This is a good illustration of the potential for OA to TA that I am trying to warn everyone about. We (authors and funders) give away our work for free as a contribution to OA scholarship, available for downstream re-use through services such as Science1. They are free to charge us for their services. It is good to see that Science1 is not charging for the actual works, however for any work for which downstream commercial rights have been granted they would be well within their rights to do so.
OA to TA is not my goal. I argue that we need OA indexes, search services and hosting platforms. To ensure ongoing OA for the public, these must be owned and controlled by the public or organizations that can be accountable to the public (eg public universities, not-for-profit universities eligible for public research funds), not private for-profits, although the latter may have a role in contributing services and development. best, Heather Morrison -------- Original message -------- From: Anton Angelo <anton.ang...@canterbury.ac.nz> Date: 2016-10-09 4:24 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org> Subject: Re: [GOAL] 1science pricing -- RE: Dramatic Growth of Open Access September 30, 2016 Kia ora koutou, We had a presentation from 1Science a few weeks back, and as an OA advocate I’m really pleased to see initiatives like this. I have been using Free/Libre Open Source Software for a long time, and the thing that confuses a lot of people is how many people can make a living out of it. I’d recommend Raymond’s* “the Cathedral and the Bazaar” http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ as a good discussion about this. The trick to making money out of free stuff is to offer services. I’ll pay for someone to edit, review, collate, recommend, judge, and curate OA material. Certainly I’ll find value in someone prepared to teach using OERs. The thought of paying a subscription to layer journals, ones that bring the best OA material together for a specific audience is not that weird – and could be quite profitable. I’m paying money to save my precious attention, as that is the resource that diminishes when the effective cost of reproduction nears zero. There is no satisfactory technological solution to ‘finding the good stuff’. Not yet, anyway. Of course I’d say this: I’m a librarian. Unfortunately we can’t afford 1Science’s offering. I wish we could. I wish them the best. Nāku noa nā mihi, Anton Angelo. *Warning: Raymond is a Libertarian Gun Nut, but the liberal perspective on this is still valid, IMHO. -- Anton Angelo MIS, RLIANZA | Research Data Coordinator Puaka - James Hight Building, Level 5, Rm 519 | Phone: +64 3 3693853 Learning Resources | University of Canterbury | Te Whare Wānanga o Waitaha | Private Bag 4800 | Christchurch 8140 | New Zealand http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2265-1299 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Éric Archambault Sent: Saturday, 8 October 2016 5:12 a.m. To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org> Subject: [GOAL] 1science pricing -- RE: Dramatic Growth of Open Access September 30, 2016 Richard Yes, indeed I am 1science’s CEO. We are working on a freely accessible version of the system but obviously we need to find a way of not cannibalising the sales of our system as our intention is to keep improving our offering and for this we have to monetize what we are doing as we are a privately-funded organization. We are obviously not charging for the free papers (ours is a System as a Service that acts as a giant information hub strictly comprising papers publishing in peer-reviewed journal – a kind of Open-Access-Direct). The fees we charging are essentially to pay for three things: 1) software development costs; 2) cloud ops fees; 3) data curation and data value added services including identification of papers published in peer-reviewed/referred/editorially-controlled scholarly/scientific journals only. I know there is still a paradigm shift that needs to occur for many users to accept paying for such a service because the material we are valuing is available for free. My analogy is that of the fish we buy at the market: fishermen and fisherwomen catch all these in the ocean and when you buy them at the market, you are paying for the services offered by these people, they risks they took, and the operation cost of their vessels and other equipment. The fish were all freely available in the ocean. The beauty of our solution is that the process of aggregating content does not require us to remove the resource from its environment, and that no animals are killed in the process! Companies such as 1science provide innovative solution to observed problems and a form of cost sharing between users – we have spent millions developing the 1science platform and libraries can acquire the service starting at a few thousand dollars (that is for smaller libraries; and a few ten thousands for libraries that spend millions on journal subscriptions). With this subscription to the SaaS they obtain direct access to 20 million papers (we have 21.2M papers in our current release but we still have to hunt down some duplicates – so net figure is around 20M) and to curated metadata into their discovery systems (we’re working on the finishing touches with EBSCO, ProQuest and OCLC, and so we are a few weeks away from general availability in discovery systems and link resolvers). The problem we are addressing is that libraries are actually not using OA in large part because most of this material is not aggregated in a useful manner, and is often transiently available. That useful manner is to connect OA material in their discovery systems, link resolvers, and for smaller libraries who cannot afford that, in a user-friendly UI and system that concentrates OA material that has high quality, that is, has been published in peer-reviewed journals. If there is a functioning market, costs will be kept reasonable (in theory the selling cost converges towards marginal in a perfect market). Again, the beauty of OA is that the fact 1science offers such a service does in no way remove the free character of the existing stock of papers offered in OA – in other words, value added services such as those offered by 1science can easily work within a functioning market. By contrast, the traditional publishing model is closed to competition because articles are monopolised by publishers who hold the copyrights. So if people are not finding our services valuable, they can just ignore them, we have no impact on their lives – we add value to our clients, but don’t REMOVE access to