> Jeroen - CC-BY license > > Heather - NO!!! the CC-BY license is a major strategic error of the open > access movement. Allowing downstream commercial use to anyone opens up the > possibility of re-enclosure. The temptation towards perpetual copyright for > profit-taking should not be underestimated. Scholarly publishing is a > multi-billion dollar industry (as well as a community effort relying largely > on a gift economy), with some players earning profits in the millions (a > billion for Elsevier), in the 40% profit range. There are other reasons to > hesitate to use this license, but this is the one that OA advocates need to > wake up and pay attention to.
I continue to be unable to grasp Heather’s argument. If, for whatever reason, I purchase from you a CC-BY article I can, as it is CC-BY, make the article freely available. I don’t see how CC-BY allows for re-enclosure when it contains within itself the ultimate enclosure-busting feature of allowing unlimited distribution provided there is attribution. David David C Prosser PhD Executive Director, RLUK Tel: +44 (0) 20 7862 8436 Mob: +44 (0) 7825 454586 www.rluk.ac.uk RLUK Twitter feed: RL_UK Director's Twitter feed: RLUK_David Registered Office: Senate House Library, Senate House, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HU Registered Company no: 2733294 Registered Charity no: 1026543 On 8 Apr 2015, at 02:08, Heather Morrison <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote: > Surely everyone on this list is aiming for the goal of global open access! > But what do we think this means? Thanks to Jeroen for posting recently his > wish list. In this post, I will point out how very different my perspective > on open access is from Jeroen's, even though I think Jeroen and I are both > fully in favour of global open access and transformative rather than > traditional approaches. The purpose of this post is to suggest that the open > access movement has now reached a point where it is useful to have such > discussions about the specifics of where we think we should be heading. In > addition to differences in individuals' perspectives, it seems quite likely > that there will be disciplinary differences as well. > > Jeroen's post can be found here: > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2015-April/003154.html > > Following is Jeroen's wish list items followed by my perspectives. > > Jeroen - fully Open Access > Heather: yes, of course! > > Jeroen - online only > Heather - OA works can be online only, but should not be restricted in this > manner > > Jeroen - CC-BY license > Heather - NO!!! the CC-BY license is a major strategic error of the open > access movement. Allowing downstream commercial use to anyone opens up the > possibility of re-enclosure. The temptation towards perpetual copyright for > profit-taking should not be underestimated. Scholarly publishing is a > multi-billion dollar industry (as well as a community effort relying largely > on a gift economy), with some players earning profits in the millions (a > billion for Elsevier), in the 40% profit range. There are other reasons to > hesitate to use this license, but this is the one that OA advocates need to > wake up and pay attention to. > > I have written about this in my Creative Commons and Open Access Critique > series: > http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/10/critique-of-cc-by-series.html > and I will be speaking on this topic next week in Washington at the Allen > Press' Emerging Trends in Scholarly Publishing Seminar: > http://allenpress.com/events/2015seminar > > Jeroen - authors retain copyright > Heather - this doesn't really mean very much. With the subscription > publishers' trend towards license-to-publish, author copyright retention is > the norm, but the licenses themselves can be virtually identical to full > copyright transfer. > > Jeroen - maximum APC of 500 USD (or perhaps a lifetime membership model like > that at PeerJ) > - APC waivers for those who apply (e.g. from LMI countries) > Heather - robust system of OA publishing that does not rely on APCs. Firmly > opposed to using research funds for APCs. Cancel the high-priced bundles of > the big commercial scholarly publishers first, then use the savings to pay > for OA. > > Jeroen - really international profile of editors/board (far beyond > US/UK/CA/AU/NL/DE/CH/NZ/FR) > Heather - this makes more sense in some areas than others. There is universal > knowledge (think physics principles) and local knowledge (consider Québec > politics). There are advantages to regionally based publishing. These include > the financial advantages of paying local rates in one's own currency and > generating local jobs, and the community advantages of working with people > you have a reasonable expectation of getting to know, who are based at > institutions you know something about. I think that journal "white lists" are > best handled locally. There is Qualis in Brazil (I gather), although this > might