Number of scholarly journals in the world.

[Jean-Claude Gu�don]

[ The following text is in the "utf-8" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set.  ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

In the last few years, various attempts to estimate the number of
journals in the world have been used. Figures ranging from about
14,000 (Michael Mabe) to about 23,000 (Stevan Harnad) have been
regularly brought forth. Few numbers have been used beyond these two
numbers, although they exist.

I have often felt these numbers were much too small.

A new piece of evidence supporting my feeling was recently published
in France: A 721-page list of social science and humanities journals
comprising around 20,000 titles has been compiled. This list is
limited to SSH journals and it relies only on a small number of
sources: Web of Science, Scopus, ERIH and the French list AERES.
Lists such as Redalyc for Latin America have not yet been used. There
are probably long lists of journals to add from India and China, and
other countries. In short, although impressive, this list is still
incomplete and it covers only SHS journals.

The point here is that this list demonstrates the existence of a much
larger set of scholarly and scientific journals than has been used in
our past discussions. This impacts directly on how we evaluate
various approaches to Open Access.

The list can be downloaded at http://www.cybergeo.eu/index22492.html

I am sure the authors would love receiving further advice and
information to complete their list.

Jean-Claude Guédon

Re: Research: Writ, Reason, and Practice

[Couture Marc]

On 4-Aug-09, at 6:45 AM, S. Harnad wrote:

 

> 

> Aside: This formal side-issue has next to nothing to do with Open
Access and Green Open

> Access Mandates. 

> 

 

As interesting as may be these discussions about the subtleties of
copyright law and its application to scholarly activities (and I, for
one, am truly interested in these), I agree that this forum is not
the right place to go further in that direction (or even as far as it
has gone).

 

Although I remain aware that many things I do on a routine basis may
(or do in fact) infringe copyright, I am perfectly satisfied by the
pragmatic approach suggested by Harnad.

 

The fact that a few months ago two law professors specialised in
copyright promptly sent me on request copies of those of their
articles to which I didn't have access, seemingly without any second
thought, reassures me in a way. To be true, there was not "request
button" involved, but I wonder what is really different (except the
time it took me to write my request and them to find the file and
write a polite answer - I appreciated the human touch though).

 

I suggest also to those interested an excellent (and much enjoyable)
paper from John Tehranian, "Infringement Nation: Copyright Reform and
the Law/Norm Gap", in which he describes a day in the life of a law
professor, during which he infringes copyright 83 times (including
when he sings "Happy Birthday" in a restaurant). Fortunately, the
article is available in OA http://bit.ly/EDNSA

 

Have a nice day, even if you will probably infringe copyright before
the sun sets.

 

Marc Couture

Re: "Authors Re-using Their Own Work"

[Arthur Sale]

[ The following text is in the "UTF-8" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set.  ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]


Charles

 

You miss the point. As the copy leaves my Australian hands, it is not
an infringing copy. It falls under an exemption and is perfectly
legal. From there you get into the murkier water of trans-border
'law'. However, it seems extraordinarily likely that if I send to
someone in the UK or EU a perfectly legal copy that they have a
perfect right to accept it in the absence of any specific customs or
ownership legislation to the contrary, for example as occurs with the
receipt of banned drugs mailed from abroad. No such UK or EU or
German law exists in respect of the holding of copyright works as far
as I know.

 

Australian law simply recognises clearly what the issue is and how to
resolve it. It is not in any way unique. I recognise that the law in
some other countries is sometimes behind the times. However, you
prompted me to look at UK Copyright Law. Here are sections 28 and 29.

Chapter III Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright Works

Introductory

28 Introductory provisions

(1) The provisions of this Chapter specify acts which may be done in
relation to copyright works notwithstanding the subsistence of
copyright; they relate only to the question of infringement of
copyright and do not affect any other right or obligation restricting
the doing of any of the specified acts.

(2) Where it is provided by this Chapter that an act does not
infringe copyright, or may be done without infringing copyright, and
no particular description of copyright work is mentioned, the act in
question does not infringe the copyright in a work of any
description.

(3) No inference shall be drawn from the description of any act which
may by virtue of this Chapter be done without infringing copyright as
to the scope of the acts restricted by the copyright in any
description of work.

