[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

[Peter Murray-Rust]

This is a very good summary - as a;ways RP gets to the essence with clarity.

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Richard Poynder <ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk>
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.

That is my view. I cannot comment on most publishers' views. The material I have
received from them in response to questions about this issue does not, in
general, have Richard's clarity.

[...]
 
      There is also the question of what researchers can do with the the
      data once they have extracted it, which seems to me to be a more
      complex issue.

It has not been as heavily discussed as access has.
 
[...]

      On whether this is an OA issue, and so relevant to GOAL, I would
      suggest that it is partly an OA issue, and partly not an OA issue.
      One might argue that it is not an OA issue because it concerns
      access to subscription content, rather than OA content. On the other
      hand, one could argue that it is an OA issue, since both Stevan
      Harnad and Peter Murray-Rust are asking for access to subscription
      content. Where Stevan is asking for eyeball access to this material,
      Peter is asking for machine access.


The problem is partly that there are very few other forums other than GOAL for
the communal discussion of matters of this sort. One effect or cause (I leave
that to historians) is that much discourse takes place fragmentedly on blogs.
(There are places where news is reported but that is one-way) .IMO this is a
pity

      I realise, of course, that Stevan is happy to have access to the
      version of a paper as it exists prior to publication (the
      pre-print), but, nevertheless, he is asking for access to papers
      that have been published in subscription journals.

      Either way, since this issue is inextricably bound up with
      discussion of gratis vs. libre OA, I think it is relevant and
      appropriate to be discussed on GOAL. If others disagrees, please say
      so.

I would urge that GOAL be seen as the natural forum for discussion of the rights
and wrongs of re-use. Otherwise it will be necessary to set up somewhere else.

I also believe that textmining is set to take off rapidly and that there will be
a need for  a list related to technical issues - but that should be distinct.

P.
      Richard Poynder
      GOAL Moderator

      On 12/05/2012 09:23, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
            [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.







--



_______________________________________________
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