Re: [GOAL] Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?

[Dana Roth]

Very interesting article, although the author missed a couple of points ...
namely that

1.Maxwell was very clever in providing 'personal subscriptions' to
scientists at subscribing institutions at less than the cost of mailing.

2. The 10% increase in price for Brain Research from 1975 to 1985 was due
both to a 50% increase in the number of articles (1000 to 1500) but also to
exchange rate changes.  The value of the US$ vs Dutch Guilder underwent
some major fluctuations in those years.

3.  Problems with exchange rate profiteering came later.

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:35 AM,  wrote:

> Interesting, especially nostalgic. However, a good start re Elsevier
> became the story of Maxwell. Pity
>
> On June 27, 2017 8:22:08 AM GMT+01:00, "Éric Archambault" <
> eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote:
>>
>> Interesting article in the Guardian that spells out the role played by 
>> Robert Maxwell in the development of the scholarly journal industry.
>>
>> Éric
>>
>>
>> Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for 
>> science?
>> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
>>
>>
>> Eric Archambault
>> 1science.com
>> Science-Metrix.com
>> +1-514-495-6505 x111 <(514)%20495-6505>
>>
>> --
>>
>> GOAL mailing list
>> GOAL@eprints.org
>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>>
>>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>


-- 

Dana L. Roth

dzr...@library.caltech.edu

Special Projects Librarian

Caltech  1-32

1200 E. California Blvd.

Pasadena, CA 91125

626-395-6423
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'

[Dana Roth]

There could be a problem trying to extrapolate from unverified data ... 

I suspect that many of the 'freely available after 6 months' journals are 
either very low cost <$1K/year, non-profit society journals, journals in a 
larger package, or a combination of these.

Perhaps David would take a look the 30 titles and provide some additional data?

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: Sunday, October 18, 2015 5:38 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: ?spam? Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the 
story'

It is well known that what people do and what they say they will do can be 
different.  If you find that real-life behaviour and reported behaviour are 
different then you have to look at where the problems lie with the surveys.

There are a number of journals that make papers freely available in less than 
12 months.  For example, almost 30 journals hosted by HighWire make papers 
freely available after 6 months:

http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl

If it was true that almost half of subscribers will cancel if the embargo is 
less than 12 months then how are these 6-month journals surviving?  Their 
subscription base should be massively reduced.  If they really are 
haemorrhaging subscribers surely we would now about it.

So we have surveys telling us one thing, reality telling us something else.  
Alicia would have us focus on the surveys and ignore reality.  I would rather 
we worked with real behaviour.

David


On 16 Oct 2015, at 16:30, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) 
> wrote:

Hi Danny –

Publishers support sustainable approaches to Green OA as well as Gold OA – 
indeed that was the focus of the panel discussion at the STM conference.

For articles that are published under the subscription business model, when and 
how they are made available for free (on a wide array of platforms – 
institutional repositories are one important example of these platforms) does 
make a difference.  In my experience publishers are both evidence-based and 
thoughtful about how they set embargo periods and so forth.

The evidence that is factored into decision-making currently includes:


1. Usage Evidence



In 2014 Phil Davis published a study commissioned by the Association of 
American Publishers which demonstrates that journal article usage varies widely 
within and across disciplines, and that only 3% of of journals have half-lives 
of 12 months or less. Health sciences articles have the shortest median 
half-life of the journals analyzed, but still more than 50% of health science 
journals have usage half-lives longer than 24 months. In fields with the 
longest usage half-lives, including mathematics and the humanities, more than 
50% of the journals have usage half-lives longer than 48 months. See 
http://publishers.org/sites/default/files/uploads/PSP/journalusagehalflife.pdf



2. Evidence for the link between embargos, usage and cancellations



A 2012 study by ALPSP was a simple one-question survey: "If the (majority of) 
content of research journals was freely available within 6 months of 
publication, would you continue to subscribe?" The results “indicate that only 
56% of those subscribing to journals in the STM field would definitely continue 
to subscribe. In AHSS, this drops to just 35%. See 
http://www.alpsp.org/ebusiness/AboutALPSP/ALPSPStatements/Statementdetails.aspx?ID=407
  This 2012 study builds on earlier, more nuanced, studies undertaken for ALPSP 
in 2009 and 2006. The 2009 ALPSP study (see the next to last bullet) found that 
"overall usage" is the prime factor that librarians use in making cancellation 
decisions. The 2006 ALPSP study (see points 7 and 8) found that "the length of 
any embargo" would be the most important factor in making cancellation 
decisions.



A 2006 PRC study (see pages 1-3) shows that a significant number of librarians 
are likely to substitute green OA materials for subscribed resources, given 
certain levels of reliability, peer review and currency of the information 
available. With a 24 month embargo, 50% of librarians would use the green OA 
material over paying for subscriptions, and 70% would use the green OA material 
if it is available after 6 months. See 
http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/115-prc-projects/research-reports/self-archiving-and-journal-subscriptions-research-report/145-self-archiving-and-journal-subscriptions-co-existence-or-competition-an-international-survey-of-librarians-preferences



3. Experiences of other journals



For example, the Journal of Clinical Investigation which went open access with 
a 0 month 

[GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'

[Dana Roth]

Isn't the JCI unique in the sense that it is has a relatively very inexpensive 
subscription rate?

A personal subscription provides a monthly (now electronic) plop on the desk 
that serves as a reminder to users that each new issue is available.

This is similar to our experience that, some years after an electronic library 
subscription to all the journals published by the American Chemical Society, 
there were still over 20 individual subscribers to the print issues.

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 Kiley, 
Robert [r.ki...@wellcome.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 9:20 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'

Colleagues

I think I have made this point before, but what for me is astonishing about the 
JCI data is that even after 13 years of making the version of record (VoR) 
content, free at the time of publication, on publisher site and PMC, they had 
ONLY lost 40% of subscriptions.  Why were 60% of subscribers still subscribing?

Of course, in this example, as everything was free at zero months, it is not 
especially relevant to the “green” debate.  In my experience “green” always 
comes with an embargo and invariably refers to the AAM (not the VoR).

Robert

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)
Sent: 16 October 2015 16:31
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc: Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story'

Hi Danny –

Publishers support sustainable approaches to Green OA as well as Gold OA – 
indeed that was the focus of the panel discussion at the STM conference.

For articles that are published under the subscription business model, when and 
how they are made available for free (on a wide array of platforms – 
institutional repositories are one important example of these platforms) does 
make a difference.  In my experience publishers are both evidence-based and 
thoughtful about how they set embargo periods and so forth.

The evidence that is factored into decision-making currently includes:


1. Usage Evidence



In 2014 Phil Davis published a study commissioned by the Association of 
American Publishers which demonstrates that journal article usage varies widely 
within and across disciplines, and that only 3% of of journals have half-lives 
of 12 months or less. Health sciences articles have the shortest median 
half-life of the journals analyzed, but still more than 50% of health science 
journals have usage half-lives longer than 24 months. In fields with the 
longest usage half-lives, including mathematics and the humanities, more than 
50% of the journals have usage half-lives longer than 48 months. See 
http://publishers.org/sites/default/files/uploads/PSP/journalusagehalflife.pdf



2. Evidence for the link between embargos, usage and cancellations



A 2012 study by ALPSP was a simple one-question survey: "If the (majority of) 
content of research journals was freely available within 6 months of 
publication, would you continue to subscribe?" The results “indicate that only 
56% of those subscribing to journals in the STM field would definitely continue 
to subscribe. In AHSS, this drops to just 35%. See 
http://www.alpsp.org/ebusiness/AboutALPSP/ALPSPStatements/Statementdetails.aspx?ID=407
  This 2012 study builds on earlier, more nuanced, studies undertaken for ALPSP 
in 2009 and 2006. The 2009 ALPSP study (see the next to last bullet) found that 
"overall usage" is the prime factor that librarians use in making cancellation 
decisions. The 2006 ALPSP study (see points 7 and 8) found that "the length of 
any embargo" would be the most important factor in making cancellation 
decisions.



A 2006 PRC study (see pages 1-3) shows that a significant number of librarians 
are likely to substitute green OA materials for subscribed resources, given 
certain levels of reliability, peer review and currency of the information 
available. With a 24 month embargo, 50% of librarians would use the green OA 
material over paying for subscriptions, and 70% would use the green OA material 
if it is available after 6 months. See 
http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/115-prc-projects/research-reports/self-archiving-and-journal-subscriptions-research-report/145-self-archiving-and-journal-subscriptions-co-existence-or-competition-an-international-survey-of-librarians-preferences



3. Experiences of other journals



For example, the Journal of Clinical Investigation which went open access with 
a 0 month embargo in 1996 and lost c. 40% of institutional subscriptions over 

[GOAL] Re: Beall's list: crowdsource scholarly critique?

[Dana Roth]

Heather:  I fail to see that focusing on GOLD OA publishers is a distraction.  
Jeffrey Beall is providing a unique service that should not be denigrated.  If 
"His own work could benefit from the same critical lens" ... I don't think he 
would object ... who is willing to step up?

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 Heather 
Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 8:23 AM
To: Global Open Access List
Subject: [GOAL]  Beall's list: crowdsource scholarly critique?

Assuming  that I am not alone in my concern about over-reliance on Beall's 
list, perhaps we can find a solution that targets this specific problem without 
more work than is really necessary? One thought for a remedy:  could we find a 
way to crowdsource objective, dispassionate scholarly critique of this list and 
the assumptions people make about it?

For example, the focus on OA publishers is a distraction from the fact that 
problematic practices can and do happen with all types of publishers. This is a 
serious limitation to Beall's list, which should be highlighted to the reader. 
As a peer reviewer or editor, I would insist that Beall do this before 
publishing his work, if this list were submitted to me for review.

A similar type of issue is an assumption that Beall categorizes all publishers 
on the list as predatory. Even Beall's title should make it clear that the 
range is potential, probable of actual predatory publishers. This is a system 
of assumption of guilt that does fit with expectations of justice in Canada or 
the US. Anyone is a potential criminal or predatory if a publisher; it is not 
possible to prove otherwise.

If we have evidence that Beall refuses to remove a publisher from the list when 
provided with proof that the publisher is legit, let's post the proof or at 
least provide a place where people can post. This might be helpful to scholars 
who have decided to ignore Beall in publishing choices for valid reasons.

Scholarly critique, including critique of OA practices, is necessary to advance 
our knowledge. Beall has done some good work in exposing poor practices. His 
own work could benefit from the same critical lens.

just a thought.

Heather Morrison





___
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: Need for a new beginning - Assessing Publishers and Journals Scholarly Practices - Reloaded

[Dana Roth]

Jeron makes some excellent points ... I would hope that we could stop lumping 
all subscription journals together and distinguish between non-profit society 
journals and commercial journals.

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 Bosman, 
J.M. (Jeroen) [j.bos...@uu.nl]
Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 9:02 AM
To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Need for a new beginning - Assessing Publishers and 
Journals Scholarly Practices - Reloaded

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 

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

[Dana Roth]

I not sure I understand Eric's 'unaddressed problem'.  Web of Science has a 
very rigorous selection policy and Jeffrey Beall has an informative listing of 
'suspect' OA journals.  Shouldn't these resources provide prospective authors 
with sufficient information to make an informed decision on where or where not 
to publish?

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 Heather 
Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]

Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2015 8:55 AM

To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)

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






hi Eric,



It is good to see a discussion of this topic. Some preliminary thoughts:



The journal-level peer review process involved in the SSHRC Aid to Scholarly 
Journals is a type of model I suggest others look at. The primary questions 
have nothing to do with metrics, but rather are qualitative, whether a high 
standard of review is met.
 There likely are similar models elsewhere - I am sure that one needs to fit 
within the academic community to be part of Scielo, for example. Research to 
gather information on what people are doing would be helpful. Regional or 
discipline-based approaches would
 make sense.



I question the need for a universal list, and for metrics-based approaches. 
Whether a contribution to our knowledge is sound and important and whether it 
has an immediate short-term impact are two completely separate questions. My 
perspective is that work
 is needed on the impact of metrics-based approaches. 



The important questions for scholars in any discipline should be "what to read" 
and "where to publish", not any metric, traditional or alternative. I think we 
scholars ourselves should take responsibility for the lists and recommending 
journals for indexing
 rather than leaving such questions to the commercial sector.



Heather


On Oct 3, 2015, at 11:25 AM, "Éric Archambault" 
 wrote:







BODY {direction: ltr;font-family: Arial;color: #00;font-size: 12pt;}P 
{margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}




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 so-called “alternative metrics”)?
-What metrics of peer-review and quality-assessment effectiveness should be 
used?
-What other metrics would be relevant?

 
Perhaps before addressing the above questions 

[GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

[Dana Roth]

I strongly agree with Jeffrey Beall ... journals, like 'ACS Central Science', 
that provide OA without author charges need to be recognized and applauded!