(4) The provisions of this Chapter are to be construed independently
of each other, so that the fact that an act does not fall within one
provision does not mean that it is not covered by another provision.

General

29 Research and private study

(1) Fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work
for the purposes of research or private study does not infringe any
copyright in the work or, in the case of a published edition, in the
typographical arrangement.

(2) Fair dealing with the typographical arrangement of a published
edition for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) does not
infringe any copyright in the arrangement.

(3) Copying by a person other than the researcher or student himself
is not fair dealing ifÿÿ

(a) in the case of a librarian, or a person acting on behalf of a
librarian, he does anything which regulations under section 40 would
not permit to be done under section 38 or 39 (articles or parts of
published works: restriction on multiple copies of same material), or

(b) in any other case, the person doing the copying knows or has
reason to believe that it will result in copies of substantially the
same material being provided to more than one person at substantially
the same time and for substantially the same purpose.

While I am not an expert in UK copyright law, it seems to me that:

· Clauses 28(1) and (2) are the exemption clauses.

· Research copying is not restricted to the person doing the
copying. Indeed the wording makes a distinction between ÿÿresearchÿÿ
and ÿÿprivate studyÿÿ (Clause 29(1)). It does not even say ÿÿprivate
researchÿÿ. All the ÿÿprivate studyÿÿ does actually is to prohibit
copying for classes.

· Clause 29(3) is slightly ambiguous as it is not completely
clear who the ÿÿresearcherÿÿ is: producer or consumer. However,
assuming consumer ÿÿ the most restrictive case and the most probable
interpretation - the law simply requires the producing researcher to
be convinced that he is doing copying for a single consumer
researcher and that it will not be disseminated further. The clause
actually explicitly assumes third parties (librarians) might be
involved.

UK Law does not seem to be as prehistoric as you make out. I think
there are old misunderstandings being rehearsed here. Fair dealing
(in particular copying to facilitate research) was and remains legal
as well as common practice, especially in the homeland of scientific
journal.

 

Arthur

 

 

-Original Message-
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]
On Behalf Of C.Oppenheim
Sent: Monday, 3 August 2009 5:21 PM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] "Authors Re-using
Their Own Work"

 

I now understand why Arthur and I disagree.  He is referring to
Australian

Copyright Law, and I am referring to UK law.

 

I am happy to accept that Arthur's approach is accurat

Re: Research: Writ, Reason, and Practice

[Jeffery, KG (Keith)]

Stevan -
many thanks for a succinct summary.  However, while I agree it has
nothing to do strictly with green OA, the subject of copyright has
been used by some disingenuously to try to dissuade authors from
self-archiving of peer-reviewed material as you well know.  Debunking
the myth could prove useful to achieving greater than 15%
self-archiving.
best
Keith
 

--
Prof Keith G Jeffery   E: keith.jeff...@stfc.ac.uk
Director Information Technology & International Strategy
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory  
Harwell Science and Innovation Campus
Didcot, OXON  OX11  0QX   UK
T: +44 1235 44 6103  F:+44 1235 44 5147     
   
President ERCIM & STFC Director: http://www.ercim.org/
W3C Office at CLRC-RAL   http://www.w3.org/ 
President euroCRIS    http://www.eurocris.org/
VLDB Trustee Emeritus: http://www.vldb.org/
EDBT Board 
Memberhttp://www.edbt.org/
   
--

The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
intended recipient only.  If you are not one of the intended
recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it

The CCLRC telecommunications systems may be monitored in accordance
with the policy available from
.


--

 


From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]
On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 04 August 2009 11:45
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Research: Writ, Reason, and Practice

To summarise:
Arthur is at pains to try to squeeze some reason out of (or into) an
incoherent formal writ that does not fit research writing and
practice and never has.

Charles is at pains to point out that researcher practice for a
half-century, though ubiquitous and uncontested, is not literally in
conformity with current formal writ,   be it coherent or incoherent,
fitting or ill-fitting, so it might be a good idea to rewrite the
writ.

I say let those whose priority is to reformulate incoherent and
ill-fitting formal writs go ahead and pursue their priority. But
meanwhile, let researchers continue their ubiquitous and uncontested
practice: Full speed ahead.

Aside: This formal side-issue has next to nothing to do with Open
Access and Green Open Access Mandates. 
http://bit.ly/S9u1H

Amen.

