Thank you PMR.
I think we agree that it is problematic for Elsevier (or other publishers) to retain copyright, with or without CC licenses. It appears that we agree that publishers can use CC licenses with what is in effect a copyright transfer. That is, if Elsevier uses CC-NC licenses to reserve commercial rights for Elsevier, this means that E. is the owner of commercial rights, the Licensor (therefore copyright ownership at least implied) of the CC license. Did I get this right? If so, I argue that this is problematic, contrary to the common belief that CC licenses in scholarly communication involve author copyright retention, and something that merits further discussion and analysis. best, Heather ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Peter Murray-Rust <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 5:01 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 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Christian Gutknecht <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Christian Gutknecht <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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<http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 ________________________________ From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Bernie Folan <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ 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 -- 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
