[GOAL] First in-depth report on open access diamond journals just published

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

CAUTION: This e-mail originated outside the University of Southampton.

[please excuse cross-posting]


Dear all,


We are pleased to announce the completion of a study on open access diamond 
journals: namely free to readers and authors. It is the first study of its 
kind. It was commissioned by cOAlition 
S
 and funded by Science Europe in order to gain 
a better understanding of the OA diamond landscape. It is the culmination of 
work undertaken from June 2020 to February 2021 by a consortium of 10 
organisations: OPERAS, SPARC 
Europe, Utrecht University, 
DOAJ, UiT The Arctic University of 
Norway, LIBER, 
OASPA, ENRESSH, 
Redalyc-AmeliCA, and 
CSI.


The in-depth report shines light on a community-driven open access publishing 
model. The OA diamond model promotes both inclusivity and bibliodiversity as it 
serves a wide range of disciplines, languages, countries and communities. It 
makes open access publishing truly accessible to all since it removes some of 
the financial hurdles that researchers struggle with. For all the 
characteristics mentioned above, sustaining the OA diamond is of crucial 
importance.


The findings and recommendations point to clearly defined areas where research 
funding organisations, institutions, scholarly societies and infrastructures 
can help OA diamond thrive in the future. We focus on areas to strengthen and 
sustain OA diamond journals and the ecosystem in which OA diamond journals 
operate and aim to assist these journals in complying with Plan S.


Key findings of the report:

  1.  A vast archipelago (estimated at 29,000) of relatively small journals 
exists and serves a wide range of communities

  2.  OA diamond journals are on the road to full compliance with Plan S

  3.  Scientific strengths and operational challenges exist in a mix of areas 
from legal structures to technical capabilities to editorial processes or 
funding models

  4.  OA diamond journals largely depend on volunteers, universities and 
government to operate


Key recommendations:

  1.  Streamline technical support

  2.  Ensure compliance with Plan S

  3.  Build capacity

  4.  Increase effectiveness

  5.  Sustain and invest in the future


Kick-start actions:

  1.  Prepare an International Workshop and Symposium on OA diamond within 6 
months to initiate a global conversation among different stakeholders

  2.  Set up an OA diamond Funding Strategy within 1 year to implement funding 
recommendations

  3.  Build the OA diamond Capacity Center within 2 years to support the 
implementation of recommendations

We invite you to read the report  and 
separately published set of 
recommendations and to look at the 
additional materials that we have shared with the community for further 
research and reuse: the study dataset, 
the references library, and the 
crowdsourced Journals Inventory.

You can also download a 2-page summary of the report’s main takeaways 
here.

The study group looks forward to facilitating a discussion with the OA diamond 
community and its stakeholders in the coming weeks about our proposed approach. 
Please check this web page 
https://www.operas-eu.org/the-oa-diamond-journals-study for updates on upcoming 
events.

Would love to see discussion around our findings and recommendations here on 
GOAL.

Kind regards,

Jeroen



---

Jeroen Bosman, scholarly communication specialist and faculty liaison for the 
Faculty of Geosciences | Utrecht University Library | 
email: j.bos...@uu.nl |telephone: +31.6.24865967 | mail: 
Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands |visiting address: room 2.16, 
Heidelberglaan 3, 
Utrecht
 | Web: Jeroen  
Bosman
 | twitter @jeroenbosman / 
@geolibrarianUBU | profiles: : 
Academia / Google 
Scholar / 
ISNI / 

Re: [GOAL] Plan S: APC and service level

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Dear Victor, others,


indeed I have wondered about that as well. Of course, in Plan S the idea is to 
require cost transparency. But the question is of course what is acceptable for 
each of the services? If we can't have full diamond, some a APC could consist 
of 50 USD/Euro each for:


- hosting

- xml

- CC0 sharing of citation data

- CC-licenses

- archiving

- doi

- reciprocal linking to preprints, self-archived versions and datasets

- author contributorship role taxonomy implemented

- handling peer review

- copy-editing

- plagiarism check

- submission admin


Of course this is simplistic and the 50 is just randomly set and too low for 
some services, too high for others. Some reasoned assessments of (ranges of) 
real costs for these are very welcome.


These services could also be taken into account in considerations around 
financing diamond arrangements. And even if this keeps a check on APCs, they 
might still pose a barrier for some, so automatic waivers would still need to 
be available.


Jeroen




---

Jeroen Bosman, scholarly communication specialist and faculty liaison for the 
Faculty of Geosciences | Utrecht University Library | 
email: j.bos...@uu.nl |telephone: +31.6.24865967 | mail: 
Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands |visiting address: room 2.16, 
Heidelberglaan 3, 
Utrecht
 | Web: Jeroen  
Bosman
 | twitter @jeroenbosman



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org  on behalf of Victor 
Venema 
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 5:39:39 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Plan S: APC and service level

Dear colleagues,

One of the discussions of Plan S is about its impact on researchers from
less wealthy institutions. The article below is typical and I found the
comment below insightful.

It made me wonder, would it be possible to link APCs to the service
level? We could make a system where you can only ask for the maximum APC
mentioned in plan S if you provide all services required by Plan S,
while journals fulfilling less requirements would have a lower maximum APC.

Maybe an old idea/compromise, but I had not seen it anywhere yet.

With best regards,
Victor Venema
https://grassroots.is


https://theconversation.com/how-the-open-access-model-hurts-academics-in-poorer-countries-113856

>  Dominique Babini
>
> Thank you for this very interesting reading and contribution to the 
> conversation on the negative impact of APCs in developing regions.  You are 
> so right.Why did APCs started?  We, in Latin America, worked the past 20 
> years to build successful non-commercial, non-APCs, academic-led, open access 
> journals (only 5% of journals charge very low APCs) and now we are shocked to 
> see that the basic question is not raised again and again: why should 
> publicly-funded research outputs be a product in the market and not a 
> commons/public good, and why open access should be a market and not a commons 
> managed by the scholarly community?We are concerned with growth in the number 
> of articles published with APCs, and because Plan S favors commercial APCs 
> journals because they will comply with Plan S requirements which are not easy 
> for developing regions quality OA journals to comply with.
https://theconversation.com/how-the-open-access-model-hurts-academics-in-poorer-countries-113856
___
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] MDPI: price increases, some hefty, more to come in July

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Dear all,


these are indeed huge increases (https://www.mdpi.com/about/apc-2019-2), though 
many have a 0 increase. Generally speaking this type of increases is part of 
the model many publishers use when introducing new OA journals: start with a 
very low introductory APC (or even a zero APC) and raise that substantially 
over the next few years as the title/brand becomes more well known/accepted. It 
raises two questions:


1) Is this way of 'buying' market share acceptable, especially when it means 
there are apparently deep pockets filled with surplus that make this possible. 
It means smaller and especially non-profit organizations will have a harder 
time staying afloat. Especially if these smaller organizations use an APC that 
is substantially higher than the MDPI introductory level of 350 but 
substantially lower than MDPI's final level of 1000 (or higher). What are the 
chances of escaping from this effect by arranging diamond funding for journals 
from non-profit orgs.?


2) Is the final APC-level that MDPI uses (often 1000) acceptable? If one is not 
in principle against APC funding, what standards are there to judge this? 
Comparison to (in rich countries) broadly accepted levels of PloS One and 
Scientific Reports?  In doing this we need to acknowledge that the MDPI 
journals are not "publish-first-judge-later-journals" but apply some 
selectivity on novelty/relevance. An additional standard would be the type of 
waivers. At MDPI these do not seem to be automatic ("For authors from Low and 
Middle income countries, waivers or discounts may be granted on a case-by-case 
basis").


Jeroen




[101-innovations-icon-very-small.png]  
101 innovations in scholarly 
communication

---

Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences | Utrecht 
University Library | email: 
j.bos...@uu.nl |telephone: +31.6.24865967 | mail: 
Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands |visiting address: room 2.16, 
Heidelberglaan 3, 
Utrecht
 | Web: Jeroen  
Bosman
 | twitter @jeroenbosman / 
@geolibrarianUBU | profiles: : 
Academia / Google 
Scholar / 
ISNI / 
Mendeley / 
MicrosoftAcademic
 / ORCID / 
ResearcherID
 / ResearchGate / 
Scopus / 
Figshare /  
VIAF /  
Worldcat | blogging at: 
I 2.0 (with others) | member of the Open 
Science Community Utrecht 
OSCU)



From: goal-boun...@eprints.org  on behalf of Heather 
Morrison 
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 10:40:03 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] MDPI: price increases, some hefty, more to come in July


In brief: MDPI has increased prices, in many cases quite substantially (some 
prices have more than tripled). Even more price increases are anticipated in 
July 2019, which will have the effect of doubling the average APC and tripling 
the most common APC. Unlike other publishers’ practices, there are no price 
decreases.

Comment and recommendation: open access advocates, along with policy makers and 
research funders, and keen to support a transition to open access. In my 
opinion, the enthusiasm of payers to support APC journals is causing an 
unhealthy and unsustainable distortion in the market. My advice: stick with 
green OA policy. Require deposit of funded works in an open access repository. 
This is a better means to ensure ongoing preservation and open access, and 
exerts market pressure in a way that is more suited to the development of an 
economically sustainable open access system.

For details and data, see:

https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/02/13/mdpi-2019-price-increases-some-hefty-and-more-coming-in-july/
MDPI 2019: price increases, some hefty, and more coming in 

Re: [GOAL] 12th Munin conference: Deadline extension CFP + registration open

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Dear Jan Erik,

The programme looks very promising, timely and important. Will this be live 
streamed? Would be great (also in order to reduce the carbon footprint).

Kind reagrds,

Jeroen Bosman

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org  On Behalf Of Jan Erik 
Frantsvåg
Sent: vrijdag 4 augustus 2017 14:55
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] 12th Munin conference: Deadline extension CFP + registration 
open

**Apologies for cross-posting, but we're trying to get maximum reach! Please 
forward widely, and include in calendars or other lists**

Call for presentations and posters: We have extended the deadline up to and 
including August 13th.

We would like to give as many as possible the time to write and send us an 
abstract, and found that we could grant some extended time. So please send us 
your abstract! 13th of August is the final due date.

More information: http://site.uit.no/muninconf/?page_id=802

Registration has opened: http://site.uit.no/muninconf/?page_id=863

For the organizing committee
Jan Erik Frantsvåg
Open Access Adviser
The University Library
UiT The Arctic University of Norway
phone +47 77 64 49 50
e-mail jan.e.frants...@uit.no
http://en.uit.no/ansatte/organisasjon/ansatte/person?p_document_id=43618_dimension_id=88187
Publications: http://tinyurl.com/6rycjns
http://orcid.org/-0003-3413-8799

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

Re: [GOAL] Why translating all scholarly knowledge for non-specialists using AI is complicated

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Dear Heather, all,

Just a few comments below in your post.

Jeroen Bosman

 Original message 
From: Heather Morrison 
Date: 13/07/2018 17:54 (GMT+01:00)
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Why translating all scholarly knowledge for non-specialists 
using AI is complicated


Further questions / comments for Jason Priem (JP) and anyone who cares to 
participate...


JP:  So the first part will be the annotation of difficult words in the text, 
which is just a mash-up of basic named-entity recognition and 
Wikipedia/Wikidata definitions. Pretty easy, pretty safe.

HM: Q1: to clarify, we are talking about peer-reviewed journal articles, right? 
You are planning to annotate journal articles that are written and vetted by 
experts using definitions that are developed by anyone who chooses to 
participate in Wikipedia / Wikidata, i.e. annotating works that are carefully 
vetted by experts using the contributions of non-experts?

》》》 It is too simple to use a dichotomy of experts-non experts. This is a 
graded difference. Also it is very incorrect to suppose that Wikipedia is not 
also contributed to by experts. There are numerous examples of active and 
emeritus scholars editing lots of science articles in wikipedia. You might even 
find that definitions used in the journal articles themselves are sourced from 
wikipedia.

Q2: who made the decision that this is safe, and how was this decision made?

Comments:

I submit that this is not safe. There are reasons for careful vetting of 
expertise, through a long process of education and examination, review in the 
process of hiring, making decisions about tenure, promotion, and grant 
applications, and then peer review and editing of the work of those qualified 
to have their work considered. Mine is not an elitist perspective. There are 
areas where the expertise does not lie in the academy at all; examples include 
traditional knowledge and native languages.

If the author has not given permission, this is a violation of the author's 
moral rights under copyright. This includes all CC licensed works except CC-0.


》》》 Interesting but questionable angle. If this is generated on the fly just as 
with litteral translation tools and not published I do not see how it would be 
a violation. The plain language explanations could also be posted as 
'comments': "we think this abstracts means ".

JP: Another set of features will be automatically categorizing trials as to 
whether they are double-blind RCTs or not, and automatically finding systematic 
reviews. These are all pretty easy technically, and pretty unlikely to point 
people in the wrong directions. But the start adding value right away, making 
it easier for laypeople to engage with the literature.

HM: this does not seem problematic and seems likely to be primarily useful to 
scholars. I am not opposed to your project, just the assumption that a two-year 
project is sufficient to create a real-world system to translate all scholarly 
knowledge for the lay reader.

JP:  From there we'll move on to the harder stuff like the automatic 
summarization. Cautiously, and iteratively. We certainly won't be rolling 
anything out to everyone right away. It's a two-year grant, and we're looking 
at that as two years of continued development, with constant feedback from 
users as well as experts in the library and public outreach worlds. If 
something doesn't work, we throw it away. Part of the process.

HM: this is highly problematic. A cautious and iterative approach is wise; 
however this is not feasible in the context of a two-year grant. May I suggest 
a small pilot project? Try this with a few articles in an area where at least 
one member of your team has a doctorate. Take the time to evaluate the 
summaries. If they look okay to your team, plan a larger evaluation project 
involving other experts and the lay readers you are aiming to engage (because 
what an expert thinks a summary says may not be the same as how a non-expert 
would interpret the same summary).

