives is the position (or more accurately different and evolving positions) of the commercial publishers - including the OA publish ers - and the learned societies in role publisher. Many allow (1) but Elsevier has the unfortunate 'not if mandated' clause. Attempting to expedite these objectives are mandates by research institutions an d funding organisations. However even here there is no clear recommendation eme rging on either green (subscription-based) or gold (author pays) for each of (1) ,(2). It appears clear that gold is more expensive - at least for now - for hig h production research institutions. There is no settled position yet on whether green or gold for publications are applicable to (3). The situation in each case is not assisted by current legislation in each countr y on copyright and database right. (3) in the academic environment is becoming convolved with the 'data.gov' agenda and citizen access. The rights of the public to have gratis/libre access to publicly-funded research products is a moralistic backdrop to the whole argument. The commercial publishers understandably wish to preserve their (very profitable ) business model as there is a (slow) transition from subscription access to som e other model(s) such as author pays access. In a world where
