[GOAL] Re: Joint Statement on Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

[Bosman, J.M.]

Dear Wouter,

There is a lot to say in support of more tranparency. For any system to succeed 
it will need wide adoption. So perhaps Elsevier and Thomson Reuters could join 
forces here and decide on a commonly used system to be comprehensively 
available in Scopus as well as WoS and preferably on a open platform (Scimago? 
DOAJ?) as well.

A problem will be the nested nature of this star rating. What about e.g. 
qualifying for 5 but not for 4 stars when a jounal has open but anonymous 
review reports? And there are other examples where this nesting will prove to 
be problematic. Why not just publish the transparency data without turining 
them into a ranking or rating system? Of course the data should be available 
for downloading, filtering, sorting etc.

best,
Jeroen

PS Personally I would also applaud Scopus if it used paper/chapter submittance 
dates instead of or along with publication years. Publication years are often 
not very useful for dating content.

Op 23 dec. 2013 om 22:12 heeft "Gerritsma, Wouter" 
mailto:wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl>> het volgende 
geschreven:

Dear Claire and other members of OASPA, COPE, DOAJ & WAME

Paper is patient. Journal will explain that they do peer review, double blind, 
whatever you wish.
But I think you should award journals for their degree in transparency for the 
peer review process.
http://wowter.net/2013/12/24/towards-five-stars-transparent-pre-publication-peer-review/

Yours sincerely
Wouter Gerritsma

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Claire Redhead
Sent: donderdag 19 december 2013 16:41
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Joint Statement on Principles of Transparency and Best Practice 
in Scholarly Publishing

The Committee on Publication Ethics, the 
Directory of Open Access Journals, the Open Access 
Scholarly Publishers Association, and the World Association 
of Medical Editors are scholarly organizations that have 
seen an increase in the number of membership applications from both legitimate 
and non-legitimate publishers and journals. Our organizations have collaborated 
in an effort to identify principles of transparency and best practice that set 
apart legitimate journals and publishers from non-legitimate ones and to 
clarify that these principles form part of the criteria on which membership 
applications will be evaluated.


This is a work in progress and we welcome feedback on the general principles 
and the specific criteria. Please see the full 
statement
 on the OASPA blog (http://oaspa.org/blog/).


Claire Redhead
Membership & Communications Manager
Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, OASPA
http://oaspa.org/
___
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: Fwd: I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!

[Peter Murray-Rust]

I do not intend to get drawn into a logic-chopping session. I think that SH
is probably the only person in the world who actually follows his logic all
the way through.  However if he wishes I will show that several of his
statements are equally flawed and badly constructed.

The serious danger is that others will pick part of his utterances and use
them to justify their conclusions. The most pressing is that the TA/STM
publishers are spending massive amounts of money and lobbying to discredit
content-mining (TDM). That is because they fear it (they shouldn't). A
typical utteraance is:

"there is no demand for content-mining"

This is untrue. There is demand despite the publishers putting every
conceivable obstacle in our way. But publishers can now say:

"Stevan Harnad says:

*re-use rights to only a fragment of the research in a field are
near-useless.."*It doesn't matter to their readers that this is taken out
of  the context of a convoluted and flawed argument. It is taken as a
statement of an authority and can be highly damaging.

Another typical SH soundbite is "Elsevier is on the side of the Angels".
This type of dramatic utterance is again highly dangerous. It actually
means something like "Elsevier allows Green OA under certain (Catch-22)
conditions". In a world where advocacy matters, it is important to provide
good clear advocacy.

Of the statements above over half of them rely on premises unique to SH and
I don't intend to discuss them further. However the following is utterly
unacceptable:

*SH But publishers allowing authors to provide free online access and
re-use rights can immediately be undercut by free-riding rival publishers;
publishers allowing authors to provide free online access alone cannot...*

I interpret this as meaning "*BOAI rights are actually dangerous because
they allow unscrupulous publishers to copy and reuse publications whereas
Green OA can be used to restrict re-use and is therefore a good thing*".


I am not anti-green (if it were actually done properly it could be useful,
unlike the fragmented and hidden repositories we now have). But I think
SH's crusade is now doing harm to the whole OA movement. It is not that it
does harm on this list, but that it confuses the wider public debate.


Readers are invited to draw their own conclusions

-- 
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: Fwd: I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Peter Murray-Rust  wrote:

SHP See: *I don't want free online access: I want free online access with
>> re-use rights!
>> *
>>
>
> I can't let this torrent of hypotheticals and suppositions stand
>
> This includes completely misleading statements such as:
>
> "I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
> rights!"
>
> *SH rebuttal : But re-use rights to only a fragment of the research in a
> field are near-useless...*
>
> "near-useless" is SH's judgment. He has no evidence for this and it's
> simply catstrophically wrong… My research on 15-20% of the literature is
> not "near-useless" and this will become clear in the next 1-2 months
>

Here's the full context of which PM-R has quoted a fragment, ignoring all
the rest, and thereby missing the point entirely. Readers are encouraged to
draw their own conclusions:

"I don't want free online
access:
I want free online access with re-use
rights
!

*But we don't even have free online access yet...*

"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
rights!"

*But free online access is part of free online access with re-use rights...*

"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
rights!"

*But free online access is already within immediate reach and free online
access with re-use rights is not...*

"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
rights!"

*But free online access today will pave the way for free online access with
re-use rights tomorrow...*

"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
rights!"

*But re-use rights to only a fragment of the research in a field are
near-useless...*

"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
rights!"

*But publishers allowing authors to provide free online access and re-use
rights can immediately be undercut by free-riding rival publishers;
publishers allowing authors to provide free online access alone cannot...*

"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
rights!"

*But publishers will sooner allow authors to provide free online access
than allow them to provide free online access with re-use rights…*

"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
rights!"

*But institutions and funders can sooner mandate
 free online access than free online access
with re-use rights…*

"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
rights!"

*But all non-subscribing users need free online access; not all or even
most or many users need re-use rights...*

"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
rights!"

*But all authors already want all non-subscribing users to have immediate
free online access; not all or even most or many authors know or care about
re-use rights yet...*

"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
rights!"

*But free online access with re-use rights today entails paying publishers
even more, over and above uncancellable subscriptions, out of scarce
research funds, whereas free online access entails no extra cost...*

"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
rights!"

*But free online access is better, even if free online access with re-use
rights is best...*

"I don't want the better: I want the best!"

*But the better is already within reach

and
the best is not...*

"I don't want the better: I want the best!"


 *Stevan Harnad*

I am starting right now to mine the bioscience literature. BOAI #openaccess
> is somewhere around 15-20 percent of currently published bioscience. That
> is enormously valuable as it stands. SH may describe my research as
> "near-useless" but I can extract high-quality publishable science, and I
> intend to publish it if it achieves a useful scientific gain. There are
> MANY cases where comprehensiveness is not required.
>
> Here are some of the things I and colleagues intend to do - they are NOT
> "near-useless"
>
> * compiling a vocabulary. This is of enormous value in nearly every field.
> 20% will contain all the commonly used vocabulary. The value of the
> long-tail is not critical in most fields
>
> * building a natural language toolkit. I have done this and it is widely
> used . I do not need the whole literature to do this.
>
> * creati