Stevan Harnad

On 4-Aug-09, at 2:53 AM, C.Oppenheim wrote:

  Was ever thus, Arthur. If I make copies of a document in
  a country with no
  copyright laws at all, and attempt to bring them into
  another country, I am
  breaking the other country's copyright laws if they are
  infringing under
  that other country's rules. Every country with copyright
  law has a clause
  which says it is an offence to import copies that would
  be infringing.   If
  such laws didn't exist, you'd get copyright havens with
  little or no
  copyright laws, from which people could export their
  infringing copies
  around the world. It's not murky at all - it is the basis
  of international
  copyright agreements!  For the record, it's Clause 27(3)
  of the UK Act.

  You may find this all very frustrating;  if you don't
  like it, lobby to
  change the law, but don't deny what the law says.

  Charles

  On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:30:58 +1000
  Arthur Sale  wrote:
Charles




You miss the point. As the copy leaves my
Australian

hands, it is not an infringing copy. It falls
under an

exemption and is perfectly legal. From there
you get into

the murkier water of trans-border 'law'.
However, it

seems extraordinarily likely that if I send
to someone in

the UK or EU a perfectly legal copy that they
have a

perfect right to accept it in the absence of
any specific

customs or ownership legislation to the
contrary, for

example as occurs with the receipt of banned
drugs mailed

from abroad. No such UK or EU or German law
exists in

respect of the holding of copyright works as
far as I

know.




Australian law si

Re: "Authors Re-using Their Own Work"

[Laurence Bebbington]

Arthur
 
You seem to be using an out-of-date copy of the UK Act. The text you
quote is the original 1988 version. Important changes were made in
2003. It has some implications for what you say, obviously in
discussing legal issues it's best to use an up-to-date version of the
legal provisions being discussed.
 
Also, the literal wording of any Act is only one step in this
process. All of these defences are subject to interpretations by the
courts and as the Act makes clear, any dealing with another's
copyright work is subject to a test of "fairness" as applied by the
courts. Therefore, it is incomplete to consider these issues divorced
from the context of whether of not each dealing is fair.
 
I agree with much of what Charles has said on this matter.
 
Laurence
 
Laurence Bebbington
Faculty Team Leader (Social Sciences, Law and Education)
Information Services
The University of Nottingham


From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Arthur Sale
Sent: Tue 04/08/2009 03:30
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: "Authors Re-using Their Own Work"

Charles

 

You miss the point. As the copy leaves my Australian hands, it is not
an infringing copy. It falls under an exemption and is perfectly
legal. From there you get into the murkier water of trans-border
'law'. However, it seems extraordinarily likely that if I send to
someone in the UK or EU a perfectly legal copy that they have a
perfect right to accept it in the absence of any specific customs or
ownership legislation to the contrary, for example as occurs with the
receipt of banned drugs mailed from abroad. No such UK or EU or
German law exists in respect of the holding of copyright works as far
as I know.

 

Australian law simply recognises clearly what the issue is and how to
resolve it. It is not in any way unique. I recognise that the law in
some other countries is sometimes behind the times. However, you
prompted me to look at UK Copyright Law. Here are sections 28 and 29.

Chapter III Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright Works

Introductory

28 Introductory provisions

(1) The provisions of this Chapter specify acts which may be done in
relation to copyright works notwithstanding the subsistence of
copyright; they relate only to the question of infringement of
copyright and do not affect any other right or obligation restricting
the doing of any of the specified acts.

(2) Where it is provided by this Chapter that an act does not
infringe copyright, or may be done without infringing copyright, and
no particular description of copyright work is mentioned, the act in
question does not infringe the copyright in a work of any
description.

(3) No inference shall be drawn from the description of any act which
may by virtue of this Chapter be done without infringing copyright as
to the scope of the acts restricted by the copyright in any
description of work.

(4) The provisions of this Chapter are to be construed independently
of each other, so that the fact that an act does not fall within one
provision does not mean that it is not covered by another provision.

General

29 Research and private study

(1) Fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work
for the purposes of research or private study does not infringe any
copyright in the work or, in the case of a published edition, in the
typographical arrangement.

(2) Fair dealing with the typographical arrangement of a published
edition for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) does not
infringe any copyright in the arrangement.

