The discussion is a (very) nice case of procrastination on the part of the publisher, similar to what some of us have already experienced. 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. One among many aspects where academic negotiators should not be weak. Laurent
Le 12 mai 2012 à 10:23, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit : > [Note that as this is a moderated list my replies may not appear immediately > - this may give the impression that I am ignoring mails when I am not]. > > On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) <a.w...@elsevier.com> > wrote: > Hi Peter, > > > > Thanks for this. I’ve communicated that we are happy in principle for you to > mine our content, > > > Good - that is agreed. > > and there are only some practical issues to resolve. We have successfully > concluded the technical discussion, and I believe you, your colleagues, and > my technical colleagues are all happy with the proposed technical mechanism. > > > I don' think this is true at all. Rather than allowing us to mine the actual > journal articles in siti you have pointed us at some zip files. We have no > idea how comprehensive these are or how up to date. We understand publication > of articles, we do not understand your zip files. > > Getting content from the published journal articles is trivial and is the > same mechanism for all publishers. Fine the DOI, download it. Getting > articles from 100 publishers through 100 different arcane mechanisms is a > nightmare. If you want to make life easy for us, let us use the articles. > > Next, I’ld like to double-check that I have correctly understood what you and > your colleagues will do and who will have access to which content/extracts. > > > I will extract factual data and I shall publish them Openly to the whole > world. For your interest my first research is likely to be in the > phylogenetic trees of arthropods - whcih impacts on trillions of dollars > (sic) of human welfare. Polination allone is 150 billion dollars. I shall not > publish discursize text unless it is required. I shall not publish the > "publishers PDF". But I shall publish anything that represents facts, in > botha critical and uncritical manner. > > And in the area below - just one project, I expect to use 10,000 articles per > year. So , in principle, I intend to mine millions per year. > > I shall take silence as assent that this is agreed. > > Finally, we have an existing agreement with the U of Cambridge library and we > need to ensure there is some language in that agreement – or a side letter - > to enable content-mining. We aren’t far off at all – and I suspect we could > resolve this in 1, possibly 2, quick conversations. If you prefer not to > interact with the Cambridge librarians, I can do this separately. > > > The librarian has indicated that it is important that I be allowed to > text-mine and believes that publishers should set out terms. I will ask her > permission whether I can reproduce her letter publicly. She does not believe > I should be wasting my research time negotiation with indivdiual publishers > and she sets out one publisher (not Elsevier) as having made their terms > clear. So the first thing is for you to say something in plain language which > says what I can do. > > I do not regard this as a negotiation. I believe I have rights and will - > with otherrs such as RichardP be putting out those rights shortly. If > libraries wish to agree on a more limited use I shall be unhappy with them. > > > > > Perhaps it would be helpful for me to clarify the important role that I > believe the Cambridge library has to play. This role is not to vet your > research to see if you can carry it out, but to ensure that the language > necessary to enable this to happen is included in their various agreements > with publishers. > > > And to take out the restrictions that you have added. > > This is the way that libraries have been able to create the existing > information environment on campus where you, and your colleagues, can access > e-journals from home or your office or out in the field. All the > agreements/arrangements/technology that the library has put in place to > create this environment, and to ensure that it is easy to access and use, are > generally invisible to researchers - even those who use this information > environment on a daily basis. > > > And we pay enormous amounts for it. My grant income is paying Elsevier, > including you. IMO it is one fo the most inefficient uses of public money. > > > > This is the sort of environment/experience needed for researchers who wish to > text mine as well. As an early adopter – indeed a pioneer in text mining – > you are forging a trail. Librarians will help to maintain that trail so that > many, many others can follow easily in your footsteps. > > > Let me be clear. This discussion is wasting my time - I could be doing > research. If I have to do this with every publisher it will destroy this > research. > > If I leave it to my librarians, then they may well agree to the awful and > restrictive deal that Elsevier forced on Heather Piwowar at UBC where one > researcher was given permission for one project. She is not allowed to > publish the full research openly so it's of no use to me. > > So I reiterate: > * a public statement that I can mine Elsevier journals in any amount for > whatever purpose and in whatever form. > * that I can publish the factual information extracted without restriction. > > I have no details of the negotiations you are transacting with my library - I > am a scientist not a contract negotiator. I have made my wishes very clear to > the library. > > P. > > > > > 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: 11 May 2012 23:47 > > > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Subject: [GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers > > > > > > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Richard Poynder <ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk> > wrote: > > Many thanks to Alicia Wise for starting a new conversation thread. > > > > Let’s recall that Alicia’s question was, “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?” > > > Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from me. The > publishers show withdraw contractual restrictions on content-mining. That's > all they need to do. > > My university has paid Elsevier for subscription to the content in Elsevier > journals. I believe I have the right to mine the content. Elsevier has > written a contract which forbids me to use this in any way other than reading > with human eyeballs - I cannot crawl it, index it, extract content for > whatever purpose. I have spent THREE years trying to deal with Elsevier and > get a straight answer. > > See > http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/11/27/textmining-my-years-negotiating-with-elsevier/ > > The most recent "discussions" ended with Alicia Wise suggesting that she and > Cambridge librarians discuss my proposed research and see if they could agree > to my carrying it out. I let the list decide whether this is a constructive > offer or a delaying tactic. It certainly does not scale if all researchers > have to get the permission of their librarians and every publisher before > they can mine the content in the literature. And why should a publisher > decide what research I may or may not do? > > All of this is blogged on http://blogs.cam.ac.uk/pmr > > Yes - I asked 6 toll-access publishers for permission to mine their content > before I submitted my opinion to the Hargreaves enquiry. Of the 6 publishers > (which we in the process of summarising - this is hard because of the > wooliness of the language) the approximate answers were: > 1 possibly > 4 mumble (e.g. "let's discuss it with your librarians") > 1 no (good old ACS pulls no punches - I'd rather have a straight "no" than > "mumble") > > In no other market would vendors be allowed to get away with such awful > customer service. A straight question deserves a straight answer, but not in > scholarly publishing. > > Just in case anyone doesn't understand content mining, the technology is > straightforward. The only reason it's not done is because Universities are > afraid of publishers. I estimate that tens of billions of dollars worth of > value is lost through being forbidden to mine the scholarly literature. > > If Alicia Wise can say "yes" to me unreservedly, I'll be happy. > > P. > > > > > > > > > -- > Peter Murray-Rust > Reader in Molecular Informatics > Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry > University of Cambridge > CB2 1EW, UK > +44-1223-763069 > > Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, > Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 > (England and Wales). > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > > > -- > Peter Murray-Rust > Reader in Molecular Informatics > Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry > University of Cambridge > CB2 1EW, UK > +44-1223-763069 > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal Laurent Romary INRIA & HUB-IDSL laurent.rom...@inria.fr
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
