[Apologies for cross-posting]
On March 23, 2012, Klaus Graf wrote:
It's illegal to hide CC-BY contributions behind a pawywall.
quoting the following excerpt of the legal code:
You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that
restrict the ability of a
Sally Morris wrote :
Playing devil's advocate: aren't people (arguably) paying for the service
provided in gathering together the articles in which they might be interested
in an easily accessible/searchable form?
This makes sense if someone pays for a subscription to a service, like those
On April 2, 2012, Jeffrey Beal asked Paul Peters :
How many of those 5,400 [March] submissions [to Hindawi journals] will
be accepted for publication?
Maybe I should wait for Mr Peters' reply, but if he knows the answer before
these papers are reviewed, there will be some reason for
On 21 Nov 2008, at 20:37, Arthur Sale wrote:
Fourthly, the author may still be ignorant or worried about their rights
under Australian
copyright law (unfounded, but real)...
At Archipel, EPrints-based Université du Québec à Montréal's IR, in part to
satisfy other very cautious
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:27 AM, Francis
Jayakanthfr...@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in wrote:
Since Jan 2009, our repository (eprints.iisc.ernet.in), has been using
the GNU Eprints.org version, which supports reprint request. Since
then, on an average, we receive about 20-25 reprint request everyday!
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:19 AM,
c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.ukc.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk wrote:
CO: The query referred to cases where the author has ASSIGNED
copyright to Sage. Sage then owns the copyright and is perfectly
entitled to say what can be done with the article. Crucially, if
On 4-Aug-09, at 6:45 AM, S. Harnad wrote:
Aside: This formal side-issue has next to nothing to do with Open
Access and Green Open
Access Mandates.
As interesting as may be these discussions about the subtleties of
copyright law and its application to scholarly activities (and I,
On August 4, 2009, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:
A 721-page list of social science and humanities journals comprising around
20,000 titles has been compiled.
This list is limited to SSH journals
I downloaded and examined the 721-page document compiled by JournalBase and
available at
On 3-Sep-09, at 5:51 PM, Ian Russell wrote:
Except your starting assumption is incorrect. The uncontrolled
inflationary spiral is a myth. Price-per-page and
price-per-article are falling and continue to do so.
Price-per-journal is indeed a good indicator if you have to balance the
On November 9, 2009, 18:22, Stevan Harnad wrote:
I'm not criticizing the pursuit of other options *in addition*
to mandating self-archiving, I'm criticizing pursuing them *instead*,
i.e.
without first doing the doable, and already long overdue.
As one who has worked (and devoted much time)
Stevan Harnad wrote :
The one point I am not sure I quite understand in Marc's commentary
was I put more efforts [into] green-OA
because I see more immediate, if not overreaching, results in
gold-OA.
I was speaking on general terms: I see (but it may be highly
subjective) more progress on
Hélène Bosc wrote :
I can give the example of the 65 researchers of the lab of PRC at INRA in
France who publish
about 100 articles a year.
Since 2003 our researchers publish in OA periodicals (essentially BMC
periodicals).
[...]
3 in 2008
As an exercise, I cross-checked with
I also find Tenurometer quite interesting, because it is much more
comprehensive than other citation-based tools (Scopus, Web of
Science), as it takes into account citations to a large spectrum of
document types (conference papers, book chapters, preprints, even
blog entries), though all types
[Apologies for cross-posting]
Â
On March 23, 2012, Klaus Graf wrote:
Â
It's illegal to hide CC-BY contributions behind a pawywall.
Â
Â
quoting the following excerpt of the legal code:
Â
You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that
restrict the ability
On April 2, 2012, Jeffrey Beal asked Paul Peters :
How many of those 5,400 [March] submissions [to Hindawi journals] will
be accepted for publication?
Maybe I should wait for Mr Peters' reply, but if he knows the answer before
these papers are reviewed, there will be some reason for
I've got no problem with Andrew Adam's advice concerning publishers' possible
(albeit unlikely) lawsuits or take-down requests when I read it in the context
of the page where it appears.