(3) Copying by a person other than the researcher or student himself
is not fair dealing if-

(a) in the case of a librarian, or a person acting on behalf of a
librarian, he does anything which regulations under section 40 would
not permit to be done under section 38 or 39 (articles or parts of
published works: restriction on multiple copies of same material), or

(b) in any other case, the person doing the copying knows or has
reason to believe that it will result in copies of substantially the
same material being provided to more than one person at substantially
the same time and for substantially the same purpose.

While I am not an expert in UK copyright law, it seems to me that:

· Clauses 28(1) and (2) are the exemption clauses.

· Research copying is not restricted to the person doing the
copying. Indeed the wording makes a distinction between `research'
and `private study' (Clause 29(1)). It does not even say `private
research'. All the `private study' does actually is to prohibit
copying for classes.

· Clause 29(3) is slightly ambiguous as it is not completely
clear who the `researcher' is: producer or consumer. However,
assuming consumer - the most restrictive case and the most probable
interpretation - the law simply requires the producing researcher to
be convinced that he is doing copying for

Re: "Authors Re-using Their Own Work"

[C . Oppenheim]

[ The following text is in the "utf-8" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set.  ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

Was ever thus, Arthur. If I make copies of a document in a country with no
copyright laws at all, and attempt to bring them into another country, I am
breaking the other country's copyright laws if they are infringing under
that other country's rules. Every country with copyright law has a clause
which says it is an offence to import copies that would be infringing.   If
such laws didn't exist, you'd get copyright havens with little or no
copyright laws, from which people could export their infringing copies
around the world. It's not murky at all - it is the basis of international
copyright agreements!  For the record, it's Clause 27(3) of the UK Act.

You may find this all very frustrating;  if you don't like it, lobby to
change the law, but don't deny what the law says.

Charles

On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:30:58 +1000
 Arthur Sale  wrote:
> Charles
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point. As the copy leaves my Australian
> hands, it is not an infringing copy. It falls under an
> exemption and is perfectly legal. From there you get into
> the murkier water of trans-border 'law'. However, it
> seems extraordinarily likely that if I send to someone in
> the UK or EU a perfectly legal copy that they have a
> perfect right to accept it in the absence of any specific
> customs or ownership legislation to the contrary, for
> example as occurs with the receipt of banned drugs mailed
> from abroad. No such UK or EU or German law exists in
> respect of the holding of copyright works as far as I
> know.
> 
> 
> 
> Australian law simply recognises clearly what the issue
> is and how to resolve it. It is not in any way unique. I
> recognise that the law in some other countries is
> sometimes behind the times. However, you prompted me to
> look at UK Copyright Law. Here are sections 28 and 29.
> 
> Chapter III Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright
> Works
> 
> Introductory
> 
> 28 Introductory provisions
> 
> (1) The provisions of this Chapter specify acts which
> may be done in relation to copyright works
> notwithstanding the subsistence of copyright; they relate
> only to the question of infringement of copyright and do
> not affect any other right or obligation restricting the
> doing of any of the specified acts.
> 
> (2) Where it is provided by this Chapter that an act
> does not infringe copyright, or may be done without
> infringing copyright, and no particular description of
> copyright work is mentioned, the act in question does not
> infringe the copyright in a work of any description.
> 
> (3) No inference shall be drawn from the description of
> any act which may by virtue of this Chapter be done
> without infringing copyright as to the scope of the acts
> restricted by the copyright in any description of work.
> 
> (4) The provisions of this Chapter are to be construed
> independently of each other, so that the fact that an act
> does not fall within one provision does not mean that it
> is not covered by another provision.
> 
> General
> 
> 29 Research and private study
> 
> (1) Fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or
> artistic work for the purposes of research or private
> study does not infringe any copyright in the work or, in
> the case of a published edition, in the typographical
> arrangement.
> 
> (2) Fair dealing with the typographical arrangement of a
> published edition for the purposes mentioned in
> subsection (1) does not infringe any copyright in the
> arrangement.
> 
> (3) Copying by a person other than the researcher or
> student himself is not fair dealing if
> 
> (a) in the case of a librarian, or a person acting on
> behalf of a librarian, he does anything which regulations
> under section 40 would not permit to be done under
> section 38 or 39 (articles or parts of published works:
> restriction on multiple copies of same material), or
> 
> (b) in any other case, the person doing the copying
> knows or has reason to believe that it will result in
> copies of substantially the same material being provided
> to more than one person at substantially the same time
> and for substantially the same purpose.
> 
> While I am not an expert in UK copyright law, it seems
> to me that:
> 
> · Clauses 28(1) and (2) are the exemption
> clauses.
> 
> · Research copying is not restricted to the
> person doing the copying. Indeed the wording makes a
> distinction between research and private study
> (Clause 29(1)). It does not even say private research.
> All the private study does actually is to prohibit
> copying for classes.
> 
> · Clause 29(3) is slightly ambiguous as it is
> not completely clear who the researcher is: producer or
> consumer. However, assuming consumer  the most
> restrictive case and the most probable interpretation -
> the law simply requires the producing researcher to be
> co