need some cleaning up. In Canada we have a scholarly journal publishing > subsidy program which involves peer review at the journal level. > > Jeroen - no issues: continuous publishing > - in principle no size restrictions > Heather: agreed. > > Jeroen- using ORCID and DOI of course > Heather: NOT signing up for an ORCID. On purpose!! ORCID and DOI may have > their usefulness, but neither is essential to open access. > > Jeroen- peer review along PLOS One idea: only check for (methodological) > soundness (and whether it is no obvious garbage or plagiarism), avoiding > costly system of multiple cascading submissions/rejections > Heather: this is most attractive for larger publishers with multiple > journals, i.e. authors should submit once and then the filter of top journal > can be applied or not. Another approach is transferring reviews. > > Jeroen - post pub open non anonymous peer review, so the community decides > what is the worth of published papers > Heather - an interesting experiment, this may work better for some > communities than others > > Jeroen - peer review reports themselves are citable and have DOIs > Heather - possibly interesting, but it is not clear whether all peer > reviewers will be honest without blind peer review. The author of an article > you are reviewing could show up someday on a hiring committee, tenure and > promotion committee, or fund proposal review committee. > > Jeroen- making (small) updates to articles possible (i.e. creating an updated > version) > - making it easy to link to additional material (data, video, code etc.) > shared via external platforms like Zenodo or Figshare > Heather - agreed, but preferred additional platforms are institutional and > disciplinary archives. > > Jeroen - no IF advertising > - open for text mining > Heather - sort of agreed, although changing reliance on IF needs to happen at > tenure and promotion committees. There is no point is asking journals not to > advertise something that makes them look good. > > Jeroen - providing a suite of article level metrics > Heather - a) optional and b) dead set against article level metrics being > used for evaluation purposes. Why? Most importantly, metrics are the wrong > approach altogether. Truly pioneering work (e.g. Mendel on genetics) is often > not appreciated when it is first published. Then, too, altmetrics have not > been tested. It seems reasonable to hypothesize that altmetrics based on > social media will tend to reflect and amplify social biases (e.g. the works > of articles that seem to be written by men would be more likely to be tweeted > than those that seem to be written by women), effects of popularity (unless > we all agree that the most important research topic of the future is internet > cats?), and subject to deliberate manipulation. For example, consider how > companies that prefer to deny climate change science could hire people to > distort social media to increase the "alt-merit" of their preferred research > and researchers. > > Jeroen - using e.g. LOCKSS or Portico for digital preservation > Heather - preservation is the responsibility of archives and libraries; > pushing this to journals unnecessarily increases the costs of publication. I > am opposed for this reason. > > Jeroen - indexing at least by Google Scholar and DOAJ, at a later stage also > Scopus, Web of Science and others > Heather - where indexing is important will depend on the discipline. NOT > Scopus, because they are owned by Elsevier and I am boycotting Elsevier. > Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science are all indexes owned and > controlled by large corporations. I argue that we need public indexes > controlled by scholars. > > Jeroen - optionally a pre-print archive (but could rely on SSRN as well) > Heather - open access archiving is primary, should be mandatory, and should > be the sole focus of almost all open access policies (the only exception > being internal policies of publishers, which will naturally focus on > publishing). Pre-prints, post-prints and research data should all be in > institutional repositories and copied (easily and seamlessly) to disciplinary > repositories wherever this makes sense (or vice versa; the point is the more > copies the better to ensure ongoing open access and preservation. > > Finally, there are somewhere around a million scholars around the world, and > others besides scholars who should be part of this discussion. I don't think > it is up to either Jeroen or I, or both of us together, to decide on the > future of open access and/or scholarly communication. This should be a > broader conversation. > > best, > > -- > Dr. Heather Morrison > Assistant Professor > École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies > University of Ottawa > http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html > Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/ > heather.morri...@uottawa.ca > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
