...so, the main idea is to offer free open access to free open content behind a Paywall build on free open source tools ?
Look at the business model of (Eternal) Environnemental Trust Funds for a différente philosophie & praxis. Olivier Le 2016-05-19 à 07:45, "WALK Paul" <p.w...@ed.ac.uk> a écrit : > "The best way to keep Elsevier from dominating the space would be for there > to be plenty of lean and hungry startups seeing opportunities here." > > That seems demonstrably untrue, when such lean and hungry startups often have > acquisition as their main exit strategy... > > Paul > > >> On 19 May 2016, at 11:17, William Gunn <william.g...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Thanks for your comments, Eric F! If we want to improve scholarly >> communications, we have to drop the idea that top-down grant funded projects >> are the ideal. The best way to keep Elsevier from dominating the space would >> be for there to be plenty of lean and hungry startups seeing opportunities >> here. >> >> >> William Gunn >> +1 (650) 614-1749 >> http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/ >> >> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde >> <eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Eric Archambault: >> This is quite impressive and potentially very helpful. >> >> Stevan: >> We started with IRs that would grow organically. When that did not work, we >> pursued institutional mandates. Now, it is national funder mandates. This >> attitude of top-down enforced innovation is at odds with today's tech >> culture of bottom-up innovation. The top-down approach is just too slow. >> >> Libraries have now been managing IRs for over 15 years without any >> significant changes to IRs. They still have no social component, like >> Figshare or academia.edu. As we have seen elsewhere, the social component is >> crucial to achieve organic growth. >> >> Worse than not adding features is the attitude that IRs are the goal. The >> real goal should be better scholarly communication. This may require a new >> IR: Individual Repositories. Social platforms are far more suited for the >> individual researcher. >> >> I am not an absolute free marketer, but the free market is rather good at >> forcing innovation. Perhaps, it is time to make libraries compete for the >> IR/OA management business and force some innovation that way. >> --Eric. >> >> >> http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com >> Twitter: @evdvelde >> E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com >> >> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Éric Archambault >> <eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote: >> Eric >> >> >> >> At 1science, we have developed a robust solution to address some of the >> problems you are mentioning. In contrast to the optimistic view of the >> repositories that Stevan has, in our efforts to locate all the contents >> which is available in green and gold (including hybrid), we are finding that >> most of the IRs have only about 5-8% of the papers published by authors at >> the universities hosting these repositories. Another contrast, the latest >> data we have compiled at 1science shows that we are fast approaching 60% of >> the papers indexed the Thomson Reuters Web of Science which can be found in >> gratis OA form somewhere on the internet. Given the law of large numbers, on >> average, there is a gap of more than 50% between what is available somewhere >> on the net, and what is available in local IR. It’s clear tat a solution >> that fills that gap quickly can remove a huge pain point in the filling of >> IR with full-text (or links to full-text) and proper metadata. >> >> >> >> We have developed a product called oaFoldr which basically repatriates these >> papers to the IRs. Our privileged model is to feed the IRs with good quality >> metadata (and when institutions are subscribing to the Web of Science, we >> can install the WoS API and populate the repository with very high quality >> metadata and this removes a lot of the pain of entering data manually) and >> then place URLs that points to locations (other IR, publishers’ websites, >> arXiv, Scielo, PMC,…) where a gratis OA version is located. This turns empty >> IRs into institutional knowledge hubs. Of course, many librarians are also >> actively examining these links and copying a physical version of the paper >> in the IR (where possible considering licencing and rights issues). If the >> uptake is good for this product (which we think it will as we developed this >> solution because we kept hearing from tens of university librarians that >> something of the kind was really needed), IRs are going to be way more >> populated, way faster, and librarians and researchers will be able to spend >> more time archiving and self-archiving pre-prints and post-prints that do >> not exist anywhere else. For libraries to spend time looking at what is >> uniquely missing makes sense, this is an exercise in search engine >> optimization as the Bing and Google bots will see unique content. This >> solution will help move universities towards 100% OA availability at the >> institutional level. Take Caltech – they already have a stunningly good IR >> but using 1science’s data it’ll be every better – we can find close to 80% >> of Caltech’s paper in Gratis OA somewhere on the internet. Of course, this >> solution is not a silver bullet and some problems will remain but it will >> help creating a more robust, distributed architecture. >> >> >> >> Éric >> >> >> >> >> >> Eric Archambault, Ph.D. >> President and CEO | Président-directeur général >> Science-Metrix & 1science >> >> T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111 >> C. 1.514.518.0823 >> F. 1.514.495.6523 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf >> Of Eric F. Van de Velde >> Sent: May 18, 2016 4:39 PM >> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org> >> 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, etc. look increasingly better in comparison. >> >> >> >> --Eric. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com >> >> Twitter: @evdvelde >> >> E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The worldwide distributed network of Green Institutional Repositories 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 <paul.w...@bath.edu> 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 <l...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> 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 >>> <joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr<mailto:joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr>> >>> 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 <amscifo...@gmail.com<mailto:amscifo...@gmail.com>> >>> À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) >>> <goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>> >>> 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 >>> <bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi<mailto:bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi>> 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 <ad...@ssrn.com><mailto:ad...@ssrn.com> >>> Reply-To: >>> supp...@ssrn.com<mailto:supp...@ssrn.com> >>> To: bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi<mailto:bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi> >>> >>> >>> >>> [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 >>> GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> >>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> GOAL mailing list >>> GOAL@eprints.org<mailto: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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> GOAL@eprints.org >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > ------------------------------------------- > Paul Walk > Head of Technology Strategy and Planning > EDINA, University of Edinburgh > http://www.edina.ac.uk > ------------------------------------------- > > > > > -- > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