Andrew is careful enough to state first: Where the publisher requires an
embargo or does not allow for open
Sally Morris wrote :
In their 2008 study, [Cox Cox] found just over 50% of publishers asking
for copyright transfer in the first instance [...]; of these, a further
20% would provide a 'licence to publish' as an alternative if requested by
the author. At the same time, the number
Ross Mounce writes that he is disappointed with Stevan Harnad's wild
assertions not backed by good evidence.
As an occasional contributor to this list, I had my own idea of what level of
proof (or evidence) one has to reach when one posts something.
First, a post isn't a journal article, so
Jan Velterop wrote:
We've always heard, from Stevan Harnad, that the author was the one who
intrinsically had copyright
on the manuscript version, so could deposit it, as an open access article, in
an open repository
irrespective of the publisher's views. If that is correct, then the
An interesting information on eLife website:
Publishing in eLife will be free of charge, at least for an initial period
http://www.elifesciences.org/the-journal/publishing-fees
More details found on Wellcome Trust website :
For the first three to four years, to help establish the journal, no
On IOP's decision to use a CC-BY licence also for its metadata, Marcin
Wojnaraski wrote:
Bibliographic metadata are just statements of facts (person X published paper
Y ...) - that's nothing that could be copyrighted.
Well, the situation is more complex than that, and it depends in a
Jeffrey Beall wrote:
The two biggest problems I see are 1).
Contradictory licensing statements, such as the one shown below
I agree with the previous replies that there's no contradiction in the text
displayed in the image provided.
But I went to the journal's website
About the display in some journal home pages of both a CC- License and an All
rights reserved statement, Alicia Keys wrote:
One set of licensing terms applies to their generic web content, and the
other to specific
articles that are surfaced via that website. This isn't a conflict in
Heather Morrison wrote:
If the scholar grants blanket rights to create derivatives to any third
party, then someone else could publish the monograph before the scholar has a
chance to do so themselves. This is likely to make it more difficult for the
scholar to publish their own work.
This
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:08 AM, brent...@ulg.ac.be wrote:
Elsevier's policy is now clear:
Well, Elsevier's intentions are maybe clear (or clearer now) but, personally, I
wouldn't qualify as clear a policy which is scattered among many documents
and which, even after being read and reread,
Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
There seems to be two incompatible arguments about the effect of Green OA:
1. Green OA presents no threat to subscription publishing [...]
2. [...] Green OA will destroy the subscription market.
I've been struggling with the same dilemma for a long time, and much
Stevan Harnad wrote:
There's no need for the OA community to hear about librarians' struggles with
their serials budgets when
it's at the expense of OA
As previous messages in this thread clearly show, the ultimate fate of the
subscription model, and how it will unfold, is completely
In his reply to Heather Morrison, Jeoren Bosman wrote:
Do you mean to say that Gold OA articles from Elsevier with a CC-BY license
can not be shared without restriction? The exclusive license you mention is not
in the fine print
This issue was raised previously (August 2012) in this forum, but
I'll let more notorious OA advocates (named or unnamed in the article) point
out the many flaws and weaknesses in Beall's article (if they think it's worth
the effort).
What strikes me though is that it looks much more like an opinion piece than a
scholarly paper; the distinction is important,
Sally Morris wrote,
At the risk (nay, certainty) of being pilloried by OA conformists, let me say
that - whatever ithe failings of his article - I thank Jeffrey Beall for
raising
some fundamental questions which are rarely, if ever, addressed.
I don't know if I'm an OA conformist (and I
Sally Morris wrote :
I find it interesting that no one has commented at all on the two main points I
was trying to make (perhaps not clearly enough):
1)The focus of OA seems to be, to a considerable extent, the destruction
of the publishing industry: note the hostile language of, for
Citing a blog post
(http://blog.scielo.org/en/2013/09/18/how-much-does-it-cost-to-publish-in-open-access
), Graham Triggs wrote:
publishing in SciELO journals ranges from US $660 in one subsidized journal,
to
US $900 for foreign authors in another journal.