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.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Stevan 
Harnad [amscifo...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 9:16 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

1. Green OA means OA provided by the author (usually by self-archiving the 
refereed, revised, accepted final draft in an OA repository)

2. Gold OA means OA provided by the journal (often for a publication fee)

3. Gratis OA means free online access.

4. Libre OA means Gratis OA plus various re-use rights

There is no Platinum OA. OA is about access, not about funding mechanisms (of 
which there are three: subscription fee, publication fee, or subsidy [the 
latter not to be confused with gratis])

After at least a decade and a half I think it would be a good idea to stop 
fussing about what to call it, and focus instead on providing it...

Stevan Harnad,
Erstwhile Archivangelist

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Beall, Jeffrey 
jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edumailto:jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu wrote:
For the record, some also use the term platinum open access, which refers to 
open-access publications for which the authors are not charged (no charge to 
the author and no charge to the reader). Using this term brings great clarity 
to discussions of open-access journals and author fees. Using gold to refer 
both to journals that charge authors (gold) and those that do not charge 
authors (platinum) leads to confusion, ambiguity, and misunderstanding.

Some have abused the term gold open access to promote open access, 
proclaiming, for example, that most peer-reviewed open access journals charge 
no fees at all. [1] This misleading statement is based on a 2012 study that 
examined a non-representative subset of open-access journals, a limited cohort, 
so conclusions that apply to all OA journals cannot, and should not, be drawn 
from it.

Jeffrey Beall

[1]. 
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/open-access-myths-peter-suber-harvard

-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Danny Kingsley
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 8:56 AM
To: goal@eprints.orgmailto:goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

Thanks Helene,

Yes you are not the first to be confused which was which because I put the 
terms in a different order.

Gold open access is 'born' open access - because it is published open in an 
open access journal (with or without a cost), or in a hybrid journal where the 
remainder of the journal remains under subscription (always incurs a cost). 
There are many, many times that the terms 'gold open access' has been taken to 
mean 'pay for open access'. Publishers of course have done little to dissuade 
this impression.

Green open access is 'secondary' open access because it is published in a 
traditional manner (usually a susbcription journal) and a copy of the work is 
placed in a repository - institutional or subject.

I hope that is a bit clearer. I agree it would not be easy to change. But we 
all used to call things preprints and postprints. That really made no sense 
because post-prints were not yet printed. We do not use those terms any more, 
not in the UK anyway. We use the terms Submitted Manuscript, Author's Accepted 
Manuscript (AAM) and Version of Record (VoR).

Regards,

Danny

 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was
 scrubbed...
 URL:
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20150814/8a9
 4cdff/attachment-0001.html

 --

 Message: 2
 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:28:01 +0200
 From: H?l?ne.Bosc hbosc-tcher...@orange.frmailto:hbosc-tcher...@orange.fr
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues
 To: Global Open Access List \(Successor of AmSci\)
   goal@eprints.orgmailto:goal@eprints.org
 Message-ID: 8A81FFDC57274D9287431EE2740BA515@PCdeHelene
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

 Yes there is an appetite for trying to rebuilt the past in changing OA names!
 But even if the words Green and Gold can hurt some people it has been
 adopted for years now by all institutions, for example in European
 reports, since 2006. See the last one in June 2015 :
 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/open-access-scientific-informati
 on

 Of course, everybody can rename Green and Gold as well as Open Access. But 
 the difficulty will be to get the change worldwide.

 

[GOAL] Re: Journals Consortium Archive - dodgy or legit?

[Dana Roth]

The journals listed on the 'journalconsortium' webpage are published by 
'Academic Journals' ... which is listed on Beall's List:  
http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

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.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Peter 
Burnhill [peter.burnh...@ed.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 11:19 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc: ukcorr-discuss...@jiscmail.ac.uk
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Journals Consortium Archive - dodgy or legit?

I would worry about this

Peter Burnhill
Director, EDINA
University of Edinburgh

Desk: +44 (0) 131 650 3301tel:+44%20(0)%20131%20650%203301
Text: +44 (0) 7740 763119tel:+44%20(0)%207740%20763119

On 6 Aug 2015, at 12:36 pm, Danny Kingsley 
da...@cam.ac.ukmailto:da...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

Hello all,

One of our PhD students has received an offer to upload their thesis to 
something called the 'Journals Consortium Archive' 
http://journalsconsortium.org/

I have never heard of them, the 'About us' tab is a file not found and there is 
no information yet about Australia or the UK. This raises some suspicions (to 
say the least).

But before I respond with a loud warning to the student I would like to check 
that this is not some new start up that is legitimate. Please let me know if 
you have had a positive experience with these people.

Regards

Danny


INTRODUCING ARCHIVE OF POSTGRADUATE DISSERTATIONS

Dear Dr. ,

We are glad to introduce to you the Journals Consortium Archive of
Postgraduate Dissertations [1].

Postgraduate thesis/dissertations are resources of immense research
value across academic disciplines. Unfortunately, most
thesis/dissertations tend to be restricted to university libraries and
archives.

Journals Consortium Postgraduate Archive
http://pgd.journalsconsortium.org/ [1] provides a new and exciting way
of digitally archiving postgraduate thesis/dissertations. This enables
postgraduate students to archive their thesis/dissertations by uploading
them to the Journals Consortium Postgraduate Archive platform. This not
only extend these thesis/dissertations work from university libraries to
the global academic community, but also gives them a global audience and
better chances for these thesis/dissertations to be cited by other
researchers.

Using the Open Access model, these thesis /dissertations will be freely
available to all researchers by simply visiting the Journals Consortium
Postgraduate Archive website [1].

Please inform your colleagues and students of this archive and encourage
them to submit their postgraduate theses/dissertations.

Yours sincerely,

Postgraduate Dissertations Department

Journals Consortium

dissertati...@journalsconsortium.orgmailto:dissertati...@journalsconsortium.org

http://journalsconsortium.org/ [2]

Links:
--
[1]
http://msl.journalsconsortium.org/index.php?subid=391656option=com_acymailingctrl=urlurlid=31mailid=22
[2]
http://msl.journalsconsortium.org/index.php?subid=391656option=com_acymailingctrl=urlurlid=13mailid=22
[3]
http://msl.journalsconsortium.org/index.php?subid=391656option=com_acymailingctrl=urlurlid=14mailid=22
[4]
http://msl.journalsconsortium.org/index.php?subid=391656option=com_acymailingctrl=urlurlid=15mailid=22
[5]
http://msl.journalsconsortium.org/index.php?subid=391656option=com_acymailingctrl=urlurlid=16mailid=22
[6]
http://msl.journalsconsortium.org/index.php?subid=391656option=com_acymailingctrl=usertask=outmailid=22key=KIJRuBvw8UYM9L





--
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head of Scholarly Communications
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: da...@cam.ac.ukmailto:da...@cam.ac.uk
T: @dannykay68
ORCID iD: -0002-3636-5939

___
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: Emerald Group Publishing tests ZEN, increases prices: what does it mean?

[Dana Roth]

Doesn't this fit in with Emerald's previous policy of taking over existing  
library science journals and doubling the price?

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

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Richard Poynder
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 5:15 AM
To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Emerald Group Publishing tests ZEN, increases prices: what does 
it mean?

Earlier this month Emerald Group Publishing announced that it is launching a 
Green Open Access, Zero Embargo trial for 21 Library and Information Science 
and Information and Knowledge Management journals.

At the same time it has increased the APC for 32 of its Engineering and 
Technology journals by nearly 70%.

What is the background to this, and what should we make of it?

Some commentary is available here:

http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/emerald-group-publishing-tests-zen.html

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

[GOAL] Re: Dutch begin their Elsevier boycott

[Dana Roth]

I agree with Christian in the sense that librarians have a responsibility to 
their faculty to make them aware of the significant pricing disparity between 
non-profit society journals and commercially published journals.  Most faculty 
are reasonable, especially when given solid data, when cancellation decisions 
must be made.

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.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of 
Christian Gutknecht [christian.gutkne...@bluewin.ch]
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 10:41 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Dutch begin their Elsevier boycott

Hi

Indeed it's systemic problem, but libraries ever had the best options to make 
the transition happen, simply because they have the money. I pointed out that 
here: http://www.0277.ch/ojs/index.php/cdrs_0277/article/view/48/129

I think with the library budget there comes power and responsibility. However 
libraries are totally unaware of this power (if coordinated) and often are not 
willing take responsibility.

Best regards

Christian









Am 03.07.2015 um 18:06 schrieb Y.Nobis 
yn...@cam.ac.ukmailto:yn...@cam.ac.uk:

Hi all,

I fail to see how this is a 'library made' problem in any sense. The issue
is that for many of us, our purchasing decisions are dictated to by our
faculty. Interestingly in the physical sciences at least, I am now being
asked to review (by academics) whether we should subscribe to journals at
all.

Yvonne


Thomas

I don't think it's fair to say this is a problem made by libraries. It is
a systemic problem which calls for systemic solutions. Part of the
solution is to make OA more discoverable and this starts with systems
such as RePEC being more user-friendly and clearly and simply exposing
what is OA, instead of burying it among subscription-only contents.

It's just too easy to single out one source of problem and claim that
it only has the solution. We have lost this capacity to feel concerned
individually and while we continue to be divided, large MNC continue to
rule. Kudos to the Dutch's universities for grouping their efforts, I
hope they succeed in getting a better deal.

Éric



-Original Message- From: 
goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Krichel Sent:
July-03-15 8:14 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Dutch begin their Elsevier boycott


Danny Kingsley writes

Dutch universities have begun their boycott of Elsevier due to a
complete breakdown of negotiations over Open Access.

I guess the Summer silly season is here.

As a first step in boycotting the publisher, the Association of
Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) has asked all scientists that
are editor in chief of a journal published by Elsevier to give up
their post.

It would be very foolish indeed for any academic to give up such a
prestigious post forever, presumably, to come in aid of a temporary,
presumably, boycott, with no compensation from the boycotters.

If this way of putting pressure on the publishers does not work, the
next step would be to ask reviewers to stop working for Elsevier.

This may have a small effect since reviewing for journals is a
tedium to many academics. Dutch academics can use the boycott as as
excuse not to review. But publishers can draw on a non-Dutch
reviewers.

After that, scientists could be asked to stop publishing in Elsevier
journals.

Good luck with that. As an academic you have to take submission
decisions based on the likelihood to be in a good journal, not
based on some boycott ideology.

The whole strategy makes very little sense whatsoever from a
theoretical perspective thinking about academics' incentives. And
there is historical evidence that adds weight to the theoretical
argument. Recall the Public Library of Science.  Before it became a
publishing business, it was a grass root group. It issued a similar
boycott call. I can't find the text now. I guess they withdrew the
text from public view. By my impression it was completely
ineffective.

Libraries have created, and continue to maintain the closed-access
publication system by subscribing to journals. They should stop
subscribing to journals and use the proceeds to fund open access
publications.  Publishers will get the same revenue stream but open
access is achieved.

In short: Stop bothering academics and publishers about a
library-made problem.



--
Yvonne Nobis

Head of Science Information Services

Betty and Gordon Moore Library
Wilberforce Road,
Cambridge, CB3 0WD.
Tel : 01223 765673

Central Science Library
Bene't Street,
Cambridge CB2 3PY.
Tel (01223)334744

___
GOAL mailing list

[GOAL] Another aspect of OA ... PWYW (pay what you want)

[Dana Roth]

Thieme announces new research project examining authors’ perceptions of APC and 
Pay What You Want as a business model for academic journals - 04 Jun 2015

Medical and scientific publisher Thiemehttp://www.thieme.com/ has announced a 
collaboration with the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität of Munich's School of 
Management and Department of Economics in a groundbreaking research project. 
The project involves examining authors' perceptions of Article Processing Fees 
(APC) and Pay What You Want (PWYW) as a business model for academic journals.

The LMU research department will be setting up the trial parameters so that the 
results can be analyzed and ultimately published for academics, publishers and 
anyone else interested in Open Access publishing and PWYW as a business model.

This collaboration coincides with the launch of The Surgery Journal, a new Open 
Access, multi-disciplinary journal publishing original research and reviews on 
all surgical specialties. Following acceptance of a paper after peer review, 
authors will be given the opportunity to pay an APC fee that they feel is most 
suitable (Pay What You Want - PWYW).

The Surgery Journal (TSJ) is a unique, all-encompassing, open access journal 
for surgeons and trainee surgeons of all disciplines, as well as other medical 
professionals engaged in the support and surgical treatment of patients. 
Available online only, it will publish original articles, reviews, and case 
reports.

TSJ is an essential resource for surgeons of every specialty seeking a 
diversified insight into surgery, pre- and post-operative care, emerging 
operative equipment and techniques, and the issues facing surgical practice.

[Click 
here]http://www.thieme.com/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=881:thieme-to-launch-new-pay-what-you-want-open-access-journal-this-springcatid=82:2015Itemid=91


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

[GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

[Dana Roth]

Taking Bernard's 'public road' analogy a little further ... one wonders his 
insistence on a 'perfect' solution isn't unfairly denigrating a reasonable (at 
least in the short term) alternative.

