[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories
I would definitely support this. Laurent Le 9 oct. 2012 à 23:28, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit : On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote: There is an inconsistency here, either way. We've always heard, from Stevan Harnad, that the author was the one who intrinsically had copyright on the manuscript version, so could deposit it, as an open access article, in an open repository irrespective of the publisher's views. If that is correct, then the author could also attach a CC-BY licence to the manuscript version. If it is incorrect, the author can't deposit the manuscript with open access without the explicit permission of the publisher of his final, published version, and the argument advanced for more than a decade by Stevan Harnad is invalid. Which is it? I think Stevan was right, and a manuscript can be deposited with open access whether or not the publisher likes it. Whence his U-turn, I don't know. But if he was right at first, and I believe that's the case, that also means that it can be covered by a CC-BY licence. Repositories can't attach the licence, but 'gold' OA publishers can't either. It's always the author, as copyright holder by default. All repositories and OA publishers can do is require it as a condition of acceptance (to be included in the repository or to be published). What the publisher can do if he doesn't like the author making available the manuscript with open access, is apply the Ingelfinger rule or simply refuse to publish the article. Jan, I think this is very important. If we can establish the idea of Green-CC-BY as the norm for deposition in repositories then I would embrace it enthusiastically. I can see no downside other than that some publishers will fight it. But they fight anyway It also clairfies the difference between the final author ms and the publisher version of record. It would resolve all the apparent problems of the Finch reoprt etc. It is only because Green licences are undefined that we have this problem at all. And if we all agreed it could be launched for Open Access Week -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. 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 Laurent Romary INRIA HUB-IDSL laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: CC-BY: the wrong goal for open access, and neither necessary nor sufficient for data and text mining
Hi all, Some points re this discussion: Helen wrote: 1.CC-BY is not necessary for data and text-mining. Internet search engines such as google and social media companies do extensive data and text mining, and they do not limit themselves to CC-BY material. This is true even in the EU, so is not prevented by the EU's support for copyright of data. To illustrate: if data and text-mining is not permissible without CC-BY, then Google must shut down, immediately. This point is a bit weird. Firstly, just because Google is doing something and getting away with it, doesn't mean a lone academic can be confident of doing something similar and getting away with it. I was always amazed by how brazenly Youtube set up its service *before* making agreements with the major media companies, when I would have assumed they would have been sued out of existence. Secondly, some sort of licensing IS generally necessary for data and text mining. Just because it's not CC doesn't mean it's not a licence. For example Google Books reuses content, on the basis of explicit agreements which were apparently made with deposit libraries and publishers (I don't know the detail of that one). Facebook uses explicit licensing that its users sign up to. Twitter does the same, and third parties who mine Twitter any more than a tiny amount have to agree to specific terms. Etc etc. Some sort of enabling licence is clearly necessary, and of course for data-mining we wish for a licence that pre-approves our actions so that we don't have to conduct a million negotiations before we analyse an aggregated dataset. Ross wrote: WRT to your point 2 CC-BY is not sufficient for data and text-mining (nor is *any* applicable licence AFAIK - I know of no licence that asserts that digital material must be made available in a readily machine-interpretable form in the licence) Actually the GPL is a very good example. It is for software, and the GPL authors don't recommend it be used for texts, but it offers a delightfully clear requirement that the preferred form of the work for making modifications is made available. In the world of software, this is the source code, but if applied to data it's clear that it would militate against providing data tables as images. When I first heard of CC licenses I was surprised that they didn't use some form of words like this. It doesn't seem to care whether downstream users get the perfect original or a low-quality JPEG. Since then, I've come to decide that this relatively slack aspect of CC licences was very good for cultural works and so forth. But for the purposes of academic data reuse, perhaps this is the more pertinent part of Helen's criticism. The Open Database Licence also appears to assert that digital material must be made available in a readily machine-interpretable form http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ though I'm less familiar with that (see the Keep open part of the summary). Best Dan P.S. One very minor additional point - Ross wrote: practically the SA clause means that other content that doesn't have that *exact* licence (CC-BY-NC-SA) cannot be remixed with content under this licence Be careful: the way you phrased it is not quite true. You can combine CC-BY or CC-BY-NC content into a CC-BY-NC-SA work, for example. The resulting work must be CC-BY-NC-SA in that case. -- Dan Stowell Postdoctoral Research Assistant Centre for Digital Music Queen Mary, University of London Mile End Road, London E1 4NS http://www.elec.qmul.ac.uk/digitalmusic/people/dans.htm http://www.mcld.co.uk/ ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: CC-BY: the wrong goal for open access, and neither necessary nor sufficient for data and text mining
Great points Dan, thank you * some sort of licensing IS generally necessary for data and text mining. * The Open Database Licence also appears to assert that digital material must be made available in a readily machine-interpretable form Perhaps academic works and the Open Access movement might find such a clause desirable in preferred/recommended OA publishing licenses? I certainly think this would be useful - to prevent cynical publishers from providing only less useful 'obfuscated' copies (i.e. all text provided as an image, NOT copy/pasteable) of works as 'open access' (in name but not in spirit), made available to grudgingly satisfy funder requirements for OA. It's an unlikely scenario, and the publisher would face huge backlash if they did such a thing but if it's theoretically possible perhaps the scenario should be considered and legislated against...? Whether the appropriate mechanism for preventing this is licensing or some other instrument I don't know. On 10 October 2012 09:14, Dan Stowell dan.stow...@eecs.qmul.ac.uk wrote: Hi all, Some points re this discussion: Helen wrote: 1.CC-BY is not necessary for data and text-mining. Internet search engines such as google and social media companies do extensive data and text mining, and they do not limit themselves to CC-BY material. This is true even in the EU, so is not prevented by the EU's support for copyright of data. To illustrate: if data and text-mining is not permissible without CC-BY, then Google must shut down, immediately. This point is a bit weird. Firstly, just because Google is doing something and getting away with it, doesn't mean a lone academic can be confident of doing something similar and getting away with it. I was always amazed by how brazenly Youtube set up its service *before* making agreements with the major media companies, when I would have assumed they would have been sued out of existence. Secondly, some sort of licensing IS generally necessary for data and text mining. Just because it's not CC doesn't mean it's not a licence. For example Google Books reuses content, on the basis of explicit agreements which were apparently made with deposit libraries and publishers (I don't know the detail of that one). Facebook uses explicit licensing that its users sign up to. Twitter does the same, and third parties who mine Twitter any more than a tiny amount have to agree to specific terms. Etc etc. Some sort of enabling licence is clearly necessary, and of course for data-mining we wish for a licence that pre-approves our actions so that we don't have to conduct a million negotiations before we analyse an aggregated dataset. Ross wrote: WRT to your point 2 CC-BY is not sufficient for data and text-mining (nor is *any* applicable licence AFAIK - I know of no licence that asserts that digital material must be made available in a readily machine-interpretable form in the licence) Actually the GPL is a very good example. It is for software, and the GPL authors don't recommend it be used for texts, but it offers a delightfully clear requirement that the preferred form of the work for making modifications is made available. In the world of software, this is the source code, but if applied to data it's clear that it would militate against providing data tables as images. When I first heard of CC licenses I was surprised that they didn't use some form of words like this. It doesn't seem to care whether downstream users get the perfect original or a low-quality JPEG. Since then, I've come to decide that this relatively slack aspect of CC licences was very good for cultural works and so forth. But for the purposes of academic data reuse, perhaps this is the more pertinent part of Helen's criticism. The Open Database Licence also appears to assert that digital material must be made available in a readily machine-interpretable form http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ though I'm less familiar with that (see the Keep open part of the summary). Best Dan P.S. One very minor additional point - Ross wrote: practically the SA clause means that other content that doesn't have that *exact* licence (CC-BY-NC-SA) cannot be remixed with content under this licence Be careful: the way you phrased it is not quite true. You can combine CC-BY or CC-BY-NC content into a CC-BY-NC-SA work, for example. The resulting work must be CC-BY-NC-SA in that case. -- Dan Stowell Postdoctoral Research Assistant Centre for Digital Music Queen Mary, University of London Mile End Road, London E1 4NS http://www.elec.qmul.ac.uk/digitalmusic/people/dans.htm http://www.mcld.co.uk/ ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- -- -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/- Ross Mounce PhD Student Open Knowledge Foundation Panton Fellow Fossils,
[GOAL] Re: CC-BY: the wrong goal for open access, and neither necessary nor sufficient for data and text mining
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Dan Stowell dan.stow...@eecs.qmul.ac.ukwrote: Hi all, Some points re this discussion: Helen wrote: Heather?? 1.CC-BY is not necessary for data and text-mining. Internet search engines such as google and social media companies do extensive data and text mining, and they do not limit themselves to CC-BY material. This is true even in the EU, so is not prevented by the EU's support for copyright of data. To illustrate: if data and text-mining is not permissible without CC-BY, then Google must shut down, immediately. This point is a bit weird. Firstly, just because Google is doing something and getting away with it, doesn't mean a lone academic can be confident of doing something similar and getting away with it. I was always amazed by how brazenly Youtube set up its service *before* making agreements with the major media companies, when I would have assumed they would have been sued out of existence. Completely agree with Dan. Licences are critical for data. That is why we spent 2 years creating the Panton Principles for Scientific data with the result that we strongly recommend and explicit licence such as CCZero. The large content-oriented companies get away with a huge amount and there is a Faustian acceptance that they do a good job for academia by apparenty breaking rights, while academics are prevented from doing the same. This is why it is urgent that repositories work as hard as possible to make the content available in as Open a form as possible. Many repos do the reverse, adding additional clauses of their own preventing re-use. They are often of the form You cannot re-use this content in any way without the permission of the individual copyright owners. The Open Database Licence also appears to assert that digital material must be made available in a readily machine-interpretable form http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ though I'm less familiar with that (see the Keep open part of the summary). Yes. This means that a database provider who wishes to conform should make it as easy as possible to discover and re-use the data. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. 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] Re: CC-BY in repositories