anyone else. I think when people will realize the beauty of this new model, they will recognized it is transformative, and it is the way of the future. Different services will provide different feature sets and added value set, this is what people will pay for, or have free access in case of OA services to OA material such as is the case for great initiatives such as BASE and CORE. We would like to make our price list publicly available and hopefully to stay close to it. We want to have a simple, transparent, and fair pricing schedule. In the current marketplace with competitors earning our whole yearly revenues in a few hours on January 1st, this is easier said than done. Also, the marketplace in the library world is as convoluted as it gets, frequently with large organizations and consortia expecting deep discounts and with publishers having adapted their behaviour to survive and strive and that environment. All this makes it tricky if not naive to be transparent, but we’d really like to do things differently (without becoming a road kill that had good intention while crossing the information highway). Éric Eric Archambault, Ph.D. President and CEO | Président-directeur général Science-Metrix & 1science [Description: Description: http://1science.com/images/LinkedIn_sign.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/in/ericarchambault> T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111 C. 1.514.518.0823 F. 1.514.495.6523 [Description: Description: http://1science.com/images/Logo_SM_horizontal_small.png]<http://www.science-metrix.com/> [Description: Description: http://1science.com/images/1science.png] <http://www.1science.com/> Come visit us at the Frankfurt Book Fair at booth L85 in Hall 4.2 on October 19-23! Venez nous rencontrer à la Foire du livre de Francfort du 19 au 23 octobre, kiosque L85 du Hall 4.2. [Description: Description: cid:4bf9275a-c9e7-4a8d-a5bd-af23b1aa248f] From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Richard Poynder Sent: October 7, 2016 10:24 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] Dramatic Growth of Open Access September 30, 2016 I agree that like-for-like comparisons are needed. BASE says that around 60% of the documents it indexes are full-text. See here: https://www.base-search.net/about/en/ Some of its records also appear to be a little lightweight. Consider, for instance, the first item listed here: https://www.base-search.net/Search/Results?lookfor=poynder+timothy&type=all&oaboost=1&ling=1&name=&thes=&refid=dcresen&newsearch=1 This essentially seems to be a link to a link. I understand that 1Science (of which I think Eric is CEO) says it currently offers 18.5 million OA articles, but its OAfindr does not appear to be an OA service itself. Presumably users have to pay to access the service? That seems to be an important factor when making comparisons. If there is an access charge for OAfindr, how much is that charge? It is also worth noting that ScienceOpen, which says it allow users to search over 25 million articles, actually only provides OA to 10% of those articles. See: https://twitter.com/RickyPo/status/783575794471886848. Has anyone done a review/comparison of all these services in order to allow us to get a better sense of like-for-like? [https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif] Richard Poynder On 7 October 2016 at 11:55, Éric Archambault <eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com<mailto:eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com>> wrote: Just a quick note. The fact that BASE has more than 100 million "documents" is not such a meaningful information as they do not define "documents". My impression is that they are truly speaking about metadata records, not full-text documents as a large number of these records do not contain documents - so document is a misnomer. Scopus and WoS both have more than half a billion references compiled. This is also several order of magnitude greater than ScienceDirect but what is the value of that information as we are not comparing likes. ScienceDirect comprises full-text articles. How many are from peer-reviewed journals; are many such articles (deduplicated) are in BASE. This is the relevant statistics. Of course, extending this to monographs and conference proceedings full-text papers is also relevant, but we need to compare likes for likes. Eric Archambault, Ph.D. President and CEO | Président-directeur général Science-Metrix & 1science T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111<tel:1.514.495.6505%20x.111> C. 1.514.518.0823<tel:1.514.518.0823> F. 1.514.495.6523<tel:1.514.495.6523> Come visit us at the Frankfurt Book Fair at booth L85 in Hall 4.2 on October 19-23! Venez nous rencontrer à la Foire du livre de Francfort du 19 au 23 octobre, kiosque L85 du Hall 4.2. -----Original Message----- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison Sent: October-06-16 9:56 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Dramatic Growth of Open Access September 30, 2016 The third quarter Dramatic Growth of Open Access is now available. There will be plenty to celebrate for this year’s open access week! Highlights: Globally OA repository contents have exceeded a milestone of over 100 million documents as indirectly measured by a BASE meta-search. This dispersed collection is now an order of magnitude larger than Science Direct! Despite a vigorous weeding and new get-tough inclusion policy, DOAJ articles searchable at article level grew by about a quarter million this past year, and DOAJ is now adding titles at the rate of 1.5 per day. OpenDOAR added new repositories at almost exactly the same rate as DOAJ added journal titles. Internet Archive now has over 3 million audio recordings. There are over 2,000 more OA books and 161 more publishers in DOAB than there were a year ago. PubMedCentral continues to show strong growth in every measure: more journals actively participating, more providing immediate free access, all articles open access, some articles open access. Details and links: http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2016/10/dramatic-growth-of-open-access.html To download the data: https://dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dataverse/dgoa 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<mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13121 - Release Date: 09/30/16 _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Richard Poynder www.richardpoynder.co.uk<http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13162 - Release Date: 10/07/16
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