The current situation, where the 'public NIH road' is closed temporarily (12 
months) and one has to use a 'toll road' to access embargoed articles, seems 
much better than the situation before the creation of PubMed Central ... which 
now has 3.5 million freely available full text 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.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of 
brent...@ulg.ac.be [brent...@ulg.ac.be]
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 11:02 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

When I want to drive on a public road, whether it is closed or temporarily 
closed makes no difference to me. It is not open. I can't use it.
Embargo is antinomic to open.

Bernard Rentier

Le 1 juin 2015 à 18:26, Stevan Harnad 
amscifo...@gmail.commailto:amscifo...@gmail.com a écrit :

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Michael Eisen 
mbei...@gmail.commailto:mbei...@gmail.com wrote:
There's a difference between trying to be inclusive, and redefining goals and 
definitions to the point of being meaningless. I can not tell you how many 
times I hear that the NIH provides open access because they make articles 
freely available after a year. This is not just semantics. The belief that the 
NIH provides open access with its public access policy provides real drag on 
the quest to provide actual open access. You can argue about whether or not the 
policy is a good thing because it's a step in the right direction, or a bad 
thing because it reifies delayed access. But calling what the provide open 
access serves only to confuse people, to weaken our objectives and give the 
still far more powerful forces who do not want open access a way to resist 
pressure for it.

It's nice to be able to agree with Mike Eisen.

Open Access (OA) comes in two 
degreeshttp://www.sparc.arl.org/resource/gratis-and-libre-open-access: Gratis 
OA is immediate, permanent free online access and Libre OA is Gratis OA plus 
various re-use rights (up to CC-BY or even public domain).

What both degrees of OA share is that they are both immediate (and 
permanent)http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march05/harnad/03harnad.html.

Otherwise, there's just Delayed (Embargoed) Access, which is no more Open 
Access than Toll Access is.

To treat Delayed Access as if it were a form of Open Access would be to reduce 
OA to meaninglessness (and would play into the hands of publishers who would 
like to see precisely that happen).

Stevan Harnad

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Heather Morrison 
heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote:
hi David,

Redefining open access and understanding that a great many people are moving 
towards open access in slightly different ways are two different things. My 
post will focus on the benefits of a more inclusive and welcoming approach to 
open access.

For example, I have been conducting interviews and focus groups with editors of 
small journals that either are, or would like to be, open access. Behind the 
more than 10 thousand journals listed in DOAJ are probably much more than 10 
thousand such editors, working hard to convince colleagues to move to open 
access, struggling to figure out how to do this in order to make ends meet. 
While some of us have been active and vocal in OA discussions and policy 
formulation, others have been quietly doing this work, often contributing a 
great deal of volunteer effort, over the years. We rarely hear from these 
people, but actively listening and figuring out how to provide the support 
needed for the journals to thrive in an OA environment is in the best interests 
of continuing towards a fully open access and sustainable system. These people 
are OA heroes from my perspective, whether their journal is currently OA or 
not. In my experience, when someone says their journal is free online after a 
year and they would like to move to OA, asking about the barriers and what is 
needed to move to OA results in productive discussions.

OpenDOAR maintains a list of over 2,600 vetted open access archives:
http://opendoar.org/

OA archives have made a very great deal of work open access - so much so that 
counting it all is very hard! The thesis, for example, was until recently 
available in perhaps 1 or 2 print copies (that libraries were reluctant to lend 
as they were not replaceable) and microfilm. Today we are well on our way to 
open and online by default for the thesis. arXiv in effect flipped high energy 
physics to full preprint OA close to two 

[GOAL] More RE: Positive example: Springer ... is the Royal Society a better example?

[Dana Roth]

The Royal Society has had a 'transparent-pricing' policy, since 2012, that 
accounts for income, from  'author-pays' open access articles, in setting 
future subscription rates.

See:  http://royalsocietypublishing.org/librarians/transparent-pricing


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

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
brent...@ulg.ac.be
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 10:41 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Positive example: Springer

Eric,

What is the significance of 0.8% (83/10,429) ?
What useful metrics can you draw from that ?
Why would Springer deserve a kudo ? Just for transparency?
What's new if it becomes clear that double-dipping means taking underfunded 
academic institutions for a ride ?

Greetings,

Bernard
_
BernardRentier
Hon. Rector, Université de Liège, Belgium

Le 27 mai 2015 à 00:53, Éric Archambault 
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.commailto:eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com
 a écrit :
Dear all
Yesterday I was complaining about the fact that journals were not transparent 
about their gold à la pièce.
Here is an example of a positive step in the right direction:
http://link.springer.com/journal/10645
Here, one can see clearly what the OA papers are, and one can calculate the 
proportion of Gold to locked papers.
The stats for this journal reveals that 83/10,429 papers are gold à la pièce 
(aka hybrid).
This helps library determine if they are taken for a ride (i.e. with double 
dipping).
I’ll see whether and how Science-Metrix could start monitoring these journals 
to see how much more they get cited (or less, as this is a hypothesis!) – this 
would show the golden benefits to scientific publishers.
Well, Kudo to Springer! The company should definitely be congratulated for 
leading the way among the big three, it is the least afraid of embracing OA, 
the most transparent, and likely to be coming out on top following the 
transition to OA (which certainly won’t be a simple flip, as Stevan said, 
rather a Escher impossible-figure, an evolutionarily unstable strategy. As 
Schumpeter said, these are certainly gales of creative destruction, and let’s 
hope that more progressive publishers such as Springer destroy the market share 
of dinosaurs!).
Éric Archambault
___
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: correction re: How an apparent small price decrease may actually be a large price increase, or why it is important to understand currencies

[Dana Roth]

One way to help keep this straight is to work out the cost per currency.

An Article Processing Charge (APC) of 3,000 EUROs (3,900 USD/GBP2500) works out 
to $1.30/Euro
While an APC of 2,950 EUROS (3,900 USD/GBP 2,500) works out to exchange rate 
of: 1.32$/Euro


Actually, the decrease of 50 Euros (3,000 - 2,950) is a 1.6% decrease (50/3000) 
in Euro pricing ... while the posted USD price remains the same.
I suspect that USD authors must still pay in USD ... just as libraries have to 
pay their subscription agents the posted US$ price, irrespective of the change 
in value of the EURO or GBP price.

All this might be better stated, given today's exchange rate of $1.11/Euro, and 
assuming that the EURO is the primary currency (since it is listed first), the 
USD APC should be $3274.50.

This suggests that EMBO (European Molecular Biology Organization) Press is 
unfairly taking advantage of exchange rates by charging each USD author 16% 
more (3900-3274.5/3900) than they would if the APC charges were honestly based 
on the current exchange rate.

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

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Heather Morrison
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 7:20 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] correction re: How an apparent small price decrease may 
actually be a large price increase, or why it is important to understand 
currencies

My apologies, I got the currency differential backwards - a 21% decrease in the 
EUR should mean a 21% increase in the EUR price, not a decrease.

The basic concept that to understand whether pricing are actually increasing, 
decreasing, or remaining flat, you need to track the pricing in all of the 
currencies, not just one, remains the same. If anyone has pricing for this 
journal from May 2014 in USD or GBP, or if someone from the journal could 
explain their pricing, that would be helpful.

My original incorrect message follows:

This example may help to understand why it is important to consider currency 
fluctuations in assessing trends in pricing. If a journal charges in more than 
one currency, to know whether pricing is flat, decreasing or increasing it is 
necessary to track the pricing in all of the currencies.

Molecular Systems Biology http://msb.embopress.org/authorguide levies an 
Article Processing Charge (APC) of 2,950 EUROS (3,900 USD/GBP 2,500) for each 
Research Articles or Reports accepted for publication. There are no additional 
costs (such as page charges or submission charges). The 2,950 EUROS is a 2% 
price decrease from the 3,000 EUROS we noted last year. But is it really a 
price decrease? As we recently calculated, the EURO has lost 21% in comparison 
with the USD over the past year. If the USD is the primary currency (likely the 
reason for the current EUR price decrease), then the equivalent in EUR today 
would be 2,370 EUR. What looks like a 50 EUR or 2% price decrease may actually 
be a 580 EUR or 24% increase.  Last year we did not capture pricing in all the 
currencies so cannot confirm.

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.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca

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

[GOAL] Re: Title not found: room for improvement in maintaining access to content when journals cease

[Dana Roth]

As an aside, here is the Wikipedia 'background' for Libertas Academica

Libertas Academica, referred to as LA, is a publisher of open access (OA) 
scientific, technical and medical journals. It is privately funded and was 
founded specifically to publish OA journals. It was established in late 2004 
with the launch of two journals, Evolutionary Bioinformatics and Cancer 
Informatics. Additional journals have been published since. It has been 
included on a list of predatory open access 
publishershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beall%27s_List.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertas_Academica#cite_note-1
 In 2005, a single Cancer Informatics Editorial Board member, whose paper was 
under review at the time, proposed an open 'buddy review' system in which 
authors would submit a paper pre-reviewed by peers selected by the authors. A 
significant proportion of the editorial board of one of LA's journals, Cancer 
Informatics, led by Founding Editor-in-Chief James Lyons-Weiler, PhD of the 
University of Pittsburgh, threatened to resign if the publisher changed its 
peer-review systems to the buddy review system, which they perceived as 
corrupt. The publisher kept using its original industry standard review system, 
in place since the founding of the first two journals. The publisher's peer 
review system was, and is based on the standard, 'industry-standard' blind 
review process.[citation 
neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed] In 2013, a sham 
studyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_Afraid_of_Peer_Review%3F reporting 
that a compound isolated from lichen can kill cancer cells was submitted to one 
of the journals published by LA for peer review. After LA used its objective 
peer review system, the sham study was correctly rejected for 
publication.[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertas_Academica#cite_note-2

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

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Heather Morrison
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 12:07 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Title not found: room for improvement in maintaining access to 
content when journals cease


Some open access journal publishers and services may not have much experience 
in the complexities of keeping track of journals and articles as journals 
change over time. The purpose of this post is to highlight the loss of ready 
access that occurs when a journal ceases publication and is removed from DOAJ, 
and sometimes from the publisher's website as well. It is understandable that 
DOAJ wishes to focus on and encourage active open access journals, however 
removing content when journals cease is a disservice to readers and authors 
alike.

Recommendations

Authors: always post a copy of your article in an open access archive, even if 
you have published in an open access journal.

Open access journal publishers: if a title ceases to exist, do not remove the 
title from your website (unless it had no articles at all). If the journal has 
changed title, add a link to help the reader make the connection. If the title 
has ceased, include a note to that effect.

DOAJ: indicate that journals have ceased rather than removing them from DOAJ. 
Include a field to indicate whether journals are active or not. There is an 
end date in DOAJ which seems like a good candidate to use for that purpose.

Examples of title not found

These titles were on the Libertas Academica website in 2014, but have 
disappeared as of May 2015:

  *   Cell Biology Insights
  *   Clinical Medical Insights: Dermatology
  *   Immunotherapy Insights
  *   Particle Physics Insights
This message is the entire content of this blogpost on the Sustaining the 
Knowledge Commons blog:
http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/15/title-not-found-room-for-improvement-in-maintaining-access-to-articles-when-journals-disappear/

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.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca

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

[GOAL] Re: Tech tip for journals contributing metadata to DOAJ; check your publication years in DOAJ

[Dana Roth]

Hi Heather:  FYI ... 

Web of Science indexed 10,932 articles from World J. Gastroenterology with 
publication years 200402013 and 1260 articles with publication year 2013

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 Heather 
Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 1:38 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL]  Tech tip for journals contributing metadata to DOAJ; check 
your publication years in DOAJ

In the course of looking at DOAJ content number correlations, I've come across 
what looks like quite a bit of disparity between the actual article numbers of 
journals per year and the identification of this information in DOAJ. It 
appears that recent changes in metadata harvesting at DOAJ have increased the 
disparity. Checking is recommended. Procedures and details are posted here:
http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/06/tech-tip-for-doaj-journals-contributing-article-level-metadata/

This message has only been posted to the GOAL list. Please share with any other 
venues likely to be monitored by OA journal publishers.

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

[Dana Roth]

I think was is missing here is the realization that Elsevier needs all the 
'good press' that it can generate.  One easy way to do this would be to make 
all the pre-1995 material OA.  Since it is now obviously 20 years old, there 
will be increasingly decreased demand, so what do they have to lose? ... except 
the 'Evil Empire' appellation.

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 Heather 
Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 5:42 PM
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: Master theses as preprints

[Dana Roth]

As an aside, the American Chemical Society has just begun publication of ACS 
Central Science http://pubs.acs.org/journal/acscii

ACS Central Science is entirely open access, with no subscription fees or 
article publishing charges for authors. The review process is stringent and 
efficient. The journal publishes a diverse selection of reviews, interviews and 
commentary material.


ACS Central Science is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to publish 
articles of exceptional quality and interest to the broad chemistry and 
scientific community. The journal addresses important advances in fundamental 
areas of chemistry, as well as applied and interdisciplinary research 
highlighting the seminal role of chemistry in a wide range of other scientific 
disciplines.