Me to - this is the fundamental blocker when we try to explore full text content exchange between repositories. Jo On Oct 10, 2012, at 8:02 AM, Laurent Romary laurent.rom...@inria.fr wrote: I would definitely support this. Laurent Le 9 oct. 2012 à 23:28, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit : On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote: There is an inconsistency here, either way. We've always heard, from Stevan Harnad, that the author was the one who intrinsically had copyright on the manuscript version, so could deposit it, as an open access article, in an open repository irrespective of the publisher's views. If that is correct, then the author could also attach a CC-BY licence to the manuscript version. If it is incorrect, the author can't deposit the manuscript with open access without the explicit permission of the publisher of his final, published version, and the argument advanced for more than a decade by Stevan Harnad is invalid. Which is it? I think Stevan was right, and a manuscript can be deposited with open access whether or not the publisher likes it. Whence his U-turn, I don't know. But if he was right at first, and I believe that's the case, that also means that it can be covered by a CC-BY licence. Repositories can't attach the licence, but 'gold' OA publishers can't either. It's always the author, as copyright holder by default. All repositories and OA publishers can do is require it as a condition of acceptance (to be included in the repository or to be published). What the publisher can do if he doesn't like the author making available the manuscript with open access, is apply the Ingelfinger rule or simply refuse to publish the article. Jan, I think this is very important. If we can establish the idea of Green-CC-BY as the norm for deposition in repositories then I would embrace it enthusiastically. I can see no downside other than that some publishers will fight it. But they fight anyway It also clairfies the difference between the final author ms and the publisher version of record. It would resolve all the apparent problems of the Finch reoprt etc. It is only because Green licences are undefined that we have this problem at all. And if we all agreed it could be launched for Open Access Week -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. 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 Laurent Romary INRIA HUB-IDSL laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ 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
[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories
Peter, It would simplify things a lot. So, the norm would be (mandated where needed) to deposit one's final manuscript, accepted for publication after peer-review, with a CC-BY licence, in a suitable repository, as soon as possible upon acceptance for publication. This has many similarities with deposit of preprints in arXiv. Publishers have not been concerned about arXiv. One reason is that versions of record are not deposited in arXiv. Subsequent publication of the 'version of record' takes place in a journal. In case that journal is a 'gold' journal with CC-BY licences, authors may replace the manuscript in the repository by the published version. Or not deposit a manuscript version at all but simply wait until the open, CC-BY version of record is published and deposit that. Some automated arrangement to do so may be available for some 'gold' journals and some repositories, as is already the case here and there (e.g for UKPMC). You may well be right that this very simple procedure would resolve most, perhaps all, problems of the Finch Report and RCUK policy plans. It also 'de-conflates' money and cost concerns from open access and reuse concerns. The only thing I'm not clear about is who the we all are who'd have to agree to launch this for Open Access week :-) Jan Velterop On 9 Oct 2012, at 22:28, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote: There is an inconsistency here, either way. We've always heard, from Stevan Harnad, that the author was the one who intrinsically had copyright on the manuscript version, so could deposit it, as an open access article, in an open repository irrespective of the publisher's views. If that is correct, then the author could also attach a CC-BY licence to the manuscript version. If it is incorrect, the author can't deposit the manuscript with open access without the explicit permission of the publisher of his final, published version, and the argument advanced for more than a decade by Stevan Harnad is invalid. Which is it? I think Stevan was right, and a manuscript can be deposited with open access whether or not the publisher likes it. Whence his U-turn, I don't know. But if he was right at first, and I believe that's the case, that also means that it can be covered by a CC-BY licence. Repositories can't attach the licence, but 'gold' OA publishers can't either. It's always the author, as copyright holder by default. All repositories and OA publishers can do is require it as a condition of acceptance (to be included in the repository or to be published). What the publisher can do if he doesn't like the author making available the manuscript with open access, is apply the Ingelfinger rule or simply refuse to publish the article. Jan, I think this is very important. If we can establish the idea of Green-CC-BY as the norm for deposition in repositories then I would embrace it enthusiastically. I can see no downside other than that some publishers will fight it. But they fight anyway It also clairfies the difference between the final author ms and the publisher version of record. It would resolve all the apparent problems of the Finch reoprt etc. It is only because Green licences are undefined that we have this problem at all. And if we all agreed it could be launched for Open Access Week -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. 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
[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories
Maybe some publication repositories who would be ready to play the game, at institutional, national or thematic level, backed up by eminent and open (!) champions of the cause. Laurent Le 10 oct. 2012 à 13:15, Jan Velterop a écrit : The only thing I'm not clear about is who the we all are who'd have to agree to launch this for Open Access week :-) Laurent Romary INRIA HUB-IDSL laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories
Hopefully germane to this (developing) position, I've pushed for a CC-BY use licence on all content exposed through the soon to be launched Research Portal/IR at QUB. The leverage provided by RCUK's strong position on this is at least one positive during what has been a difficult summer for policy alignments. What we hope to achieve is a cascading licensing arrangement flagged to the item record with the top level as open as we can make it. Garret McMahon Queen's University Belfast On 10 October 2012 12:15, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, It would simplify things a lot. So, the norm would be (mandated where needed) to deposit one's final manuscript, accepted for publication after peer-review, with a CC-BY licence, in a suitable repository, as soon as possible upon acceptance for publication. This has many similarities with deposit of preprints in arXiv. Publishers have not been concerned about arXiv. One reason is that versions of record are not deposited in arXiv. Subsequent publication of the 'version of record' takes place in a journal. In case that journal is a 'gold' journal with CC-BY licences, authors may replace the manuscript in the repository by the published version. Or not deposit a manuscript version at all but simply wait until the open, CC-BY version of record is published and deposit that. Some automated arrangement to do so may be available for some 'gold' journals and some repositories, as is already the case here and there (e.g for UKPMC). You may well be right that this very simple procedure would resolve most, perhaps all, problems of the Finch Report and RCUK policy plans. It also 'de-conflates' money and cost concerns from open access and reuse concerns. The only thing I'm not clear about is who the we all are who'd have to agree to launch this for Open Access week :-) Jan Velterop On 9 Oct 2012, at 22:28, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote: There is an inconsistency here, either way. We've always heard, from Stevan Harnad, that the author was the one who intrinsically had copyright on the manuscript version, so could deposit it, as an open access article, in an open repository irrespective of the publisher's views. If that is correct, then the author could also attach a CC-BY licence to the manuscript version. If it is incorrect, the author can't deposit the manuscript with open access without the explicit permission of the publisher of his final, published version, and the argument advanced for more than a decade by Stevan Harnad is invalid. Which is it? I think Stevan was right, and a manuscript can be deposited with open access whether or not the publisher likes it. Whence his U-turn, I don't know. But if he was right at first, and I believe that's the case, that also means that it can be covered by a CC-BY licence. Repositories can't attach the licence, but 'gold' OA publishers can't either. It's always the author, as copyright holder by default. All repositories and OA publishers can do is require it as a condition of acceptance (to be included in the repository or to be published). What the publisher can do if he doesn't like the author making available the manuscript with open access, is apply the Ingelfinger rule or simply refuse to publish the article. Jan, I think this is very important. If we can establish the idea of Green-CC-BY as the norm for deposition in repositories then I would embrace it enthusiastically. I can see no downside other than that some publishers will fight it. But they fight anyway It also clairfies the difference between the final author ms and the publisher version of record. It would resolve all the apparent problems of the Finch reoprt etc. It is only because Green licences are undefined that we have this problem at all. And if we all agreed it could be launched for Open Access Week -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. 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 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: CC-BY: the wrong goal for open access, and neither necessary nor sufficient for data and text mining
This brings to mind the idea of the data paper, described here http://www.pensoft.net/J_FILES/Pensoft_Data_Publishing_Policies_and_Guidelines.pdf This seems to have been pioneered by this publisher. There is also a data paper journal in archaeology, JOAD http://openarchaeologydata.metajnl.com/submit-a-data-paper/ How might this impact on repositories and the suggestion of green CC-BY? Interestingly there is one IR in JOAD's list of recommended repositories for data deposit, I think because UCL is also home to JOAD http://openarchaeologydata.metajnl.com/repositories/ Might IRs become the primary source of data papers? Will these data papers become the primary publications or supplementary publications? If the former then presumably there would be competition with journals to publish data papers. Through initiatives such as the JISC MRD programme, IRs in the UK are investigating how they may become data sources. Some may be looking specifically at data publications. We are anticipating substantial changes in author practices here. I would agree that IRs should be exploring the options here and looking to innovate, but developments are likely to be small scale initially. Are data papers, openly licenced, machine readable with data that can be manipulated, the real target here, rather than the typical published paper where the data may not have these features whether CC licenced or not? Steve Hitchcock DataPool Joint-Project Manager WAIS Group, Building 32 Faculty of Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK Email: sh...@ecs.soton.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 9379Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 2865 http://datapool.soton.ac.uk/ Twitter @jiscdatapool On 10 Oct 2012, at 10:24, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Dan Stowell dan.stow...@eecs.qmul.ac.uk wrote: Hi all, Some points re this discussion: Helen wrote: Heather?? 