Thank you for posting openly about the approach and for the opportunity to 
comment.


best,



Heather Morrison

Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa

Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa

heather.morri...@uottawa.ca

https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706

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

Re: [GOAL] North, South, and Open Access: The view from Egypt with Mahmoud Khalifa

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Peter, Heather, Richard, Chris, others,

agree with Peter that we should not simply use the mantra that most OA journals 
do not charge, as indeed those will mostly be the small ones. Would love to get 
some data on business models used per article in DOAJ covered journals.

On the other hand, dismissing the potential roles of those thousands of smaller 
journals with a lot of very dedicated people behind them is not the route I 
would like to go. If they would receive double the number of submissions, they 
would probably still be able to deal with that without starting to charge 
outrageous charges or the need to set up and pay dedicated staff.

Consider a situation with 11K journals, with 1K APC journals publishing 500 
papers per journal per annum and 10K diamond non-APC journals publishing 50 
papers per journal. All together that is 1M papers.

Now double the size of the 10K smaller journals to 100 papers per journal, 
still manageable without staff, shiny offices, greedy shareholders and 
marketing nonsense. That makes 1M papers, with no need anymore for authors to 
submit to the profit seeking larger journals.

Of course the smaller journals would need to be able to rely on distributed 
infrastructure from preprint archives, DOAJ, Sherpa, Crossref/Datacite, OJS and 
such. They could become overlay journals and PR communities for content 
submitted initially to preprint platforms.

So yes, I agree with leaving simple majority of OA journals are free to publish 
but I would argue for seeing them as potential great asset in a more thorough 
reshuffling of roles in the scholarly communication system.

Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Peter 
Murray-Rust [pm...@cam.ac.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 5:56 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [***SPAM***] Re: [GOAL] North, South, and Open Access: The view from 
Egypt with Mahmoud Khalifa

I agree with Ricky and Hilda that the "most journals charge no APCs" is 
misleading. It's been around for years and has worried me. Assuming the normal 
power-law distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law) the following 
are by statistical definition true:

* most journals have small volumes
* most papers are published in a few large volume journals

That's true regardless of whether they are Open Access or not.

I suspect that the "most journals have no APCs " are in the long tail of the 
distribution. If you correlate volume of articles against APC you will resolve 
this.

Now ... for speculation

The long tail of small journals are likely to be niche journals in some way. 
There are exceptions such as the J Machine Learning Research which is APC-less, 
and CC BY  run by the goodwill of the community. That used to be fairly common. 
(I used to be the treasurer of a scholarly society and all work was voluntary). 
When all the articles are from and to a smallish community of practice it makes 
sense. But I suspect that when a journal gets to a over a few hundred articles 
a year then most organizations need to pay staff to manage the process. Maybe 
not much. But it's a temptation to solve the admin by paying.

Then the options are:
* subsidise from elsewhere (University, or in my society's case revenue from 
events).
* membership scheme - I believe arXiv is subsidized through a membership scheme.
* charge authors
* charge readers

And so most large journals need to raise income.

P.




On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:46 PM, Richard Poynder 
> wrote:
Heather,

Personally, I think that any statement that says that most OA journals do not 
charge an APC needs to be set alongside the following blog post by Hilda 
Bastian:

http://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2018/04/02/a-reality-check-on-author-access-to-open-access-publishing/

Extract:

'Technically, the “most journals don’t charge authors” statement could well be 
true. Most open access journals may not charge authors. The source that’s used 
to support the claim is generally DOAJ – the Directory of Open Access Journals. 
One of the pieces of meta-data for journals in DOAJ is whether or not the 
journal levies an APC – an author processing charge for an open access (OA) 
publication.


But I think this is a data framing that’s deeply misleading. And it does harm. 
As long as people can argue that there are just so many options for fee-free 
publishing, then there will be less of a sense of urgency about eliminating, or 
at least drastically reducing, APCs. As Kyle Siler and colleagues show in the 
field of global health research, the APC is adding a new stratification of 
researchers globally, between those who can afford open publishing in highly 
regarded journals, and those who can’t.'

Richard


On 25 April 2018 at 15:16, Heather Morrison 
> wrote:

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

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Dear Serge,

Thanks for this. It is very interesting because there are similar developments 
in the Netherlands. Problem is that in the Dutch law (with the new article 25fa 
of the Auteurswet: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-33308-11) there 
is no explicit period stated. It just says “after a reasonable period”. In 
Germany the same clause (38.4) states 12 months.

I wonder if French institutions or the CNRS have acted upon article 30 in any 
way. Have institutional mandates changed because of it? Are libraries pushing 
to get more AAMs in their repositories? Or are individual researchers perhaps 
using this right to share their papers in repositories or academic social 
networks. And also: have there been objections from publishers? Cases in court? 
I would love to hear more about the situation in France.

Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
BAUIN Serge
Sent: vrijdag 23 maart 2018 20:55
To: Global List
Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for research 
articles

Hi there,

Just to let you know.
In Autumn 2016, a law has been passed in France stating in its article 30, in 
simple words, that the author of a research article retains the right to make 
public his postscript.
Embargo periods, if any, cannot exceed 6 months for STM and 12 for HSS.
Article 30 overrides any contract.

Best

Serge Bauin

PS For those who like this type of literature, here a translation of this 
article (might be not the final version, but the ideas are there):

“I. – When a scientific text arising from a research activity financed at least 
half by funds allocated by the State, local authorities or public institutions, 
by grants from national funding agencies or by funds from the European Union is 
published in a periodical appearing at least once a year, its author, even in 
the event of exclusive transfer of rights to the publisher, has the right to 
make available free of charge digitally, subject to the agreement of any 
co-authors, the final accepted version of his/her manuscript, if the publisher 
itself makes it available free of charge digitally or, failing this, at the 
expiry of a period starting at the date of its first publication. This period 
shall be a maximum of six months for a publication in the sciences, technology 
and medicine, and twelve months in the humanities and social sciences.

“The version made available pursuant to the first paragraph must not be subject 
to an exploitation as part of a publishing activity for commercial purposes.

 “II – If data resulting from a research activity financed at least half by 
funds allocated by the State, local authorities or public institutions, by 
grants from national funding agencies or by funds from the European Union is 
not protected by a specific right or by specific regulations, and is made 
publicly available by the researcher, the research institution or organization, 
its reuse is unrestricted.

“III. – The publisher of a scientific text as mentioned in I may not restrict 
the reuse of data from a research made publicly available as part of its 
publication

“IV. –The provisions of this article are public policy and any clause to the 
contrary is deemed to be unwritten."



De : SANFORD G THATCHER >
Répondre à : Global List >
Date : Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:48:52 -0400
À : David Wojick >
Cc : Global List >, Schoolcom 
listserv >
Objet : Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for research 
articles

Back in the days when publishers were putting out a lot of anthologies, there
was serious money to be made by authors of journal articles that got reprinted
many times. One author of ours at Penn State during that era earned well over
$10,000 from reprint rights to one of his articles. Do you want to deny authors
that possibility to earn extra income?  Of course, the market for anthologies
in the digital era is not what it once was, so maybe this point is moot.

Sandy Thatcher

P.S. However, let me remind everyone that Harry Frankfurt turned a journal
article into a short book titled "On Bullshit," which sold over 300,000 copies
for Princeton University Press. Had that article gone prematurely into the
public domain, Frankfurt would have been a much less wealthy man and PUP denied
the opportunity to publish a best seller. Do you really want to make this kind
of serendipity impossible to achieve?




On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 11:03 AM David Wojick 
> wrote:

We may actually be in agreement, Stevan

You say this ""100 years or so of copyright protection" is something
scholarly journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just
foisted on 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] On Academic Freedom

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Heather, others, 

It would indeed be good to have better insight in real experienced unwelcome 
downstream reuse. The first CC-licenses date from 2002. So we have over 15 
years of experience.

Looking at data in BASE, I see these numbers of text publications with either a 
CC-BY or CC-0 license for publications year 2008-2017:

2017: 450K
2016: 431K
2015: 389K
2014: 298K
2013: 239K
2012: 187K
2011: 131K
2010: 97K
2009: 72K
2008: 54K

Together for all years there there are some 3 million documents with these 
licenses according to what is index in BASE.  Over half of that has been around 
longer than 4 years. If there was substantial *unwelcomed* downstream 
derivation/adaptation/re-use, that would have surfaced by now?

I agree we must be open to hear from and learn from those cases.

Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Heather 
Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2018 3:10 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] On Academic Freedom

Creative Commons explicitly disclaims knowledge of usage of the licenses. From 
their Frequently Asked Questions:  "Creative Commons offers licenses and tools 
to the public free of charge and does not require that creators or other rights 
holders register with CC in order to apply a CC license to a work. This means 
that CC does not have special knowledge of who uses the licenses and for what 
purposes”.

This question from their FAQ and the responses do suggest that CC has received 
questions about unwelcome re-use:

"What can I do if I offer my material under a Creative Commons license and I do 
not like the way someone uses it?”…response excerpt: "As long as users abide by 
license terms and conditions, licensors cannot control how the material is 
used..."all CC licenses prohibit using the attribution requirement to suggest 
that the licensor endorses or supports a particular use. Second, licensors may 
waive the attribution requirement, choosing not to be identified as the 
licensor, if they wish. Third, if the licensor does not like how the material 
has been modified or used, CC licenses require that the licensee remove the 
attribution information upon request”.

Comment: as I read this, once derivative rights have been granted, the original 
author cannot demand that an unwelcome downstream derivative be taken down, 
only that their attribution is clarified or removed. Neither, in my opinion, is 
satisfactory for academic work.

CC quotes are from:
https://creativecommons.org/faq/

If evidence about actual usage of CC licenses is considered desirable before 
adopting policies requiring use of the license, and Creative Commons itself 
disclaims knowledge of such usage, does anyone know of a substantive body of 
evidence to inform such policy? Considering that CC licenses are relatively 
new, is it too early to amass such a body of evidence?

best,

--
Dr. Heather Morrison
Associate Professor | Professeure agrégé
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
University of Ottawa
http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca



> On Mar 25, 2018, at 2:51 AM, Danny Kingsley  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I would very much welcome a concrete example (or two..) of the scenario 
> described below where a work has been taken and distorted to the extent an 
> author would actually wish to have their name removed as an originator of the 
> work. It is a scenario often used by people concerned about the Non 
> Derivative aspect of Creative Commons licenses. It is my understanding that 
> Creative Commons themselves have not had any examples of this type provided 
> to them in discussions about the ND aspect of their license. In the UK we are 
> similarly asking for examples and have not managed to unearth any to date. It 
> would help hugely before we make national decisions on policies whether 
> concerns being raised are actual problems or not.
>
> On the thesis issue, this is indeed something I am actively managing working 
> through a new policy at my institution and I am working from the premise that 
> we must give our students the best possible opportunity to succeed. That 
> means different things for different disciplines and it is important to 
> ensure that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater in both 
> directions. It is not helpful to have a moratorium of 10 years on all theses 
> to ensure the small percentage who require an embargo of a period of time to 
> secure publication are protected. Equally we do not want to put those 
> students at risk by insisting on blanket immediate OA. It requires nuance.
>
> But I would like to point out that in the consultations I have now had 
> working with two institutions, I know of several 

Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Dear Stephen,

Thanks for your reaction. I should have said "Any publication shared with a 
CC-license is free of charges, as is any publication you find online shared 
with a public domain dedication. Period."

Of course, as you rightly say there can be paid (re)publications of works in 
the public domain. And indeed licenses (whether liberal or restricted) do not 
guarantee availability. That can only be promised but not guaranteed by 
libraries and sustainable online archives with good contingency plans.

Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Downes, 
Stephen [stephen.dow...@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 5:35 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access


Jeroen Bosman wrote, "Any publication shared with a CC-license is free of 
charges, as is any publication in the public domain. Period."


This is simply not true.


Thomas Hardy's book 'The Mayor of Casterbridge' is public domain, having been 
published in 1886. However, if you go to a book store and try to take a copy 
without paying, you will be arrested and charged with theft.


If you search for it online, you can find it for sale on Amazon and other 
sites. You will have to pay money before they give you a copy.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/56759.The_Mayor_of_Casterbridge


It is true that you can find it for free on sites like Project Gutenberg.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/143/143-h/143-h.htm


But it's availability for free is not guaranteed by the license. Someone like 
Project Gutenberg must make it available for download. If this doesn't happen, 
then the only way to get a copy to pay money. Even if it's CC or public domain.


-- Stephen



Stephen Downes

National Research Council Canada | Conseil national de recherches Canada
1200 rue Montreal Road 349 M-50, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R6
Tel.: (613) 993 0288  Mobile: (613) 292 1789
stephen.dow...@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca<mailto:stephen.dow...@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> ~ 
http://www.downes.ca<http://www.downes.ca/>

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <goal-boun...@eprints.org> on behalf of Bosman, 
J.M. (Jeroen) <j.bos...@uu.nl>
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 12:08 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

Heather,

Again, I think this argument creates much confusion.

Any publication shared with a CC-license is free of charges, as is any 
publication in the public domain. Period.

(Just for reference, as I am sure that you know the license terms, this is what 
the CC-BY license says: "a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, 
non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the 
Licensed Material to:
reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and produce, 
reproduce, and Share Adapted Material.")

The fact that I can put water from a free public tap provided by a municipality 
into a bottle and try to sell that bottle to people for 3€ does not make that 
water from the tap less free. (For the sake of the argument just supposing that 
the flow of water is endless.)

Having commercial additional functions on open access content that carries a 
CC-BY license or is in the public domain is fully compatible with the 
principles of the scholarly commons. The free, open version will remain in 
place as part of the common pool of resources.

By the way, even if you use a CC-BY-BC license and even if your publication is 
fully copyrighted without any CC-license, private profits can be generated form 
using the metadata, as Google Scholar, Dimensions and other products show. Your 
CC-BY-NC licensed publication makes these products more valuable, just by being 
able to refer to it.

