I object to the notion of sustainable applied to publications for two reasons :
1. Scientific research is unsustainable and has been so since at least the 17th century. 2. Peer-reviewing research results and making resulting version available to all interested is an integral part of the research process. Building on the shoulders of "giants" requires this. Therefore, why ask of the publishing phase to be sustainable when the rest of the research process is not sustainable? Let us have subsidized publishing to complete subsidized research. Jean-Claude Guédon -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal Le samedi 12 mai 2012 à 17:11 +0100, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) a écrit : Hi all, I agree that we are mixing up several issues/objectives, and helpfully Keith has identified some of these. I can think of a few others and I suspect there are more strands in this knot which others will hopefully identify. * we are probably conflating needs/practices in different disciplines * we are certainly conflating temporal challenges - how we xxx or yyy in 2012 ma y be different from the way we do it in 2015 or 2020. Text mining is an example . * we sometimes construct the false dichotomy of an open access world vs. a subsc ription world - there is already a blend of gold, green, subscription, and other business models, and there will continue to be for awhile (possibly forever) * we conflate pragmatic and idealistic discussions and yet need both * we too often duck the important issue of funding - for example could the dynam ics of sustainable gold+green be different from the dynamics of sustainable subs cription+green? Could the price be different for gratis gold oa vs. libre gold oa? To refer back to my original query about what positive things are established sc holarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and f uture scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized let me be cheeky and suggest one. The recent STM public statement that publish ers support sustainable open access (http://www.stm-assoc.org/publishers-support -sustainable-open-access/) is one thing I would suggest should be celebrated by others who are also interested in open access. With very 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 -----Original Message----- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of ke ith.jeff...@stfc.ac.uk Sent: 12 May 2012 15:47 To: goal@eprints.org Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that s hould be encouraged, celebrated, recognized" All - I have been following the several threads of argument with interest. As I see i t recent postings on this list are mixing up several issues/objectives, confusio ns, mechanisms for access and utilisation and mechanisms to achieve any kind of OA. Issues and Objectives --------------------- 1. how do we get gratis OA (free access to eyeball) for all researchers (and oth ers including the public) everywhere; 2. how do we get libre OA (including data mining and other machine processing of articles) for all researchers (and others including the public) everywhere; 3. how do we get libre OA (including processing of datasets associated with a pu blication using associated software or other software) for all researchers (and others including the public) everywhere; Confusions ---------- Confusing each of these objectives is the position (or more accurately different and evolving positions) of the commercial publishers - including the OA publish ers - and the learned societies in role publisher. Many allow (1) but Elsevier has the unfortunate 'not if mandated' clause. Attempting to expedite these objectives are mandates by research institutions an d funding organisations. However even here there is no clear recommendation eme rging on either green (subscription-based) or gold (author pays) for each of (1) ,(2). It appears clear that gold is more expensive - at least for now - for hig h production research institutions. There is no settled position yet on whether green or gold for publications are applicable to (3). The situation in each case is not assisted by current legislation in each countr y on copyright and database right. (3) in the academic environment is becoming convolved with the 'data.gov' agenda and citizen access. The rights of the public to have gratis/libre access to publicly-funded research products is a moralistic backdrop to the whole argument. The commercial publishers understandably wish to preserve their (very profitable ) business model as there is a (slow) transition from subscription access to som e other model(s) such as author pays access. In a world where ICT is making (re -engineered) processes in business much more effective (including increased offe rings), efficient and less costly it is surprising one does not see similar impr ovements in scholarly communication. Access and Utilisation ---------------------- There are requirements (a) to find the article or dataset (with software) of int erest and (b) to utilise it effectively (including text-mining or deeper mining of publications and data processing of datasets). Furthermore, in general there are requirements to do this locally (for specific institutional or funder purpos es) or globally (find all articles on left-handed widgets'). In all cases metada ta is required for effective (in the sense of accuracy/relevance and recall) ret rieval and usage although brute force text indexing (e.g. Google) provides an al ternative mechanism for text publications (things get more complex with figures, tables etc although there are various 'scraping and structuring' tools). Effective access to and utilisation of (3) requires metadata: for discovery (DC, eGMS, CKAN etc), for context including rights handling (CERIF or similar http:/ /www.eurocris.org/Index.php?page=CERIFreleases&t=1 ) and for machine processing (detailed metadata standards, domain specific such as CSMD http://code.google.co m/p/icatproject/wiki/CSMD (among literally hundreds of 'standards') needed to c onnect the software to the dataset). Depending on the structures within the article, one may need the same for (2) bu t for simple text-mining only the discovery and contextual metadata. Many would argue for (1) only discovery metadata is required but personally I believe cont ext metadata is also required to understand the article in context (persons, org anisations, projects, funding, facilities and equipment, products/patents/public ations related, events...). Achieving OA ------------- As Stevan correctly reminds us constantly, we currently have available only a sm all proportion of the potentially available material in any form of OA. The barr iers include FUD (fear uncertainty doubt) caused by commercial publishers (espec ially in (2) and (3) but also to some extent in (1)) and academics suffering fro m confused messages (not least from a heavily divided 'in favour of OA' communit y) and inertia. A major influence in achieving OA is mandating (by funders and/or institutions) and demands for formal assessment of research from public administrations (such as the RAE/REF in UK). The key changes needed are (1) reduction in the effort to make available researc h products; (2) reduction in the effort to utilise available research products ( including for webpages, CVs, bibliographies); (3) a move to quality measures (e. g. citation, access, download) on the individual research product, NOT the chann el (i.e. impact factors); (4) clarity on rights issues - ideally their removal f or publicly-funded research products; (5) recognition and reward for making rese arch products available fully OA; But above all a consistent, clear, simple message to all from the 'in favour of OA' community. Best Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Keith G Jeffery Director International Relations STFC -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the intended re cipient only. If you are not one of the intended recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it The STFC telecommunications systems may be monitored in accordance with the poli cy available from <http://dlitd.dl.ac.uk/policy/monitoring/monitoring%20statemen t.htm>. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- -----Original Message----- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of St evan Harnad Sent: 12 May 2012 14:03 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that s hould be encouraged, celebrated, recognized" On 2012-05-12, at 8:42 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: > Thought experiment: what if authors posted to their personal sites, but with e nough metadata (e.g. http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle) for generic (rather tha n topical/institutional) search engine discovery to be feasible? 1. If 100% of authors posted (self-archived) the full-text of their articles, fr ee for all, on their websites, we would have 100% OA; there would be no need to post to topical or institutional repositories, and google-style full-text indexi ng would do the rest. 2. The trouble is that 80% of authors do not post the full-text of their article s, free for all, *anywhere*. 3. That's why we need Institutional Repositories, and (Green, Gratis) OA self-ar chiving (posting) mandates from institutions and funders. 4. And that's why it matters what we put on out wish-list for well-intentioned p ublishers. 5. Metadata have next to nothing to do with it: It's about the posting (anywhere , free online) of the full-text. > On 2012-05-11, at 6:47 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: > >> Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from me. The pu blishers should withdraw contractual restrictions on content-mining. That's all they need to do. >> >> If Alicia Wise can say "yes" to me unreservedly, I'll be happy. > > So let's all forget about OA... _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal [ Part 2: "Attached Text" ] _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