1.CC-BY is not necessary for data and text-mining. Internet search engines such as google and social media companies do extensive data and text mining, and they do not limit themselves to CC-BY material. This is true even in the EU, so is not prevented by the EU's support for copyright of data. To illustrate: if data and text-mining is not permissible without CC-BY, then Google must shut down, immediately. This point is a bit weird. Firstly, just because Google is doing something and getting away with it, doesn't mean a lone academic can be confident of doing something similar and getting away with it. I was always amazed by how brazenly Youtube set up its service *before* making agreements with the major media companies, when I would have assumed they would have been sued out of existence. Completely agree with Dan. Licences are critical for data. That is why we spent 2 years creating the Panton Principles for Scientific data with the result that we strongly recommend and explicit licence such as CCZero. The large content-oriented companies get away with a huge amount and there is a Faustian acceptance that they do a good job for academia by apparenty breaking rights, while academics are prevented from doing the same. This is why it is urgent that repositories work as hard as possible to make the content available in as Open a form as possible. Many repos do the reverse, adding additional clauses of their own preventing re-use. They are often of the form You cannot re-use this content in any way without the permission of the individual copyright owners. The Open Database Licence also appears to assert that digital material must be made available in a readily machine-interpretable form http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ though I'm less familiar with that (see the Keep open part of the summary). Yes. This means that a database provider who wishes to conform should make it as easy as possible to discover and re-use the data. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. 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
[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories
Jan, What similarities with arXiv are you referring to? Arxiv allows an author to attach specific CC licences (two are allowable); EPrints presents the author with this option at deposit. But it is not mandated, and how commonly is this option taken by authors, in arXiv or any other repository? http://arxiv.org/help/license (note section: Licenses granted are irrevocable) http://publishing.mathforge.org/discussion/74/voluntary-posting-of-accepted-manuscripts-in-the-arxiv-subject-repository-is-permitted/ Everyone loves arXiv, but I'm not sure it provides any precedent or lead in this respect. Steve On 10 Oct 2012, at 12:15, Jan Velterop wrote: Peter, It would simplify things a lot. So, the norm would be (mandated where needed) to deposit one's final manuscript, accepted for publication after peer-review, with a CC-BY licence, in a suitable repository, as soon as possible upon acceptance for publication. This has many similarities with deposit of preprints in arXiv. Publishers have not been concerned about arXiv. One reason is that versions of record are not deposited in arXiv. Subsequent publication of the 'version of record' takes place in a journal. In case that journal is a 'gold' journal with CC-BY licences, authors may replace the manuscript in the repository by the published version. Or not deposit a manuscript version at all but simply wait until the open, CC-BY version of record is published and deposit that. Some automated arrangement to do so may be available for some 'gold' journals and some repositories, as is already the case here and there (e.g for UKPMC). You may well be right that this very simple procedure would resolve most, perhaps all, problems of the Finch Report and RCUK policy plans. It also 'de-conflates' money and cost concerns from open access and reuse concerns. The only thing I'm not clear about is who the we all are who'd have to agree to launch this for Open Access week :-) Jan Velterop On 9 Oct 2012, at 22:28, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote: There is an inconsistency here, either way. We've always heard, from Stevan Harnad, that the author was the one who intrinsically had copyright on the manuscript version, so could deposit it, as an open access article, in an open repository irrespective of the publisher's views. If that is correct, then the author could also attach a CC-BY licence to the manuscript version. If it is incorrect, the author can't deposit the manuscript with open access without the explicit permission of the publisher of his final, published version, and the argument advanced for more than a decade by Stevan Harnad is invalid. Which is it? I think Stevan was right, and a manuscript can be deposited with open access whether or not the publisher likes it. Whence his U-turn, I don't know. But if he was right at first, and I believe that's the case, that also means that it can be covered by a CC-BY licence. Repositories can't attach the licence, but 'gold' OA publishers can't either. It's always ! the author, as copyright holder by default. All repositories and OA publishers can do is require it as a condition of acceptance (to be included in the repository or to be published). What the publisher can do if he doesn't like the author making available the manuscript with open access, is apply the Ingelfinger rule or simply refuse to publish the article. Jan, I think this is very important. If we can establish the idea of Green-CC-BY as the norm for deposition in repositories then I would embrace it enthusiastically. I can see no downside other than that some publishers will fight it. But they fight anyway It also clairfies the difference between the final author ms and the publisher version of record. It would resolve all the apparent problems of the Finch reoprt etc. It is only because Green licences are undefined that we have this problem at all. And if we all agreed it could be launched for Open Access Week -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. 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 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories
I have no problem with this model, assuming that there is no compulsion from the RCs to move to the second stage of publishing in a journal. However, if there is a possibility that many articles will only go to stage 1 and are deposited in a repository without going on to be published in a journal, I fear that publishers and the UK Government would have serious objections to the proposal. Government policy is based upon the reverse of this proposal, i.e. publishing first in a journal to establish a “version of record” and then as a second stage (under the RCUK policy) depositing in a repository. I would like to see HM Government change their policy but what is there in this proposal to make them change their minds? Also the fact that the proposal “de-conflates money and cost concerns from open access and re-use concerns” is exactly what publishers would not want to agree to. They are not worried about arXiv because – so far at least – they have been able to maintain their revenues in spite of the text of the arXiv version being identical to the text of the “version of record” in a journal. They would be worried if this model spread to other subject areas. However, it is good to see this proposal appear as a way of testing out how the decision-makers will react. Fred Friend http://www.friendofopenaccess.org.uk From: Jan Velterop Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:15 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories Peter, It would simplify things a lot. So, the norm would be (mandated where needed) to deposit one's final manuscript, accepted for publication after peer-review, with a CC-BY licence, in a suitable repository, as soon as possible upon acceptance for publication. This has many similarities with deposit of preprints in arXiv. Publishers have not been concerned about arXiv. One reason is that versions of record are not deposited in arXiv. Subsequent publication of the 'version of record' takes place in a journal. In case that journal is a 'gold' journal with CC-BY licences, authors may replace the manuscript in the repository by the published version. Or not deposit a manuscript version at all but simply wait until the open, CC-BY version of record is published and deposit that. Some automated arrangement to do so may be available for some 'gold' journals and some repositories, as is already the case here and there (e.g for UKPMC). You may well be right that this very simple procedure would resolve most, perhaps all, problems of the Finch Report and RCUK policy plans. It also 'de-conflates' money and cost concerns from open access and reuse concerns. The only thing I'm not clear about is who the we all are who'd have to agree to launch this for Open Access week :-) Jan Velterop On 9 Oct 2012, at 22:28, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote: There is an inconsistency here, either way. We've always heard, from Stevan Harnad, that the author was the one who intrinsically had copyright on the manuscript version, so could deposit it, as an open access article, in an open repository irrespective of the publisher's views. If that is correct, then the author could also attach a CC-BY licence to the manuscript version. If it is incorrect, the author can't deposit the manuscript with open access without the explicit permission of the publisher of his final, published version, and the argument advanced for more than a decade by Stevan Harnad is invalid. Which is it? I think Stevan was right, and a manuscript can be deposited with open access whether or not the publisher likes it. Whence his U-turn, I don't know. But if he was right at first, and I believe that's the case, that also means that it can be covered by a CC-BY licence. Repositories can't attach the licence, but 'gold' OA publishers can't either. It's always the author, as copyright holder by default. All repositories and OA publishers can do is require it as a condition of acceptance (to be included in the repository or to be published). What the publisher can do if he doesn't like the author making available the manuscript with open access, is apply the Ingelfinger rule or simply refuse to publish the article. Jan, I think this is very important. If we can establish the idea of Green-CC-BY as the norm for deposition in repositories then I would embrace it enthusiastically. I can see no downside other than that some publishers will fight it. But they fight anyway It also clairfies the difference between the final author ms and the publisher version of record. It would resolve all the apparent problems of the Finch reoprt etc. It is only because Green licences are undefined that we have this problem at all. And if we all agreed it could be launched for Open Access Week -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever
[GOAL] On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost from Gratis to CC-BY