And if you are looking for examples of companies charging for free stuff, the 
best example you can find nowadays in de scholalry world is probably . 
JSTOR. Look for instance at their Sustainability thematic collection 
(https://about.jstor.org/whats-in-jstor/sustainability/) that consists of many 
thousands of reports freely available on the web and sold for many thousands of 
dollars in yearly subscriptions to libraries.

Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Heather 
Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 2:56 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

This is a repeat of one argument I made last week to focus on one argument at a 
time.

Either public domain or CC-BY is consistent with, and fac

Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

I have been arguing none of those three.

Jeroen



Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.


 Original message 
From: Heather Morrison <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>
Date: 24/03/2018 18:20 (GMT+01:00)
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

Jeroen,

For clarification, can you confirm that you are arguing:

1. The "royalty free" clause in CC-BY means that works licensed CC-BY means a) 
the copyright holder is obliged to make the work available for free and b) no 
one downstream can legally include the work in a package of toll access 
services?

2. "Public domain" means that no one can legally sell the work?

best,

Heather Morrison


---- Original message 
From: "Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)" <j.bos...@uu.nl>
Date: 2018-03-24 12:16 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

Heather,

Again, I think this argument creates much confusion.

Any publication shared with a CC-license is free of charges, as is any 
publication in the public domain. Period.

(Just for reference, as I am sure that you know the license terms, this is what 
the CC-BY license says: "a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, 
non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the 
Licensed Material to:
reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and produce, 
reproduce, and Share Adapted Material.")

The fact that I can put water from a free public tap provided by a municipality 
into a bottle and try to sell that bottle to people for 3€ does not make that 
water from the tap less free. (For the sake of the argument just supposing that 
the flow of water is endless.)

Having commercial additional functions on open access content that carries a 
CC-BY license or is in the public domain is fully compatible with the 
principles of the scholarly commons. The free, open version will remain in 
place as part of the common pool of resources.

By the way, even if you use a CC-BY-BC license and even if your publication is 
fully copyrighted without any CC-license, private profits can be generated form 
using the metadata, as Google Scholar, Dimensions and other products show. Your 
CC-BY-NC licensed publication makes these products more valuable, just by being 
able to refer to it.

And if you are looking for examples of companies charging for free stuff, the 
best example you can find nowadays in de scholalry world is probably . 
JSTOR. Look for instance at their Sustainability thematic collection 
(https://about.jstor.org/whats-in-jstor/sustainability/) that consists of many 
thousands of reports freely available on the web and sold for many thousands of 
dollars in yearly subscriptions to libraries.

Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Heather 
Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 2:56 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

This is a repeat of one argument I made last week to focus on one argument at a 
time.

Either public domain or CC-BY is consistent with, and facilitates, toll access, 
both by the original publisher and downstream.

To date the best examples I have seen of creative use of CC-BY for commercial 
profit-making are Elsevier's ability to incorporate such works into their toll 
access services such as Scopus and metadata sales, at no cost to Elsevier, and 
Springer's harvesting of images from CC-BY works for TA image bank (few years 
ago).

US public domain to works created by federal employees works really well in 
areas where the US government itself posts the works online for free access. 
Published works that are public domain are often included in toll access 
packages. Not even PubMed has free access to all the works created by its own 
employees.

Public domain and Creative Commons are not necessarily "free of charge". Hence 
if free of charge is essential to a definition of open access, neither public 
domain nor CC are sufficient to achieve OA.

best,

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

Re: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Heather,

Again, I think this argument creates much confusion.

Any publication shared with a CC-license is free of charges, as is any 
publication in the public domain. Period.

(Just for reference, as I am sure that you know the license terms, this is what 
the CC-BY license says: "a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, 
non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the 
Licensed Material to:
reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and produce, 
reproduce, and Share Adapted Material.")

The fact that I can put water from a free public tap provided by a municipality 
into a bottle and try to sell that bottle to people for 3€ does not make that 
water from the tap less free. (For the sake of the argument just supposing that 
the flow of water is endless.)

Having commercial additional functions on open access content that carries a 
CC-BY license or is in the public domain is fully compatible with the 
principles of the scholarly commons. The free, open version will remain in 
place as part of the common pool of resources.

By the way, even if you use a CC-BY-BC license and even if your publication is 
fully copyrighted without any CC-license, private profits can be generated form 
using the metadata, as Google Scholar, Dimensions and other products show. Your 
CC-BY-NC licensed publication makes these products more valuable, just by being 
able to refer to it.

And if you are looking for examples of companies charging for free stuff, the 
best example you can find nowadays in de scholalry world is probably . 
JSTOR. Look for instance at their Sustainability thematic collection 
(https://about.jstor.org/whats-in-jstor/sustainability/) that consists of many 
thousands of reports freely available on the web and sold for many thousands of 
dollars in yearly subscriptions to libraries.

Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Heather 
Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 2:56 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Public domain and/or CC-BY facilitate toll access

This is a repeat of one argument I made last week to focus on one argument at a 
time.

Either public domain or CC-BY is consistent with, and facilitates, toll access, 
both by the original publisher and downstream.

To date the best examples I have seen of creative use of CC-BY for commercial 
profit-making are Elsevier's ability to incorporate such works into their toll 
access services such as Scopus and metadata sales, at no cost to Elsevier, and 
Springer's harvesting of images from CC-BY works for TA image bank (few years 
ago).

US public domain to works created by federal employees works really well in 
areas where the US government itself posts the works online for free access. 
Published works that are public domain are often included in toll access 
packages. Not even PubMed has free access to all the works created by its own 
employees.

Public domain and Creative Commons are not necessarily "free of charge". Hence 
if free of charge is essential to a definition of open access, neither public 
domain nor CC are sufficient to achieve OA.

best,

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

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for researcharticles

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Heather, others,

let's not mix things up. Copyright is not intended and useful to make 
provenance chains in scholarly communication reliable, complete and efficient. 
The norms of attribution in science and scholarship are separate from copyright 
or public domain status. There are created, maintained and changed through 
disciplinary cultures, not laws. Intellectual property laws are different in 
different parts of the world. If what you say is true we would have witnessed a 
huge problem with scholars using but not citing e.g. government documents, out- 
of copyright works, public domain dedicated works etc., which is not the case 
as far as I know. Copyright and licenses given by the holders of copyright tell 
us what the copyright holders and the law allow you and what not. They do NOT 
tell you what is expected or accepted in academia or science and scholarship in 
general.

The choice to allow or prohibit use with a commercial intent is for every 
rights holder or author him/herself to make. But please note that choices made 
on the basis of your dislike of Elsevier have the effect of disallowing (re)use 
of your output by e.g. any self-employed or retired scholar giving lectures for 
money and using e.g. images created by you. They can also have the effect of 
university teachers of commercial summer school courses of those universities 
to reuse of distribute your work among 5 students in their class. With the 
increasing abundance of publications, data, images, code etc this will often 
mean they will use other material that fits their needs 95% instead of your 
material that would fit their need 100%. They will not contact you to offer 
payment for that image created by you. Thus, choosing limited licenses would 
mean a disservice to science, scholarship and teaching and also a disservice to 
your self. In the internet age allowing liberal use of your output will quite 
likely bring you more opportunities and better helps building a reputation than 
limiting it.

Best,
Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Heather 
Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 8:02 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for 
researcharticles

Public domain is not consistent with the attribution requirements of 
scholarship, regardless of length of the term. Two conundra:

1) If we use Plato's ideas we are obliged to cite them. This is important not 
just for author moral rights, but to establish a chain of evidence. If I quote 
Plato then someone else goes to the original, finds that I have misquoted, and 
critiques my work, this is a service to scholarship. Professors need to teach 
good citation practices; public domain for recent works sends the wrong 
message. Taking the work of another author, modifying it and submitting as your 
own work is legal if the work is public domain, but it is plagiarism.

2) Building a reputation for our research is critical to the success of a 
scholar's career. For this reason public domain is problematic.

Policies that impact academics that are not developed and supported by 
academics are not consistent with academic freedom. If I am required to publish 
my work as CC-BY, Elsevier is free to profit from my work, even though I have 
chosen to participate in the Elsevier boycott. This is a violation of my 
academic freedom.

best,

Heather Morrison


 Original message 
From: David Wojick 
Date: 2018-03-23 2:43 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: SANFORD G THATCHER 
Cc: "Global Open Access List(Successor of AmSci)" , Schoolcom 
listserv 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for 
researcharticles

Saying that shortening the term of copyright for journal articles somehow
limits academic freedom seems like a strange argument (at best). It may
limit academic opportunity to make money in the rare cases you mention but
most legislation involves tradeoffs like this. The benefits of OA are
claimed by some to be in the billions of dollars. That some professors
might make a few thousand dollars less does not stack up well against that.

David Wojick

At 12:54 PM 3/23/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote:
>It's highly unlikely that Frankfurt or the other author I mentioned received
>any federal funding that entailed making their work public domain.  The
>question arises--as it does for forcing authors to accept CC BY as the default
>OA license--whether academic freedom should be limited in this way or whether
>it is not better for authors to have the choice of NOT injecting their work
>into the public domain. Does the public good always trump academic freedom?
>
>Sandy Thatcher
>
>On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 12:05 PM David Wojick  wrote:
> >
> >Sandy, I 

[GOAL] levels of open access based on Web of Science and oaDOI data

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Dear all,

over the past few weeks Bianca Kramer and I have been test driving the new 
option in Web of Science to filter publications by OA-status. This option has 
replaced the earlier filter that only determined OA status at the journal level 
and thus only had papers from full gold OA journals as positives. The new 
filter uses oaDOI from ImpactStory and is thus able to detect much more, and at 
a granular level.

Of course it is early days and there are still methodological and other 
caveats, but it seemed important to assess if this data could inform the OA 
community on progress, reliably show the various levels of OA by field, 
country, institution, funder etc. and point at positive examples.

All this and more, such as a case study diving into the various types of OA 
(green, hybrid, gold, bronze) is in our preprint at PeerJ that is now live here:

https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3520v1

We very much value your feedback. Because all researchers and policymakers 
(with access to WoS, not trivial) can now easily get these detailed OA data, it 
seems very important to gauge the value and applicability of the new WoS filter.

Of course we shared all the data.

Best,

Jeroen Bosman


101 innovations in scholarly 
communication



Jeroen Bosman, scholarly communication 
librarian and

faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences

Utrecht University Library

orcid: -0001-5796-2727

email: j.bos...@uu.nl

telephone: +31.6.24865967

mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands

visiting address: room 2.16, Heidelberglaan 3, Utrecht

web: Jeroen 
Bosman

twitter @jeroenbosman / 
@geolibrarianUBU

profiles : Academia / Google 
Scholar / 
ISNI /

Mendeley / 
MicrosoftAcademic
 / ORCID / 
ResearcherID
 /

ResearchGate / 
Scopus / 
Figshare /  
VIAF /  
Worldcat

blogging at: I 2.0 (with others)




Abstract:

Across the world there is growing interest in open access publishing among 
researchers, institutions, funders and publishers alike. It is assumed that 
open access levels are growing, but hitherto the exact levels and patterns of 
open access have been hard to determine and detailed quantitative studies are 
scarce. Using newly available open access status data from oaDOI in Web of 
Science we are now able to explore year-on-year open access levels across 
research fields, languages, countries, institutions, funders and topics, and 
try to relate the resulting patterns to disciplinary, national and 
institutional contexts. With data from the oaDOI API we also look at the 
detailed breakdown of open access by types of gold open access (pure gold, 
hybrid and bronze), using universities in the Netherlands as an example. There 
is huge diversity in open access levels on all dimensions, with unexpected 
levels for e.g. Portuguese as language, Astronomy & Astrophysics as research 
field, countries like Tanzania, Peru and Latvia, and Zika as topic. We explore 
methodological issues and offer suggestions to improve conditions for tracking 
open access status of research output. Finally, we suggest potential future 
applications for research and policy development. We have shared all data and 
code openly.


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

Re: [GOAL] We need you! Tell us about open research at your institution

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Dear Amy,

thanks for pointing us to this survey. I am interested in participating. Before 
doing that I would like to know whether data and the report will be shared 
openly. For me that is much more of an incentive than the chance to buy 
something at Amazon.

Could you tell us how SpringerNature will share the data and results of this 
survey?

Kind regards,

Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of 
Bourke-Waite, Amy, Springer [amy.bourke-wa...@biomedcentral.com]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 6:03 PM
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] We need you! Tell us about open research at your institution

Dear all,

My colleagues are looking for librarians’ views on open access, and what 
approaches institutions are taking in this area. It would be great if you could 
fill in the survey and share it with your colleagues. 
I’m assured  that the survey should take no longer than 15 minutes to complete, 
and to thank you for your time there is the opportunity to enter a prize draw 
for a £200 Amazon gift card.

Please don’t hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions.
Kind regards,
Amy

Amy Bourke-Waite
Head of Communications

Springer Nature
The Campus, 4 Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, UK
T 0203 192 2102
M 07375 089 729
amy.bourke-wa...@biomedcentral.com
www.springernature.com


DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is 
not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error 
please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage 
mechanism. Macmillan Publishers Limited does not accept liability for any 
statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on 
behalf of Nature Research  or one of their agents.
Please note that Macmillan Publishers Limited and their agents and affiliates 
do not accept any responsibility for viruses or malware that may be contained 
in this e-mail or its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the 
e-mail and attachments (if any).
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Dramatic Growth of Open Access June 30, 2017

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Dear Heather,

Thanks for this and for your ongoing efforts in tracking OA developments. A 
small correction: DOAJ foresees its 2.5 millionth article not 250 millionth). I 
think it would be good if OA indexing and aggregating services, esp. the 
non-commercial ones (SHARE, Base search, DOAJ search, Scielo, CORE etc.) 
started to also refer to each other, more than presenting themselves as the one 
place to go for discovery in an open world.

Best,
Jeroen
---
Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library



Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.


