Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for research articles

[David Wojick]

Stevan,

It is far easier for Congress to change the law than for every US researcher to 
insist on the proper version of CC BY, whatever that is. Plus CC BY still 
restricts use, hence access, for the author's lifetime plus 70 years.

David 

Ps: please forward this reply to the GOA list you posted your reply to.

On Mar 22, 2018, at 4:42 PM, "Stevan Harnad" (via scholcomm Mailing List) 
 wrote:

> The copyright agreement already exists. It's called CC-BY. Authors needn't 
> invent it, just adopt it.
> 
> And there is no need or justification for any delay or embargo, whatsoever.
> 
> And "100 years or so of copyright protection" is something scholarly 
> journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just foisted on them 
> as a 'value added" they could not refuse. (Rather like "Make America Great 
> Again"...)
> 
> (And now, back to a world where things actually move forward at a less 
> glacial tempo, sometimes... OA could have used a dose of the global warming 
> in which DW does not believe...)
> 
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:08 PM, David Wojick  
> wrote:
> John Willinsky has a fascinating OA proposal, namely that copyright law be 
> changed to make research articles publicly available after a very short time. 
> 
> I have written about this proposal in some detail in my Inside Public Access 
> newsletter, which I have made OA to facilitate discussion. See below and also 
> at 
> http://davidwojick.blogspot.com/2018/03/public-access-limited-copyright.html 
> . Apologies for cross posting but this looks important as a policy proposal.
> 
> It seems like a good idea. Given that journal articles are not written for 
> profit, the authors may not need 100 years or so of copyright protection.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> David
> http://insidepublicaccess.com/
> 
> 
> Public Access limited copyright?
> 
> The following is adapted from the March 15 issue of my newsletter: "Inside 
> Public Access"
> 
> Synopsis: OA guru John Willinsky proposes that we change the copyright law to 
> embrace public access. It is a big step but it may make sense.
> 
>  Canadian scholar and OA guru John Willinsky (now at Stanford) has written a 
> thought provoking book and blog article. The basic idea is amazingly simple: 
> If we are going to make research articles publicly available then we should 
> change the copyright law to do just that.
> 
> Here is how Willinsky puts it (speaking just of Canada):
> 
> "Canada is recognizing that people everywhere have a right to this body of 
> knowledge that it differs significantly from their right to other 
> intellectual property (which begins well after the author’s lifetime)."
> 
> What is true for Canada is true for America too. In fact the Canadian 
> government has a public access program that is similar to the US program.
> 
> The point is that copyright law gives authors certain rights for a certain 
> time, that is very long (say 100 years), and the idea here is to dramatically 
> shorten that time for a specific set of articles, namely research articles in 
> journals.
> 
> As Willinsky points out, we are already making a lot of these articles OA 
> (such as under the US Public Access Program) by funder mandate. Codifying 
> this existing practice, without the funder limitation, would be easy as far 
> as legislative drafting is concerned. 
> 
> Getting it passed is another matter, of course, but I can see it having 
> bipartisan support. The Democrats would like the health care argument for OA 
> and the Republicans would like the innovation and economic growth argument. 
> The key point is that the researcher authors are not writing to make money. 
> One could even argue that a lifetime+ copyright was misapplied to them in the 
> first place. We need the present limited embargo period of 12 months to 
> protect the publishing system, but that is all.
> 
> This idea fits the fundamentals elegantly. That makes it an attractive policy.
> 
> In fact Congress has already taken a step in this direction. Public Access 
> originated in the Executive Branch, but Congress has now legislated it for 
> the Departments of HHS (think NIH), Education and Labor. 
> 
> One possible objection is that the 12 month embargo period is too short for 
> some disciplines. However, the publishers have had five years to raise this 
> issue formally with the US Public Access agencies and to my knowledge none 
> has done so. 
> 
> On the other hand, some disciplines are only lightly funded by the Public 
> Access agencies. In that sense their case has yet to arise and they can make 
> it in the legislative process. I imagine that if Congress were to move in the 
> direction of public access copyright there would be a lot of discussion.
> 
> Willinsky specifically mentions a Canadian government review of copyright law 
> that is presently getting underway. His book may even be timed for it. The 
> title of his blog article is Let Canada Be First to 

Re: [GOAL] INTACT analysis of Springer Compact agreements

[Mark Doyle]

Hi,

By way of example, the American Physical Society provides an API (see
https://harvest.aps.org/ and documentation accessible there) along with a
parameter to allow the harvesting of all of our open access content,
including PDFs and full text XML. See last example on API documentation
page.