** Cross-Posted ** This is a response to a proposal (by some individuals in the researcher community) to raise the goalposts of Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates from where they are now (free online access) to CC-BY (free online access plus unlimited re-use and re-publication rights): 1. The goal-posts for Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates should on no account be raised to CC-BY (free online access PLUS unlimited re-use and re-publication rights). That would be an absolute disaster for Green OA growth, Green OA mandate growth, and hence global OA growth (and hence another triumph for the publisher lobby and double-paid hybrid-Gold CC-BY). 2. The fundamental practical reason why global Green Gratis OA (free online access) is readily reachable is precisely because *it requires only free online access and not more*. 3. That is also why 60% of journals endorse immediate, un-embargoed Green OA today. 4. That is also why repositories' Almost-OA Buttonhttp://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/can tide over user needs during any embargo for the remaining 40% of journals. 5. Upgrading Green OA and Green OA mandates to requiring CC-BY would mean that most journals would *immediately* adopt Green OA embargoes, and their length would be years, not months. 6. It would also mean that emailing (or mailing) eprints would become legally actionable, if the eprint was tagged and treated as CC-BY, thereby doing in a half-century's worth of established scholarly practice. 7. And all because impatient ideology got the better of patient pragmatics and realism, a few fields' urgent need for CC-BY was put ahead of all fields' urgent need for free online access -- and another publisher lobby victory was scored for double-paid hybrid Gold-CC-BY (hence simply prolonging the worldwide status quo of mostly subscription publishing and little OA). 8. The reason for all this is also absolutely transparent to anyone who is not in the grip of an ideology, a single-minded impatience for CC-BY, or a conflict of interest: If Green OA self-archiving meant CC-BY then any rival publisher would immediately be licensed to free-ride on any subscription journal's content, offering it at cut-rate price in any form, thereby undercutting all chances of the original publisher recouping his costs: Hence for all journal publishers that would amount to either ruin or a forced immediate conversion to Gold CC-BY... 9. ...If publishers allowed Green CC-BY self-archiving by authors, and Green CC-BY mandates by their institutions, without legal action. 10. But of course publishers would not allow the assertion of CC-BY by its authors without legal action (and it is the fear of legal action that motivates the quest for CC-BY!): 11. And the very real threat of legal action facing Green CC-BY self-archiving by authors and Green CC-BY mandates by institutions (unlike the bogus threat of legal action against Gratis Green self-archiving and Gratis Green mandates) would of course put an end to authors' providing Green OA and institutions' mandating Green OA. 12. In theory, funders, unlike institutions, can mandate whatever they like, since they are paying for the research: But if a funder Gold OA mandate like Finch/RCUK's -- that denies fundees the right to publish in any journal that does not offer either Gold CC-BY or Gratis-Green with at most a 6-12 month embargo, and that only allows authors to pick Green if the journal does not offer Gold -- is already doomed to author resentment, resistance and non-compliance, then adding the constraint that any Green must be CC-BY would be to court outright researcher rebellion. In short, the pre-emptive insistence upon CC-BY OA, if recklessly and irrationally heeded, would bring the (already slow) progress toward OA, and the promise of progress, to a grinding halt. Finch/RCUK's bias toward paid Gold over cost-free Green was clearly a result of self-interested publisher lobbying. But if it were compounded by a premature and counterproductive insistence on CC-BY for all by a small segment of the researcher community, then the prospects of OA (both Gratis and CC-BY), so fertile if we at last take the realistic, pragmatic course of mandating Gratis Green OA globally first, would become as fallow as they have been for the past two decades, for decades to come. Some quote/comments follow below: *Jan Velterop:* We've always heard, from Stevan Harnad, that the author was the one who intrinsically had copyright on the manuscript version, so could deposit it, as an open access article, in an open repository irrespective of the publisher's views. I said -- because it's true, and two decades' objective evidence shows it -- that authors can deposit the refereed, final draft with no realistic threat of copyright action from the publisher. JV: If that is correct, then the author could also attach a CC-BY licence to the manuscript version. Nothing of the sort. Author self-archiving to provide
[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories
Steve, I wasn't clear. The 'similarity' refers to the idea of a repository for depositing preprints, as opposed to the published version of record. That's all. Don't read too much in the example. ArXiv allows CC-BY-NC-SA, which I don't advocate. But arXiv is just an example I had in mind. If Eprints is a clearer example, then fine. The essence is this: Deposit final manuscripts, accepted for publication after peer-review, with a CC-BY licence, in a suitable repository, as soon as possible upon acceptance for publication. It was called 'self-archiving' in the BOAI. Why we spent the last decade straying from the straightforward and conceptually simple path laid out in the BOAI, I don't know. The same thing happened with the definition of open access. Human — and especially academic — need and desire to complexify, I guess. Not everyone is born in Ockham. Jan On 10 Oct 2012, at 13:35, Steve Hitchcock wrote: Jan, What similarities with arXiv are you referring to? Arxiv allows an author to attach specific CC licences (two are allowable); EPrints presents the author with this option at deposit. But it is not mandated, and how commonly is this option taken by authors, in arXiv or any other repository? http://arxiv.org/help/license (note section: Licenses granted are irrevocable) http://publishing.mathforge.org/discussion/74/voluntary-posting-of-accepted-manuscripts-in-the-arxiv-subject-repository-is-permitted/ Everyone loves arXiv, but I'm not sure it provides any precedent or lead in this respect. Steve On 10 Oct 2012, at 12:15, Jan Velterop wrote: Peter, It would simplify things a lot. So, the norm would be (mandated where needed) to deposit one's final manuscript, accepted for publication after peer-review, with a CC-BY licence, in a suitable repository, as soon as possible upon acceptance for publication. This has many similarities with deposit of preprints in arXiv. Publishers have not been concerned about arXiv. One reason is that versions of record are not deposited in arXiv. Subsequent publication of the 'version of record' takes place in a journal. In case that journal is a 'gold' journal with CC-BY licences, authors may replace the manuscript in the repository by the published version. Or not deposit a manuscript version at all but simply wait until the open, CC-BY version of record is published and deposit that. Some automated arrangement to do so may be available for some 'gold' journals and some repositories, as is already the case here and there (e.g for UKPMC). You may well be right that this very simple procedure would resolve most, perhaps all, problems of the Finch Report and RCUK policy plans. It also 'de-conflates' money and cost concerns from open access and reuse concerns. The only thing I'm not clear about is who the we all are who'd have to agree to launch this for Open Access week :-) Jan Velterop On 9 Oct 2012, at 22:28, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote: There is an inconsistency here, either way. We've always heard, from Stevan Harnad, that the author was the one who intrinsically had copyright on the manuscript version, so could deposit it, as an open access article, in an open repository irrespective of the publisher's views. If that is correct, then the author could also attach a CC-BY licence to the manuscript version. If it is incorrect, the author can't deposit the manuscript with open access without the explicit permission of the publisher of his final, published version, and the argument advanced for more than a decade by Stevan Harnad is invalid. Which is it? I think Stevan was right, and a manuscript can be deposited with open access whether or not the publisher likes it. Whence his U-turn, I don't know. But if he was right at first, and I believe that's the case, that also means that it can be covered by a CC-BY licence. Repositories can't attach the licence, but 'gold' OA publishers can't either. It's always ! the author, as copyright holder by default. All repositories and OA publishers can do is require it as a condition of acceptance (to be included in the repository or to be published). What the publisher can do if he doesn't like the author making available the manuscript with open access, is apply the Ingelfinger rule or simply refuse to publish the article. Jan, I think this is very important. If we can establish the idea of Green-CC-BY as the norm for deposition in repositories then I would embrace it enthusiastically. I can see no downside other than that some publishers will fight it. But they fight anyway It also clairfies the difference between the final author ms and the publisher version of record. It would resolve all the apparent problems of the Finch reoprt etc. It is only because Green licences are undefined that we have this problem
[GOAL] Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost from Gratis to CC-BY
Stevan is not trying to achieve open access. (Although, admittedly, the definition of open access is so much subject to revision, that it depends on the day you looked what it, or one of its flavours, actually means or can mean — for the avoidance of doubt, my anchor point is the definition found here). What Stevan is advocating is just gratis 'ocular' online access (no machine-access, no text- or data-mining, no reuse of any sort — cross). If that is the case, I have no beef with him. We're just on different ships to different destinations which makes travelling in convoy impossible. The destination of the ship I'm on was mapped out at the BOAI in December 2001. I find it important to stay on course. The trouble arises where he regards the course of the ship that I am on as a threat to the course of his ship. That is misguided. Jan Velterop On 10 Oct 2012, at 14:49, Stevan Harnad wrote: ** Cross-Posted ** This is a response to a proposal (by some individuals in the researcher community) to raise the goalposts of Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates from where they are now (free online access) to CC-BY (free online access plus unlimited re-use and re-publication rights): 1. The goal-posts for Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates should on no account be raised to CC-BY (free online access PLUS unlimited re-use and re-publication rights). That would be an absolute disaster for Green OA growth, Green OA mandate growth, and hence global OA growth (and hence another triumph for the publisher lobby and double-paid hybrid-Gold CC-BY). 2. The fundamental practical reason why global Green Gratis OA (free online access) is readily reachable is precisely because it requires only free online access and not more. 3. That is also why 60% of journals endorse immediate, un-embargoed Green OA today. 4. That is also why repositories' Almost-OA Button can tide over user needs during any embargo for the remaining 40% of journals. 5. Upgrading Green OA and Green OA mandates to requiring CC-BY would mean that most journals would immediately adopt Green OA embargoes, and their length would be years, not months. 6. It would also mean that emailing (or mailing) eprints would become legally actionable, if the eprint was tagged and treated as CC-BY, thereby doing in a half-century's worth of established scholarly practice. 7. And all because impatient ideology got the better of patient pragmatics and realism, a few fields' urgent need for CC-BY was put ahead of all fields' urgent need for free online access -- and another publisher lobby victory was scored for double-paid hybrid Gold-CC-BY (hence simply prolonging the worldwide status quo of mostly subscription publishing and little OA). 8. The reason for all this is also absolutely transparent to anyone who is not in the grip of an ideology, a single-minded impatience for CC-BY, or a conflict of interest: If Green OA self-archiving meant CC-BY then any rival publisher would immediately be licensed to free-ride on any subscription journal's content, offering it at cut-rate price in any form, thereby undercutting all chances of the original publisher recouping his costs: Hence for all journal publishers that would amount to either ruin or a forced immediate conversion to Gold CC-BY... 9. ...If publishers allowed Green CC-BY self-archiving by authors, and Green CC-BY mandates by their institutions, without legal action. 10. But of course publishers would not allow the assertion of CC-BY by its authors without legal action (and it is the fear of legal action that motivates the quest for CC-BY!): 11. And the very real threat of legal action facing Green CC-BY self-archiving by authors and Green CC-BY mandates by institutions (unlike the bogus threat of legal action against Gratis Green self-archiving and Gratis Green mandates) would of course put an end to authors' providing Green OA and institutions' mandating Green OA. 12. In theory, funders, unlike institutions, can mandate whatever they like, since they are paying for the research: But if a funder Gold OA mandate like Finch/RCUK's -- that denies fundees the right to publish in any journal that does not offer either Gold CC-BY or Gratis-Green with at most a 6-12 month embargo, and that only allows authors to pick Green if the journal does not offer Gold -- is already doomed to author resentment, resistance and non-compliance, then adding the constraint that any Green must be CC-BY would be to court outright researcher rebellion. In short, the pre-emptive insistence upon CC-BY OA, if recklessly and irrationally heeded, would bring the (already slow) progress toward OA, and the promise of progress, to a grinding halt. Finch/RCUK's bias toward paid Gold over cost-free Green was clearly a result of self-interested publisher lobbying. But if it were compounded by a
[GOAL] Springer for sale - implications for open access?
