[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Cancelling because contents are Green OA vs. because publisher allows Green OA

On 16 September 2013 19:33, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Rick Anderson rick.ander...@utah.eduwrote: The issue that was raised (by Fred) under this subject thread was the possibility of subscription losses dues to Green OA archiving. Yes. But

[GOAL] Re: Scholars jobs not publisher profits

On 5 October 2013 19:12, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.ukwrote: ** The point I was trying to make is that - unlike with subscriptions - there is a direct connection between the person who benefits from the value offered (the author) and the publisher. Thus the marketplace should

[GOAL] Re: Scholars jobs not publisher profits

On 5 October 2013 19:51, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.cawrote: The only place where OA article processing fees fit into this picture is with hybrid journals / publishers. If the market were working, overall subscription prices should be decreasing, not increasing, to reflect the

[GOAL] Re: Fool's Gold vs. Fair Gold

On 5 October 2013 23:31, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Graham Triggs grahamtri...@gmail.comwrote: In an author-pays model, the author is paying in part for the peer-review, editing, production, distribution - which are all replicable

[GOAL] Re: Fool's Gold vs. Fair Gold

On 7 October 2013 21:31, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: *SH:* But with post-Green Fair Gold, the production and distribution and their costs are gone -- offloaded onto the global network of Green OA IRs. And the peer review costs are paid for as a service (most sensibly, a

[GOAL] Re: Bohannon study: No damage

On 13 October 2013 20:53, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: It would be nice if we could all agree to stop conflating OA with Gold OA! It would be nice if we could all agree to stop conflating Green with OA. http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#openaccess free

[GOAL] Re: Bohannon study: No damage

On 12 October 2013 20:28, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: It is a specific problem of *peer review standards of pay-to-publish Gold OA journals* at a time when there is still far too little OA and when most journals are still subscription journals, most authors are still confused

[GOAL] Re: UK and Paid vs Free Gold OA Journals

On 1 December 2013 02:35, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: Because thanks in part to Finch/RCUK's folly and profligacy, many (perhaps even most) of the subscription journals that UK authors publish in have lately and happily offered hybrid Gold to UK authors in the hope of cashing in

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

On 9 December 2013 00:20, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.cawrote: Alicia, According to your statement below, with CC-BY the only restriction placed by Elsevier is for attribution. However, the Elsevier open access license policy clearly states that Elsevier demands an exclusive

[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: [SIGMETRICS] Elsevier Study Commissioned by UK BIS

On 7 December 2013 12:56, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: 4. The majority of publishers with Green OA embargoes have an embargo of one year (though 60%, including Elsevier and Springer, have no embargo at all). That's not true - Springer have adopted a 12 month embargo, and

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

On 10 December 2013 13:05, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: There is a general point: the Elsevier site(s) are riddled with Open Access inconsistencies. I have discovered at least: * open access articles behind paywalls * articles advertised as open access but not labelled anywhere

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

On 10 December 2013 13:38, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:05, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: Elsevier are the worst offender that I have investigated, followed by Springer who took all my Open Access images, badged them as (C) SpringerImages and

[GOAL] Re: GOAL] Re: Don't Conflate OA with Peer-Review Reform

On 11 December 2013 20:13, Bosman, J.M. j.bos...@uu.nl wrote: Let me be clear on this. My suggestion to move the discussion on peer review to another list has nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing with anyone. It has to do with the degree to which peer review is related to Open Access.

[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly CompromisesCredibilityofBeall's List

On 12 December 2013 15:14, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.ukwrote: But I still feel that the BOAI definition may be an unnecessarily tight/narrow definition of the end: optimal scholarly exchange, as you put it (or unimpeded access to research articles for those who need to read

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

On 13 December 2013 13:14, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.ukwrote: The few responses to my original posting have all focused on whether the 'credo' of the BBB declarations is or is not fundamental to the underlying concept of OA. I find it interesting that no one has commented at

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

On 14 December 2013 20:53, Jean-Claude Guédon jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: Regarding an earlier post of your that seemed to complain that OA advocates are using too narrow and too strict a definition of open access, you might consider that the publishing industry, for its part, has

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

On 16 December 2013 20:28, Jean-Claude Guédon jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: Who introduced hybrid journals? who introduced delayed open access - an oxymoron if there ever was one? What about Elsevier's universal access? etc. etc. Admittedly, universal access is somewhat confusing.