 Original message 
From: Heather Morrison 
Date: 01/07/2017 17:29 (GMT+01:00)
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" 
Subject: [GOAL] Dramatic Growth of Open Access June 30, 2017

The June 30 Dramatic Growth of Open Access is now available at:
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2017/06/dramatic-growth-of-open-access-june-30.html


Highlights

Open access continues to demonstrate robust growth on a global scale, in terms 
of works that are made available open access, ongoing growth in infrastructure 
(new repositories, journals, book publishers), strong growth for new 
initiatives such as SocArxiv, BioRxiv, the Directory of Open Access Books, 
SCOAP3, as well as ongoing strong growth in established services such as BASE, 
PubMed / PubMedCentral, Internet Archive (check out the new Collections 
including a Trump archive and FactChecker), DOAJ (watch for the quarter 
billionth article in the near future), RePEC and arXiv. Ongoing growth in 
infrastructure and OA policy give every reason to expect this growth to be 
ongoing.

Open Data Version:
Morrison, Heather, 2014, "Dramatic Growth of Open Access", hdl:10864/10660 
, Scholars Portal Dataverse, V17, —


best,

Dr. Heather Morrison
Associate Professor | Professeure agrégé
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
University of Ottawa
http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca



___
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] Open Science Summer School course august 7-11

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Apologies. Sorry the correct link in this mail should be: 
https://www.utrechtsummerschool.nl/courses/science/open-science-and-scholarship-changing-your-research-workflow

Jeroen Bosman

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)
Sent: woensdag 7 juni 2017 12:33
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) (goal@eprints.org)
Cc: Kramer, B.M.R. (Bianca)
Subject: [GOAL] Open Science Summer School course august 7-11


Dear all,



We would like to bring to your attention that this summer, we will organize a 
1-week summer school course on Open Science in Utrecht, the Netherlands 
(MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "solismail.uu.nl" 
claiming to be 
https://www.utrechtsummerschool.nl/courses/science/open-science-and-scholarship-changing-your-research-workflow<https://solismail.uu.nl/owa/redir.aspx?C=SuMazkhMU4vfDw7mFQa1Rn_EZhMDmxXuy9PZe9ZBSP2TYlPQEZvUCA..=https%3a%2f%2fwww.utrechtsummerschool.nl%2fcourses%2fscience%2fopen-science-and-scholarship-changing-your-research-workflow>,
 see attached image for a brief course overview). It will be part of the 
Utrecht Summer School, which offers over 200 academic courses that yearly 
attract around 3500 students from over 120 different countries. Participating 
in our Open Science course is open to researchers of all disciplines and career 
levels, interested in learning how to make open science integral part of their 
own research practice.  We'd be grateful for any way you might be able to help 
spread the word about our course.



More specifically we are looking for input on the Open Access elements in the 
course. We will address Open Access form a full Open Science workflow viewpoint 
and wonder whether any of you knowns of open access/publication strategy 
coursers/workshops that also use a workflow approach, i.e. look at how open 
access practices relate to other open practices in a researcher's workflow. Any 
input/pointers very welcome!



Many thanks,



Jeroen Bosman & Bianca Kramer

Utrecht University Library

[101-innovations-icon-very-small]  101 innovations in scholarly 
communications<https://101innovations.wordpress.com/>
-
Jeroen Bosman<http://www.uu.nl/staff/JMBosman>, scholarly communication 
specialist,
esp. for geography and geosciences
Utrecht University Library<http://www.uu.nl/library>
email: j.bos...@uu.nl<mailto:j.bos...@uu.nl>
telephone: +31. 62 486 5967
mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands
visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3, Utrecht
web: Jeroen 
Bosman<http://www.uu.nl/university/library/en/disciplines/geo/Pages/ContactBosman.aspx>
twitter @jeroenbosman<https://twitter.com/jeroenbosman>/ 
@geolibrarianUBU<https://twitter.com/geolibrarianUBU>
profiles: : Academia<http://uu.academia.edu/JeroenBosman> / Google 
Scholar<http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-IfPy3IJ=en> / 
ISNI<http://www.isni.org/28810209> /
Mendeley<http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/jeroen-bosman/> / 
MicrosoftAcademic<http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/51538592/jeroen-bosman>
 / ORCID<http://orcid.org/-0001-5796-2727> / 
ResearcherID<http://www.researcherid.com/ProfileView.action?queryString=KG0UuZjN5WmCiHc%252FMC4oLVEKrQQu%252BpzQ8%252F9yrRrmi8Y%253D=Yes=CR=ROUTER.Success=N27lOD6EgipnADLnAbK>
 /
ResearchGate<http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeroen_Bosman/> / 
Scopus<http://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.url?authorId=7003519484> /  
Slideshare<http://www.slideshare.net/hierohiero> /  
VIAF<http://viaf.org/viaf/36099266/> /  
Worldcat<http://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n91-100619>
Blogging (with others) at: I 2.0<http://im2punt0.wordpress.com/>
-

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

Re: [GOAL] Open science as overarching concept: a conceptual question

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Dear all,

To include the contribution to knowledge by humanities people I always speak of 
open science and scholarship. And to me there is certainly no hierarchical 
relationsship between open science & scholarship and open education, open 
source or the other opens. I can live with them being half overlapping.

Best,
Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Heather 
Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 4:27 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Open science as overarching concept: a conceptual question

There is much in the open science area that I find very fascinating and 
forward-looking. One example is opening up data to facilitate new discoveries. 
My own perspective is that scholarly communication needs a much more basic 
transformation to fit the new media, not just a shift in formats optimized for 
print, and much of the open science movement seems to fit with my thoughts in 
this area.

However when people talk about open science the term seems so broad as to be 
meaningless. Following is one example of a conceptual question that comes up 
for me that I hope list members can help me with.

Sometimes I see people writing or talking about open science as if this were an 
overarching concept including all of the open movements, such as open access 
and open education. For me, this is hugely problematic because not all 
approaches to knowledge consist of science. To make this fit, we either need to 
change the definition of science, or, if the plan is to eliminate all other 
forms of knowledge, let's be clear about this and have a discussion about 
whether this is a good idea.

Let's take one element of open education as an example, open textbooks for the 
K-12 sector. If open science is the overarching concept, does this mean that we 
are only aiming to provide open textbooks for science courses, or that we 
consider all kinds of classes to be science courses? Are English, French, and 
Drama classes now science, and if so, what does the term "science" now mean 
exactly? Or, is part of the agenda to eliminate all education that does not fit 
the current definition of "science"?

To me one way around this is to have a more generic term for an overarching 
concept, like "open knowledge" rather than "open science", or to consider the 
terms and movements as parallel and complementary rather than hierarchical.

Insight, anyone?

best,

--
Dr. Heather Morrison
Assistant Professor
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
University of Ottawa
Desmarais 111-02
613-562-5800 ext. 7634
Sustaining the Knowledge Commons: Open Access Scholarship
http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca


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

Re: [GOAL] Elsevier as an open access publisher

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Fully agree. Let's not employ newspeak. Elsevier is the single most important 
obstacle to achieving and getting support for open access. Period. .

Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library



Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.


 Original message 
From: Ross Mounce 
Date: 13/01/2017 22:29 (GMT+01:00)
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Elsevier as an open access publisher


On 13 January 2017 at 16:57, Heather Morrison 
> wrote:
Elsevier is now one of the world’s largest open access publishers as measured 
by the number of fully OA journals published. What are the implications?

There are precisely no implications.

The number of journals is an utterly irrelevant measure, but I'm assuming you 
already knew this.
Journals are just vessels for content. It is actual content that is important.
Article volume is what counts in publishing (economically), and Elsevier are 
nowhere near the largest when it comes to immediate OA publishing.

Most of Elsevier's fully OA journals are recently created and are low-volume. 
They can create and close (e.g. 
https://www.journals.elsevier.com/new-negatives-in-plant-science/ ) journals at 
the click of button.

Perhaps though this is part of Elsevier's strategy - at a very very superficial 
level (e.g. counting journal titles) it looks like they are deeply invested in 
open access publishing. I hope no politicians or librarians are fooled by this 
simple ruse.


Sincerely,

Ross





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

Re: [GOAL] Shining a light on Discoverability of Open Access content

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Dear John,

this is interesting and good work. However, Ï'm a bit puzzled as the GRID is 
still empty. Is it your intention to crowdsource the "answers" to fill the grid 
with? Of course there are often no simple answers. They'll need to be generic 
yet nuanced.

BTW As a discovery pathway I would add OA article aggregators such as Papaerity 
or ScienceOpen or CORE. Or is this captured by "journal aggregations"?

Kind regards,
Jeroen Bosman


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of John G. 
Dove [johngd...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 9:12 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc: John Dove
Subject: [GOAL] Shining a light on Discoverability of Open Access content

I thought this GRID might be useful or interesting to some people on this list.

As I started looking (see link below my signature) at ways in which to use 
pre-publication reference lists to identify and mobilize authors to share their 
submitted manuscripts (green OA) I came to recognize that not each of the 
various "discovery pathways" by which readers can find articles of interest are 
equally able to discover such content.

I began developing a GRID to lay out each discovery pathway and each location 
of "open" content.  Then I started asking questions from those much more 
knowledgeable than me about how such content would be found.  I soon realized 
that this is not just a problem for green OA, but even for gold OA as well as 
OA monographs and OER.  If a new OA publisher is unaware of some advantages to 
providing the discovery tool knowledge bases with the right meta-data, for 
example, then their open articles won't be included in the discovery tool.  
Subscription publishers tend to know about these things because they have 
on-going revenue to protect which is at risk if there's no usage attributed to 
their journal.  More seriously is the case of hybrid open articles which have 
been paid for by authors or funding agencies to be open but are apparently 
unable to be discovered by mechanisms that are architected at the journal level 
rather than the article level.  So I ask, would funding agencies pay for 
articles to be open in a hybrid journal if they knew that such articles would 
not be discoverable via a link-resolver or a library's discovery service?

I've now shared with GRID with the NISO "Discovery to Delivery Topic Committee" 
which I joined last year.  There is interest on that committee to draft a "new 
item request" which then, should it gain support, can be voted on by NISO 
membership to establish a NISO "Working Group".

I'm not necessarily sure that all of this lends itself to a NISO "recommended 
practice" or standard.  It could well be that other organizations might adopt 
best practices or policies that would be informed by the light this grid (or 
some version of it) might shine on the problem. The fact that there is content 
which the author or perhaps the publisher or perhaps a funding agency is fully 
intending to be open to the world but is, in fact, hidden or blocked from some 
of the common discovery mechanisms is something I think needs attention.

It's offered here without any rights reserved.  Feel free to use it, modify it, 
with or without attribution.

-John Dove

An Open Content Discovery Grid for full-text discovery of content intended to 
be open.
  Location





Discovery
_  Pathway

Gold OA Journal Articles hosted by publisher

Articles in hybrid journals which have been paid to be “open”

Versions of articles which have been submitted to institutional or subject 
repositories

Versions of articles which the author has posted in Academia .edu

Versions of articles which the author has posted in Research Gate

Versions of articles which the author has posted in personal or departmental 
websites



Open Access Monographs



Open Educational Resources

General Web Search Engine






















Academic Web Search Engine






















Library Webscale Discovery Services





















Link Resolvers (targets, sources?)





















Publisher-provided links in reference lists





















Specialized Bibliographic Databases





















Journal Aggregations






















Library Catalogs

























_
John G. Dove, personal e-mail
johngd...@gmail.com

Check out my latest post on LinkedIn:  SPARC M.O.R.E Poster Presentation on 
messaging to cited scholars re 
OA
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] New mandate from main Dutch funder NWO

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Dear all,

This might interest you. Today, the main Dutch research funder NWO issued a new 
tighter Open Access mandate:

http://www.nwo.nl/en/news-and-events/news/2015/from-as-soon-as-possible-to-immediate-open-access.html

Best,
Jeroen

[101-innovations-icon-very-small]
  scholarly communication: tools database | 
survey

Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences
Utrecht University Library
email: j.bos...@uu.nl
telephone: +31.30.2536613
mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands
visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3. Utrecht
web: Jeroen 
Bosman
twitter:@geolibrarianUBU / @jeroenbosman
-

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

[GOAL] survey on scholarly communication

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Dear all,

I would like to take this opportunity to point you to a survey that 
investigates how research tool usage varies by field, country, position and 
career length. It is part of our research project here at Utrecht University 
that aims to chart the changing landscape of scholarly communication. It 
generates data through a global survey available in (simplified) Chinese, 
English, French, Russian and Spanish and soon also in Arabic and Japanese. Its 
results will not only simply tell what research tools people use, but by that 
also show revealed preferences regarding scholarly communication. Of course 
there are many open access & open science tools involved here.

https://innoscholcomm.typeform.com/to/Csvr7b?source=ML

Anyone carrying out research or supporting research can take it. It is easy to 
do: just click the tools you use. It takes 8-12 minutes to complete and you can 
opt to receive a visual characterization of your workflow compared to that of 
your peer group.

The survey will run until February 2016. Over 5,500 people responded so far and 
over 60 institutions are partnering in distributing the survey (in return for 
institutionally tagged data). The data (anonymized) will become available for 
analyses by others. All details, other language versions, preliminary results 
and more are at https://101innovations.wordpress.com/.

Many thanks (and please excuse cross posting),

Jeroen


[101-innovations-icon-very-small]
  scholarly communication: tools database | 
survey

Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences
Utrecht University Library
email: j.bos...@uu.nl
telephone: +31.30.2536613
mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands
visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3. Utrecht
web: Jeroen 
Bosman
twitter:@geolibrarianUBU / @jeroenbosman
profiles: Academia / 
Figshare / Google 
Scholar / 
ISNI /
Mendeley / 
MicrosoftAcademic
 / ORCID / 
ResearcherID
 /
ResearchGate / 
Scopus / 
Slideshare /  
VIAF /  
Worldcat / 
WorldCat2
blogging at: I 2.0 / 
Ref4UU
-

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

[GOAL] Re: Need for a new beginning - Assessing Publishers and Journals Scholarly Practices - Reloaded

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Dear Eric,

Though I agree simply accepting one man’s list is not sustainable, I doubt 
creating yet another list is the best way forward. There are already so many 
lists out there. Every new initiative seems to dilute and weaken efforts. 
Please let’s just try to tie the initiatives together (e.g. DOAJ, Sherpa/Romeo 
and QOAM/SciRev) and making them as open and transparent as possible. For a 
list of these lists check our tools database (data tab, category 23, rows 
409-424): http://bit.ly/innoscholcomm-list.