According to Mark Kleinman, the private equity owners of Springer (EQT, a private investment company in Sweden and the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore) are making moves to solicit offers to purchase Springer. Details: http://news.sky.com/story/995576/academic-publishing-giant-springer-for-sale Springer is the world's second-largest scholarly publisher (after Elsevier), and owner of BioMedCentral. This might be a good time to start thinking about the implications of private ownership of scholarly publishing. For example, my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is that Springer was actively involved in lobbying for gold UK cash for CC-BY from RCUK, and that one of the rationales for providing this funding is to support UK-based industry. This puzzles me for many reasons; one is that the major beneficiaries of this policy are not UK-based at all, and the actual UK-based commercial outfits (Elsevier, Informa.plc also known as Taylor Francis, Routledge etc.) are likely to be hurt by this policy and are likely opposed to it. The largest OA via CC-BY publishers are BioMedCentral, with an office in London but ownership in Sweden and Singapore, and PLoS, with a principle US base. Again, corrections appreciated. At any rate, even if Springer currently were UK-owned, what happens when it is sold? There are no guarantees that the company will be bought by an organization with a philosophical commitment to open access. Considering the price, the only likely guarantee is that the next owner will have a firm commitment to making profits for private owners. BioMedCentral and PLoS have done outstanding work as OA publishing pioneers and developed practices that are good models for others. However, when planning for the future of OA, it is important to take into account the environment in which these organizations work. In the commercial for-profit sector, changes of ownership and/or management, often accompanied by changes of direction, are much more common than new companies developing practices that then become the traditions for decades and centuries that would be needed to ensure ongoing open access. best, Heather Morrison, MLIS Doctoral Candidate, Simon Fraser University School of Communication http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/ The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Springer for sale - implications for open access?
Unless you believe that private companies should not be allowed to run scholarly publishing services (a position I don't hold) then I don't see any implications. I guess any new owner may feel that the OA business is not profitable enough, in which case they will either a) put prices up and risk pricing themselves out of the market, b) lower costs and risk losing out to competitors who provide better services or c) exit the OA journal publishing busy entirely. In any case, all the papers that Springer has already published OA will remain OA. David On 10 Oct 2012, at 17:44, Heather Morrison wrote: According to Mark Kleinman, the private equity owners of Springer (EQT, a private investment company in Sweden and the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore) are making moves to solicit offers to purchase Springer. Details: http://news.sky.com/story/995576/academic-publishing-giant-springer-for-sale Springer is the world's second-largest scholarly publisher (after Elsevier), and owner of BioMedCentral. This might be a good time to start thinking about the implications of private ownership of scholarly publishing. For example, my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is that Springer was actively involved in lobbying for gold UK cash for CC-BY from RCUK, and that one of the rationales for providing this funding is to support UK-based industry. This puzzles me for many reasons; one is that the major beneficiaries of this policy are not UK-based at all, and the actual UK-based commercial outfits (Elsevier, Informa.plc also known as Taylor Francis, Routledge etc.) are likely to be hurt by this policy and are likely opposed to it. The largest OA via CC-BY publishers are BioMedCentral, with an office in London but ownership in Sweden and Singapore, and PLoS, with a principle US base. Again, corrections appreciated. At any rate, even if Springer currently were UK-owned, what happens when it is sold? There are no guarantees that the company will be bought by an organization with a philosophical commitment to open access. Considering the price, the only likely guarantee is that the next owner will have a firm commitment to making profits for private owners. BioMedCentral and PLoS have done outstanding work as OA publishing pioneers and developed practices that are good models for others. However, when planning for the future of OA, it is important to take into account the environment in which these organizations work. In the commercial for-profit sector, changes of ownership and/or management, often accompanied by changes of direction, are much more common than new companies developing practices that then become the traditions for decades and centuries that would be needed to ensure ongoing open access. best, Heather Morrison, MLIS Doctoral Candidate, Simon Fraser University School of Communication http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/ The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com ___ 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
[GOAL] RE : Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY
I have been observing this discussion from afar. It has always seemed to me that Stevan was distinguishing between ideal OA and reachable OA. Gratis OA, if I understand him right, is but the first step, and he argues (rightly in my own opinion) that we should not forfeit gratis simply because we do not reach the ideal solution right away. The only concern one should have in this kind of tactical choice is whether the intermediate step may act against the ideal goal. In this particular case, I do not see how going first for gratis, and then for libre, would impede the goal of ultimately reaching libre. Jean-Claude Guédon Message d'origine De: goal-boun...@eprints.org de la part de Jan Velterop Date: mer. 10/10/2012 12:07 À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: SPARC Open Access Forum; BOAI Forum Objet : [GOAL] Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY Stevan is not trying to achieve open access. (Although, admittedly, the definition of open access is so much subject to revision, that it depends on the day you looked what it, or one of its flavours, actually means or can mean - for the avoidance of doubt, my anchor point is the definition found here). What Stevan is advocating is just gratis 'ocular' online access (no machine-access, no text- or data-mining, no reuse of any sort - cross). If that is the case, I have no beef with him. We're just on different ships to different destinations which makes travelling in convoy impossible. The destination of the ship I'm on was mapped out at the BOAI in December 2001. I find it important to stay on course. The trouble arises where he regards the course of the ship that I am on as a threat to the course of his ship. That is misguided. Jan Velterop On 10 Oct 2012, at 14:49, Stevan Harnad wrote: ** Cross-Posted ** This is a response to a proposal (by some individuals in the researcher community) to raise the goalposts of Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates from where they are now (free online access) to CC-BY (free online access plus unlimited re-use and re-publication rights): 1. The goal-posts for Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates should on no account be raised to CC-BY (free online access PLUS unlimited re-use and re-publication rights). That would be an absolute disaster for Green OA growth, Green OA mandate growth, and hence global OA growth (and hence another triumph for the publisher lobby and double-paid hybrid-Gold CC-BY). 2. The fundamental practical reason why global Green Gratis OA (free online access) is readily reachable is precisely because it requires only free online access and not more. 3. That is also why 60% of journals endorse immediate, un-embargoed Green OA today. 4. That is also why repositories' Almost-OA Button can tide over user needs during any embargo for the remaining 40% of journals. 5. Upgrading Green OA and Green OA mandates to requiring CC-BY would mean that most journals would immediately adopt Green OA embargoes, and their length would be years, not months. 6. It would also mean that emailing (or mailing) eprints would become legally actionable, if the eprint was tagged and treated as CC-BY, thereby doing in a half-century's worth of established scholarly practice. 7. And all because impatient ideology got the better of patient pragmatics and realism, a few fields' urgent need for CC-BY was put ahead of all fields' urgent need for free online access -- and another publisher lobby victory was scored for double-paid hybrid Gold-CC-BY (hence simply prolonging the worldwide status quo of mostly subscription publishing and little OA). 8. The reason for all this is also absolutely transparent to anyone who is not in the grip of an ideology, a single-minded impatience for CC-BY, or a conflict of interest: If Green OA self-archiving meant CC-BY then any rival publisher would immediately be licensed to free-ride on any subscription journal's content, offering it at cut-rate price in any form, thereby undercutting all chances of the original publisher recouping his costs: Hence for all journal publishers that would amount to either ruin or a forced immediate conversion to Gold CC-BY... 9. ...If publishers allowed Green CC-BY self-archiving by authors, and Green CC-BY mandates by their institutions, without legal action. 10. But of course publishers would not allow the assertion of CC-BY by its authors without legal action (and it is the fear of legal action that motivates the quest for CC-BY!): 11. And the very real threat of legal action facing Green CC-BY self-archiving by authors and Green CC-BY mandates by institutions (unlike the bogus threat of legal action against Gratis Green self-archiving and Gratis Green mandates) would of course put an end to authors' providing Green OA and institutions' mandating Green OA. 12. In
[GOAL] Re: Springer for sale - implications for open access?
Universities could form a consortium, pool whatever they spend on Springer, do a leveraged buyout of the company, and run it as a nonprofit... (I am NOT saying it is a good idea.) --Eric. http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com Google Voice: (626) 898-5415 Telephone: (626) 376-5415 Skype: efvandevelde -- Twitter: @evdvelde E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:05 AM, David Prosser david.pros...@rluk.ac.ukwrote: Unless you believe that private companies should not be allowed to run scholarly publishing services (a position I don't hold) then I don't see any implications. I guess any new owner may feel that the OA business is not profitable enough, in which case they will either a) put prices up and risk pricing themselves out of the market, b) lower costs and risk losing out to competitors who provide better services or c) exit the OA journal publishing busy entirely. In any case, all the papers that Springer has already published OA will remain OA. David On 10 Oct 2012, at 17:44, Heather Morrison wrote: According to Mark Kleinman, the private equity owners of Springer (EQT, a private investment company in Sweden and the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore) are making moves to solicit offers to purchase Springer. Details: http://news.sky.com/story/995576/academic-publishing-giant-springer-for-sale Springer is the world's second-largest scholarly publisher (after Elsevier), and owner of BioMedCentral. This might be a good time to start thinking about the implications of private ownership of scholarly publishing. For example, my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is that Springer was actively involved in lobbying for gold UK cash for CC-BY from RCUK, and that one of the rationales for providing this funding is to support UK-based industry. This puzzles me for many reasons; one is that the major beneficiaries of this policy are not UK-based at all, and the actual UK-based commercial outfits (Elsevier, Informa.plc also known as Taylor Francis, Routledge etc.) are likely to be hurt by this policy and are likely opposed to it. The largest OA via CC-BY publishers are BioMedCentral, with an office in London but ownership in Sweden and Singapore, and PLoS, with a principle US base. Again, corrections appreciated. At any rate, even if Springer currently were UK-owned, what happens when it is sold? There are no guarantees that the company will be bought by an organization with a philosophical commitment to open access. Considering the price, the only likely guarantee is that the next owner will have a firm commitment to making profits for private owners. BioMedCentral and PLoS have done outstanding work as OA publishing pioneers and developed practices that are good models for others. However, when planning for the future of OA, it is important to take into account the environment in which these organizations work. In the commercial for-profit sector, changes of ownership and/or management, often accompanied by changes of direction, are much more common than new companies developing practices that then become the traditions for decades and centuries that would be needed to ensure ongoing open access. best, Heather Morrison, MLIS Doctoral Candidate, Simon Fraser University School of Communication http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/ The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com ___ 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 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Springer for sale - implications for open access?