[GOAL] Re: Hybrid Open Access

Thanks for that Robert. Interestingly, the Rightslink page also claims that the article is Copyright Elesvier. Which it isn't - the copyright is held with the authors (which is only clear when you download the PDF). That means on Rightslink, aside from the licence not requiring re-use rights to

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

On 17 December 2013 16:32, Couture Marc marc.cout...@teluq.ca wrote: This is a somewhat incomplete, if not flawed argument. 1. The prices mentioned by Graham are just two examples (out of 280 current journals in SciELO Brazil). One reads further in the same blog post : “In the case of

[GOAL] Re: Hybrid Open Access

On 17 December 2013 22:38, Couture Marc marc.cout...@teluq.ca wrote: I’m in the editorial board of an OA journal which uses -NC but doesn’t ask authors to grant it a license, so the authors keep the exploitation rights. The problem with Elsevier is that they require (even for CC-BY) an

[GOAL] Re: Hybrid Open Access

On 18 December 2013 06:41, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: Not necessarily. It means that for any commercial use (and the CC definition is subject to interpration), one has to obtain the permission of the copyright owner, which may be the author, depending of the scope of the license

[GOAL] Re: Hybrid Open Access

On 18 December 2013 12:07, Andrew A. Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp wrote: Graham, There is still disagreement as to the exact scope of CC-NC license. For example, a University which uses material in a MOOC for which it does not charge any fees isclearly NC. However, what about if they offer

[GOAL] Re: Elsevier, Flip your journals to Gold OA and/or offer an acceptable Hybrid Model

On 18 December 2013 12:47, christian.gutkne...@ub.unibe.ch wrote: 1. Flip your journals to Gold OA. Start with high ranked journals, because as you know most researchers still care. Although the true cost of publishing remains unclear (http://doi.org/kxz), I think it's safe to say, that with

[GOAL] Re: Elsevier, Flip your journals to Gold OA and/or offer an acceptable Hybrid Model

On 20 December 2013 13:51, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: SCOAP3 and the pre-emptive flip model for Gold OA conversionhttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/421-SCOAP3-and-the-pre-emptive-flip-model-for-Gold-OA-conversion.html To quote: *5. Conclusions.* In sum, the

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

On 20 December 2013 13:41, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote: So why don't subscription publishers use that distinction in their policies and provide a simple, human-readable-only version freely, on their own web sites (findability, transparency as regards usage), while keeping the fully

[GOAL] Re: Speech by Dutch junior minister in Berlin

On 29 January 2014 13:43, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: (*5*) Dekker apparently misunderstands that all peer-reviewed journal articles are peer-reviewed, whether Gold or Green. Researchers will have to go through the peer review process whilst at the same time publishing another

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

An exclusive license, that prevents an author from exercising their copyright rights, may be as good as a copyright transfer as far as a publisher is concerned. In terms of the statistics you quote, do you know if that covers all types of publishers (for-profit, not-for-profit, societies, etc.),

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

Jan Erik, Heather, There are a number of factors that can be at play here. I think it's reasonable to suspect that as a journal becomes more established - becoming better known, more trusted and potentially having greater kudos - that submission rates increase, and that may well impact on

[GOAL] Re: When Gold OA isn't free to non-subscribers!!

On 27 March 2014 07:37, Andrew A. Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp wrote: https://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2014/03/26/elseviergate-elsevier-is-still-charging-for-open-access-even-after-i-have-told-them-wellcome-should-take-them-to-court/ Elseviergate; Elsevier is STILL charging for Open Access even

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY and open access question: who is the Licensor?