Best,
Jeroen

[101-innovations-icon-very-small]  101 innovations: tools 
database | 
survey

Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences
Utrecht University Library
email: j.bos...@uu.nl
telephone: +31.30.2536613
mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands
visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3, Utrecht
web: Jeroen 
Bosman
twitter @jeroenbosman/ @geolibrarianUBU
profiles: : Academia / Google 
Scholar / 
ISNI /
Mendeley / 
MicrosoftAcademic
 / ORCID / 
ResearcherID
 /
ResearchGate / 
Scopus /  
Slideshare /  
VIAF /  
Worldcat
blogging at: I 2.0 / 
Ref4UU
-
Trees say printing is a thing of the past

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Éric Archambault
Sent: zaterdag 3 oktober 2015 17:16
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Need for a new beginning - Assessing Publishers and Journals 
Scholarly Practices - Reloaded

Hi List
Hi list

My previous efforts rapidly went off-topic, so I’m making a second effort to 
reload the questions to the list with the hope of receiving more input on this 
important topic.

Back to our still largely unaddressed problem, I am re-inviting people to 
contribute ideas, focussing away from individuals.

What is the best way to deal with the question of assessing the practices of 
publishers and journals (for subscription only, hybrid and open access 
journals)?
Should it be done through a negative list listing journals/publishers with 
deceptive practices?
Should it be done through a positive list of best-practice journals?
Should it be done through an exhaustive list comprising all scholarly 
quality-reviewed journals (peer-review is somewhat restrictive as different 
fields have different norms).

Personally, I think the latter is the way to go. Firstly, there is currently no 
exhaustive list of reviewed scholarly journals. Though we sent astronauts to 
the moon close to half a century ago, we are still largely navigating blind on 
evidence-based decision-making in science. No one can confidently say how many 
active journals there are the world over. We need an exhaustive list. Secondly, 
I think journals and publishers should not be examined in a dichotomous manner; 
we need several criteria to assess their practice and the quality of what is 
being published.

What metrics do we need to assess journal quality, and more specifically`:
-What metrics of scholarly impact should be used (that is, within the scholarly 
community impact – typically the proprietary Thomson Journal Impact Factor has 
been the most widely used even though it was designed at the same time as we 
sent astronauts to the moon and has pretty much never been updated since -- 
full disclosure: Science-Metrix is a client of Thomson Reuters’s Web of Science 
raw data; competing indicators include Elsevier’s SNIP and SCIMAGO’s SJR, both 
computed with Scopus data and available for free for a few years but with 
comparatively limited uptake -- full disclosure: Science-Metrix is a client of 
Elsevier’s Scopus raw data; note also that bibliometrics practices such as 
CWTS, iFQ and Science-Metrix compute their own version of these journal impact 
indicators using WoS and/or Scopus data)
-What metrics of outreach should be used (e.g. use by the public, government, 
enterprises – typically these are covered by 

[GOAL] Re: Two-thirds of DOAJ journals do not have article processing charges

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Heather,

these are useful data, but in the interpretation of these we will have to 
reckon with journal size distributions. What would be helpful is having data on 
the number of articles in these journals. It is very likely that smaller 
journals are overrepresented in the non-APC OA group and that the share of non 
APC OA output by number of articles is substantially lower than 64%. Maybe 50 
percent or even 40? I do not like guessing, so I hope someone will look into 
this and come up with some data based on article counts.

Best,
Jeroen

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Heather 
Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 4:05 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Two-thirds of DOAJ journals do not have article processing  
charges

Thanks to a file supplied by DOAJ community manager Dominic Mitchell, we can 
confirm that 64% or about two-thirds of the journals added to DOAJ since March 
2014 do not have article processing charges (720 No charges, 403 Yes charges, 
total 1,123). Although there may be differences between this sub-sample and 
journals entered in DOAJ before March 2014, this ratio is similar to what we 
reported earlier and others have been reporting for some time.

The text file supplied by DOAJ has been added to the OA APC dataverse:
http://dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dvn/dv/oaapc

If anyone would like to transform the text file into .csv or other 
spreadsheet-manipulable file, that would be helpful. For example, this kind of 
processing would make it possible to provide a much more human readable title 
list.

A bit more detail here:
http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/25/two-thirds-of-doaj-journals-do-not-have-article-processing-charges/

best,

--
Dr. Heather Morrison
Assistant Professor
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
University of Ottawa
http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca



___
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: International survey on scholarly communication - and its relevance for open access

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Dear Andrew,

Thanks for your comments. The preselected answer options in our survey are just 
a few examples out of way larger number of possible answers. Indeed, most 
respondents tick the option indicating that they use other tools as well and 
also specify those. The preselected answer options consist of a few well known 
options and some less well known alternatives. Together they give the 
respondents an idea of the range of possible answers. By the way, repositories 
are one of the preselected answer options for the question on what sites 
researchers use to archive/share publications. Also, we did put R in as one of 
the preselected answers in the question on tools used for analysis of data. The 
number of preselected answer options (7) is a trade-off between wanting to show 
all options and keeping the survey user friendly and thus having more people 
take and finish the survey.

More background on this international survey on research tool usage is here: 
https://101innovations.wordpress.com/

Happy to discuss further,
 
Best,

Jeroen

Jeroen Bosman
scholarly communications librarian
Utrecht University Library
@jeroenbosman

-Original Message-
From: Andrew A. Adams [mailto:a...@meiji.ac.jp] 
Sent: vrijdag 22 mei 2015 2:43
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)
Subject: Re: [GOAL] International survey on scholarly communication - and its 
relevance for open access


They have the Access Request Button listed as a source of full text, but 
bizarrely missed out repositories directly. Their list of software is also 
proprietary-heavy ignoring FLOSS tools such as PSPP (a GNU implementation of 
a stats package somewhat akin to SPSS) and R (a FLOSS implementation of a 
command-line stats tool - the commercial equivalent S is rarely used). 
Academia.edu is included as a tool to promote one's work, but not as a tool 
to find the work of others.




-- 
Professor Andrew A Adams  a...@meiji.ac.jp
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan   http://www.a-cubed.info/



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

[GOAL] International survey on scholarly communication - and its relevance for open access

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Dear all,


How do open (access) publication strategies fit into a research workflow? Do 
researchers use Google Drive instead of Word? Papers instead of Endnote? Google 
Scholar instead of Scopus? Megajournals instead of topical journals? 
ResearchGate instead of repositories? We are engaged in an ongoing effort to 
chart the evolving landscape of scholarly communication 
(http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1286826). New tools are constantly being 
developed, as reflected in our list of 400+ scholarly communication tools 
(http://bit.ly/innoscholcomm-list). Researchers vote with their feet on these 
changes by adopting or rejecting new modes of working. With an international 
survey we intend to investigate how tool usage varies by field, country and 
position. The survey will run until February 2016.

A SURVEY.  WHERE? HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE?
If you have not yet done so, please take this graphical survey:
https://innoscholcomm.typeform.com/to/Csvr7b?source=ML
People tell us it is easy and fun to fill it out by just clicking the tools you 
use. It takes 8-12 minutes to complete and you can opt to receive a visual 
characterization of your workflow compared to that of your peer group.

FOR WHOM?
Anyone carrying out research (from Master's students to professors), or 
supporting research (such as librarians, publishers and funders) can 
participate.

HOW CAN I HELP?
Kind of you to ask!  If you want to help make this a success please consider 
passing it along to people not on this list (researchers, librarians etc.). And 
yes, feel free to share the link on your website, Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook 
etc..
More specifically, do you represent an institution/society that wishes to 
promote this survey among its members? Then please contact us. We can arrange a 
special URL that will enable us to provide you with resulting data for just 
your organization. That way you can see what tools your members are using, 
compared to overall usage patterns. We do the work, you get the (anonymized) 
data.

PRELIMINARY RESULTS
We will post preliminary results here: https://101innovations.wordpress.com/
On this site, you can also find background information on the survey. 
Eventually we will share our (thoroughly anonymized) data. Would you like to 
work with those data? We are interested to hear what kind of analyses you would 
like to carry out or see carried out! There are many hypotheses that can be 
tested with the data that comes from this survey. In the field of Open Access I 
can think of many:

-   Do researchers choose either Gold or Green OA or do they combine these 
approaches?

-   Are researchers that share in an early phase (workflows, data, posters) 
more likely to also publish OA or archive their papers in repositories?

-   Do researchers use search tools that have an option to restrict to 
publications that are OA available?

-   etc.
The data also allows to discern between different positions, affiliation 
countries and career lengths.

Please support this research by taking the survey or promoting it.

Many thanks!

CONTACT
Bianca Kramer @MsPhelps b.m.r.kra...@uu.nlmailto:b.m.r.kra...@uu.nl
Jeroen Bosman @jeroenbosman j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl
(both at Utrecht University Library in The Netherlands)

(please excuse any cross posting)


Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences
Utrecht University Libraryhttp://www.uu.nl/library
email: j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl
telephone: +31.30.2536613
mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands
visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3, Utrecht
web: Jeroen 
Bosmanhttp://www.uu.nl/university/library/en/disciplines/geo/Pages/ContactBosman.aspx
twitter @jeroenbosman/ @geolibrarianUBU
-
Trees say printing is a thing of the past

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

[GOAL] Re: Open access researchers: let's cooperate

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Heather,

You could perhaps cooperate with Walt Crawford who has recently reviewed all 
DOAJ journals and collected APC info. Or connect with Wouter Gerritsma who 
compiled a list late last year 
http://wowter.net/2014/11/30/open-access-journal-article-processing-charges/.

Best,
Jeroen


-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Heather Morrison
Sent: donderdag 7 mei 2015 23:37
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Open access researchers: let's cooperate

It's great to see lots of people conducting research on open access. There is 
no lack of work to do, so the more the merrier! 

In some areas there can be a lot of tedious manual work and/or development of 
complicated formulae to bring together different datasets. For example, my team 
plans to download DOAJ metadata on May 15 with an eye to updating our May 2014 
sample of the minority of DOAJ journals charging APCs. This involves gathering 
APC-related information from at least 1,432 journals, and it would be ideal to 
include all of the journals charging APCs. If anyone else has similar plans, 
please let us know. Perhaps we could divide up the work and get more done with 
less time.

Note that my team is currently focused exclusively on the fully OA journals 
listed in DOAJ. Hybrids and the journals on Beall's list are important too, but 
beyond scope for us for workload reasons.

If a number of researchers are planning similar surveys, sharing plans and 
questions would give us all an opportunity to have more comparable data by 
using the same questions and minimizing the possibility of lowering response 
rates by sending out surveys with overlap.

The Open Access Directory has sections for Research Questions and Research in 
Progress that we can use for sharing this information:
http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Research_in_progress

I've posted an overview update of the research in progress by the Sustaining 
the Knowledge Commons team here:
http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/07/forthcoming-research-and-an-invitation-to-cooperate/

In brief:

Interviews and focus groups with small scholar-led journals that either are, or 
would like to be, open access, to determine resource requirements (this is the 
sector I see as likely to be both the most cost-effective and the best model to 
prioritize scholarship and the public interest. Early writing forthcoming soon.

OA APCs: longitudinal studies including May 2014, May 2015, and the 2010 Bjork 
and Solomon study.
OA APCs: subject and DOAJ publication count APC correlation (hypothesis: some 
types of APC charging journals will either start charging or increase prices as 
their content increases) OA APCs: impact factor correlation (hypothesis: some 
type of APC charging journals with increase costs disproportionately when they 
receive impact factors and/or increase in rankings. Effect may not be 
immediate).

best,

--
Dr. Heather Morrison
Assistant Professor
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies University 
of Ottawa http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca



___
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: Elsevier (and other traditional publishers) and PLOS

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Heather and others,

Although I acknowledge the differences between these publishers, it is perhaps 
noteworthy that apparently Elsevier did find it (commercially, which includes  
reputation) wise to release mathematics backfiles for free, as you probably 
know: http://www.elsevier.com/physical-sciences/mathematics/archived-articles. 
I see no reason why that should be limited to the field of mathematics.

Best,
Jeroen
---
Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library


-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Heather Morrison
Sent: donderdag 30 april 2015 2:42
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Elsevier (and other traditional publishers) and PLOS

Elsevier has much in common with Public Library of Science: both are scholarly 
publishing organizations, focused on science, and in my opinion both 
aggressively advocate sometimes for the best interests of scholarship, but 
often primarily for their own business interests.

If policy-makers are aiming to help traditional publishers like Elsevier 
survive in an open access environment (a goal I am not sure we all agree on), 
then in formulating policies it is important to keep in mind some very basic 
differences.

PLOS was born digital and open access and with a full commitment to open 
access. Traditional publishers like Elsevier have a legacy of works under 
copyright and a business model that involves selling rights to these works and 
integrated search services (rather a lot of money at that). In the case of 
Elsevier, this involves millions of works over a long period of time. Even if 
every single article Elsevier publishes from today on were open access, this 
would not impact previously published works. Unless I am missing something 
there is no business model for Elsevier to provide access to these previously 
published works free-of-charge. This means that traditional publishers like 
Elsevier are very likely to have to continue with a toll access business model 
even if they move forward with open access publishing. This is an essentially 
different environment from that of a full open access publisher like PLOS. It 
is not realistic to assume that a traditional publisher that must maintain a 
toll access environment will behave in the same way that born open access 
publishers do. PLOS was started from a commitment to providing works 
free-of-charge. Elsevier and publishers like Elsevier have thrived in a toll 
access environment, and will have to maintain a toll access environment. There 
will be far more pressure and incentive to revert to toll access for 
traditional publishers than for PLOS. This is why arguments along the lines 
that PLOS has been around for a while, therefore there are no problems with 
CC-BY, don't necessarily apply to a publisher like Elsevier.