The Editors anticipate publishing no more than 200 articles per year, placing 
a premium on articles deemed to be of exceptional scientific quality, 
originality, significance, and breadth of interest to the global chemistry 
community. New journal articles appear online as soon as they are ready for 
publication, and the journal publishes online monthly issues.


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 Couture 
Marc [marc.cout...@teluq.ca]
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 7:01 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Master theses as preprints

Longva Leif wrote:


 So I am still keen on views on how common it is for journals to reject 
 manuscripts
 if the preprint is already available in an IR.


This would be an application of Ingelfinger Rule (no submission accepted in 
case of “prior publication”).

I haven’t found any in-depth study on the criteria journals use to determine 
what constitutes prior publication, or simply on the prevalence of this rule 
these days (some journals/publishers which used to apply the rule have ceased 
to do so).

The following blog post gives some information, notably about major publishers. 
It suggests that posting on an institutional repository is not usually 
considered “prior publication”.

http://www.scilogs.com/from_the_lab_bench/open-access-to-science-communication-research-your-options

As to the specific case of theses (Master or PhD), I would think that even 
fewer publishers apply the rule. I know only of one particular publisher, 
American Chemical Society, among the most anti-OA publishing organizations (no 
self-archiving of articles, very limited reuse rights for authors, etc.), which 
states on its website:

“posting of theses and dissertation material on the Web prior to submission of 
material from that thesis or dissertation to an ACS journal may affect 
publication in that journal. Whether Web posting is considered prior 
publication may be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the journal’s editor.”

http://pubs.acs.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1218205107465/dissertation.pdf

But I would think this hard stance is not shared by many other publishers.

Marc Couture

___
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: Who benefits from for-profit open access publishing? A case study of Hindawi and Egypt

[Dana Roth]

You might want to check further re: Hindawi … 
 
I noticed that some of their journals seem to have an enormous increase in the 
number of published articles … seemingly far above what could be reasonably be 
peer reviewed?
 
This data is from journals indexed by Web of Science or PubMed … and I haven’t 
had time to dig further.
 
Some of the Hindawi journals are publishing ~10 papers a day. That could be 
over two million dollars a year income (@$600/article) for a single journal 
(e.g. Scientific World Journal).
 
Please note the spike in publications when Hindawi changed some journal titles 
or picked up a ‘new’ title:
 
===
 
Biomed Research International – 2013+
   
2013 (2,119) 
 
2014 (3,698)
 
Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology – 2003-2012

2003 (34) 2006 (64) 
2009 (166)   2011 (426)
 
2004 (52) 2007 (45) 
2010 (430)   2012 (490)
 
2005 (45) 2008 (48) 
  
 
=
 
Scientific World Journal – 2012+

2012 (1,160)2013 (1,533)
2014 (3,073)
 
This from its Wikipedia entry:
The Scientific World Journal (formerly, The ScientificWorldJournal) is a 
peer-reviewed scientific journal covering fields in the life sciences ranging 
from biomedicine to environmental sciences. It was established in 2001 and is 
(since 2013) published by Hindawi Publishing Corporation. The journal will not 
be listed in the 2015 Journal Citation Reports because of anomalous citation 
patterns.
 
PubMed still lists the journal under its original title:  ScientificWorldJournal
20143589
20131521
20121154
2011238
2010229
2009160
2008149
2007247
2006263
2005108
2004166
2003117
2002205
2001234
20002
 
===
 
There are also problems with some of their long held titles:
 
Mathematical Problems in Engineering

1995 (20) 2001 (33) 
2006 (87)2011 (270)
1996 (31) 2002 (38) 
2007 (59)2012 (725)
1997 (9)  2003 (12) 
2008 (97)2013 (1,758)
1998 (31) 2004 (26) 
2009 (197)   2014 (2,098)
1999 (22) 2005 (48) 
2010 (288)
2000 (31)  
 
 


Dana L. Roth
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 

-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Bo-Christer Björk
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 9:42 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); David Solomon
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Who benefits from for-profit open access publishing? A case 
study of Hindawi and Egypt

Hi all,

The 1500 USD charged by Hindawi for the journal in question is by global 
standards fairly reasonable, given the impact factor level of the journal. The 
problem is that uniform APCs for all countries is probably unsustainable in the 
long run. For this reason many gold OA journals give Waivers for authors from 
developing countries. In this particular case authors from around 60 countries, 
mainly from Africa and Asia and curiously also Ukraine can get waivers. Egypt 
alas is not on the relevant World Bank list.

The leading publishers do not charge the same amounts for big deal subscription 
licenses in different countries, but take into account the potential customers 
ability to pay (its a bit like airline ticketing). 
Likewise I would hope that if we convert to a dominating APC funded gold OA 
solution, then OA publishers will develop more tieried APC schemes than the 
current binominal full APC- waiver one. There are already some examples of 
policies with at least three levels.

Bo-Christer Björk


On 4/11/15 5:58 PM, Heather Morrison wrote:
 David, Jan  Peter: thank you for your comments. I agree with some of what 
 you say, would like to point to where we said basically the same things in 
 the original post. and have some comments to add:

 Agreed - Hindawi has a deserved reputation as a leader in scholarly 
 publishing, and in particular for commitment to quality. I also acknowledge 
 that Egyptian researchers can benefit by reading the OA works of others. 
 Following are words to this effect from the 

[GOAL] Re: license questions

[Dana Roth]

This from a recent item in Nature ...

RCUK says that the licence problem is compounded by researchers not 
understanding which licence they need to use to comply with the open-access 
policy, and by publishers offering a range of ‘open’ licences. (Since January, 
all 18 open-access journals owned by Nature Publishing Group have switched to 
using the fully liberal CC-BY 4.0 licence as a default, and to charging a flat 
fee.)

---

The RCUK review did not have the remit to question whether RCUK should 
continue to hand out money for gold open-access publishing. But with a new UK 
government in the offing and the country looking increasingly isolated in its 
gold-leaning stance, there must be a concern that the agency might end up 
scrapping its gold preference. Last year, four influential UK 
university-funding bodies announced a green open-access policy that will 
further steer academics towards delayed public archiving of manuscripts.

More at: 
http://www.nature.com/news/all-that-glitters-1.17266?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20150409

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

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

[Dana Roth]

Dear Jeroen Bosman and others:


The definition of Open Access given by Jeroen Bosman seems a little 
restrictive, expecially given the new ACS Central Science, which requires 
neither payment for reading the article nor from the author to publish the 
article.

WSEAS Transactions seems to be following the same business plan … with the 
added feature of WSEAS being a ‘multi-conference’ organizer, which might 
explain their unusual business plan.

Additional details at:  
http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/12/05/wseas-and-naun-two-publishers-and-conference-organizers-to-avoid/


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

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 9:52 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: The Qualis and the silence of the Brazilian researchers

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 

[GOAL] Still on the scientific open access journals in Brazil - response to Heather Morrison

[Dana Roth]

1.  re:  whether editing and peer review are slow or fast depend on factors 
such as speed of communication and do not necessarily reflect quality ... this 
may be valid in a theory, but as a general rule, I would suggest that speed is 
more likely a result of a cursory review than of any increase in 'speed of 
communication'.

2. re: reviewers and editors of quality scholarly journals do not take weeks 
or months to review, accept or reject articles. ... this statement, in regards 
STM publishing is patently untrue.  An honest peer review may result in 
requests for a variety of additions/changes to the original manuscript.

In regards the time it takes between submission and publication. Here is some 
data on articles from the first 2015 issue of J. Am. Chem. Soc.

Communications:

Published In Issue: January 14, 2015
Article ASAP: December 22, 2014
Just Accepted Manuscript: December 08, 2014
Received: August 17, 2014

Published In Issue: January 14, 2015
Article ASAP: December 31, 2014
Just Accepted Manuscript: December 25, 2014
Received: August 17, 2014
--
Published In Issue: January 14, 2015
Article ASAP: December 23, 2014
Just Accepted Manuscript: December 17, 2014
Received: August 21, 2014

Published In Issue: January 14, 2015
Article ASAP: December 29, 2014
Just Accepted Manuscript: November 25, 2014
Received: September 09, 2014
--
Published In Issue: January 14, 2015
Article ASAP: December 22, 2014
Just Accepted Manuscript: November 21, 2014
Received: September 11, 2014
-
Published In Issue: January 14, 2015
 Article ASAP: December 26, 2014
Just Accepted Manuscript: December 18, 2014
Received: September 30, 2014
--
Articles:

Published In Issue: January 14, 2015
Article ASAP: December 22, 2014
Just Accepted Manuscript: December 05, 2014
Received: July 11, 2014

Published In Issue: January 14, 2015
Article ASAP: December 26, 2014
Just Accepted Manuscript: December 10, 2014
Received: July 23, 2014
-
Published In Issue: January 14, 2015
Article ASAP: January 02, 2015
Just Accepted Manuscript: December 19, 2014
Received: July 25, 2014
-

It is also generally recognized that mathematics articles are extremely slow to 
be reviewed.

In regards, Web of Science, one of their major problems is the absence of ASAP 
articles, in contrast to PubMed and SciFinder.  Since Web of Science waits for 
the formal publication of complete journal issues, this causes an additional 
delay in possible retrieval from their database, making PubMed or SciFinder the 
choice for very recently published 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 Heather 
Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 7:11 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Still on the scientific open access journals in Brazil - 
response to Mister Jeffrey Beall

Some questions and comments for Mauricio Tuffani. In brief, I question whether 
Brazilian authors are actually publishing in the journals included in Beall's 
list, note that whether editing and peer review are slow or fast depend on 
factors such as speed of communication and do not necessarily reflect quality, 
and I wonder whether a quadrupling of Brazilian authors' articles in Web of 
Science really reflects productivity, or increased acceptance of Brazilian 
authors and/or journals in Web of Science.

Details

Whether the inclusion of journals on Beall's list of Potential, possible, or 
probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers in Qualis means that 
Brazilian authors are actually publishing in these journals is a hypothesis 
that needs to be tested. I would predict that few (possibly even no) articles 
by Brazilian authors would be found in these journals. One reason for my 
hypothesis is that many such journals have low publication rates. For example, 
Tuffani points to the OMICS Journal of Clinical  Experimental Cardiology: 
http://rs.gs/wcS. This journal appears to publish monthly, with a total of 
about 3 - 4 research articles per issue and 1 -2 case reports. Quickly glancing 
at a few issues, I do not see any evidence suggesting this is a venue used by 
Brazilian authors. Also, the policy for this journals is that articles are only 
accepted in English; would this not discourage submissions from researchers 
writing in Portuguese? To determine whether inclusion of these journals in 
Qualis reflects Brazilian publishing, it would be a good idea to take 

[GOAL] Re: Still on the scientific open access journals in Brazil - response to Mister Jeffrey Beall

[Dana Roth]

It is also not for me to say on behalf of Mr. Beall, but to note that Beall's 
list is solely a listing of Potential, possible, or probable predatory 
scholarly open-access publishers.

http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/



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 Mauricio 
Tuffani [mauri...@tuffani.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 11:26 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Still on the scientific open access journals in Brazil - 
response to Mister Jeffrey Beall

[Message sent again with the same text, but in appropriate format and
with shorter links. Please disregard the previous e-mail. Sorry for
the unformatting.]

Dear GOAL members,

Let me please introduce myself. I am the journalist Mauricio Tuffani,
quoted by Mr. Jeffrey Beall and Mrs. Bianca Amaro. I am a science
writer and collaborator of Folha de S. Paulo
(http://www.folha.com.br), the largest Brazilian daily newspaper. I
have a blog hosted by this newspaper
(http://folha.com/mauriciotuffani).

It is not for me to say on behalf of Mr. Beall, but I must clarify
misconceptions related to my posts and articles.

I am not a researcher, as correctly said Mrs. Amaro, and she is not
the first person to highlight this fact. The same thing was said by
the board of directors of the National Institute for Space Research
(INPE), which in 1989 I accused of defrauding the Amazon deforestation
estimates. In the following year, the institute recognized its small
error of about 50% and fired the coordinator of that work.

And so it has been all these years.

I would like to clarify that I have admiration for the Open Access .
However, I am a journalist, and it is my duty to point out distortions
that are of public interest.

And there have been many distortions in the Brazilian academic
production in recent years. While the number of published articles
nearly quadrupled since 2000 (http://rs.gs/ldB), their relative impact
to the world stagnated in the same period (http://rs.gs/jC2).

Here in Brazil is very common to opt for quantitative growth believing
that later will be possible to increase the quality. Because of this
frequent illusion the country has mountains of waste in its economy,
education, culture and other fields such as science.

In Brazilian science and graduate education this quantitative growth
without attention to quality involves several activities. Academic
publishing is one of them, and within there is Open Access.

The common point of all my posts indicated by Mr. Beall is the fact
that poor quality journals have been accepted in the Qualis database,
of CAPES (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education
Personnel), of the Ministry of Education.

Unlike what said Mrs. Bianca Amaro, I do not criticize the use of
this database for evaluation of Brazilian science in graduate
programs. I just reported that the Qualis database accepts predatory
journals (http://rs.gs/f8c).