On 2012-10-10, at 10:05 AM, David Prosser wrote: Unless you believe that private companies should not be allowed to run scholarly publishing services (a position I don't hold) then I don't see any implications. I guess any new owner may feel that the OA business is not profitable enough, in which case they will either a) put prices up and risk pricing themselves out of the market, b) lower costs and risk losing out to competitors who provide better services or c) exit the OA journal publishing busy entirely. In any case, all the papers that Springer has already published OA will remain OA. Re: all the papers that Springer has already published OA will remain OA. Question: please explain on what basis you make this assertion. Any papers that Springer has published under CC-BY licenses place no obligation whatsoever on the Licensor (Springer) or a successor. Comment on the ideological question: my perspective is that scholarly publishing services should be designed and led by scholars, for scholars and for the public interest. Private companies can and do play a useful role in providing such services. However, when large portions of the scholarly literature are owned and/or controlled by private interests, this is problematic. best, Heather Morrison, MLIS Doctoral Candidate, Simon Fraser University School of Communication http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/ The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost from Gratis to CC-BY
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote: Stevan is not trying to achieve open access. (Although, admittedly, the definition of open access is so much subject to revision, that it depends on the day you lookedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_accessoffset=limit=500action=history what it, or one of its flavours, actually means or can mean — for the avoidance of doubt, my anchor point is the definition found herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Open_Access_Initiative ). What Stevan is advocating is just gratis 'ocular' online access (no machine-access, no text- or data-mining, no reuse of any sort — cross). If that is the case, I have no beef with him. We're just on different ships to different destinations which makes travelling in convoy impossible. The destination of the ship I'm on was mapped out at the BOAIhttp://www.soros.org/openaccess/read in December 2001. I find it important to stay on course. The trouble arises where he regards the course of the ship that I am on as a threat to the course of his ship. That is misguided. We are both trying to reach open access, but (to continue with Jan's nautical analogy) open access has a nearer and a further point of landfall. The nearer, already visible landfall is free online access (Gratis OA) and the further, not yet visible landfall is free online access plus re-use/re-publication rights. We have been meandering aimlessly, making no landfall at all, for at least 10 years. I am for steering toward the nearer, already visible and reachable landfall (free online access) rather than continuing instead to meander in search of the further landfall (free online access plus re-use/re-publication rights). In fact I predict that once we make the nearer landfall, the second one will turn out to be soon reachable thereafter *overland*, without having to set out to sea and sail half way around the world to try to find it. Of course we could take two ships, and yours, Jan, could keep trying to steer a course toward the farther landfall, leaving mine to head for the nearer shore. But that's where the nautical metaphor breaks down. Because (for example) if Green OA (and hence Green OA mandates) were to be * re-defined* as Green CC-BY, and Green CC-BY mandates, then my ship for getting me to the nearer landfall would be sunk -- or (figuratively) my nearer landfall would be teleported to your further landfall, and I'd be left meandering as long as you. And meanwhile, research and researchers would continue -- for no one knows how long -- to be denied the ocular access that has been my primary motivation for seeking OA for close to 20 years now. For the record: I am for, not against, both Gold OA and all the CC-BY authors and users want and need. But I am profoundly against anything that slows or impedes our voyage to the nearer landfall (ocular access). -- And that includes proposals to redefine Green as the further landfall. None of this will be remedied by definitions, one way or the other; only by practical policy and action -- to reach our respective landfalls. And also for the record: I have no objections to spending research money on purchasing Gold-CC-BY (even though I do happen to consider it premature, unnecessary and wasteful!). My objection is to spending research money on purchasing Gold-CC-BY *without first [effectively!] mandating Gratis Green OA self-archiving* -- or, worse, to mandating that researchers must choose to pay Gold-CC-BY, allowing them to choose cost-free Green only if Gold is not offered. (That is what the new RCUK policy wording currently states: let's hope it turns out not to be what it means.) Stevan Harnad On 10 Oct 2012, at 14:49, Stevan Harnad wrote: ** Cross-Posted ** This is a response to a proposal (by some individuals in the researcher community) to raise the goalposts of Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates from where they are now (free online access) to CC-BY (free online access plus unlimited re-use and re-publication rights): 1. The goal-posts for Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates should on no account be raised to CC-BY (free online access PLUS unlimited re-use and re-publication rights). That would be an absolute disaster for Green OA growth, Green OA mandate growth, and hence global OA growth (and hence another triumph for the publisher lobby and double-paid hybrid-Gold CC-BY). 2. The fundamental practical reason why global Green Gratis OA (free online access) is readily reachable is precisely because *it requires only free online access and not more*. 3. That is also why 60% of journals endorse immediate, un-embargoed Green OA today. 4. That is also why repositories' Almost-OA Buttonhttp://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/can tide over user needs during any embargo for the remaining 40% of journals. 5. Upgrading Green OA and Green OA mandates to requiring CC-BY would mean that most journals
[GOAL] Re: RE : Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY
Jean-Claude, Does this mean that you think trying for ideal OA and settling for Gratis Ocular Access where ideal OA is not yet possible, is acting against the ideal goal? If so, on what basis? Best, Jan On 10 Oct 2012, at 18:25, Guédon Jean-Claude wrote: I have been observing this discussion from afar. It has always seemed to me that Stevan was distinguishing between ideal OA and reachable OA. Gratis OA, if I understand him right, is but the first step, and he argues (rightly in my own opinion) that we should not forfeit gratis simply because we do not reach the ideal solution right away. The only concern one should have in this kind of tactical choice is whether the intermediate step may act against the ideal goal. In this particular case, I do not see how going first for gratis, and then for libre, would impede the goal of ultimately reaching libre. Jean-Claude Guédon Message d'origine De: goal-boun...@eprints.org de la part de Jan Velterop Date: mer. 10/10/2012 12:07 À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: SPARC Open Access Forum; BOAI Forum Objet : [GOAL] Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY Stevan is not trying to achieve open access. (Although, admittedly, the definition of open access is so much subject to revision, that it depends on the day you looked what it, or one of its flavours, actually means or can mean - for the avoidance of doubt, my anchor point is the definition found here). What Stevan is advocating is just gratis 'ocular' online access (no machine-access, no text- or data-mining, no reuse of any sort - cross). If that is the case, I have no beef with him. We're just on different ships to different destinations which makes travelling in convoy impossible. The destination of the ship I'm on was mapped out at the BOAI in December 2001. I find it important to stay on course. The trouble arises where he regards the course of the ship that I am on as a threat to the course of his ship. That is misguided. Jan Velterop On 10 Oct 2012, at 14:49, Stevan Harnad wrote: ** Cross-Posted ** This is a response to a proposal (by some individuals in the researcher community) to raise the goalposts of Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates from where they are now (free online access) to CC-BY (free online access plus unlimited re-use and re-publication rights): 1. The goal-posts for Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates should on no account be raised to CC-BY (free online access PLUS unlimited re-use and re-publication rights). That would be an absolute disaster for Green OA growth, Green OA mandate growth, and hence global OA growth (and hence another triumph for the publisher lobby and double-paid hybrid-Gold CC-BY). 2. The fundamental practical reason why global Green Gratis OA (free online access) is readily reachable is precisely because it requires only free online access and not more. 3. That is also why 60% of journals endorse immediate, un-embargoed Green OA today. 4. That is also why repositories' Almost-OA Button can tide over user needs during any embargo for the remaining 40% of journals. 5. Upgrading Green OA and Green OA mandates to requiring CC-BY would mean that most journals would immediately adopt Green OA embargoes, and their length would be years, not months. 6. It would also mean that emailing (or mailing) eprints would become legally actionable, if the eprint was tagged and treated as CC-BY, thereby doing in a half-century's worth of established scholarly practice. 7. And all because impatient ideology got the better of patient pragmatics and realism, a few fields' urgent need for CC-BY was put ahead of all fields' urgent need for free online access -- and another publisher lobby victory was scored for double-paid hybrid Gold-CC-BY (hence simply prolonging the worldwide status quo of mostly subscription publishing and little OA). 8. The reason for all this is also absolutely transparent to anyone who is not in the grip of an ideology, a single-minded impatience for CC-BY, or a conflict of interest: If Green OA self-archiving meant CC-BY then any rival publisher would immediately be licensed to free-ride on any subscription journal's content, offering it at cut-rate price in any form, thereby undercutting all chances of the original publisher recouping his costs: Hence for all journal publishers that would amount to either ruin or a forced immediate conversion to Gold CC-BY... 9. ...If publishers allowed Green CC-BY self-archiving by authors, and Green CC-BY mandates by their institutions, without legal action. 10. But of course publishers would not allow the assertion of CC-BY by its authors without legal action (and it is the fear of legal action that motivates the quest for CC-BY!): 11. And the very real threat of legal
[GOAL] RE : Re: RE : Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY
Jan, Please read again what I wrote. I repeat: The only concern one should have in this kind of tactical choice is whether the intermediate step may act against the ideal goal. In this particular case, I do not see how going first for gratis, and then for libre, would impede the goal of ultimately reaching libre. I believe that what I wrote is not ambiguous or difficult to understand. Ot, to put it differently: No, it does not mean... etc. Jean-Claude Message d'origine De: goal-boun...@eprints.org de la part de Jan Velterop Date: mer. 10/10/2012 13:51 À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: SPARC Open Access Forum; BOAI Forum Objet : [GOAL] Re: RE : Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY Jean-Claude, Does this mean that you think trying for ideal OA and settling for Gratis Ocular Access where ideal OA is not yet possible, is acting against the ideal goal? If so, on what basis? Best, Jan On 10 Oct 2012, at 18:25, Guédon Jean-Claude wrote: I have been observing this discussion from afar. It has always seemed to me that Stevan was distinguishing between ideal OA and reachable OA. Gratis OA, if I understand him right, is but the first step, and he argues (rightly in my own opinion) that we should not forfeit gratis simply because we do not reach the ideal solution right away. The only concern one should have in this kind of tactical choice is whether the intermediate step may act against the ideal goal. In this particular case, I do not see how going first for gratis, and then for libre, would impede the goal of ultimately reaching libre. Jean-Claude Guédon Message d'origine De: goal-boun...@eprints.org de la part de Jan Velterop Date: mer. 10/10/2012 12:07 À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: SPARC Open Access Forum; BOAI Forum Objet : [GOAL] Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY Stevan is not trying to achieve open access. (Although, admittedly, the definition of open access is so much subject to revision, that it depends on the day you looked what it, or one of its flavours, actually means or can mean - for the avoidance of doubt, my anchor point is the definition found here). What Stevan is advocating is just gratis 'ocular' online access (no machine-access, no text- or data-mining, no reuse of any sort - cross). If that is the case, I have no beef with him. We're just on different ships to different destinations which makes travelling in convoy impossible. The destination of the ship I'm on was mapped out at the BOAI in December 2001. I find it important to stay on course. The trouble arises where he regards the course of the ship that I am on as a threat to the course of his ship. That is misguided. Jan Velterop On 10 Oct 2012, at 14:49, Stevan Harnad wrote: ** Cross-Posted ** This is a response to a proposal (by some individuals in the researcher community) to raise the goalposts of Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates from where they are now (free online access) to CC-BY (free online access plus unlimited re-use and re-publication rights): 1. The goal-posts for Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates should on no account be raised to CC-BY (free online access PLUS unlimited re-use and re-publication rights). That would be an absolute disaster for Green OA growth, Green OA mandate growth, and hence global OA growth (and hence another triumph for the publisher lobby and double-paid hybrid-Gold CC-BY). 2. The fundamental practical reason why global Green Gratis OA (free online access) is readily reachable is precisely because it requires only free online access and not more. 3. That is also why 60% of journals endorse immediate, un-embargoed Green OA today. 4. That is also why repositories' Almost-OA Button can tide over user needs during any embargo for the remaining 40% of journals. 5. Upgrading Green OA and Green OA mandates to requiring CC-BY would mean that most journals would immediately adopt Green OA embargoes, and their length would be years, not months. 6. It would also mean that emailing (or mailing) eprints would become legally actionable, if the eprint was tagged and treated as CC-BY, thereby doing in a half-century's worth of established scholarly practice. 7. And all because impatient ideology got the better of patient pragmatics and realism, a few fields' urgent need for CC-BY was put ahead of all fields' urgent need for free online access -- and another publisher lobby victory was scored for double-paid hybrid Gold-CC-BY (hence simply prolonging the worldwide status quo of mostly subscription publishing and little OA). 8. The reason for all this is also absolutely transparent to anyone who is not in the grip of an ideology, a single-minded impatience for CC-BY, or a conflict of
[GOAL] Re: Springer for sale - implications for open access?
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Heather Morrison hgmor...@sfu.ca wrote: On 2012-10-10, at 10:05 AM, David Prosser wrote: Unless you believe that private companies should not be allowed to run scholarly publishing services (a position I don't hold) then I don't see any implications. I guess any new owner may feel that the OA business is not profitable enough, in which case they will either a) put prices up and risk pricing themselves out of the market, b) lower costs and risk losing out to competitors who provide better services or c) exit the OA journal publishing busy entirely. In any case, all the papers that Springer has already published OA will remain OA. Re: all the papers that Springer has already published OA will remain OA. Question: please explain on what basis you make this assertion. Any papers that Springer has published under CC-BY licenses place no obligation whatsoever on the Licensor (Springer) or a successor. This is central to the whole rationale for CC-BY: Assuming that by OA we mean BOAI compliant (free to use, re-use and redistribute) CC-BY then all BOAI-compliant papers can remain BOAI-compliant for all time. The mechanism is simple: * anyone can copy any BOAI-compliant paper and redistribute it as many times as they like. That's it. Ross and I are doing exactly that. We are copying the whole of an BMC journal (BMC is owned by Springer) and putting them into open repositories. Here is an example of our first public batch (80 papers): https://bitbucket.org/petermr/ami2/src/cd8aa692c09a/pdfs/bmcevolbiol/2/1471-2148-11-310.pdf?at=default# These are the PDFs copied directly from the BMC site (we used a web-friendly approach). I have thousands more on my machine - I could put them all on bitbucket except it would affect performance. Assume BMC closed down tomorrow (I hope it doesn'), these papers would remain on my machine and on bitbucket. I can clone the whole of BMC if I want. I may well do that and i don't need permission - (but I'd ask BMC first as to the most friendly way to do it technically). So long as one person or institution clones (forks) the content it is potentially saved as open for all time. And although the world cannot rely on me and Ross to preserve BMC content, this can and is bening done by national libraries. *** and of course Eu/PMC *** So it's the power to clone that preserves OA. This right has been very clearly set out by the Free and Open Source movements and its philosophy has been essentially copied by BOAI. That is why BOAI is so powerful. You cannot do this with CC-NC. National libraries can be construed as commercial organizations. So CC-NC gives no rights to fork publicly. Pleaes consider this before yet again suggesting CC-NC as a useful strategy And note that many Open Access terms and conditions and almost all Green OA (unless CC-BY) does not give the right to copy and fork. Indeed some publishers actively specify that their OA prevents copying. It is because OA effectively operationally meaningless that we are urging that documents should all be formally licensed. And many of argue that CC-BY is the only workable and desirable licence. The only problem with CC-BY is potential apathy - no-one makes a copy. But while national libraries, domain repositories and IRs exist that is not a problem. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. 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] Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY
Jean-Claude, I get that. But I have a question that I don't think has been answered yet. I'll phrase the question differently: Do you think that going for libre wherever we can, impedes the chances of achieving gratis where libre is not currently realistically possible? Best, Jan On 10 Oct 2012, at 21:04, Guédon Jean-Claude wrote: Jan, Please read again what I wrote. I repeat: The only concern one should have in this kind of tactical choice is whether the intermediate step may act against the ideal goal. In this particular case, I do not see how going first for gratis, and then for libre, would impede the goal of ultimately reaching libre. I believe that what I wrote is not ambiguous or difficult to understand. Ot, to put it differently: No, it does not mean... etc. Jean-Claude Message d'origine De: goal-boun...@eprints.org de la part de Jan Velterop Date: mer. 10/10/2012 13:51 À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: SPARC Open Access Forum; BOAI Forum Objet : [GOAL] Re: RE : Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY Jean-Claude, Does this mean that you think trying for ideal OA and settling for Gratis Ocular Access where ideal OA is not yet possible, is acting against the ideal goal? If so, on what basis? Best, Jan On 10 Oct 2012, at 18:25, Guédon Jean-Claude wrote: I have been observing this discussion from afar. It has always seemed to me that Stevan was distinguishing between ideal OA and reachable OA. Gratis OA, if I understand him right, is but the first step, and he argues (rightly in my own opinion) that we should not forfeit gratis simply because we do not reach the ideal solution right away. The only concern one should have in this kind of tactical choice is whether the intermediate step may act against the ideal goal. In this particular case, I do not see how going first for gratis, and then for libre, would impede the goal of ultimately reaching libre. Jean-Claude Guédon Message d'origine De: goal-boun...@eprints.org de la part de Jan Velterop Date: mer. 10/10/2012 12:07 À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: SPARC Open Access Forum; BOAI Forum Objet : [GOAL] Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY Stevan is not trying to achieve open access. (Although, admittedly, the definition of open access is so much subject to revision, that it depends on the day you looked what it, or one of its flavours, actually means or can mean - for the avoidance of doubt, my anchor point is the definition found here). What Stevan is advocating is just gratis 'ocular' online access (no machine-access, no text- or data-mining, no reuse of any sort - cross). If that is the case, I have no beef with him. We're just on different ships to different destinations which makes travelling in convoy impossible. The destination of the ship I'm on was mapped out at the BOAI in December 2001. I find it important to stay on course. The trouble arises where he regards the course of the ship that I am on as a threat to the course of his ship. That is misguided. Jan Velterop On 10 Oct 2012, at 14:49, Stevan Harnad wrote: ** Cross-Posted ** This is a response to a proposal (by some individuals in the researcher community) to raise the goalposts of Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates from where they are now (free online access) to CC-BY (free online access plus unlimited re-use and re-publication rights): 1. The goal-posts for Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates should on no account be raised to CC-BY (free online access PLUS unlimited re-use and re-publication rights). That would be an absolute disaster for Green OA growth, Green OA mandate growth, and hence global OA growth (and hence another triumph for the publisher lobby and double-paid hybrid-Gold CC-BY). 2. The fundamental practical reason why global Green Gratis OA (free online access) is readily reachable is precisely because it requires only free online access and not more. 3. That is also why 60% of journals endorse immediate, un-embargoed Green OA today. 4. That is also why repositories' Almost-OA Button can tide over user needs during any embargo for the remaining 40% of journals. 5. Upgrading Green OA and Green OA mandates to requiring CC-BY would mean that most journals would immediately adopt Green OA embargoes, and their length would be years, not months. 6. It would also mean that emailing (or mailing) eprints would become legally actionable, if the eprint was tagged and treated as CC-BY, thereby doing in a half-century's worth of established scholarly practice. 7. And all because impatient ideology got the better of patient pragmatics and realism, a few fields' urgent need for CC-BY was put ahead of all fields' urgent need for free