Elsevier, unlike PLOS, does have its own suite of value-added services such as 
Science Direct and Scopus. When friends of PLOS say there is no reason not to 
grant blanket commercial rights to anyone downstream, I think it is important 
to remember that this represents the perspective of one type of publisher. 
Other journals and publishers either provide value added services themselves, 
or receive revenue from providers of such services, e.g. payments from journal 
aggregators. 

Note that while Elsevier has no incentive to provide access to previously 
published works free-of-charge, they are a green publisher and so authors from 
recent years can make their works published with Elsevier freely available 
through institutional archives. This is one thing green open access can achieve 
right now that gold OA cannot. I'd like to acknowledge that Stevan Harnad has 
been right on this point for many, many years. 

I'm still signed on for the Elsevier boycott, in case anyone is wondering:
http://thecostofknowledge.com/

best,

--
Dr. Heather Morrison
Assistant Professor
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies University 
of Ottawa http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca



___
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: Number of Open Access journals

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

I've always been amazed how Thomson/ISI  categorized English language journals 
(mostly published in de US/UK) as international journals and all other 
journals as regional journals. Should ask them.

BTW Eric could you elaborate on what you say in your last sentence?  Will 
Science Metrix launch a bibliometrics service based on GS data or do I have to 
interpret your words in another way?

Jeroen

[101-innovations-icon-very-small]  101 innovations in scholarly 
communicationhttp://innoscholcomm.silk.co/

Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences
Utrecht University Libraryhttp://www.uu.nl/library
email: j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl
telephone: +31.30.2536613
mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands
visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3, Utrecht
web: Jeroen 
Bosmanhttp://www.uu.nl/university/library/en/disciplines/geo/Pages/ContactBosman.aspx
twitter @jeroenbosman/ @geolibrarianUBU
profiles: : Academiahttp://uu.academia.edu/JeroenBosman / Google 
Scholarhttp://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-IfPy3IJhl=en / 
ISNIhttp://www.isni.org/28810209 /
Mendeleyhttp://www.mendeley.com/profiles/jeroen-bosman/ / 
MicrosoftAcademichttp://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/51538592/jeroen-bosman
 / ORCIDhttp://orcid.org/-0001-5796-2727 / 
ResearcherIDhttp://www.researcherid.com/ProfileView.action?queryString=KG0UuZjN5WmCiHc%252FMC4oLVEKrQQu%252BpzQ8%252F9yrRrmi8Y%253DInit=YesSrcApp=CRreturnCode=ROUTER.SuccessSID=N27lOD6EgipnADLnAbK
 /
ResearchGatehttp://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeroen_Bosman/ / 
Scopushttp://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.url?authorId=7003519484 /  
Slidesharehttp://www.slideshare.net/hierohiero /  
VIAFhttp://viaf.org/viaf/36099266/ /  
Worldcathttp://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n91-100619
blogging at: IM 2.0http://im2punt0.wordpress.com/ / 
Ref4UUhttp://ref4uu.blogspot.com/
-
Trees say printing is a thing of the past

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Éric Archambault
Sent: woensdag 29 april 2015 0:08
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals

Jean-Claude has an excellent point.

Our current outlook is extremely Western-centric. When I was in SPRU, 
professors (can't remember if it was Pavitt or Ben Martin) used to joke that 
bibliometric measurement was highly influenced by the linguistic capacity of 
housewives in Philadelphia. Though today there might have been a shift towards 
Manila for data entry, it remains that bibliographic databases present a 
truncated view of the world, and bibliometrics a distorted, 
pro-Western/Northern Hemisphere biased view of science. If one can potentially 
advance the idea that all ground breaking science eventually makes it to 
Western journals, and that this is what current databases are reflecting, it 
would still remain that normal science follows similar rules in Russia, Japan, 
and China and yet a huge part of that content still goes unaccounted for. A 
normal US or UK paper is not any better than a normal Brazilian, Chinese, or 
Russian paper yet the former are frequently counted, the latter more frequently 
not. The low impact of non-Western countries is in part a reflection of the 
exclusion of journals published in non-English speaking countries, and 
Jean-Claude is right to say there are thousands of them.

The effect on measurement is poisonous because national level self-citations 
are frequently excluded when journals are not published in English-language 
journal. If one wants to see the effect of removing national self-citation, try 
removing them altogether and you'll see how badly clobbered the US ends-up in 
terms of relate impact. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting to measure that 
way as it would be unwise (I always advocate the inclusion of self-citations at 
all levels even though everyone knows some authors and journals are 
narcissistic and playing the number game - self citations are an essential part 
of the knowledge-building edifice and excluding them potentially create more 
problems than it solves), but it is a valid experiment to show how bad the 
situation currently is because we count only publications from half of the 
journals published, and that half is anything but randomly selected. For those 
who want to see the effect, I can send you a table - among countries with 
45,000 papers or more, and adjusted for scale, the US ranked 22nd (after Japan, 
the Czech Republic and Mexico) if only citations from other countries were 
included. We never published that paper as we thought it was brain damaged to 
exclude national self-citation. Yet, by excluding many many locally published 
journals from citation counts, this is what the advanced analytics that come 
out of dominant bibliographic 

[GOAL] Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Dear Yves and others,

Of course journals evolve, almost everything does: companies, political parties 
etc. But no one would suggest not to set up a new company or poliitcal party 
but rather wait for the existing ones to adopt what you think is necessary. 
Just like it is normal for journals to evolve, it is normal for new jourals to 
arrive on the scene and also for some journals to disappear. We could indeed go 
through the list of 23,000 jornals in Scopus, and that's probably just half of 
scholarly journals out there, and we will find that most have not adopted the 
bulk of the characteristics I mentioned. Especially journals that are OA with 
low or medium APC and options for open and/or post-pub peer review are rare.

Best,
Jeroen



Op 6 apr. 2015 om 08:30 heeft Gingras, Yves 
gingras.y...@uqam.camailto:gingras.y...@uqam.ca het volgende geschreven:

Helllo

Journals do evolve: they already did by going on-line and -- for many -- 
paperless. Many are continuous already trough online first, etc. Most of the 
elements on your list can be incorporated in the future without problems. I 
will not go through it one by one  for it would be tedious, but becoming 
other is what evolution do...

Yves Gingras

De : goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] de la part de 
Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) [j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl]
Date d'envoi : 5 avril 2015 08:46
À : 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
Objet : [GOAL] Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian 
researchers

Dear Yves and others,

Of course we could discuss what “a hierarchy of legitimate journals” is and 
whether one should base submission decisions on such hierarchies. But that 
would be another thread I think. What concerns me here is your question on the 
need for more journals. Overall I would agree that we do not need more 
journals. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the current journals suffice. 
We need *other* journals. For instance, in the field I serve (human geography) 
there is a dire need for journals with these characteristics:

- fully Open Access
- online only
- CC-BY license
- authors retain copyright
- maximum APC of 500 USD (or perhaps a lifetime membership model like that at 
PeerJ)
- APC waivers for those who apply (e.g. from LMI countries)
- really international profile of editors/board (far beyond 
US/UK/CA/AU/NL/DE/CH/NZ/FR)
- no issues: continuous publishing
- in principle no size restrictions
- using ORCID and DOI of course
- peer review along PLOS One idea: only check for (methodological) soundness 
(and whether it is no obvious garbage or plagiarism), avoiding costly system of 
multiple cascading submissions/rejections
- post pub open non anonymous peer review, so the community decides what is the 
worth of published papers
- peer review reports themselves are citable and have DOIs
- making (small) updates to articles possible (i.e. creating an updated version)
- making it easy to link to additional material (data, video, code etc.) shared 
via external platforms like Zenodo or Figshare
- no IF advertising
- open for text mining
- providing a suite of article level metrics
- using e.g. LOCKSS or Portico for digital preservation
- indexing at least by Google Scholar and DOAJ, at a later stage also Scopus, 
Web of Science and others
- optionally a pre-print archive (but could rely on SSRN as well)

I would call them forward looking Open Access journals. They are just not 
present in the English language in my field. And that may be true for many 
other field.

Would you agree that we do not need *more* journals but that we do still need 
*other* journals?

Kind regards,
Jeroen

image003.jpg  101 innovations in scholarly 
communicationhttp://innoscholcomm.silk.co/

Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences
Utrecht University Libraryhttp://www.uu.nl/library
email: j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl
telephone: +31.30.2536613
mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands
visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3, Utrecht
web: Jeroen 
Bosmanhttp://www.uu.nl/university/library/en/disciplines/geo/Pages/ContactBosman.aspx
twitter @jeroenbosman/ @geolibrarianUBU
profiles: : Academiahttp://uu.academia.edu/JeroenBosman / Google 
Scholarhttp://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-IfPy3IJhl=en / 
ISNIhttp://www.isni.org/28810209 /
Mendeleyhttp://www.mendeley.com/profiles/jeroen-bosman/ / 
MicrosoftAcademichttp://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/51538592/jeroen-bosman
 / ORCIDhttp://orcid.org/-0001-5796-2727 / 
ResearcherIDhttp://www.researcherid.com/ProfileView.action?queryString=KG0UuZjN5WmCiHc%252FMC4oLVEKrQQu%252BpzQ8%252F9yrRrmi8Y%253DInit=YesSrcApp=CRreturnCode=ROUTER.SuccessSID=N27lOD6EgipnADLnAbK
 /
ResearchGatehttp://www.researchgate.net/profile

[GOAL] Re: Why are we still publishing journals anyways?

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Heather your question is valid and his been raised and debated in many places. 
But change does happen, albeit indeed at a very slow pace. Scholars are indeed 
conservative in their work habit,s and maybe there's even a good side to that.

Without elaborating too much I think we may expect to see:
- The further rise of megajournals/plaforms, reducing the number of publication 
venues from some 50,000 to less than 1,000
- The relative growth of imortance of datapublications, with the article just 
an ad for or intepretation of the data
- In the long run perhaps the rise of networked scholarly nanopublications, 
roughly along the lines of the wikipedia model

Of course this is all mere conjecture and will probably prove wrong, but it's 
the most likely path I can imagine at this moment.

Best,
Jeroen



Op 6 apr. 2015 om 08:16 heeft Gavin Moodie 
gavin.moo...@rmit.edu.aumailto:gavin.moo...@rmit.edu.au het volgende 
geschreven:

Thanx very much to Heather for drawing attention to Odlyzko's (1995) paper, 
which I hadn't seen before.  It was most interesting to be returned to the days 
when all those without access to Mosaic had to do was to write a few commands 
to get an ftp file sent to them!

It was also interesting to read Odlyzko's discussion of the pressures on peer 
reviewing even then and his discussion with Stevan Harnad of various options 
for open access.  In the first 2 sentences of his abstract Odlyzko predicts 
that -

'Scholarly publishing is on the verge of a drastic change from print journals 
to electronic ones. Although this change has been predicted for a long time, 
trends in technology and growth in the literature are making this transition 
inevitable. It is likely to occur in a few years, and it its likely to be 
sudden.'

One reason for this prediction being so spectacularly wrong at least in its 
timing, and an answer to Heather's question about why scholars cling to a 
technology that is optimal for paper and mail distribution, may be derived from 
Schaffner's (1994) account of the evolution of scientific journals in the mid 
17th century which Odlyzko paraphrases -

'. . . owed little to technological developments, and was driven by 
developments in scholarly culture. Also, while scholars may be intellectually 
adventurous, they tend to be conservative in their work habits.'


Gavin


Odlyzko, Andrew M (1995) Tragic loss or good riddance? The impending demise of 
traditional scholarly journals, International Journal of Human-Computer 
Studies, volume 42, issue 1, pages 71-172.

Schaffner, Ann C (1994) The future of scientific journals: lessons from the 
past, Information Technology and Libraries, 
volumehttp://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/37730/Information+Technology+and+Libraries/01994Y12Y01$23Dec+1994$3b++Vol.+13+$284$29/13/4?accountid=1355213,
 number 4, pages 239-40.



Gavin Moodie, PhD
Adjunct Professor in the Department of Leadership, Higher, and Adult Education
OISE, University of Toronto

Adjunct professor of education at RMIT University, Australia

22 Sussex Avenue
Toronto, ON, M5S 1J5
Canada
Mobile +1 416 806 3597
gavin.moo...@rmit.edu.aumailto:gavin.moo...@rmit.edu.au
http://rmit.academia.edu/GavinMoodie

On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Heather Morrison 
heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote:
The discussion about traditional and predatory journals seems to be missing a 
key point: why are we still publishing journals anyways? The format was 
developed in the 1600's and was the state of the art technology for 
dissemination of scholarly work at the time. Today we have the World Wide Web: 
why do we cling to a technology that is optimal for paper and mail distribution?

Odlyzko wrote in 1994 about the forthcoming demise of the scholarly journal as 
tragic loss or good riddance: 
http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/tragic.loss.txt

best,

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

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.orgmailto: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 : Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

 a quick personal assessment that may 
interest for those who think strategically about the OA. In the current 
political moment in Brazil, one of the worst things you can do is to introduce, 
for example, the north-south opposition and most other related topics. This 
approach certainly result in a ideological polarization that will eliminate any 
possibility of rational discussion.

It would have been very easy for me to interview some academics who hate the 
government Dilma and also the president of Capes, which is in this position 
since the beginning of Lula's administration in 2003. They certainly would 
express devastating comments, but that's not what I want.

As I said, if the growing garbage from predatory journals in Brazil continues 
to be ignored, it will Become much larger. And it will be very bad for the OA.