And I have reported this in all my posts highlighting clarifications as follows:

Both in the online open access, with fees paid by authors, as in the
traditional model maintained by annual subscriptions or fees per
article download from the Internet, the reputable journals take months
or even over a year to review and accept articles, or rejected them.
Accused of prioritizing minimizing costs and maximizing profits, the
predatory publishers not only reduce to a few weeks the acceptance
of articles, but are less selective and rigorous in this process.

Mr. Jeffrey Beall's message header Open Access in Brazil was in
fact too generic, but made no mistake. I have often received
information that good Brazilian OA journals —which really want to
build the golden road quoted by Mrs. Amaro— are losing the preference
of researchers to predatory journals.

I do not have metrics to show this preference for predatory journals,
but I could show that more than 200 of them were accepted by Qualis,
bringing consequences that come to be ridiculous (http://rs.gs/L9y) or
anecdotal (http://rs.gs/z3b).

Perhaps M r s. Amaro does not know this situation —and I do not know
if she ought to know it— but those who should know it act like they
did not know: CAPES, CNP q (National Council for Scientific and
Technological Development), state funding agencies and universities.

I am very glad that this issue has been brought to this discussion
group. Sometimes problems of Brazilian science have been resolved 
with a little help from its friends outside Brazil. It happened, for
example, with the fraudulent estimate of Amazon deforestation to which
I referred at the beginning of this message.

If the growing garbage from predatory journals in Brazil continue to
be ignored, it will become much 

[GOAL] Re: Any examples of journals charging non refundable fee for peer review?

[Dana Roth]

Speaking of ‘Gold’ Open Access:

I have long wondered why libraries should contribute to the publication costs 
that arise from SCOAP3’s GOLD open access … especially since high energy 
physicists have a very long history of freely providing access to their work, 
historically through paper preprints and currently though the online arXiv 
preprint server.

The subsequent, and seemingly redundant, publication of ‘Gold Open Access’ 
articles then becomes, what appears to be, an expensive affectation … 
especially since arXiv is THE working platform for high energy physics research.


The concept of SCOAP3 seems especially ironic in that libraries have paid, over 
the years, a small fortune to commercial journal publishers … largely because 
of some HEP authors’ desire to avoid the very reasonable page charges formerly 
requested by society-published journals.



Some additional thoughts ... from  colleagues that are familiar with the HEP 
community:



1.  The arXiv eprint is considered as the primary means of scientific 
communication. Some senior scientists don't even seem to publish their papers 
in journals anymore, they just leave them as arXiv eprints.



For example, 14 of the 18 papers, in arXiv authored by Edward Whitten dated 
2010 thru 2013, have not appeared as journal articles … according to Inspire:

https://inspirehep.net/?ln=en



2.  “Sometimes publishers replace citations to eprints with citations to the 
published version of the paper, for completeness, but scientists see them as 
interchangeable. Often-times

the final version posted to arXiv is the published version (at least as far as 
content goes).



3.  I've seen enough Physics and Astrophysics seminars to know that faculty 
provide links in their powerpoints to arXiv URLs and not to the peer reviewed 
journal article.


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

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Stevan Harnad
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:35 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Any examples of journals charging non refundable fee for 
peer review?

Before Mandatory Green Open Access becomes universal, all Gold OA fees are 
overpriced, double-paid, unsustainable Fool's Goldhttp://j.mp/foolsgoldOA 
fees, whether they are for publication of for refereeing.

After Mandatory Green Open Access becomes universal, everything changes, and 
No-Fault refereeing fees become Fair-Gold, affordable and sustainable:

Harnad, Stevan (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity 
Need Not Be Access Denied or 
Delayedhttp://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html. D-Lib Magazine, 
16, (7/8)
Abstract Plans by universities and research funders to pay the costs of Open 
Access Publishing (Gold OA) are premature. Funds are short; 80% of journals 
(including virtually all the top journals) are still subscription-based, tying 
up the potential funds to pay for Gold OA; the asking price for Gold OA is 
still high; and there is concern that paying to publish may inflate acceptance 
rates and lower quality standards. What is needed now is for universities and 
funders to mandate OA self-archiving (of authors' final peer-reviewed drafts, 
immediately upon acceptance for publication) (Green OA). That will provide 
immediate OA; and if and when universal Green OA should go on to make 
subscriptions unsustainable (because users are satisfied with just the Green OA 
versions) that will in turn induce journals to cut costs (print edition, online 
edition, access-provision, archiving), downsize to just providing the service 
of peer review, and convert to the Gold OA cost-recovery model; meanwhile, the 
subscription cancellations will have released the funds to pay these residual 
service costs. The natural way to charge for the service of peer review then 
will be on a no-fault basis, with the author's institution or funder paying 
for each round of refereeing, regardless of outcome (acceptance, 
revision/re-refereeing, or rejection). This will minimize cost while protecting 
against inflated acceptance rates and decline in quality standards.

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 4:46 AM, Frantsvåg Jan Erik 
jan.e.frants...@uit.nomailto:jan.e.frants...@uit.no wrote:
I assume what you are referring to, is what is often called submission fees.

This is treated in this report
http://www.knowledge-exchange.info/Files/Filer/downloads/Open%20Access/KE_Submission_fees_Short_Report_2010-11-25.pdf

Both OA and TA journals use this, some OA journals are listed in a table in the 
report.

Best,
Jan Erik

Jan Erik Frantsvåg
Open Access adviser
The University Library
UiT The Arctic University of Norway
phone +47 77 64 49 50tel:%2B47%2077%2064%2049%2050
e-mail 

[GOAL] Re: Paperity launched. The 1st multidisciplinary aggregator of OA journals papers

[Dana Roth]

It would be nice if 'Paperity' would maintain a listing of the publishers of 
the journals they index.
T-R does this for Web of Science Journal Citation Reports, and it is very 
helpful.

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.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of BAUIN 
Serge [serge.ba...@cnrs.fr]
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 12:07 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Paperity launched. The 1st multidisciplinary aggregator of 
OA journals  papers

Marcin,

May I ask what is the economic model of Paperity?
I didn't find any information about that on your web site.

Cheers

Serge

Envoyé d'un téléphone portable, désolé pour le caractère inélégant...

Le 10 oct. 2014 à 08:22, Marcin Wojnarski 
mwojn...@ns.onet.plmailto:mwojn...@ns.onet.pl a écrit :

Jeroen,

Thanks, it's great to hear that you like Paperity!

True peer-reviewed means published in a peer-reviewed journal, in contrast to 
a pdf just posted somewhere on the web (think Google Scholar), which can be 
anything: a peer-reviewed paper or not, published or not, even randomly 
generated to resemble a scholarly article, for example to pump up G Scholar 
citations (http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0638).

The new technology is called REgular Document EXpressions (redex). It is a 
computer language for analyzing long and complex documents, particularly 
written in a markup, like HTML or XML. It facilitates analysis of web context 
where the paper occured, which is critical for maintaining the link between the 
paper and its journal. Redex builds on top of the very fundamental technology 
of regular expressions (regex), but redefines the language entirely to make it 
suitable for large structured texts.

Best,
Marcin

On 10/09/2014 05:02 PM, Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) wrote:
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.orgmailto: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 

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

[Dana Roth]

If it is such a minor annoyance, why would Elsevier find it necessary to issue 
a Warning regarding fraudulent call for papers ... See:

http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/authors-update/authors-update/warning-re.-fraudulent-call-for-papers

or the necessity of Jeffrey Beall's extensive listing of predatory publishers 
at:

http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

I suspect that David Prosser grossly underestimates the problems these 
publishers cause for researchers in less developed countries.



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: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:30 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on Predatory 
Journals

Quote: Predatory publishing has damaged the very foundations of scholarly and 
academic publishing,

No it hasn’t. It’s a minor annoyance, at most.

David



On 23 Sep 2014, at 07:47, anup kumar das 
anupdas2...@gmail.commailto:anupdas2...@gmail.com wrote:

Predatory Journals and Indian Ichthyology
by R. Raghavan, N. Dahanukar, J.D.M. Knight, A. Bijukumar, U. Katwate, K. 
Krishnakumar, A. Ali and S. Philip
Current Science, 2014, 107(5), 740-742.

Although the 21st century began with a hope that information and communication 
technology will act as a boon for reinventing taxonomy, the advent and rise of 
electronic publications, especially predatory open-access journals, has 
resulted in an additional challenge (the others being gap, impediment and 
urgency) for taxonomy in the century of extinctions.
Predatory publishing has damaged the very foundations of scholarly and academic 
publishing, and has led to unethical behaviour from scientists and researchers. 
The ‘journal publishing industry’ in India is a classical example of ‘predatory 
publishing’, supported by researchers who are in a race to publish. The urge to 
publish ‘quick and easy’ can be attributed to two manifestations, 
i.e.‘impactitis’ and ‘mihi itch’. While impactitis can be associated with the 
urge for greater impact factor (IF) and scientific merit, mihi itch (loosely) 
explains the behaviour of researchers, especially biologists publishing in 
predatory journals yearning to see their name/s associated with a new ‘species 
name’. Most predatory journals do not have an IF, and authors publishing in 
such journals are only seeking an ‘impact’ (read without factor), and 
popularity by seeing their names appear in print media. This practice has most 
often led to the publication of substandard papers in many fields, including 
ichthyology.

Download Full-text Article: 
http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/107/05/0740.pdf
___
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 mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[Dana Roth]

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 
impossible?

Chuck Hamaker



Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone


 Original message 
From: David Prosser
Date:09/24/2014 4:38 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interesting Current Science opinion paper on Predatory 
Journals


Of course, sharp practices such as passing yourself off for another company, 
including the names of Nobel Price winners in your editorial board, repackaging 
papers into fictitious journals at the behest of pharma companies, etc., etc. 
are all to be be deplored.  They are immoral at best and illegal at worst.  But 
they form a tiny part of the overall scholarly communications landscape.  They 
have no more 'damaged the very foundations of scholarly and academic 
publishing’ than ‘Nigerian' scams have damaged the banking industry or paypal 
scams have damaged the very foundations of e-commerce.

Why does Jeffery Beall find it necessary to compile his list of predatory 
publisher?  Well, I’m not privy to Mr Beall’s motivations, but his writing on 
OA certain makes one pause for thought and perhaps provide some clues:

http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525/514

But maybe I am underestimating the effect these journals have.  Does anybody 
know either:

a) What percentage of the world’s scholarly literature is published in journals 
listed by Mr Beall
b) What percentage of papers from authors in less developed countries goes to 
journals listed by Mr Beall
c) What percentage of the total revenue to publishers (estimated at about 
$10billion annually) goes to publishers listed by Mr Beall

If these journals are really 'damaged the very foundations of scholarly and 
academic publishing’ then I would expect the percentages to be higher than tiny.

The interesting point that Raghavan et al make is that these journals are 
publishing bad papers and that this is bad for research in the long run.  They 
make the suggestion that papers published in such journals should not be 
counted in research assessment.  Here’s a radical idea - rather than judge the 
quality of a paper based on Mr Beall’s rather arbitrary criteria, why not judge 
it on the quality of the research in the paper itself?

David


On 23 Sep 2014, at 23:51, Dana Roth 
dzr...@library.caltech.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
 wrote:

If it is such a minor annoyance, why would Elsevier find it necessary to issue 
a Warning regarding fraudulent call for papers ... See:

http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/authors-update/authors-update/warning-re.-fraudulent-call-for-papers

or the necessity of Jeffrey

[GOAL] Re: Library Vetting of Repository Deposits

[Dana Roth]

Thanks to Stevan for reminding the list that working with librarians will, in 
the long run, be much more productive than denigrating their efforts.

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.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Bosman, 
J.M. (Jeroen) [j.bos...@uu.nl]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 8:44 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Library Vetting of Repository Deposits

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 

[GOAL] When Gold OA isn't free to non-subscribers!!

[Dana Roth]

Forwarded from:  
https://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2014/03/26/elseviergate-elsevier-is-still-charging-for-open-access-even-after-i-have-told-them-wellcome-should-take-them-to-court/
Elseviergate;
Elsevier is STILL charging for Open Access even after I have told them. 
Wellcome should take them to court

Someone needs to take formal action against Elsevier. Like taking them to 
court. In this case Wellcome.


Two days ago I posted 
https://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2014/03/24/today-at-elseviergate-more-potholes-and-bumps-on-the-shared-journey-please-help-us-find-paywalled-openaccess-elsevier/
 where  I mentioned an APC-paid Open Access article behind a paywall. In 
response to this Elsevier lifted the paywall.

Prompted by a tweed from Ross Mounce I looked again. Now they have put the 
article back behind the paywall. Requiring non-subscribers to pay for Open 
Access.  Unethical, Immoral and I suspect a clear breach of contract law.


UPDATE: I’ve checked the earlier paywalled Open Access articles and they are 
not accessible to anyone (“we are experiencing technical difficulties”);


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.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm




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

[GOAL] An un-necessary transfer of wealth to publishers?