[GOAL] Re: RE : Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY
Hello, As far as I understand english, it seems that Jean-Claude says exactly the contrary : Having gratis access is a first goal that doesn't impede having free (re-utilisable) acces after. For one time Jean-Claude strategically agree with Stevan, I only can clap my hands. Hervé Le Crosnier Le 10/10/2012 19:51, Jan Velterop a écrit : Jean-Claude, Does this mean that you think trying for ideal OA and settling for Gratis Ocular Access where ideal OA is not yet possible, is acting against the ideal goal? If so, on what basis? Best, Jan On 10 Oct 2012, at 18:25, Guédon Jean-Claude wrote: I have been observing this discussion from afar. It has always seemed to me that Stevan was distinguishing between ideal OA and reachable OA. Gratis OA, if I understand him right, is but the first step, and he argues (rightly in my own opinion) that we should not forfeit gratis simply because we do not reach the ideal solution right away. The only concern one should have in this kind of tactical choice is whether the intermediate step may act against the ideal goal. In this particular case, I do not see how going first for gratis, and then for libre, would impede the goal of ultimately reaching libre. Jean-Claude Guédon Message d'origine De: goal-boun...@eprints.org de la part de Jan Velterop Date: mer. 10/10/2012 12:07 À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: SPARC Open Access Forum; BOAI Forum Objet : [GOAL] Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY Stevan is not trying to achieve open access. (Although, admittedly, the definition of open access is so much subject to revision, that it depends on the day you looked what it, or one of its flavours, actually means or can mean - for the avoidance of doubt, my anchor point is the definition found here). What Stevan is advocating is just gratis 'ocular' online access (no machine-access, no text- or data-mining, no reuse of any sort - cross). If that is the case, I have no beef with him. We're just on different ships to different destinations which makes travelling in convoy impossible. The destination of the ship I'm on was mapped out at the BOAI in December 2001. I find it important to stay on course. The trouble arises where he regards the course of the ship that I am on as a threat to the course of his ship. That is misguided. Jan Velterop On 10 Oct 2012, at 14:49, Stevan Harnad wrote: ** Cross-Posted ** This is a response to a proposal (by some individuals in the researcher community) to raise the goalposts of Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates from where they are now (free online access) to CC-BY (free online access plus unlimited re-use and re-publication rights): 1. The goal-posts for Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates should on no account be raised to CC-BY (free online access PLUS unlimited re-use and re-publication rights). That would be an absolute disaster for Green OA growth, Green OA mandate growth, and hence global OA growth (and hence another triumph for the publisher lobby and double-paid hybrid-Gold CC-BY). 2. The fundamental practical reason why global Green Gratis OA (free online access) is readily reachable is precisely because it requires only free online access and not more. 3. That is also why 60% of journals endorse immediate, un-embargoed Green OA today. 4. That is also why repositories' Almost-OA Button can tide over user needs during any embargo for the remaining 40% of journals. 5. Upgrading Green OA and Green OA mandates to requiring CC-BY would mean that most journals would immediately adopt Green OA embargoes, and their length would be years, not months. 6. It would also mean that emailing (or mailing) eprints would become legally actionable, if the eprint was tagged and treated as CC-BY, thereby doing in a half-century's worth of established scholarly practice. 7. And all because impatient ideology got the better of patient pragmatics and realism, a few fields' urgent need for CC-BY was put ahead of all fields' urgent need for free online access -- and another publisher lobby victory was scored for double-paid hybrid Gold-CC-BY (hence simply prolonging the worldwide status quo of mostly subscription publishing and little OA). 8. The reason for all this is also absolutely transparent to anyone who is not in the grip of an ideology, a single-minded impatience for CC-BY, or a conflict of interest: If Green OA self-archiving meant CC-BY then any rival publisher would immediately be licensed to free-ride on any subscription journal's content, offering it at cut-rate price in any form, thereby undercutting all chances of the original publisher recouping his costs: Hence for all journal publishers that would amount to either ruin or a forced immediate
[GOAL] Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Guédon Jean-Claude jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: Jan, Please read again what I wrote. I repeat: The only concern one should have in this kind of tactical choice is whether the intermediate step may act against the ideal goal. In this particular case, I do not see how going first for gratis, and then for libre, would impede the goal of ultimately reaching libre. I hate to use libre in an OA context as it's operationally meaningless. You could probably argue that most Green is already OA-libre as it removes some permission barriers (e.g. the permission to copy for dark-archival). So I suggest we use BOAI or CC-BY in further discussions. The problem is that this is a serial approach and suffers from at least: * it takes at least twice as long * the world doesn't stand still. Let's hypothesize that we could achieve 80% green (visible Green, not hidden AlmostVisible) in 7 years' time. (I think that's optimistic). Are we then allowed to initiate a CC-BY activity? And by that time the nature of publication will have changed dramatically (because if it doesn't academia will be seriously out of step with this the philosophy and practice of this century). We have to proceed in parallel. No-one - not even SH - can predict the future accurately. I believe that Green-CC-BY is possible and that if we do it on a coherent positive basis it can work. There is no legal reason why we cannot archive Green CC-BY and it is not currently explicitly prevented by any publisher I know of. Try it - rapidly - and see what happens. My guess is that a lot of publishers will let it go forward. The publishers own the citation space. It is their manuscript which is the citable one. Green-CC-BY doesn't remove that. Actually it makes it better because it will increase citations through all the enhancements we can add to re-usable manuscripts. And I will state again that for my purposes (and those of many others) Green CC-BY gives me everything I want without , I believe, destroying the publishers' market. We are in a period of very rapid technical and social change and we need to be actively changing the world of scholarship, not waiting for others to constrain our future. P. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. 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] Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY
Jan, I do not think it does, provided that the *wherever* quest for libre that you suggest does not get confused with the *absolute need* to get libre and nothing else. What I think concerns Stevan is that some people get so hung up on libre as a result of the systematic nature of the *wherever* that they downgrade gratis to the level of an ugly, ultimately unacceptable, compromise. At that point, perfection becomes the enemy of the good. Peter Suber has written some good pages in his book on Open Access, by the way. Also, if libre is not currently realistically possible, why go for it, except to reassert a principle? And going for gratis does not prevent reasserting the ultimate goal of libre, while accepting the temporary gain of gratis. Finally, there are negotiating situations where speaking only in terms of gratis is probably wise to achieve at least gratis. Lawyer-style minds are often concerned about the toe-into-the-door possibility. In such situations, the libre imperative could indeed work against the gratis. I suspect may librarian/publisher negotiations would fall in this category and I suspect many publishers approach the whole issue of open access with a cautionary mind. That is the the best I can do on your question. It is a tough question because each category of actors (researchers, librarians, publishers, administrators) will have a different take on it. Best, Jean-Claude Le mercredi 10 octobre 2012 à 21:53 +0100, Jan Velterop a écrit : Jean-Claude, I get that. But I have a question that I don't think has been answered yet. I'll phrase the question differently: Do you think that going for libre wherever we can, impedes the chances of achieving gratis where libre is not currently realistically possible? Best, Jan On 10 Oct 2012, at 21:04, Guédon Jean-Claude wrote: Jan, Please read again what I wrote. I repeat: The only concern one should have in this kind of tactical choice is whether the intermediate step may act against the ideal goal. In this particular case, I do not see how going first for gratis, and then for libre, would impede the goal of ultimately reaching libre. I believe that what I wrote is not ambiguous or difficult to understand. Ot, to put it differently: No, it does not mean... etc. Jean-Claude Message d'origine De: goal-boun...@eprints.org de la part de Jan Velterop Date: mer. 10/10/2012 13:51 À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: SPARC Open Access Forum; BOAI Forum Objet : [GOAL] Re: RE : Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY Jean-Claude, Does this mean that you think trying for ideal OA and settling for Gratis Ocular Access where ideal OA is not yet possible, is acting against the ideal goal? If so, on what basis? Best, Jan On 10 Oct 2012, at 18:25, Guédon Jean-Claude wrote: I have been observing this discussion from afar. It has always seemed to me that Stevan was distinguishing between ideal OA and reachable OA. Gratis OA, if I understand him right, is but the first step, and he argues (rightly in my own opinion) that we should not forfeit gratis simply because we do not reach the ideal solution right away. The only concern one should have in this kind of tactical choice is whether the intermediate step may act against the ideal goal. In this particular case, I do not see how going first for gratis, and then for libre, would impede the goal of ultimately reaching libre. Jean-Claude Guédon Message d'origine De: goal-boun...@eprints.org de la part de Jan Velterop Date: mer. 10/10/2012 12:07 À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: SPARC Open Access Forum; BOAI Forum Objet : [GOAL] Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost fromGratis to CC-BY Stevan is not trying to achieve open access. (Although, admittedly, the definition of open access is so much subject to revision, that it depends on the day you looked what it, or one of its flavours, actually means or can mean - for the avoidance of doubt, my anchor point is the definition found here). What Stevan is advocating is just gratis 'ocular' online access (no machine-access, no text- or data-mining, no reuse of any sort - cross). If that is the case, I have no beef with him. We're just on different ships to different destinations which makes travelling in convoy impossible. The destination of the ship I'm on was mapped out at the BOAI in December 2001. I find it important to stay on course. The trouble arises where he regards the course of the ship that I am on as a threat to the course of his ship. That is misguided. Jan Velterop On 10 Oct 2012, at 14:49, Stevan Harnad wrote: ** Cross-Posted ** This is a response to a proposal (by some individuals in the researcher
