[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

[Peter Murray-Rust]

[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.

Seehttp://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/11/27/textmining-my-years-negotiating-with-e
lsevier/

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, O
xford, 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




    [ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]

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