Maurício Tuffani
http://folha.com/mauriciotuffani
mauri...@tuffani.netmailto:mauri...@tuffani.net



2015-04-04 13:51 GMT-03:00 Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) 
j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl:
Dear Mr. Tuffani and others,

I think you are doing good work in alerting the Brazilian science community to 
the dangers of rogue publishers or would-be publishers going for easy money. 
This is already complex, because there is no simple criterion, there are grey 
zones between black and white. Some trustworthy journals are just young and 
maybe amateurish but could develop in valuable contributions to the publishing 
landscape. Others are indeed bordering on criminal activity.

Still I would like to take the opportunity to make this more complex. I think 
you cannot improve the system by clinging to prestige, highly ranked, 
internationally renowned, reputable etc. There are many journals and 
scientists that published rubbish, manipulated data and whatever despite having 
these eponyms atached to them. What is needed is transparency, open reviewing 
and assessments, sharing of experiences with reviewing processes etc. What is 
not needed is ever more complex lists of journals in 6 or more categories. 
These are non-sustainable nonsense. You simply cannot judge a paper or 
scientists by the cover of journals.

What also makes this more complex is thatbtjis takes place in a struggle 
between north and global south, between the dominating mainstream English 
language science culture and other cultures. I'm not saying there is no need to 
develop and live by global values in science. But that is a complex process 
that takes a generation and that doesn't simply boil down to 'just publish in 
English in a paywalled journal included in Thomson Reuters' JCR list.

This is also a struggle between traditionalists, going for prestige, rankings 
and competition and forward looking scientists, going for collaboration, 
transparency and opennness.

I think Brazil could make a giant leap by radically doing away with the idea 
that they can only be valuable and succesful in science by playing the 
traditional impact factor/reputation game and engage in the rat-race to publish 
as much as they can. The giant leap I mention can be taken by setting up a 
really transparent and forward looking scholarly communication system. The 
technology and models are available, tried and tested. Just as many countries 
in Africa moved into mobile communications without first building a network of 
ground telephone lines, so Brazil can jump the phase of trying to catch up in 
science with 20th century models. When you watch what is really going on now it 
is broad platforms and journals (e.g. PLOS, ScienceOpen, PeerJ, eLife), open 
and/or post publication peer review (PeerJ, F1000, BMJ), ditching impact 
factors by universities and even national associations of universities (see San 
Francisco Dora declaration),  wholesale flipping to Open Access, mandated 
datasharing by funders and more. Not of of this is  the mainstream yet, but it 
may very well be within 5 years. We are in dire need of more broad initiatiaves 
along these lines, especially in BRICS countires.

Such a focus on the future might prove to bring Brazilian science more than 
sticking to the old models. With a well thought out plan, broad support, good 
incentivess and transparency Brazil could even lead on this path. In retrospect 
this attack of your house by predatory bugs may have been a blessing in 
disguise because it made you realise the bugs where not the biggest problem. 
The bigger problem was the state your/our house was in.

Kind regards,
Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University library



Op 4 apr. 2015 om 17:03 heeft Jacinto Dávila 
jacinto.dav...@gmail.commailto:jacinto.dav...@gmail.com het volgende 
geschreven:

I am sorry Mr. Tuffani, but your are just adopting Beall's list and, therefore, 
copying his mistakes or, at least, his anti-OA stance.

You suggest that Qualis comes without rigor and inmediately claims The 
expression “predatory journals” has been used for some years to designate 
academic journals published by companies operating without scientific

[GOAL] Re: RE : Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

 of 
evaluation, contributes to this tendency to try to publish anything anywhere. 
And predators are bright enough to play the rhetorical card of south versus 
north, dominant versus dominated to convince these researchers to create 
their own local niche to publish their discoveries, as if the idea of 
universal knowledge was a naïveté of the past...

Yves Gingras


De : goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[goal-boun...@eprints.org] de la part de Mauricio Tuffani [mauri...@tuffani.net]
Date d'envoi : 4 avril 2015 17:07
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : [GOAL] Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers
Dear Mr. Bosman,

Thank you for your attention and for taking the time in your answer. Although I 
am not an expert in academic publishing, I know some of the conflicts involving 
this activity.

I have pointed out in predatory journals the affront to the same principles of 
transparency and accountability highlighted for you. I know that the big 
publishers also have journals that publish rubbish. I myself have written about 
this, including exposing Elsevier.

But I'm not an activist or a policy maker. My priority as a journalist is to 
show what does not work. It is show, for example, that information widely 
publicized, as the list of Mr. Beall, several reports and many other sources 
were not even considered by some 2,000 experts from the 48 advisory committees 
of the Brazilian federal agency Capes. And the result of all this is waste 
pointed out by me and accepted by Qualis.

I have not finished counting, but at least 240 Brazilian universities and other 
institutions were already affected by publication in journals of poor quality.

Regardless of all this, let me show a quick personal assessment that may 
interest for those who think strategically about the OA. In the current 
political moment in Brazil, one of the worst things you can do is to introduce, 
for example, the north-south opposition and most other related topics. This 
approach certainly result in a ideological polarization that will eliminate any 
possibility of rational discussion.

It would have been very easy for me to interview some academics who hate the 
government Dilma and also the president of Capes, which is in this position 
since the beginning of Lula's administration in 2003. They certainly would 
express devastating comments, but that's not what I want.

As I said, if the growing garbage from predatory journals in Brazil continues 
to be ignored, it will Become much larger. And it will be very bad for the OA.

Maurício Tuffani
http://folha.com/mauriciotuffani
mauri...@tuffani.netmailto:mauri...@tuffani.net



2015-04-04 13:51 GMT-03:00 Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) 
j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl:
Dear Mr. Tuffani and others,

I think you are doing good work in alerting the Brazilian science community to 
the dangers of rogue publishers or would-be publishers going for easy money. 
This is already complex, because there is no simple criterion, there are grey 
zones between black and white. Some trustworthy journals are just young and 
maybe amateurish but could develop in valuable contributions to the publishing 
landscape. Others are indeed bordering on criminal activity.

Still I would like to take the opportunity to make this more complex. I think 
you cannot improve the system by clinging to prestige, highly ranked, 
internationally renowned, reputable etc. There are many journals and 
scientists that published rubbish, manipulated data and whatever despite having 
these eponyms atached to them. What is needed is transparency, open reviewing 
and assessments, sharing of experiences with reviewing processes etc. What is 
not needed is ever more complex lists of journals in 6 or more categories. 
These are non-sustainable nonsense. You simply cannot judge a paper or 
scientists by the cover of journals.

What also makes this more complex is thatbtjis takes place in a struggle 
between north and global south, between the dominating mainstream English 
language science culture and other cultures. I'm not saying there is no need to 
develop and live by global values in science. But that is a complex process 
that takes a generation and that doesn't simply boil down to 'just publish in 
English in a paywalled journal included in Thomson Reuters' JCR list.

This is also a struggle between traditionalists, going for prestige, rankings 
and competition and forward looking scientists, going for collaboration, 
transparency and opennness.

I think Brazil could make a giant leap by radically doing away with the idea 
that they can only be valuable and succesful in science by playing the 
traditional impact factor/reputation game and engage in the rat-race to publish 
as much as they can. The giant leap I mention can be taken by setting up a 
really transparent and forward looking scholarly communication system. The 
technology and models

[GOAL] Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Dear Mr. Tuffani and others,

I think you are doing good work in alerting the Brazilian science community to 
the dangers of rogue publishers or would-be publishers going for easy money. 
This is already complex, because there is no simple criterion, there are grey 
zones between black and white. Some trustworthy journals are just young and 
maybe amateurish but could develop in valuable contributions to the publishing 
landscape. Others are indeed bordering on criminal activity.

Still I would like to take the opportunity to make this more complex. I think 
you cannot improve the system by clinging to prestige, highly ranked, 
internationally renowned, reputable etc. There are many journals and 
scientists that published rubbish, manipulated data and whatever despite having 
these eponyms atached to them. What is needed is transparency, open reviewing 
and assessments, sharing of experiences with reviewing processes etc. What is 
not needed is ever more complex lists of journals in 6 or more categories. 
These are non-sustainable nonsense. You simply cannot judge a paper or 
scientists by the cover of journals.

What also makes this more complex is thatbtjis takes place in a struggle 
between north and global south, between the dominating mainstream English 
language science culture and other cultures. I'm not saying there is no need to 
develop and live by global values in science. But that is a complex process 
that takes a generation and that doesn't simply boil down to 'just publish in 
English in a paywalled journal included in Thomson Reuters' JCR list.

This is also a struggle between traditionalists, going for prestige, rankings 
and competition and forward looking scientists, going for collaboration, 
transparency and opennness.

I think Brazil could make a giant leap by radically doing away with the idea 
that they can only be valuable and succesful in science by playing the 
traditional impact factor/reputation game and engage in the rat-race to publish 
as much as they can. The giant leap I mention can be taken by setting up a 
really transparent and forward looking scholarly communication system. The 
technology and models are available, tried and tested. Just as many countries 
in Africa moved into mobile communications without first building a network of 
ground telephone lines, so Brazil can jump the phase of trying to catch up in 
science with 20th century models. When you watch what is really going on now it 
is broad platforms and journals (e.g. PLOS, ScienceOpen, PeerJ, eLife), open 
and/or post publication peer review (PeerJ, F1000, BMJ), ditching impact 
factors by universities and even national associations of universities (see San 
Francisco Dora declaration),  wholesale flipping to Open Access, mandated 
datasharing by funders and more. Not of of this is  the mainstream yet, but it 
may very well be within 5 years. We are in dire need of more broad initiatiaves 
along these lines, especially in BRICS countires.

Such a focus on the future might prove to bring Brazilian science more than 
sticking to the old models. With a well thought out plan, broad support, good 
incentivess and transparency Brazil could even lead on this path. In retrospect 
this attack of your house by predatory bugs may have been a blessing in 
disguise because it made you realise the bugs where not the biggest problem. 
The bigger problem was the state your/our house was in.

Kind regards,
Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University library



Op 4 apr. 2015 om 17:03 heeft Jacinto Dávila 
jacinto.dav...@gmail.commailto:jacinto.dav...@gmail.com het volgende 
geschreven:

I am sorry Mr. Tuffani, but your are just adopting Beall's list and, therefore, 
copying his mistakes or, at least, his anti-OA stance.

You suggest that Qualis comes without rigor and inmediately claims The 
expression “predatory journals” has been used for some years to designate 
academic journals published by companies operating without scientific rigor an 
important scientific communication initiative that came up with the internet. 
This is the Open Accesshttp://legacy.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/fos/brief-port.htm 
(OA), the editorial model of publishing articles in open access, funded by the 
academic institutions sponsoring their own journals or by charging fees from 
the authors of the studies.

Well, this 17 journals in your lists ARE NOT Open Access. They did not even 
claim to be:


WSEAShttp://www.wseas.org/ (World Science and Engineering Academy Society)***

  *   WSEAS Transactions on Acoustics and 
Musichttp://www.worldses.org/journals/acoustics/index.html [ISSN: 1109-9577 – 
descontinuado]
  *   WSEAS Transactions on Applied and Theoretical 
Mechanicshttp://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4006 [ISSN: 1991-8747]
  *   WSEAS Transactions on Applied and Theoretical 
Mechanicshttp://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4006 [ISSN: 2224-3429]
  *   WSEAS Transactions on Biology and 
Biomedicinehttp://wseas.org/wseas/cms.action?id=4011
  *   WSEAS 

[GOAL] Deal in France, no deal in The Netherlands

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Over last few days we witnessed Elsevier reaching a new 5-year deal with French 
Universities, for 33,4 M euro's per year: http://scoms.hypotheses.org/293. The 
deal is also said to have a data mining paragraph. Almost at the same time news 
broke that Dutch universities did not accept Elsevier's  offer for a new deal 
for the years ahead: 
http://www.vsnu.nl/news/newsitem/11-negotiations-between-elsevier-and-universities-failed.html.
 The Dutch required major steps towards Open Access, but apparently Elsevier 
did not want to move enough to satisfy the Dutch negotiators. According to the 
press release by VSNU, the Dutch association of universities, researchers are 
now likely faced to have no access to Elsevier journals from January 2015. In a 
dutch newspaper, De Volkskrant, the negotiators said that perhaps scholars will 
need to email authors to get access, or to use versions available in 
repositories. I think this is a major test case: a full small country (although 
medium sized in research output) having no access to new content in Elsevier 
journals.

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

[GOAL] Re: Scopus and gold OA: open2closed, is this what we want?

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Heather,

The share of OA papers is probably way lower, because those 14% OA journals 
have on average much less volumes indexed in Scopus than the paywall journals. 
I wouldn't be surprised if it was below 5%.

But was is more important, no one buys Scopus for the (abstract) content. 
Libraries license Scopus for its search functionality, citation links, author 
disambiguation, indexing terms, advanced search capabilities, affiliation 
histories, book chapter indexing etc etc.

Access to the abstracts is in most cases free at the publisher platforms, no 
matter whether it concerns OA journals or paywalled journals.

So I think it would not be fair to say Scopus is making big money out of Open 
Access content the way you do.

Best,
Jeroen



Op 13 okt. 2014 om 17:11 heeft Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca 
het volgende geschreven:

 Elsevier's for-pay Scopus service includes More than 20,000 peer-reviewed 
 journals, including 2,800 gold open access journals from: 
 http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/scopus/content-overview
 
 14% of the journal content for this commercial toll access service comes from 
 gold OA.
 
 When OA advocates insist on granting blanket commercial rights downstream, is 
 this the kind of future for scholarly communication that is envisaged, one 
 that takes free content licensed CC-BY or CC-BY-SA and locks it up in service 
 packages for sale for those who can pay?
 
 One of the visions of the original Budapest Open Access Initiative is that OA 
 will  share the learning of the rich with the poor and the poor with the 
 rich. I argue that if the poor are convinced or coerced to give away their 
 work for blanket commercial rights downstream and the result is services like 
 Scopus, this is a much more straightforward sharing of the poor with the 
 rich. A researcher in a developing country giving away their work as CC-BY 
 gets the benefit of wider dissemination of their own work, but may be shut 
 out of services like Scopus, the next generation of tools designed to advance 
 research. 
 BOAI: http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read
 
 Thanks very much to Elsevier, Scopus, and participating gold OA publishers 
 for a great example of the downside of granting blanket commercial rights 
 downstream.
 
 best,
 
 -- 
 Dr. Heather Morrison
 Assistant Professor
 École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
 University of Ottawa
 http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
 Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
 heather.morri...@uottawa.ca
 
 
 
 ___
 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: Paperity launched. The 1st multidisciplinary aggregator of OA journals papers

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Marcin,

This is a great initiative. I had been hoping BASEsearch would take on this 
task, but it is good to see others are stepping in.

