Thank you Sally. These are exactly the kind of evidence-based contributions we should be striving for in our discussions, in my opinion.
I found Cox & Cox 2008 here: http://test.alpsp.org/ngen_public/article.asp?id=200&did=47&aid=24781&st=&oaid=-1 but regrettably it is only available for 'free' to ALPSP Members. It would seem that I would have to pay £250/$480/€330 as a non-member to read this report! If anyone could furnish me with a PDF copy I'd be much obliged. Best, Ross On 9 October 2012 16:39, Sally Morris <sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>wrote: > ** > On one point - publishers' insistence on (c) transfer - there certainly > are facts available. The most recent study of which I am aware is Cox & > Cox, Scholarly Publishing Practice 3 (2008). They surveyed 400 publishers > including most leading journal publishers, and received 203 usable > responses. According to further analysis by Laura Cox, 181 of these > publishers represented 753,037 articles (74.7% of ISI's world total for > that year). > > In their 2008 study, they found just over 50% of publishers asking for > copyright transfer in the first instance (this had declined steadily from > over 80% in 2003 and over 60% in 2005); of these, a further 20% would > provide a 'licence to publish' as an alternative if requested by the > author. At the same time, the number offering a licence in the first > instance had grown to around 20% by 2008. So that's nearly 90%, by my > reckoning, who either don't ask for (c) in the first place, or will provide > a licence instead on request. > > They also found that over 40% (by number of articles) made the finally > published version open to text mining. In addition, 80% or more allowed > self-archiving to a personal or departmental website, 60% to an > institutional website and over 40% to a subject repository (though authors > often don't know that they are allowed to do this). In most cases this > applied to the submitted and/or accepted version; self-archiving of the > final published version was much less likely to be permitted (though it > appears to be what authors really want). > > I understand ALPSP are currently repeating the study, so we may soon know > if these trends have continued - I'd be amazed if they have not. > > Sally > > > Sally Morris > South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU > Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 > Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On > Behalf Of *Ross Mounce > *Sent:* 09 October 2012 15:51 > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Cc:* jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk > *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Europe PubMed as a home for all RCUK research > outputs? > > Dear Stevan, > > I'm disappointed that you continue to make wild assertions without backing > them up with good evidence. I, like many readers of this list (perhaps?) > suggest you're not doing your credibility any favours here... > > A grating example: > > Moreover, most fields don't need CC-BY (and certainly not as urgently as >> they need access). >> > > [citation needed!!!] > > Who (aside from you) says that most fields "don't need CC-BY"? > You're the only person I know saying this. > > *I* argue that we clearly *would* benefit greatly from CC-BY research as > this explicitly enables content mining approaches such as textmining that > may otherwise be impeded by less open licences. > > It has been estimated that over 50 million academic articles have been > published (Jinha, 2010) and the volume of publications is increasing > rapidly year on year. The only rational way we’ll be able to make full use > of all this research both NOW and in the future, is if we are allowed to > use machines to help us make sense of this vast and growing literature. I > should add that it's not just scientific fields that would benefit from > these approaches. Humanities research could greatly benefit too from > techniques such as sentiment analysis of in-text citations across thousands > of papers and other such analyses as applied to a whole variety of > hypotheses to be tested. These techniques (and CC-BY) aren't a Panacea but > they would have some strong benefits for a wide variety of research, if > only people in those fields a) knew how to use those techniques and b) were > *allowed* to use the techniques. (see McDonald & Kelly, 2012 JISC report > on 'The Value and Benefits of Text Mining' for more detail) > > For an example of the kind of papers we *could* write if we actually used > all the literature in this manner see Kell (2009) and its impressive > reference list making use of 2469 previously published papers. CC-BY > enables this kind of scope and ambition without the need for commercially > provided information retrieval systems that are often of dubious data > quality. > > > Repositories cannot attach CC-BY licenses because most publishers still >> insist on copyright transfer. (Global Green OA will put an end to this, but >> not if it waits for CC-BY first.) >> > > I agree with the first half of the sentence BUT the second half your > assertion: "most publishers still insist on copyright transfer" - where's > the evidence for this? I want hard numbers. If there are ~25 or ~28 > thousand active peer-reviewed journals (figures regularly touted, I won't > vouch for their accuracy it'll do) and vastly fewer publishers of these, > data can be sought to test this claim. For now I'm very unconvinced. I know > of many many publishers that allow the author to retain copyright. It is > unclear to me what the predominate system is with respect to this *contra > *your assertion. > > > Finally: > > >> Green mandates don't exclude Gold: they simply allow but do not *require* >> Gold, >> nor paying for Gold. >> > > Likewise RCUK policy as I understand it does not exclude Green, nor paying > for the associated costs of Green OA like institutional repositories, > staff, repo development and maintenance costs. Gold is preferred but Green > is allowed. Glad we've made that clear... > > > > > > > Jinha, A. E. 2010. Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of > scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing 23:258-263. > http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20100308 > > Kell, D. 2009. Iron behaving badly: inappropriate iron chelation as a > major contributor to the aetiology of vascular and other progressive > inflammatory and degenerative diseases. BMC Medical Genomics 2:2+. > http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1755-8794-2-2 > > McDonald, D & Kelly, U 2012. The Value and Benefits of Text Mining. JISC > Report > http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2012/value-and-benefits-of-text-mining.aspx > > > > > > > -- > -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/- > Ross Mounce > PhD Student & Panton Fellow > Fossils, Phylogeny and Macroevolution Research Group > University of Bath, 4 South Building, Lab 1.07 > http://about.me/rossmounce > -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/- > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- -- -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/- Ross Mounce PhD Student & Open Knowledge Foundation Panton Fellow Fossils, Phylogeny and Macroevolution Research Group University of Bath, 4 South Building, Lab 1.07 http://about.me/rossmounce -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