Best regards,
Mark

Mark Doyle
Chief Information Officer
American Physical Society


On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Peter Murray-Rust  wrote:

> Thank you very much for this analysis.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Dirk Pieper <
> dirk.pie...@uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> as part of the INTACT project (https://www.intact-project.org/), we have
>> been working intensively on the analysis of offsetting data during the last
>> days. Thanks to Austrian Academic Library Consortium (KEMÖ), the Max Planck
>> Digital Library, VSNU / UKB Netherlands, the Swedish Bibsam consortium and
>> JISC Collections, we were able to analyze data from 2015 to 2018 of
>> existing Springer Compact agreements.
>>
>
> Thank you very much for this analysis.
>
> One of the problems of hybrid Open Access is discovering it. I would like
> to find all the Open Access that a publisher creates by asking a single
> question and then decide what I want my machines to read. Is there a simple
> of way of asking Springer "please give me all Open Access articles in
> hybrid journals in 2017" and getting a list of all articles and their
> URLs/DOIs?
>
> P.
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069 <+44%201223%20763069>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [GOAL] INTACT analysis of Springer Compact agreements

[Dirk Pieper]

I don´t think that e.g. the Springer API can currently answer this 
question, other possible workflows will be not that simple anymore.


Dirk


Am 22.03.2018 um 16:45 schrieb Peter Murray-Rust:

Thank you very much for this analysis.


On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Dirk Pieper 
> 
wrote:


Dear all,

as part of the INTACT project (https://www.intact-project.org/
), we have been working
intensively on the analysis of offsetting data during the last
days. Thanks to Austrian Academic Library Consortium (KEMÖ), the
Max Planck Digital Library, VSNU / UKB Netherlands, the Swedish
Bibsam consortium and JISC Collections, we were able to analyze
data from 2015 to 2018 of existing Springer Compact agreements.


Thank you very much for this analysis.

One of the problems of hybrid Open Access is discovering it. I would 
like to find all the Open Access that a publisher creates by asking a 
single question and then decide what I want my machines to read. Is 
there a simple of way of asking Springer "please give me all Open 
Access articles in hybrid journals in 2017" and getting a list of all 
articles and their URLs/DOIs?


P.



--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal


--
-
Dirk Pieper
Deputy Director Bielefeld UL

www.ub.uni-bielefeld.de
www.base-search-net
--


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] INTACT analysis of Springer Compact agreements

[Peter Murray-Rust]

Thank you very much for this analysis.


On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Dirk Pieper 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
>
> as part of the INTACT project (https://www.intact-project.org/), we have
> been working intensively on the analysis of offsetting data during the last
> days. Thanks to Austrian Academic Library Consortium (KEMÖ), the Max Planck
> Digital Library, VSNU / UKB Netherlands, the Swedish Bibsam consortium and
> JISC Collections, we were able to analyze data from 2015 to 2018 of
> existing Springer Compact agreements.
>

Thank you very much for this analysis.

One of the problems of hybrid Open Access is discovering it. I would like
to find all the Open Access that a publisher creates by asking a single
question and then decide what I want my machines to read. Is there a simple
of way of asking Springer "please give me all Open Access articles in
hybrid journals in 2017" and getting a list of all articles and their
URLs/DOIs?

P.



-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] INTACT analysis of Springer Compact agreements

[Dirk Pieper]

Dear all,

as part of the INTACT project (https://www.intact-project.org/), we have 
been working intensively on the analysis of offsetting data during the 
last days. Thanks to Austrian Academic Library Consortium (KEMÖ), the 
Max Planck Digital Library, VSNU / UKB Netherlands, the Swedish Bibsam 
consortium and JISC Collections, we were able to analyze data from 2015 
to 2018 of existing Springer Compact agreements.


Analyzing the data, we found clear deviations between the data on 
Crossref, on Springer Link and in the offsetting reports of the Compact 
participants. These methodological challenges are of relevance not only 
when it comes to open access monitoring in hybrid journals, but also in 
the context of open access transformation (https://oa2020.org/, 
http://oa2020-de.org/en/) and DEAL 
(https://www.projekt-deal.de/about-deal/).


For the analysis of the Springer Compact Agreements, we therefore 
developed a method that almost eliminates the differences and allows the 
most accurate possible monitoring. Information on this can be found on 
our INTACT blog:


https://www.intact-project.org/general/openapc/2018/03/22/offsetting-coverage/

The data are available here:

https://treemaps.intact-project.org/apcdata/offsetting-coverage/#publisher/Springer%20Nature/

Some snapshots of our findings:

*offsetting has contributed to a significant increase in open access 
articles in some of the hybrid Springer Compact journals from 2016 to 2017


*400 of 1,700 of all Springer Compact journals (around 24%) do not 
appear to be relevant as publication sites for the academic institutions 
involved in the offsetting contracts


*in a total of 500 Springer Compact journals, the open access articles 
were financed exclusively by offsetting, but very few of these journals 
achieved ever higher open access shares


*based on 1,700 Springer Compact journals in 2017, only 0.76% of the 
journals have achieved an open access share of greater than or equal to 50%


Best,

Dirk


--
-
Dirk Pieper
Deputy Director Bielefeld UL

www.ub.uni-bielefeld.de
www.base-search-net
--


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal