Forgot to specify – we are approaching 60% of WoS contents that can be found in gratis OA – that’s for the last few years (about 5 years – except the latest year which is still plagued by embargoes and the lack of reflex by researchers to self-archive immediately the pre-prints and post-prints).
Sorry for the typos in my previous post – I never read these enough without new modifications before pressing “send”. Éric From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eric F. Van de Velde Sent: May 18, 2016 4:39 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation Stevan: Yes, distributed management of Institutional Repositories spread the costs and immunize them against a take-over. That is why advocated for them as early as the 1999 UPS meeting in Santa Fe. But, it is now also increasingly clear that this distributed management comes with significant downsides. Any successes of the OA movement have been in recruiting content for IRs and in enacting OA mandates. Unfortunately, the network of IRs federated through OAI-PMH is simply not good enough for professional-level research. If IRs fail at this task, they'll simply disappear into obscurity. Distributed management does not immunize IRs against becoming irrelevant. Each IR is managed to accommodate idiosyncratic local concerns and not the broader interests of the world. There is no consistent access to the full text (many records contain only metadata). Many records just contain bad scans. Many IRs prohibit/discourage data mining. With globally inconsistent metadata, it is impossible to search and find anything with consistent reliability. Moreover, in its institutionalized form, the supposedly-cheap IR has become rather expensive. The distributed nature has led to a paralysis in development. To put it bluntly: Today's institutional repositories are run with software of the early 2000s and managed with the cataloging mindset of the 1980s. Frankly, I have no solution to offer. The crowdsourced alternatives like figshare, academia.edu<http://academia.edu>, etc. look increasingly better in comparison. --Eric. http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com Twitter: @evdvelde E-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Stevan Harnad <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: The worldwide distributed network of Green Institutional Repositories<http://roar.eprints.org> is by far the best prophylactic against Elsevier predation. I hope universities and research funders will be awake enough to realize this rather than falling for quick "solutions" that continue to hold their research output hostage to the increasingly predatory publishing industry. "We have nothing to lose but our chains..." On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Paul Walk <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: "The software may change, but you can't sell off a distributed network of independent repositories.” I agree, and I think that this is the crucial point. The software doesn’t matter (well, it does matter, but it doesn’t affect this principle). It’s about the distribution of *control*. We are truly fortunate to have a global, distributed infrastructure of institutional repositories which are (mostly) under institutional control. This is quite an unusual arrangement these days - and I think we should regard it as precious and inherently powerful in its denial of the possibility of “ownership” by one party. We should do what we can to both hang on to this infrastructure, and to exploit it more fully, in pursuit of a better scholarly communications system. Paul > On 17 May 2016, at 22:06, Leslie Carr > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > The software may change, but you can't sell off a distributed network of > independent repositories. > > Prof Leslie Carr > Web Science institute > #⃣ webscience #⃣ openaccess > > On 17 May 2016, at 21:35, Joachim SCHOPFEL > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > wrote: > > Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide > is not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional repositories can be > replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better solutions, more > functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better connected to > databases and gold/hybrid journals etc. > > ----- Mail d'origine ----- > De: Stevan Harnad > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST) > Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier > > Shame on SSRN. > > Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley): > > It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed > scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer needed, > and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as a foothold > if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a legacy from an > obsolete Gutenberg era. > > I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated > expenses are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is > that the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide > is not for sale, and that is their strength... > > Stevan Harnad > > > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > wrote: > > This is an interesting news item which should interest the > readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale. > > Bo-Christer Björk > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: > Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman > Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 07:40:29 -0400 (EDT) > From: Michael C. Jensen > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Reply-To: > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > To: > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > > > [http://papers.ssrn.com/Organizations/images/ihp_ssrnlogo.png]<http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421&corid=4024&runid=15740&url=http://www.ssrn.com> > [http://static.ssrn.com/Images/Header/socialnew.gif] > > > Dear SSRN Authors, > > > SSRN announced today that it has changed ownership. SSRN is > joining Mendeley<https://www.mendeley.com/?signout> and > Elsevier<https://www.elsevier.com> > to coordinate our development and delivery of new products and > services, and we look forward to our new access to data, products, > and additional resources that this change facilitates. (See Gregg > Gordon’s Elsevier > Connect<https://www.elsevier.com/connect/ssrn-the-leading-social-science-and-humanities-repository-and-online-community-joins-elsevier> > post) > > > Like SSRN, Mendeley and Elsevier are focused on creating tools > that enhance researcher workflow and productivity. SSRN has been > at the forefront of on-line sharing of working papers. We are > committed to continue our innovation and this change will enable > that to happen more quickly. SSRN will benefit from access to the > vast new data and resources available, including Mendeley’s > reference management and personal library management tools, their > new researcher profile capabilities, and social networking > features. Importantly, we will also have new access for SSRN > members to authoritative performance measurement tools such as > those powered by Scopus<https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus> and > Newsflo<http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421&corid=4024&runid=15740&url=http://www.newsflo.net> > (a global media tracking tool). In addition, SSRN, Mendeley and > Elsevier together can cooperatively build bridges to close the > divide between the previously separate worlds and workflows of > working papers and published papers. > > > We realize that this change may create some concerns about the > intentions of a legacy publisher acquiring an open-access working > paper repository. I shared this concern. But after much discussion > about this matter and others in determining if Mendeley and > Elsevier would be a good home for SSRN, I am convinced that they > would be good stewards of our mission. And our copyright policies > are not in conflict -- our policy has always been to host only > papers that do not infringe on copyrights. I expect we will have > some conflicts as we align our interests, but I believe those will > be surmountable. > > > Until recently I was convinced that the SSRN community was best > served being a stand-alone entity. But in evaluating our future in > the evolving landscape, I came to believe that SSRN would benefit > from being more interconnected and with the resources available > from a larger organization. For example, there is scale in systems > administration and security, and SSRN can provide more value to > users with access to more data and resources. > > > On a personal note, it has been an honor to be involved over the > past 25 years in the founding and growth of the SSRN website and > the incredible community of authors, researchers and institutions > that has made this all possible. I consider it one of my great > accomplishments in life. The community would not have been > successful without the commitment of so many of you who have > contributed in so many ways. I am proud of the community we have > created, and I invite you to continue your involvement and support > in this effort. > > > The staff at SSRN are all staying (including Gregg Gordon, CEO and > myself), the Rochester office is still in place, it will still be > free to upload and download papers, and we remain committed to > “Tomorrow’s Research Today”. I look forward to and am committed to > a successful transition and to another great 25 years for the SSRN > community that rivals the first. > > > Michael C. Jensen > > Founder & Chairman, SSRN > > > > ________________________________ > > Search > the SSRN > eLibrary<http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421&corid=4024&runid=15740&url=http://papers.ssrn.com/> > | Browse > SSRN > <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421&corid=4024&runid=15740&url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/DisplayJournalBrowse.cfm> > | Top > Papers<http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421&corid=4024&runid=15740&url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/topten/topTenPapers.cfm> > > _______________________________________________ > > GOAL mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
