Hi Heather Yes, although we recognise that it’s a key to shift money from subscriptions to production, it’s not treated as a priority and is even ignored in large by the OA movement.
> You are assuming global and permanent cancellation by academic and research > libraries to all Elsevier journal subscriptions. Correct? Yes. Or let’s say by a significant amount to harm the classical business model of Elsevier. > 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? Yes, subscribing to a hosting platform (what more is Science Direct) is one of the absurdity of the subscription system, that we should overcome. It should be a part of the publishing service we pay through the APCs which are also the preferred model of Elsevier. I would expect Elsevier to run its hosting platform in order to stay competitive in an Open Access market. > 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 If you’re worried about that, the priority again must be to make the content free at the first place. Provided the content is free, everyone can retrieve a copy of Crossref-metadata and harvest the full text (HTML, PDF, JATS-XML) and start to build up analytical services. I have absolutely no doubt that, this will lead to many innovations, especially regarding TDM and semantic technologies. Also let’s consider that there’s no lack of competition in this analytical overlay: I mean for a long time WOS was the leading platform, then SCOPUS gained some space, yet with DIMENSIONs there’s now another competitor. > 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 long as a publisher is in business, he himself will have a lot of interest in hosting the content. However if that wouldn't be the case any longer, there are initiatives like CLOCKSS, LOCKSS, Portico, PubmedCentral etc. The technical hosting and the redirection is not a problem at all, once the the content is OA and CC-BY. The problem here is again that libraries, instead of joining forces and push OA for already licences stuff, are tempted to buy all the digitised backfiles a publisher offer, even though the publisher illegally sells public domain content under his own copyright (e.g. http://doi.org/b5mpgh <http://doi.org/b5mpgh>) Best regards Christian > Am 08.07.2019 um 23:01 schrieb Peter Murray-Rust <pm...@cam.ac.uk>: > > Scopus does not only index Elsevier journals > https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/11274/supporthub/scopus/ > <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 <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca > <mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>> 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 > <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 > > <http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2009/economicpublishingmodelsfinalreport.aspx>, > accessed 7 February 2010. > > To get back to your points on Elsevier, some questions: > > You are assuming global and permanent cancellation by academic and research > libraries to all Elsevier journal subscriptions. Correct? > 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? > 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. > 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 <http://sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php> > > > best, > > Heather Morrison > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> > <goal-boun...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>> on behalf of > Christian Gutknecht <christian.gutkne...@bluewin.ch > <mailto:christian.gutkne...@bluewin.ch>> > 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 <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca >> <mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>>: >> >> 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: goal-boun...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> >> <goal-boun...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>> on behalf of >> Christian Gutknecht <christian.gutkne...@bluewin.ch >> <mailto:christian.gutkne...@bluewin.ch>> >> 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 >>> <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca <mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>>: >>> >>> 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/> >>> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca <mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> >>> https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 >>> <https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706> >>> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> >>> <goal-boun...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>> on behalf of >>> Bernie Folan <bernie.fo...@oaspa.org <mailto:bernie.fo...@oaspa.org>> >>> 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/ >>> <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 >>> bernie.fo...@oaspa.org >>> <mailto:bernie.fo...@oaspa.org>_______________________________________________ >>> GOAL mailing list >>> GOAL@eprints.org <mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> >>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >>> <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 >> <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 > <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 > 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