Congrats on the initiative. Still, a long way to go

Could you elaborate on how your technology is able to recognize “true peer 
reviewed papers” and what you consider to be “ true peer reviewed papers”?

Best,
Jeroen Bosman
@jeroenbosman
Utrecht University Library
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Marcin Wojnarski
Sent: donderdag 9 oktober 2014 14:51
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Paperity launched. The 1st multidisciplinary aggregator of OA 
journals  papers

(press release, apologies for cross-posting)

With the beginning of the new academic year, Paperityhttp://paperity.org, the 
first multidisciplinary aggregator of Open Access journals and papers, has been 
launched. Paperity will connect authors with readers, boost dissemination of 
new discoveries and consolidate academia around open literature.

Right now, Paperityhttp://paperity.org (http://paperity.org/) includes over 
160,000 open articles, gold and hybrid, from 2,000 scholarly journals, and 
growing. The goal of the team is to cover - with the support of journal editors 
and publishers - 100% of Open Access literature in 3 years from now. In order 
to achieve this, Paperity utilizes an original technology for article indexing, 
designed by Marcin Wojnarski, a data geek from Poland and a medalist of the 
International Mathematical Olympiad. This technology indexes only true 
peer-reviewed scholarly papers and filters out irrelevant entries, which easily 
make it into other aggregators and search engines.

The amount of scholarly literature has grown enormously in the last decades. 
Successful dissemination became a big issue. New tools are needed to help 
readers access vast amounts of literature dispersed all over the web and to 
help authors reach their target audience. Moreover, research is 
interdisciplinary now and scholars need broad access to literature from many 
fields, also from outside of their core research area. This is the reason why 
Paperity covers all subjects, from Sciences, Technology, Medicine, through 
Social Sciences, to Humanities and Arts.

- There are lots of great articles out there which report new significant 
findings, yet attract no attention, only because they are hard to find. No more 
than top 10% of research institutions have good access to communication 
channels and can share their findings efficiently. The remaining 90%, 
especially authors from developing countries and early-career researchers, 
start from a much lower stand and often stay unnoticed despite high quality of 
their work – says Wojnarski. He adds that it is not by accident that Paperity 
partners right now with the EU Contest for Young Scientists, the biggest 
science fair in Europe. With the help of Paperity, the Contest wants to improve 
dissemination of discoveries authored by its participants – top young talents 
from all over the continent.

Paperity is the first service of this kind. The most similar existing website, 
PubMed Central, aggregates open journals, too, but is limited to life sciences 
alone. Another related service, the Directory of Open Access Journals, does 
index articles from multiple periodicals and different disciplines, but does 
not provide aggregation, only pure indexing: it shows metadata of articles, but 
for fulltext access redirects to external sites. Moreover, both PMC and DOAJ 
impose strict technical requirements on participating journals, which limits 
the scope of aggregation. Paperity adapts to whatever technology a given 
periodical employs.

Paperity website: http://paperity.org/




--

Marcin Wojnarski, Founder of Paperity, www.paperity.orghttp://www.paperity.org

www.linkedin.com/in/marcinwojnarskihttp://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinwojnarski

www.facebook.com/Paperityhttp://www.facebook.com/Paperity

www.twitter.com/Paperityhttp://www.twitter.com/Paperity



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

[GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on Predatory Journals

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Dana,

It would be so sad if you accept that there is a sizeable body of literature 
that might be directly related to your research but that you decide not to read 
it because you can't read it all *and* base your selection of what to read on 
crude criteria not relating to the merits of the individual article. If you 
take a look at the skewed nature of citation frequency of articles in any 
journal and realize that there even is a positive correlation between impact 
factors and retractions in the end you should realize that making a distinction 
in such a crude way is not desirable. That would mean that overall scholarly 
publishing is not functioning anymore, and that it serves more to advance 
careers than to advance science. I do not want to accept that: it would be such 
a waste of talent, money, time etc. and endanger public support and financing 
of science. 

Some suggestions to alleviate this:
- make peer review open (that can still be anonymous if you wish)
- experiment with and invest in post-pub peer review (e.g. PubMed Commons)
- use recommendation systems such as F1000
- next to TOC alerts, also use keyword and citation alerts from Scopus, WoS and 
other AI services (e.g. Keep Me Posted alerts in SciFinder)
- share the burden of current awareness in a research team
- glance over comments, article level metrics and altmetrics links

And yes, I do intend to remain realistic: if you have given several articles 
from a new journal, a non IF-journal, a non US/European, an Open Access journal 
a chance and they proved to be total rubbish it is completely logical that you 
will be less inclined to read more papers from that journal. But over time, and 
especially if an article is exactly on topic, I would advise to give it another 
chance.

But let's return to the topic of this list: do you know of anybody in your 
institution that has been fooled by a real scam journal? I always ask our 
faculty but have not yet come across any such person. Almost all have received 
soliciting emails, but just tossed them aside. Every once in a while faculty 
approach us with the request to profile a certain journal that they haven't 
heard about before. That is no big deal. So yes, it is a relatively minor 
annoyance, something that worries me much less than the peer review crisis.

Best,
Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library


-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Dana Roth
Sent: donderdag 25 september 2014 5:55
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on Predatory 
Journals

I agree with Chuck ... and feel it is totally unrealistic to assume serious 
researchers have the time to wade thru anything more than a fraction of what is 
being published.  Is there really anything better than limiting current 
awareness to high quality peer reviewed journals, and SciFinder, etc. for 
retrospective searching for very specific information or review articles?

Dana L. Roth
Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of David 
Prosser [david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:05 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc: Siler, Elizabeth; Tokoro, Shoko; Hoon, Peggy
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper   on  
Predatory  Journals

I think that every article should be read on it's own merits and it should not 
have value assigned to it just because it has managed to get into a certain 
club (journal).  It is saddening to me that this suggestion should be 
considered even vaguely radical.

When Science carried out its 'Sting' on open access titles there were journals 
on Beall's list that rejected the paper.  Other not on his list (including one 
published under the auspices of Elsevier ) accepted it.  I'm all for context, 
but if we are considering a researcher's future and funding surely we owe it to 
them to judge them on their own merits and not on the arbitrary criteria of one 
chap in Colorado.

David

On 24 Sep 2014, at 10:40, Hamaker, Charles 
caham...@uncc.edumailto:caham...@uncc.edu wrote:

So every article from every journal should be read under the assumption that 
peer review markers are a poor way to make a preliminary decision point as to 
whether  the article merits attention?
It's going to be difficult to assume every one is expert enough to judge every 
paper they read solely on the content absent context of labeling or assumption 
of  basic peer review.
 Journal labels provide a context. Are we to ignore that?
Doesn't that make introduction to a literature for novices or the task of 
anyone reading outside the narrow boundaries of their discipline almost 

[GOAL] Re: Library Vetting of Repository Deposits

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

As a librarian knowing OA far far worse than you do I completely agree that we 
can speed up the process. To me publishing is pushing a button as soon as 
you're ready. All else comes afterwards. Ideally that includes peer review by 
the way (the ArXiv/preprint model), but that's not the point here.
I would advise against making the FT-request-button default. Instead make 
immediate FT OA default and the button an option for researchers having serious 
concerns about possible copyright infringement. When new deposits have the 
button activated that could function as a flag for librarians to give those 
deposits priority treatment.

Best,
Jeroen Bosman



Op 23 sep. 2014 om 17:09 heeft Stevan Harnad 
amscifo...@gmail.commailto:amscifo...@gmail.com het volgende geschreven:



On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Richard Poynder 
ri...@richardpoynder.co.ukmailto:ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk wrote:
I suspect that Andrew Adams and Stevan Harnad may be asking for two 
contradictory things here. If I understand correctly, they want 1) as near 100% 
OA as soon as possible and 2) for librarians to get out of the way so that 
researchers can get on and self-archive. Given that many researchers have shown 
themselves to be generally uninterested in open access and, in some cases, 
directly antagonistic towards it, and given that over half of UK researchers 
appear to be unware of whether or not their future articles will need to be 
published in accordance with the RCUK policy or not (http://goo.gl/Y3Lyua) I 
cannot see how keeping librarians (who have done so much to fill repositories 
and to educate researchers about OA) out of the way (wish 2) is going to help 
achieve wish 1.

Not contradictory at all:

Librarians are invaluable in (1) advocating OA, (2) encouraging authors to 
deposit, and in (3) mediating deposit for those who won't deposit on their own.

We are talking here about a 4th contingency: Authors deposit on their own, but 
their deposit is not made OA until it has been vetted by a librarian.

This is the contingency both Andrew and I are suggesting to scrap. Librarians 
can vet after the deposit has already been made, and been made immediately OA 
(if the author so chooses), but not in between the two,

But John Salter at Leeds has just made an even better proposal on 
JISC-REPOSITORIES:

On Sep 23, 2014, at 10:13 AM, John Salter wrote:
...
For a while I’ve been pondering our process:
Deposit - Review - Live.
I want to change it to:
Deposit (direct to live) with mediated access to full text (request button).
In parallel:
- Process full texts (whilst MD record is live) – opening up any that we can.
- Metadata validation/enrichment

Does that sound like a better model than we currently use?

Cheers, John, Repository developer, based in a Library
Direct live deposit by the author with the default set to immediate 
Button-mediated Restricted Access (RA) (till the library vetting clears it to 
Open Acess (OA)) would be absolutely splendid!

(It would be even better if authors who wished to do so could over-ride the RA 
default and set access to immediate OA. The result of the library vetting could 
then be communicated to the author directly once it’s done.)

Best wishes,

Stevan Harnad



From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Stevan Harnad
Sent: 23 September 2014 14:33
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in 
Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex

Andrew is so right.

We did the rounds of this at Southampton, where the library (for obscure 
reasons of its own) wanted to do time-consuming and frustrating (for the 
author) checks on the deposit (is it suitable? is it legal? are the metadata 
in order?). In ECS we bagged that right away. And now ECS has fast lane 
exception in the university repository (but alas other departments do not). 
Similar needless roadblocks (unresolved) at UQAM.

Librarians: I know your hearts are in the right place. But please, please trust 
those who understand OA far, far better than you do, that this library vetting 
-- if it needs to be done at all -- should be done after the deposit has 
already been made (by the author) and has already been made immediately OA (by 
the software). Please don't add to publishers' embargoes and other roadblocks 
to OA by adding gratuitous ones of your own.

Let institutional authors deposit and make their deposits OA directly, without 
intervention, mediation or interference. Then if you want to vet their 
deposits, do so and communicate with them directly afterward.

P.S. This is all old. We've been through this countless times before.

Dixit

Weary Archivangelist, still fighting the same needless, age-old battles, on all 
sides...

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Andrew A. Adams 
a...@meiji.ac.jpmailto:a...@meiji.ac.jp wrote:

The challenge 

[GOAL] Re: Is there a serials crisis yet? When it comes to Theological and Religious Studies journals, I’d have to say yes

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Gary,

Not wanting to defend high price increases I do think that you should take into 
account the number of papers published in the average journal in the various 
fields and how this number develops over time. The typical humanities journal 
may have 4-6 issues with 4-8 papers, so 16-48 papers per annum whereas the 
typical chemistry journal may have 8-12 issues with 24-48 papers resulting in 
192-572 papers per annum. This partly explaines the big interfield journal cost 
variety. 

I suspect that the pressure to publish and sheer growth of the number of 
researchers has caused these numbers to rise over the past few years, also in 
humanities. That also partly explaines the rising journal costs. So take a per 
article view. Or academics should decide to write less and read and think more 
;-)

Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library

-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Omega Alpha | Open Access
Sent: woensdag 25 juni 2014 17:58
To: goal@eprints.org; sparc-oafo...@arl.org
Subject: [GOAL] Is there a serials crisis yet? When it comes to Theological and 
Religious Studies journals, I’d have to say yes

Is there a serials crisis yet? When it comes to Theological and Religious 
Studies journals, I’d have to say yes
http://wp.me/p20y83-X4

The other day, over on Library Journal’s website, Dorothea Salo published a 
short piece entitled “Is There a Serials Crisis Yet? Between Chicken Little and 
the Grasshopper,” which, as it happens, I read the evening after participating 
on a panel presentation at the American Theological Library Association’s 
annual conference in New Orleans. The panel was entitled “Open Access: 
Responding to a Looming ‘Serials Crisis’ in Theological and Religious Studies.” 
My role on the panel was to place the case for open access within a context 
that suggested unsustainable journal pricing was no longer limited to 
disciplines in the Sciences. Although Humanities journals, including those in 
Theological and Religious Studies, are still typically priced at a fraction of 
Science journals, I provided evidence that rapid increases in prices over a 
relatively short period of time pointed to a looming serials crisis in our 
disciplines. …
 
As I mentioned, when we think of the “serials crisis” we have tended to 
associate it with journals in the Sciences. Humanities journals, including 
titles in Theology and Religion are priced at a fraction of Science journals. I 
threw this table up on the screen from figures I pulled from the 2014 Library 
Journal Periodical Price Survey. Since Philosophy  Religion journals are so 
“cheap” we might be tempted to ask, “So what’s the problem?”

To illustrate the problem as I see it, I shared some in-progress research I am 
doing on title and price changes for Theological and Religious Studies journals 
published by the Big 5 commercial academic publishers…
 
Your comments are welcome.

Gary F. Daught
Omega Alpha | Open Access
Advocate for open access academic publishing in religion and theology 
http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com oa.openaccess at gmail dot com | @OAopenaccess

___
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