[Dana Roth]

From Physics World (January issue, p.8, not yet online)

Some 5K papers a year in particle physics will become immediately free to read 
online ...

SCOAP3 will be using 'library' funds to the tune of $1800/article for Phys. 
Lett. B and 1200 GBP/article for New J. Phys. ...

If my math is correct 5K x $1.8K = $9M ...

Won't these papers also be available on arXiv?   If so, I would rather send 
some those $$$ to Cornell to insure arXiv's continued viability.

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.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm



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

[GOAL] Re: Public (Library) Access: A Predictable Publish Sop/Swap for Open Access

[Dana Roth]

I understand Heather Morrison's concern ... but the only way public libraries 
will be funded to provide additional computer/internet connections is thru 
additional use and complaints to local authorities.

However, I strongly suspect that any increase in the use of public library 
computers by researchers from institutions that cannot afford subscription 
access will be miniscule ... 

Dana L. Roth 
Caltech Library  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 


-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Heather Morrison
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 6:30 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Public (Library) Access: A Predictable Publish Sop/Swap 
for Open Access

Some questions and comments from the perspective of a librarian and information 
studies professor:

If UK libraries are able to provide computers and internet access to members of 
the public, that's a good thing. However, if the UK is anything like Canada, 
then I would argue that there are more basic needs that public libraries need 
to meet. While as some of my colleagues are pointing out, many scholars have 
home computers and internet access, this is not true of everyone in the public. 
Here in Canada, line-ups at public libraries for computer and internet access 
and time limitations are quite common. Many people rely on these services in 
order to search and apply for employment and/or government services, to look up 
basic information needed for everyday life such as how to manage an illness, or 
for children or seniors, an opportunity to develop computer and internet skills 
that may be otherwise hard to come by.

For me this is a more important question than the convenience of scholars not 
having to bother going to the public library: is locating this service in 
public libraries likely to make it even harder for people without computers and 
internet at home to search for books, for K-12 students to do their homework, 
for seniors to connect with family? 

I am also wondering whether public libraries have the staffing to provide these 
services. Outside of large urban centers the kind of specialized expertise one 
finds in an academic or special library is not common. In a small to 
medium-sized branch library, staff typically have to be generalists, to manage 
everything from preschool storytime to engaging teenagers in learning 
activities to helping seniors and the disabled to managing facilities issues. 

These issues might be addressed by increasing funding to public libraries. I am 
completely in favor of increasing funding to public libraries, but would 
providing open access to scholars who have home computers really be a priority 
if further funding is available?

If public libraries are looking at this as a means to enhance their profile and 
standing, I argue that this is the wrong approach. Public libraries provide 
important services that can draw people to the library now and into the future. 
Forcing people to go to the library by taking on a gatekeeper role would not 
bode well for libraries.

Aside from the library perspective, this concerns me as a fiscal conservative. 
Forcing people to rely on public resources when not really needed is not a good 
use of tax dollars. 

I am not a member of THE so regret that I am not allowed to comment on their 
site. If someone else is a member and would be willing to point to or copy this 
post that would be appreciated.

my two bits,

Heather Morrison


On 2014-02-04, at 12:38 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote:

 [Re: Publishers launch free journal access for libraries (Paul Jump, 
 THE)]
 
 The primary intended beneficiaries of research are the public that funds the 
 research.
 
 The primary way in which the public benefits from the research it funds is if 
 all researchers can access, use, build upon and apply it.
 
 Research is pubished in journals to which researchers' publicly funded 
 institutions (mostly universities) subscribe.
 
 But institutions can only afford to subscribe to a small fraction of those 
 journals. because of the high price of journals and the scarcity of research 
 funds.
 
 That means that researchers are denied access to a large fraction of publicly 
 funded research.
 
 That means the public is losing a large fraction of the potential returns on 
 its investment in the research in has funded.
 
 Publishers not only overcharge for access to the publicly funded 
 research that researchers give them for free and that researchers 
 peer-review for them for free.
 
 Publishers also deny (embargo) non-subscriber access for 6 months, a year, 2 
 years, or even longer to the researchers who can use, build upon and apply it 
 if their institutions cannot afford to subscribe to the journal in which it 
 is published.
 
 And what do publishers 

[GOAL] Re: Times Literary Supplement on Open Access

[Dana Roth]

In fairness to Jonathan Bate ... his concern about a future loss of nurturing, 
marketing, and production values', currently provided by book publishers, is 
not unreasonable.

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

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Stevan Harnad
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:05 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Times Literary Supplement on Open Access

A very silly piece in 
TLShttp://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1360491.ece by Shakespeare 
scholar Jonathan Bate in which -- despite noting that until at least 2020 HEFCE 
has not mandated OA for books, only for journal articles -- he decries shrilly 
the doom and gloom that the HEFCE mandate portends for book-based humanity 
scholarship. The gratuitous cavilling is, as usual, cloaked in shrill alarums 
about academic freedom infringement...
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

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

[Dana Roth]

Re:  “Publishing in scholarly peer reviewed journals usually entails long 
delays from submission to publication.  In part this is due to the length of 
the peer review process and in part because of the dominating tradition of 
publication in issues, earlier a necessity of paper‐based publishing, which 
creates backlogs of manuscripts waiting in line.”  … in:  
http://openaccesspublishing.org/oa11/article.pdf




Isn’t is generally true (at least in the science and technology fields) that 
‘Epub ahead of print’ publishing practices have obviated delays in waiting for 
issues to be completed?



I understand that in mathematics and other fields that delays between ‘Epub 
ahead of print’ and the final completed issue can stretch out for ~a year.


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

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Bo-Christer Björk
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 9:27 AM
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Joint Statement on Principles of Transparency and Best 
Practice in Scholarly Publishing

You could check out
http://openaccesspublishing.org/oa11/article.pdf

as well as

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157713000710

green version

http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~sugimoto/preprints/Journalacceptancerates.pdf

Bo-Christer

On 12/21/13 5:43 PM, Gerritsma, Wouter wrote:
Dear all,

With regards to this really excellent initiative I am looking in to the various 
degrees in transparency of the peer review process. Has anybody examples at 
hand of editorials, where they give an overview of number of articles 
submitted, and ultimately accepted, and the time the whole cycle from 
submission to final publication actually took. So now and then I have seen this 
in journals, but can’t find any example right now.

I would be grateful for some hints.

Wouter


Wouter Gerritsma
Team leader research support
Information Specialist – Bibliometrician
Wageningen UR Library
PO box 9100
6700 HA Wageningen
The Netherlands
++31 3174 83052
wouter.gerrit...@wur.nlmailto:wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl%0d
wageningenur.nl/libraryhttp://wageningenur.nl/library
@wowterhttp://twitter.com/Wowter/
wowter.nethttp://wowter.net/

#AWCP http://tinyurl.com/mk65m36



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

The Committee on Publication Ethicshttp://publicationethics.org/%E2%80%8E, 
the Directory of Open Access Journalshttp://www.doaj.org/, the Open Access 
Scholarly Publishers Associationhttp://oaspa.org/, and the World Association 
of Medical Editorshttp://www.wame.org/ are scholarly organizations that have 
seen an increase in the number of membership applications from both legitimate 
and non-legitimate publishers and journals. Our organizations have collaborated 
in an effort to identify principles of transparency and best practice that set 
apart legitimate journals and publishers from non-legitimate ones and to 
clarify that these principles form part of the criteria on which membership 
applications will be evaluated.


This is a work in progress and we welcome feedback on the general principles 
and the specific criteria. Please see the full 
statementhttp://oaspa.org/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing/
 on the OASPA blog (http://oaspa.org/blog/).


Claire Redhead
Membership  Communications Manager
Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, OASPA
http://oaspa.org/




___

GOAL mailing list

GOAL@eprints.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: Elsevier, Flip your journals to Gold OA and/or offer an acceptable Hybrid Model

[Dana Roth]

One wonders if the dramatic decline, from 2001 to 2012, in both the number 
published articles (692 --288)  the subscription price ($12598 --  $5931) 
had anything to do with Nuclear Physics B participating in SCOAP3?

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

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Stevan Harnad
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 5:51 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier, Flip your journals to Gold OA and/or offer an 
acceptable Hybrid Model

SCOAP3 and the pre-emptive flip model for Gold OA 
conversionhttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/421-SCOAP3-and-the-pre-emptive-flip-model-for-Gold-OA-conversion.html

Fool's Gold: Publisher Ransom for Freedom from Publisher 
Embargo?http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1066-Fools-Gold-Publisher-Ransom-for-Freedom-from-Publisher-Embargo.html


On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Donat Agosti 
ago...@amnh.orgmailto:ago...@amnh.org wrote:
Dear Wouter

Though you refer to Wall Street Journal that infers journalistic scrutiny, it 
is in fact just a press release of Elsevier and thus, isn't this following  all 
the discussion on GOAL only part of the reality?  It might be interesting to 
the readers to link this press release to the publication of Elsevier's 
businesshttp://t.co/l3AHKTNU1Z figures.

You could similarly add another press 
releasehttp://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-12/pp-tot121813.php that 
announces yet another deal regarding open access in a much more sophisticated 
way, providing through the domain specific semantic markup an even greater 
service to the society, and at a much lower rate. Similarly to SOAP3, it is 
free because the publisher and libraries got together to make if free. The 
publisher and editor is the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin who delegated the 
publishing to Pensoft . Why not compare these two business models, where a new 
publisher enters the field which has not the overhead and monopoly of Elsevier 
and thus can dictate the prize of the deal irrespective of the underlying real 
costs?

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-12/pp-tot121813.php

In both cases time will tell  - but at simple press release does certainly not 
provide a balanced reply needed at this moment.

Donat


Von: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] Im Auftrag 
von Gerritsma, Wouter
Gesendet: Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:21 PM
An: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
Betreff: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier, Flip your journals to Gold OA and/or offer an 
acceptable Hybrid Model

Dear G.

Elsevier is doing exactly what you ask for
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20131217-903941.html

At least two of these are financed through SCOAP(3). That might be worth a 
discussion.

Yours sincerely
Wouter

From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Graham Triggs
Sent: donderdag 19 december 2013 16:05
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier, Flip your journals to Gold OA and/or offer an 
acceptable Hybrid Model

On 18 December 2013 12:47, 
christian.gutkne...@ub.unibe.chmailto:christian.gutkne...@ub.unibe.ch wrote:
1. Flip your journals to Gold OA. Start with high ranked journals, because
as you know most researchers still care. Although the true cost of
publishing remains unclear (http://doi.org/kxz), I think it's safe to say,
that with an APC between $1500 and $3000 you still can make solid profit.
Probably not as much as with the subscription model, but still reasonable.
And if you really have a high ranked journal you can indeed increase the
price to whatever the demand on researcher side will support.

Others publisher are doing it:
http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/PressRelease/pressReleaseId-109721.html
Why not Elsevier?

Every single one of those are association / society journals. So this wouldn't 
be a commercial decision by a publisher, but a political one by the association 
/ society. After all, you can't really advocate open access, if your own 
journals aren't.

Simply making a hybrid journal into open access only would not be sustainable, 
unless a significant proportion of the articles are already utilising the open 
access option.

2. Offer an acceptable hybrid model. Avoid double dipping on an
institutional/consortium/national level (not on a global level as you do
now). We explicitly requested Elsevier to do so in Switzerland. However
Elsevier refused to come up with a solution that reduces our subscription
price according the amount of paid hybrid of our authors. Elsevier argued,
subscription and OA are two independent things and shouldn't be mixed

[GOAL] Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Big Deals, Big Macs and Consortial Licensing

[Dana Roth]

Sandy Thatcher makes a good point ... as many scholarly monographs are akin to 
special issues of a review journal ... as evidenced by the subject focus of 
many 'Advances', 'Progress in', etc., volumes.

An exception needs to be made for 'Annual Reviews' (a nonprofit scientific 
publisher) as their pricing is eminently reasonable.

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

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Sandy Thatcher
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 1:12 PM
To: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum
Cc: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Big Deals, Big Macs and Consortial Licensing

Stevan continues to be hung up on the idea that some academic authors still 
have visions of fame and fortune they'd like to achieve through publishing 
books in the traditional manner, so he believes that the time for OA in book 
publishing has not yet arrived. But perhaps a simple terminological distinction 
may suffice to place this problem in proper perspective.  Academic books may be 
divided into two types: monographs and trade books. Monographs, by definition, 
are works of scholarship written primarily to address other scholars and are 
therefore unlikely to attract many, if any, readers beyond the walls of 
academe. Trade books encompass a large category that includes, as one subset, 
nonfiction works written by scholars but addressed not only to fellow scholars 
but also to members of the general public.

There is an easy practical way to distinguish the two: commercial trade 
publishers (as distinct from commercial scholarly publishers that do not aim at 
a trade market) have certain requirements for potential sales that guarantee 
that monographs will never be accepted for publication.  It is true that the 
authors of monographs, published by university presses and commercial scholarly 
publishers, are sometimes paid royalties. But these amounts seldom accumulate 
to large sums (unless the monographs happen to become widely adopted in 
classrooms as course assignments--a phenomenon that happens less these days 
when coursepacks and e-reserves permit use of excerpts for classroom 
assignments).  Thus not much is sacrificed, financially speaking, by publishing 
these books OA. And, indeed, a scholar may have more to gain, in terms of 
increased reputation from wider circulation that may translate into tenure and 
promotion, which are vastly more financially rewarding over the long term than 
royalties are ever likely to be from monograph sales.

Also, of course, financial opportunities do not need to be sacrificed 
completely by OA if the CC-BY-NC-ND license is used for monographs, preserving 
some money-generating rights to authors even under OA.

It also needs to be said that even trade authors can benefit from OA, as the 
successes of such authors as Cory Doctorow, Larry Lessig, Jonathan Zittrain, 
and others have demonstrated, with the free online versions of their books 
serving to stimulate print sales.

Thus I believe Stevan is not being quite pragmatic enough in recognizing that 
the time has arrived for OA monograph publishing also, not just OA article 
publishing.

Sandy Thatcher



At 12:44 PM -0500 11/19/13, Stevan Harnad wrote:
Ann Okerson (as 
interviewedhttp://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/ann-okerson-on-state-of-open-access.html
 by Richard Poynder) is committed to licensing. I am not sure whether the 
commitment is ideological or pragmatic, but it's clearly a lifelong 
(asymptotic) commitment by now.

I was surprised to see the direction Ann ultimately took because -- as I have 
admitted many times -- it was Ann who first opened my eyes to (what eventually 
came to be called) Open Access.

In the mid and late 80's I was still just in the thrall of the scholarly and 
scientific potential of the revolutionarily new online medium itself 
(Scholarly 
Skywritinghttp://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/05/sky-writing-or-when-man-first-met-troll/239420/),
 eager to get everything to be put online. It was Ann's work on the serials 
crisis that made me realize that it was not enough just to get it all online: 
it also had to be made accessible (online) to all of its potential users, 
toll-free -- not just to those whose institutions could afford the access-tolls 
(licenses).

And even that much I came to understand, sluggishly, only after I had first 
realized that what set apart the writings in question was not that they were 
(as I had first naively dubbed them) 
esoterichttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subversive_Proposal (i.e., they had 
few users) but that they were peer-reviewed research journal articles, written 
by researchers solely for impact, not for 
incomehttp://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1.1.

But I don't 

[GOAL] Re: Query about OA Publisher

[Dana Roth]

Actually ... Sciknow is on Beall's list
http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ 


Dana L. Roth 
Caltech Library  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 


-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Andrew A. Adams
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 6:51 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Query about OA Publisher


Has anyone come across SciKnow (www.sciknow.org) and have an opinion about 
their legitimacy? (They're not on Beall's list.)


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

[GOAL] Re: Scholars jobs not publisher profits

[Dana Roth]

In defense of Jeffrey Beall ... the extreme variability of Hindawi's APCs is, 
at the least, interesting ...

especially the large number of 'free' and relatively low priced APCs for many 
of their journals.

http://www.hindawi.com/apc/


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

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
David Prosser
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 1:27 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Scholars jobs not publisher profits

Jeffrey

Ignoratio elenchi? That's from Harry Potter, right?  Spell meaning 'facts be 
gone'?

Heather is interested in the flow of money out of academia.  If that is your 
area of interest then the profit margins of large commercial, legacy publishers 
are clearly of more interest than the profit margins of other players.  From 
the figures I quote (from your blog), Hindawi takes $300 of profit from each 
paper it publishers.  A large commercial, legacy publisher takes about $1200*.  
From where I sit (and I admit my knowledge of economics is almost as bad as 
that of Latin) it is clear that $1200 per paper is a significantly larger 
amount than $300 per paper and there is no way the figures back up your 
contention that 'It appears that the money is just moving from one set of 
publishers to another.'

David

*My conservative guess - happy to have people with access to the figures 
correct this.  It's basically 30% of $4000


On 3 Oct 2013, at 23:04, Beall, Jeffrey wrote:


David,

Thank you for your ignoratio elenchi.

--Jeffrey

From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of David Prosser
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 3:03 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Scholars jobs not publisher profits

Jeffrey

in the comment section to your post Ahmed Hindawi points out that the average 
revenue per paper published by Hindawi is about $600.  For people like Elsevier 
it is in excess of $4000 per paper.  I think it is clear which publisher is 
taking (significantly) more money out of the system.

David




On 3 Oct 2013, at 20:31, Beall, Jeffrey wrote:



Heather:

I've 
documentedhttp://scholarlyoa.com/2013/04/04/hindawis-profits-are-larger-than-elseviers/
 that Hindawi's profit margin is higher than Elsevier's. So, I am correct in 
assuming that you include Hindawi in your advice below, no? Also, it's been 
revealed that a number of the higher ups at PLOS are drawing salaries of over a 
quarter-million dollars a year, and one was even drawing a salary of over a 
half-million dollars. It appears that the money is just moving from one set of 
publishers to another.

Thanks,

Jeffrey Beall

From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 11:43 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Scholars jobs not publisher profits

My reaction to the EBSCO report on expected ongoing high price increases by 
some in the scholarly publishing sector at the same time that academics at my 
alma mater have been asked to consider voluntary severance has been posted to 
my blog:
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2013/10/scholars-lets-keep-our-jobs-and-ditch.html

My conclusion:

It is time for scholars, university administrators and research funders to wake 
up and realize that creation of new knowledge is done by researchers, not 
publishers. Don't give up your job or or let your colleagues give up theirs 
without demanding that the large commercial scholarly publishers give up their 
30-40% profit margins.

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
heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca

ALA Accreditation site visit scheduled for 30 Sept-1 Oct 2013 /
Visite du comité externe pour l'accréditation par l'ALA est prévu le 30
sept-1 oct 2013

http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/accreditation.html
http://www.esi.uottawa.ca/accreditation.html



ATT1..txt

ATT1..txt

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

[GOAL] Re: Publication Lags, Green OA Embargoes and the Liege/HEFCE/BIS Immediate-Deposit Mandate

[Dana Roth]

Re:  Business/economics with a delay of 18 months took twice as long as 
chemistry with a 9 month average delay.

I checked with the Royal Society of Chemistry and find that:

Journals: Average receipt to advance article publication across all journals 
for a paper is 80-85 days, for a communication 60 days, and a ChemComm [a 
communications journal] 50 days.

This could be one of the benefits of a responsible society publisher ... namely 
a resource of responsible peer-reviewers.

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

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Stevan Harnad
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 6:25 AM
To: BOAI Forum
Cc: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); ASIST Special Interest Group 
on Metrics
Subject: [GOAL] Publication Lags, Green OA Embargoes and the Liege/HEFCE/BIS 
Immediate-Deposit Mandate

On 2013-09-13, at 7:20 AM, David Solomon 
dsolo...@msu.edumailto:dsolo...@msu.edu wrote:


We have made the data available for the paper: The publishing delay in 
scholarly peer-reviewed
journals by Bo-Christer Björk  David Solomon recently accepted for 
publication in
Journal of Informetrics.

Paper http://tinyurl.com/ms5dk2u
Codebook  http://tinyurl.com/m2fwxtk
Data http://tinyurl.com/mslr3c7

Abstract: Publishing in scholarly peer reviewed journals usually entails long 
delays from
submission to publication.  In part this is due to the length of the peer 
review process and
in part because of the dominating tradition of publication in issues, earlier a 
necessity of
paper-based publishing, which creates backlogs of manuscripts waiting in line. 
The delays
slow the dissemination of scholarship and can provide a significant burden on 
the academic
careers of authors.
Using a stratified random sample we studied average publishing 
delays in 2700 papers
published in 135 journals sampled from the Scopus citation index.  The shortest 
overall
delays occur in science technology and medical (STM) fields and the longest in 
social
science, arts/humanities and business/economics. Business/economics with a 
delay of 18
months took twice as long as chemistry with a 9 month average delay.  Analysis 
of the
variance indicated that by far the largest amount of variance in the time 
between submission
and acceptance was among articles within a journal as compared with journals, 
disciplines
or the size of the journal.  For the time between acceptance and publication 
most of the variation
in delay can be accounted for by differences between specific journals.

Now it's time to put two and two together (and this pertains more to the lag 
between
acceptance and publication: the timing of peer review and revision is another 
matter):

1. The research community is clamoring for access, particularly those who are 
denied
access to articles in journals to which their institutions cannot afford to 
subscribe.

2. In many fields, the most important growth region for taking up and building 
upon new
findings, hence research progress, is within the first year of publication.

3. The average delay from acceptance to publication for subscription journals 
is about
6 months (and especially long for arts  humanities journals)

4. Björk and Solomon point out that for Gold OA journals the delay is much 
shorter:
under 2 months.

5. The delay for Green OA self-archiving is even shorter: zero if self-archiving
is immediate (and even negative if a pre-refereeing preprint has also been made
OA even earlier).

6. Subscription journals say they are in favor of OA, but they need an embargo 
in order
to keep their subscriptions sustainable.

7. Subscription journals already have a built-in embargo because of the 
6-month
delay between acceptance and publication.

8. So the 6-12-month Green OA embargoes demanded by STEM fields and even
longer embargoes demanded by arts  humanities journals not only impedes 
research
progress by denying access during the embargo, but they compound the 
publisher-end
delays between acceptance and publication.

This is why the Liege-model immediate-deposit 
mandatehttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/853-guid.html ( 
together with the
repository-mediated copy-request 
Buttonhttps://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy) -- now 
recommended by
both 
HEFCEhttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/987-The-UKs-New-HEFCEREF-OA-Mandate-Proposal.html
 and 
BIShttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1040-UK-BIS-Committee-2013-Report-on-Open-Access.html
 -- is so important:

It makes it possible for researchers to request -- and authors to provide -- 
immediate
access with one click each as soon as the final, refereed, revised draft is 
accepted for
publication, irrespective of publication lags or publisher OA embargoes.

Stevan Harnad

[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

[Dana Roth]

The problem with this analysis, from a another librarian's viewpoint, is that 
...

1.  Rick is suggesting that libraries reward publishers by providing 
subscription funds for journals that [are] not green at all. ... and

2.  It also penalizes responsible society publishers who allow quick access to 
'green repository' manuscripts.

In my mind, there are far too many examples of exorbitant library subscription 
pricing to avoid dealing with this problem FIRST!

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

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Rick Anderson
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 9:15 AM
To: David Solomon
Cc: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); Friend, Fred; LibLicense-L 
Discussion Forum; SPARC Open Access Forum
Subject: [GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

Would you really consider dropping a journal with say 70% percent of the 
content available after a year?  I'm not a librarian but I just wonder how much 
of a difference allowing immediate archiving of the accepted version really 
makes in subscription decisions.

It depends. Obviously, a subscription provides enhanced access over green 
repository access. But as I mentioned before, the less central a journal is to 
my institution's curricular and research focus, the more willing I'll be to 
settle for less-than-ideal access. If I had a generous materials budget, the 
calculus would be different-but the combination of a relatively stagnant budget 
and constantly/steeply-rising journal prices means that I have to settle for 
solutions that are less than ideal. One less-than-ideal solution is to maintain 
a subscription despite the fact that 70% of the journal's content is available 
immediately (or after a year). That solution is attractive because it provides 
more complete and convenient access, but it's less than ideal because it ties 
up money that can't be used to secure access to a journal that is not green at 
all. Another less-than-ideal solution is to cancel the subscription and rely on 
green access. The downside of that approach is that repository access is a pain 
and may be incomplete; the upside is that it frees up money that I can use to 
provide access to another needed journal that offers no green access.

These issues are complex. The subscription decisions we make in libraries are 
binary (either your subscribe or you don't), but the criteria we have to use in 
making those decisions are not binary-we're typically considering multiple 
criteria (relevance, price, cost per download, demonstrated demand, etc.) that 
exist on a continuum. One thing is for certain, though: the more a journal's 
content is available for free, and the quicker it becomes available for free, 
the less likely it is that we'll maintain a subscription. I think that's the 
only rational position to take when there are so many journals out there that 
our faculty want, and that we're not subscribing to because we're out of money.

---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources  Collections
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
rick.ander...@utah.edumailto:rick.ander...@utah.edu
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

[Dana Roth]

Isn't the fact that The BIS report finds no evidence to support this 
distinction, due to the fact that there isn't sufficient data?

I sense that we are going to have to live with (Green) OA and subscription 
journals for some time ... and that it is the subscription model for 
commercially published journals will be increasingly unsustainable in the short 
term.

An example of what could soon be unsustainable, is the commercially published 
'Journal of Comparative Neurology' ... that for 2012 cost its subscribers 
$30,860 and published only 234 articles.

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

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Stevan Harnad
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 8:39 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Disruption vs. Protection

End of the gold rush? (Yvonne Morris, 
cilip)http://www.cilip.org.uk/cilip/news/end-gold-rush: In the interest of 
making research outputs publicly available; shorter and consistent or no 
embargo periods are the desired outcome. However, publishers... have argued 
that short embargo periods make librarians cancel subscriptions to their 
journals... The BIS report finds no evidence to support this distinction.


