Scopus does not only index Elsevier journals https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/11274/supporthub/scopus/ "Over 24,000 titles, including 4,200 Open Access journals from more than 5,000 international publishers."
So the CC BY licence is irrelevant - the ability for Elsevier to index will depend on the agreement between the 5000 publishers and Elsevier. I expect these are confidential and how much is paid. I assume that other indexers could set up similar deals - and this would allow competition at a price. The main problem with non-CC BY "open access" in Elsevier journals (e.g. CC NC ) is that forbids anyone else re-use the content, but because Elsevier has a contract with the authors they have a monopoly on re-use (often tens of thousands of dollars in reprints). That's the absolute downside of CC NC ND. P. On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 9:18 PM Heather Morrison <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you Christian. > > Following are some points of agreement and relevant research, and > follow-up questions. > > I think we agree that re-directing funding from subscriptions / purchase > to fund production (shift economics from demand to supply side) is key to > OA transition - I made this point with a broad brush global analysis > illustrating the potential to do so with considerable cost savings for > libraries / institutions in First Monday in 2013: > https://firstmonday.org/article/view/4370/3685 > > Houghton et al. conducted an economic analysis of the potential transition > for the UK using 3 models (gold, green, transformative system building peer > review on archives) and found the transformative approach the most > cost-effective by far. This work used to be open access, but today > this funded study now appears to be limited to access in specific reading > rooms: > J. Houghton, B. Rasmussen, P. Sheehan, C. Oppenheim, A. Morris, C. > Creaser, H. Greenwood, M. Summers, and A. Gourlay, 2009a. “Economics > implications of alternative scholarly publishing models: Exploring the > costs and benefit” (27 January), at > http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2009/economicpublishingmodelsfinalreport.aspx, > accessed 7 February 2010. > > To get back to your points on Elsevier, some questions: > > > 1. You are assuming global and permanent cancellation by academic and > research libraries to all Elsevier journal subscriptions. Correct? > 2. What about Science Direct? It integrates journal subscriptions, but > it is a search service. Do you assume global and permanent cancellation of > Science Direct as search service too? > 3. What about Scopus? This service is used in rankings as well as for > searching - customers include universities for institutional ranking > purposes and third party ranking services. If the idea of global and > permanent cancellations to subscriptions is a success, but Elsevier > proprietary content is a key market advantage for this type of product, > this might eliminate the transformative potential hoped for from global and > permanent subscription cancellations. > 4. What about Elsevier published content to date? If Elsevier no > longer distributes such content, what will happen with this content and > access to it? > > > As a reminder, almost all Elsevier journals allow author self-archiving: > http://sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php > > > best, > > Heather Morrison > ------------------------------ > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of > Christian Gutknecht <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, July 8, 2019 3:25:05 PM > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] Results of OA article data collection from OASPA > members > > *Attention : courriel externe | external email* > Well, I propose the following: > > 1. Academic Institutions should eventually stop paying for subscriptions > (like Germany, UC etc) > 2. Then the free money should be use to fund pure OA (through APCs, > memberships, or any other well working OA business models out there) > 3. Funders and Institutions should then refine and tackle the issues of > Gold OA, like the cost transparency of publishing services, requirements > for metadata, formats, workflows, archiving, tdm, licences (like CC-BY > requirement as defined in Berlin and Budapest). > > The subscription model, and hence the exclusiveness of Elsevier’s content > only exists because academic institutions and especially libraries let > Elsevier have this power by keep subscribing and ignoring alternatives. > > Best regards > Christian > > Am 08.07.2019 um 17:38 schrieb Heather Morrison < > [email protected]>: > > hi Christian, > > Thank you for your contribution... > > Regarding your argument: "forcing Elsevier also to use CC-BY for their > „own“ content would enable competition for analysis tools like Scopus", I > have some questions. Let's start with: > > Are you and/or others proposing to force Elsevier to use CC-BY for their > "own" content?** If so, how do you propose to do this and which of > Elsevier's content? > > best, > > Heather Morrison > > ** Side note: this is problematic, but let's leave this for now. > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of > Christian Gutknecht <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, July 8, 2019 11:14 AM > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] Results of OA article data collection from OASPA > members > > *Attention : courriel externe | external email* > Hi Heather > > Sorry, I can’t follow you on that: > > Increase in monopoly power for Elsevier: anyone can use the CC licensed > material to create a competitor to Scopus, however only Elsevier can use > their copyrighted work. CC-BY reduces the likelihood of successful > competition. > > > The problem here is obviously not the CC-BY content, but the the non-open > content of Elsevier. So forcing Elsevier also to use CC-BY for their „own“ > content would enable competition for analysis tools like Scopus. > > Best regards > > Christian > > > > Am 08.07.2019 um 15:39 schrieb Heather Morrison < > [email protected]>: > > In related news: Elsevier's toll access service Scopus now includes 5,393 > open access journals. This is helpful to illustrate and analyze some of the > implications of blanket downstream commercial re-use (e.g. CC-BY): > > Extra profit for Elsevier: no need to pay CC-BY journals, and open > licensing reduces their costs for clarifying permissions. > > Increase in monopoly power for Elsevier: anyone can use the CC licensed > material to create a competitor to Scopus, however only Elsevier can use > their copyrighted work. CC-BY reduces the likelihood of successful > competition. > > Development of underdevelopment: authors from poor countries get the > benefit of increased exposure with OA, but are locked out of the next > generation of services built on this such as Scopus. CC-BY is not > sufficient to achieve the vision of sharing the knowledge of the rich with > the poor and the poor with the rich; this license facilitates one-way > sharing of the poor with the rich, as it lacks a means of ensuring > reciprocity. (CC-BY-SA does not ensure reciprocity either; it means use the > same license for derivatives, not share like I have. A re-used OA article > with CC-BY-SA can be re-used in a TA environment). > > I recommend against the use of licenses allowing blanket commercial re-use > to authors, journals, OA advocates and policy-makers. > > best, > > Dr. Heather Morrison > Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa > Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa > Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight > Project > sustainingknowledgecommons.org > [email protected] > https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 > ------------------------------ > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of > Bernie Folan <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, July 8, 2019 7:01:54 AM > *To:* Bernie Folan > *Subject:* [GOAL] Results of OA article data collection from OASPA members > > *Attention : courriel externe | external email* > > ***With apologies for cross posting *** > > OASPA has published a new blog post summarising the results of a recent OA > article data collection exercise carried out with input from OASPA members. > > You can find the post at > https://oaspa.org/growth-continues-for-oaspa-member-oa-content/ > > Some highlights: > > - Total growth in output by OASPA members is 23%. This does include > some new contributors but on the whole, they were small numbers so don't > count much towards the total. > - Growth in CC BY articles published in fully OA journals is 18% so > this is slightly higher than it has done for the past 5 years. > - Over a quarter of a million CC BY articles were published by OASPA > members in fully OA journals last year. > > Do feel free to share within your networks. > > Best wishes, > Bernie > > > *Bernie Folan *Events and Communications Coordinator, OASPA > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [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 > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