US $900 puts it in a similar
Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
Proponents of CC-NC should realize that this licence directly gives a monopoly
for exploitation to the publisher - the author is irrelevant
Not necessarily. It means that for any commercial use (and the CC definition is
subject to interpration), one has to obtain
-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de
Graham Triggs
Envoyé : 17 décembre 2013 16:18
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's
List
On 17 December 2013 16:32, Couture Marc
marc.cout
Hi all,
As in all things legal, only a court decision could really settle this issue.
In the meanwhile, legal commentators can weight the various arguments, drawing
upon similar court decisions and legal principles.
Unfortunately, neither Charles Oppenheimer nor Kevin Smith go much farther
Sally Morris wrote:
When Cox Cox last looked into this (in 2008), 53% of publishers requested a
copyright transfer, 20.8% asked for a licence to publish instead, and 6.6% did
not require any written agreement.
These figures don't mean much by themselves. When an exclusive licence is used,
Longva Leif wrote:
So I am still keen on views on how common it is for journals to reject
manuscripts
if the preprint is already available in an IR.
This would be an application of Ingelfinger Rule (no submission accepted in
case of “prior publication”).
I haven’t found any in-depth
Heather Morrison wrote :
If a blanket [CC BY] license is granted, a downstream user would have to be
psychic to know what kinds of commercial uses or re-uses might be acceptable or
offensive to the original author.
to which Graham Triggs replied:
To the extent that the terms are compatible
Jeffrey Beall wrote:
There is beauty in the simplicity of copyright, that is, transferring one's
copyright to a publisher. It is binary. The terms are clear.
I must disagree here.
One the one hand, it's clear that the publisher then owns the copyright in the
work.
On the other hand, as
Graham wrote:
So - e.g. Elsevier - could change the licence on papers served by their
website, and that would affect anyone obtaining it from the website after that
point.
I’m not sure about that. According to the legal code, the license applies to
the work “to which the Licensor applied
Hi all,
Note. It seems that Heather Morrison and I wrote our posts simultaneously.
You'll find that our explanations are quite similar (a good thing for the both
of us).
- - - - - - -
To determine what a CC license allows (or forbids) one to do, one has to
carefully distinguish between the
Hi all,
Elsevier has a record of pretending to make its decisions (at least partly) in
the interests of researchers, or research, and now repositories.
One example is the introduction of tagged manuscripts. I don’t really
understand how it will work and what will be gained by authors or
[mailto:didier.pelap...@inserm.fr]
Envoyé : 11 juin 2015 05:14
À : 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
Cc : frederique.bordig...@enpc.fr; Couture Marc
Objet : RE: [GOAL] Re: Update on statement against Elsevier's new sharing
policy
Hi Alicia,
One question puzzles me, studying your interventions
Hi all,
Although I don't share Heather's fears as to the dangers of CC BY in scientific
publishing, I agree that authors should be able to make an informed choice when
they are asked to accept it as a publication condition.
The verb share certainly doesn't convey the full scope of the rights
Hi all,
Well, I don't know exactly what part of Jeffrey Beall's post Dana Roth agrees
with, but I'm wondering about that part of the same post:
most peer-reviewed open access journals charge no fees at all. [1] This
misleading statement is based on a 2012 study that examined a
being (the figure is 6% with APCs, but with very partial coverage as
reveals a quick inspection of the available spreadsheet).
Marc Couture
De : Beall, Jeffrey [mailto:jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu]
Envoyé : 14 août 2015 15:30
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc : Couture Marc
Objet
Hi all,
What we would like to see here as evidence is something like what is being done
about open access to scholarly monographs: rigorous studies, involving control
groups and close monitoring, testing the effect of making a toll-free copy
available.
I'm aware of two such studies, both made
read the “small print”.
Marc Couture
De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de
Couture Marc
Envoyé : 24 mai 2016 08:50
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : Re: [GOAL] CC-BY with copyright transfer
Hi all,
I also agree
Pippa Smart wrote:
“I agree that the licence wording is not as clear as it could be - but the
requirement for "exclusive" publication refers to "first" publication - usually
journals do not want to publish something that has already been published
elsewhere (they want original content), and
Hi all,
This is another example on ambiguous, if not outright contradictory content one
finds in publishing agreements, especially concerning CC licenses.