On 13/04/2015 14:09:02, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: PLOS authors retain copyright. CC licenses are a waiver of one's rights under copyright. That isn't quite true - CC licences are an expression of the rights that you grant to end users, and the conditions attached to

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY and open access question: who is the Licensor?

On 14/04/2015 06:44:06, Andrew A. Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp wrote: I don't think it's this clear-cut. Over on a list of lawyers working on Free Software legal issues (*) we recently had a discussion about what happens when someone violates a provision of a free software license. Do they then lose all

[GOAL] Re: A case for strong fair use / fair dealing with restrictive licenses

On 28 April 2015 at 22:45, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: There is nothing in any of the CC licenses that requires that works be made available free of charge, either by the downstream user or by the original licensor. It is true that a CC license cannot be revoked,

[GOAL] Re: A case for strong fair use / fair dealing with restrictive licenses

On 29/04/2015 14:09:40, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk wrote: It is unlikely that many authors have contracts with publishers requiring a particular license even at the time of publication. When an author submits a paper to a journal they often get a selection of licenses to choose

[GOAL] Re: Is the GOAL of open access free re-use for promotional purposes?

On Friday, 1 May 2015, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: Question: does the GOAL of open access include making works freely available for use in promotional material? I argue that this kind of re-use is highly problematic from legal and author moral rights perspectives.

[GOAL] Re: How a flat APC with no price increase for 3 years can be a 6% - 77% price increase at the same time

Also worth noting that a flat APC in one currency actually equates to a price decrease in real terms over time. The effect of regional pricing in real terms is quite a bit less when you factor in e.g. local inflation. On 14/05/2015 07:08:49, Michael Eisen mbei...@gmail.com wrote: It is true

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY and open access question: who is the Licensor?

On 11/04/2015 15:39:23, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: For example, you have clarified that with PLOS CC licenses, PLOS is the licensor. That isn't what I said - I just agreed that your interpretation is probably correct. Are you an academic, or an employee of a company

[GOAL] Re: CC-BY and open access question: who is the Licensor?

On 10 April 2015 at 20:00, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: is PLOS and not the author that is the Licensor? That's a fair reading. Two reasons why this is important: 1. If other publishers are making works available to PLOS under CC-BY licenses, do they have the

[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?

On 08/04/2015 18:27:24, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk wrote: Once the paper has been offered under a CC-BY license that license is ‘irrevocable’. Does ‘irrevocable’ not mean what I think it does? Further, also under Scope:  If you think that 'irrevocable' means that the copyright holder

[GOAL] Re: What is the GOAL?

On 8 April 2015 at 22:29, Couture Marc marc.cout...@teluq.ca wrote: I’m not sure about that. According to the legal code, the license applies to the work “to which the Licensor applied [the] license”, not to a specific copy of it. And the licensee (“You”), is not someone who obtains a copy,

[GOAL] Re: Predatory Publishing: A Modest Proposal

On 10/09/2015 11:37:02, Nicolas Pettiaux wrote: What about the idea : research published only non profit OA journals should be taken into account. Wouldn't this push the predatory OA journals by competition out of business ? Well, first, try and define what your criteria for

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

> On 31 Dec 2015, at 15:59, Thomas Krichel wrote: > > oh I know. It's because libraries are spending money on subscriptions. > And as long as they do, OA remains editable. With the talk of flipping journals, and where libraries should be allocating their funds, maybe

[GOAL] Re: EU considering link taxing and blocking

The EU is not considering link blocking. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/16/eu_wont_make_hyperlinks_illegal_copyright/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/05/ec_copyright_framework_leak/

[GOAL] Re: EU considering link taxing and blocking

ts becomes infringing. > > On Nov 18, 2015 3:39 AM, "Graham Triggs" <grahamtri...@gmail.com > <mailto:grahamtri...@gmail.com>> wrote: > The EU is not considering link blocking. > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/16/eu_wont_make_hyperlinks_ille