Research: Writ, Reason, and Practice

[Stevan Harnad]

[ The following text is in the "WINDOWS-1252" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set.  ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

To summarise:
Arthur is at pains to try to squeeze some reason out of (or into) an
incoherent formal writ that does not fit research writing and
practice and never has.

Charles is at pains to point out that researcher practice for a
half-century, though ubiquitous and uncontested, is not literally in
conformity with current formal writ,   be it coherent or incoherent,
fitting or ill-fitting, so it might be a good idea to rewrite the
writ.

I say let those whose priority is to reformulate incoherent and
ill-fitting formal writs go ahead and pursue their priority. But
meanwhile, let researchers continue their ubiquitous and uncontested
practice: Full speed ahead.

Aside: This formal side-issue has next to nothing to do with Open
Access and Green Open Access Mandates. 
http://bit.ly/S9u1H

Amen.

Stevan Harnad

On 4-Aug-09, at 2:53 AM, C.Oppenheim wrote:

  Was ever thus, Arthur. If I make copies of a document in
  a country with no
  copyright laws at all, and attempt to bring them into
  another country, I am
  breaking the other country's copyright laws if they are
  infringing under
  that other country's rules. Every country with copyright
  law has a clause
  which says it is an offence to import copies that would
  be infringing.   If
  such laws didn't exist, you'd get copyright havens with
  little or no
  copyright laws, from which people could export their
  infringing copies
  around the world. It's not murky at all - it is the basis
  of international
  copyright agreements!  For the record, it's Clause 27(3)
  of the UK Act.

  You may find this all very frustrating;  if you don't
  like it, lobby to
  change the law, but don't deny what the law says.

  Charles

  On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:30:58 +1000
  Arthur Sale  wrote:
Charles




You miss the point. As the copy leaves my
Australian

hands, it is not an infringing copy. It falls
under an

exemption and is perfectly legal. From there
you get into

the murkier water of trans-border 'law'.
However, it

seems extraordinarily likely that if I send
to someone in

the UK or EU a perfectly legal copy that they
have a

perfect right to accept it in the absence of
any specific

customs or ownership legislation to the
contrary, for

example as occurs with the receipt of banned
drugs mailed

from abroad. No such UK or EU or German law
exists in

respect of the holding of copyright works as
far as I

know.




Australian law simply recognises clearly what
the issue

is and how to resolve it. It is not in any
way unique. I

recognise that the law in some other
countries is

sometimes behind the times. However, you
prompted me to

look at UK Copyright Law. Here are sections
28 and 29.


Chapter III Acts Permitted in relation to
Copyright

Works


Introductory


28 Introductory provisions


(1) The provisions of this Chapter specify
acts which

may be done in relation to copyright works

notwithstanding the subsistence of copyright;
they relate

only to the question of infringement of
copyright and do

not affect any other right or obligation
restricting the

doing of any of the specified acts.


(2) Where it is provided by this Chapter that
an act

does not infringe copyright, or may be done
without

infringing copyright, and no particular
description of

copyright work is mentioned, the act in
question does not

infringe the copyright in a work of any
description.


(3) No inference shall be drawn from the
description of

any act which may by virtue of this Chapter
be done

without infringing copyright as to the scope
of the acts

restricted by the copyright in any
description of work.


(4) The provisions of this Chapter are to be
construed

independently of each other, so that the fact
that an act

does not fall within one provision does not
mean that it

is not covered by another provision.


G