There is an inherent conflict between an exclusive license to publish and a
non-exclusive CC user license.
Granting an exclusive license
Hi all,
I also agree that this is an important, but badly treated/understood issue.
For instance, in SPARC’s “How open is it” scale, author copyright ownership
gives a minimum of 4 (over 5) for the “Copyrights” criterion, irrespective of
possible restrictions that, as one sees, may amount in
Hi all,
Just to be clear, my position on the basic issue here.
I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such :
- I don't equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I'm a little bit
tired of discussions about what "being OA" means.
- I work to help increase the proportion of
Stephen Downes wrote :
"From the perspective of a person wishing to access content, a work that is
CC-by, but which requires payment to access, is not free at all"
I find this interpretation a bit extreme, considering that:
- The CC BY work for which payment is required must be attributed, and
quot;
I hear you, but I think the key point here is that OA advocates (perhaps not
you, but OA advocates) are successfully convincing a growing number of research
funders (e.g. Wellcome Trust, RCUK, Ford Foundation, Hewlett Foundation, Gates
Foundation etc.) that CC BY is the only acceptable form of
ommercial use?
Éric
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Couture Marc
Sent: January 23, 2017 10:46 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Subject: Re:
Hi all,
Jeroen Bosman wrote: "Elsevier is the single most important obstacle to
achieving and getting support for open access".
Ross Mounce wrote: "I hope no politicians or librarians are fooled by this
simple ruse".
Well, I very much agree with Jeroen's statement and Ross' wishes. However, I
Hi all,
Although I don’t applaud to the sudden disappearance of Beall’s list, I
certainly think his legacy is highly controversial. In short, relying on a
one-person black list to make overall quality judgments (on publishers or
journals) as well as specific decisions (on where to publish) was
Hi all,
What’s to conclude from this perplexing answer?
I did check Elsevier’s policy, in case it had changed overnight... but it
didn’t: manuscripts under embargo still must bear CC licenses allowing anybody
(except the authors, who are bound by the publishing agreement they have
signed) to
Jevan Pipitone wrote :
>
The fact that it says "No Derivatives" seems a concern for example sometimes
researchers can publish a summary of other peoples articles and then include
all the articles used in the references. [...]
... to gain ideas from other people which can then be used to create
Hi all,
Just to make myself clear: I also think we can safely reuse ideas found in a
text, irrespective of permissions granted, and that means reproducing
expressions and significant excerpts when needed. This falls under fair use /
fair dealing or similar exceptions. I also think also that
Bernhard Mittermaier wrote:
>
My interpretation of the CC licence is that sharing of CC BY-NC-ND article by
commercial platforms is OK as long as they don’t sell the articles (which they
don’t do).
>
Despite the large amount of discussion around the notion of “non-commercial”,
and the meaning
Jennifer wrote :
>
In terms of restricting where one may publish, doesn't the usual institutional
tenure and promotion policy do that as well, if more subtly? There are definite
expectations of where one may publish, as I understand it. (Not being
tenure-track myself.)
>
That's right on point
Hi all,
I'll discuss here two major issues discussed in this thread: the freedom (1) in
the choice of journals in which to publish and (2) in the choice of a user
licence when publishing.
I don't think it's very useful to discuss these issues on the basis of what
exactly does - or don't -
Hi Richard,
I sent a reply to a SCHOLCOM thread to both that list and GOAL, by mistake: I
did Reply to All to Danny Kingsley seed message, which had both forums as
recipients.
I don't think it should be posted on GOAL, as the thread isn't on both forums
(though the subject certainly interests
Hi all,
Heather Morrison raises in this thread some relevant and important issues
regarding open licenses: How they are displayed? How to treat works combining
elements bearing various licenses (some of them being possibly "all rights
reserved")? She asks:
"who is using embedded licensing
65 matches
Mail list logo