I have long meant to comment on a frequent contradiction that keeps being 
voiced by OA advocates and opponents alike:
I. Call for Disruption: Serial publications are overpriced and unaffordable; 
publisher profits are excessive; the subscription (license) model is 
unsustainable: the subscription model needs to be disrupted in order to force 
it to evolve toward Gold OA.

II. Call for Protection: Serials publications are threatened by (Green) OA, 
which risks making the subscription model unsustainable: the subscription model 
needs to be protected in order to allow it to evolve toward Gold OA.
Green OA mandates do two things: (a) They provide immediate OA for all who 
cannot afford subscription access, and (b) they disrupt the subscription model.

Green OA embargoes do two things: (c) They withhold OA from all who cannot 
afford subscription access, and (d) they protect the subscription model from 
disruption.

Why do those OA advocates who are working for (a) (i.e., to provide immediate 
OA for all who cannot afford subscription access) also feel beholden to promise 
(d) (i.e. to protect the subscription model from disruption)?

University of Liègehttp://roarmap.eprints.org/56/ and FRSN 
Belgiumhttp://roarmap.eprints.org/850/ have adopted -- and 
HEFCEhttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/987-The-UKs-New-HEFCEREF-OA-Mandate-Proposal.html
 and 
BIShttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1040-UK-BIS-Committee-2013-Report-on-Open-Access.html
 have both proposed adopting -- the compromise resolution to this contradiction:

Mandate the immediate repository deposit of the final refereed draft of all 
articles immediately upon acceptance for publication, but if the author wishes 
to comply with a publisher embargo on Green OA, do not require access to the 
deposit to be made OA immediately: Let the deposit be made Closed Access during 
the allowable embargo period and let the repository's automated eprint-request 
Button tide over the needs of research and researchers by making it easy for 
users to request and authors to provide a copy for research purposes with one 
click each.

This tides over research needs during the embargo. If it still disrupts serials 
publication and makes subscriptions unsustainable, chances are that it's time 
for publishers to phase out the products and services for which there is no 
longer a market in the online era and evolve instead toward something more in 
line with the real needs of the PostGutenberg research community.

Evolution and adaptation never occur except under the (disruptive) pressure of 
necessity. Is there any reason to protect the journal publishing industry from 
evolutionary pressure, at the expense of research progress?

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

[GOAL] Re: Tripping Point: Delayed Access is not Open Access; Chorus is a Trojan Horse

[Dana Roth]

I generally agree with Stevan ... and think the key point here is  blatant 
nature of commercial publishers trying to protect their current revenue 
streams.

I do, however, appreciate the needs of non-profit major society publishers, in 
order to maintain the quality of their journals, to establish reasonable 
article charges for OA.

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


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

[GOAL] Re: Whose business is it anyhow?

[Dana Roth]

While Emerald publishes many titles in the field of Library and Information 
Science/Studies (LIS), its Wikipedia entry suggests that there may be some 
underlying problems:

In 2004, Philip Davis of Cornell University found extensive covert duplication 
of articles in Emerald/MCB University Press journals, including at least 409 
examples of articles from sixty-seven journals that were republished without 
notification that they were previously published. He found examples of 
triplicate publishing, as well as journals that contained no original content, 
but were filled with articles submitted to other 
journals.[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Group_Publishing#cite_note-4 
He published a follow-up article reporting that the owners of Emerald were 
simultaneously acting as authors, editors, and managers of these journals, 
duplicating not only the work of others but their own as 
well.[5]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Group_Publishing#cite_note-5 
Emerald undertook its own study and identified 560 republished papers from 1989 
to 2004, 1.1 percent of its total database. Davis argued that whatever the 
number, no amount of premeditated covert article duplication is 
acceptable.[6]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Group_Publishing#cite_note-6

*  ^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Group_Publishing#cite_ref-4 Davis, 
Philip. The Ethics of Republishing: A Case Study of Emerald/MCB University 
Press Journalshttp://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/handle/1813/2572. Library 
Resources  Technical Services (ALA) 49 (2): 72-78. Retrieved 2008-08-02.
*  ^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Group_Publishing#cite_ref-5 Davis, 
Philip. Article duplication in Emerald/MCB journals is more extensive than 
first reported: Possible conflicts of financial and functional interests are 
uncovered. Library Resources  Technical Services (ALA) 49 (3): 148-150. 
hdlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handle_System:1813/2574http://hdl.handle.net/1813%2F2574..
*  ^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Group_Publishing#cite_ref-6 Online 
Databases: Duplication Is 
Ubiquitoushttp://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA512212.html. Retrieved 
2008-08-02.

If memory serves, there were also some significant price hikes for some of the 
'library studies' journals that were acquired by Emerald.  They also have a 
publishing partnership with IFLA but only ~40% of their titles on this subject 
are indexed by ISI.

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

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
DeDe Dawson
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 10:38 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc: scholc...@ala.org
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Whose business is it anyhow?

Stevan,

Please don't forget that librarians are often also researchers and authors in 
their own right. And Emerald publishes many titles in the field of Library and 
Information Science/Studies (LIS). So Emerald, in addressing librarians, is in 
fact addressing the researchers/authors that are submitting to their 
publications.

I suspect the Emerald communication might have been in response to Heather's 
message to the scholcomm list from several days ago that I copied and pasted 
below.
-DeDe
University of Saskatchewan
University Library

Heather Morrison's email:

LIS publisher Emerald has introduced a 24-month embargo on authors whose 
institutions have open access mandates, according to Richard Poynder on Open 
and Shut:
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/open-access-emeralds-green-starts-to.html

This is a significant backtrack from what was a really good open access 
archiving policy.

As of today, there are 146 titles listed under Library and Information Studies 
in the Directory of Open Access Journals, and most say Publication Fee - No:
http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=subjectcpId=129uiLanguage=en

Librarians, Emerald current and potential editors, authors, and reviewers, 
perhaps it is time to ditch this it's about the profit publisher in favour of 
journals that prioritize sharing of our knowledge? If none of the current DOAJ 
titles fit your scholarly niche - why not start your own?

best,

Heather G. Morrison
The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Stevan Harnad 
amscifo...@gmail.commailto:amscifo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Wagner, A. Ben 
abwag...@buffalo.edumailto:abwag...@buffalo.edu wrote:

I have not followed the Emerald issue since it is not a publisher I deal with 
as a librarian or a scholar, so I will not comment directly on that issue.  
However, at least from a U.S. perspective and speaking much more generally, I'm 
not sure complaints from U.S. academics about businesses being business-focused 
will carry much weight. From where I sit, academia 

[GOAL] Re: On Aaron Swartz's martyrdom

[Dana Roth]

Isn't one of the main points of civil disobedience ... acceptance of the legal 
consequences ... as a way to bring public pressure to make changes ??

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.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Subbiah Arunachalam
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 10:36 PM
To: lis-fo...@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in
Subject: [GOAL] On Aaron Swartz's martyrdom



Friends:

Here are two commentaries on why knowledge must be free by two of my colleagues 
at the Centre for Internet and and Society. One is a video interview and the 
other is in plain text. Both will be of interest to anyone interested in 
openness.

http://newsclick.in/international/aaron-swartz-first-martyr-free-information-movement
   [video]

http://cis-india.org/openness/blog/dml-central-jan-24-2013-nishant-shah-remembering-aaron-swartz-taking-up-the-fight

Unfortunately, most science managers in India continue to support the corporate 
publishers who privatize public knowledge with no thought to the thousands of 
students, teachers and researchers of India. Not even the leftists in India 
have raised this issue so far.  The least we can do is to mandate open access 
to publications resulting from all publicly funded research.

Arun

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

[GOAL] Re: Ashry Aly of Ashdin Publishing

[Dana Roth]

Here is Jeffrey Beall's answer to Ashry Aly's disagreement:

http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/01/20/ashdin_publishing/



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.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Richard 
Poynder [richard.poyn...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 4:21 AM
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] The OA Interviews: Ashry Aly of Ashdin Publishing

Ashry Aly is a former employee of Hindawi Publishing Corporation who left the 
company in 2007 to found Ashdin Publishing

Ashdin Publishing is currently included on Jeffrey Beall’s list of predatory 
publishers: 
http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/12/06/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2013/

Aly disagrees that Ashdin Publishing should be on the list.

An interview with Aly can be reader here: 
http://poynder.blogspot.de/2013/01/the-oa-interviews-ashry-aly-of-ashdin.html




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

[GOAL] Re: Further Fallout From Finch Folly

[Dana Roth]

Re:  There are sooo many subscription journals occupying the same niche - 
sometimes partially, but often enough completely - and yet they are all 
subscribed to, widely or narrowly, but economically sufficiently, on the 
strength of the adage that you can't afford to miss anything in your 
discipline.

Are many of the new commercial journals actually 'subscribed to' or are they 
added to existing packages in hopes they will capture sufficient market share 
to continue? ... my assumption is that the concept of 'loss leaders' is NOT 
operable for society published journals.

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.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Jan Velterop
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 2:21 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Further Fallout From Finch Folly

...they [start-up subscription journals, or as Stevan calls them bottom-rung 
journals] were not subscribed to by institutions if there was no empty subject 
 niche they were filling, nor before they had established their track-records 
for quality.

Where has Stevan been the last 4 decades?

The niche for new subscription journals always was (and for new journals in any 
model probably still is) defined by a surfeit of articles looking for a journal 
to submit to, not by an empty subject niche. There are sooo many subscription 
journals occupying the same niche - sometimes partially, but often enough 
completely - and yet they are all subscribed to, widely or narrowly, but 
economically sufficiently, on the strength of the adage that you can't afford 
to miss anything in your discipline. And 'quality' has never been more than a 
vague and nebulous concept with little predictive value when applied to the 
vast majority of journals. (Not that I think that matters. Articles of true 
significance, in whichever journals, mostly drift to the surface anyway. A 
good, and citable, article in a low Impact Factor journal is not so much 
dragged down by that low IF, but pushes the IF up, if IFs are what tickle your 
'quality' fancy.)

In the 'green' scenario, a move to 'gold' is supposed to happen only after 
everything is 'green' OA and subscriptions are not possible anymore. The then 
sudden need for OA journals is, in that scenario, only to be satisfied by a 
veritable avalanche of start-up 'gold' journals, the credibility of which won't 
be assessable. And they will all feature on Beall's list.

How much better to gradually build up a 'gold' OA infrastructure, while suspect 
new OA journals can be caught, or while Darwinian selection to weed them out 
can take place. That can be - fortunately, is being - done alongside 'green'. 
Remember, while 'green' doesn't include 'gold', 'gold' *does* include 'green'.

I regard a Darwinian 'weeding' of non-credible journals (including those who 
Beall classifies as 'predatory') a wholly realistic scenario. Authors 
submitting to - and paying for - journals without duly checking the journals' 
credentials are probably too gullible to expect to produce much worthwhile 
publishable science anyway. It's a harsh world, the scientific one.

Jan Velterop



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

[GOAL] Re: question on OA policy details

[Dana Roth]

There is a similar problem with electronic theses ... which, while deposited, 
can be 'restricted' awaiting the author's approval for OA.

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.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Stevan Harnad
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 8:31 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc: sparc-ir
Subject: [GOAL] Re: question on OA policy details

On 2012-12-04, at 10:44 AM, Elizabeth Kirk 
elizk...@gmail.commailto:elizk...@gmail.com wrote:
All,
We have a group of faculty very interested in promoting an OA policy
for faculty deposit of journal articles. People are very interested in knowing
in advance how other institutions with such policies handle cases where one
of multiple authors of an article refuses/is not able to allow the posting of 
an article to an IR.
1. Deposit the article anyway, but set access as Closed Access
instead of OA: metadata are OA, article is not.

2. Implement the email-eprint-request Button.


 Do you
 * --embargo the deposited article?

You can set the Closed Access to elapse after the embargo period, if you wish.

* --allow a pass and not ingest the article?
Definitely do *not* omit the article altogether.

Stevan Harnad
* --other possible solutions?
Thanks so much for your assistance. Please feel free to respond privately.




All the best,
Eliz

Elizabeth E. Kirk
Associate Librarian for Information Resources
Dartmouth College Library
6025 Baker Library, Rm. 115
Hanover, NH, USA
tel: (603) 646-9929
fax: (603) 646-3702


elizabeth.e.k...@dartmouth.edumailto:elizabeth.e.k...@dartmouth.edu



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups SPARC IR group.
To post to this group, send email to sparc...@arl.orgmailto:sparc...@arl.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sparc-ir+unsubscr...@arl.orgmailto:sparc-ir+unsubscr...@arl.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-ir

You may need to log in to view the archive. If this is required, you will need 
a Google account associated with the email address under which you are 
subscribed to this group. For more information on creating a Google account see 
http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/answer.py?answer=27441. For 
information on associating an existing Google account with your subscribed 
email address see 
http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/answer.py?hl=enanswer=86635. For 
information on logging into an ARL sponsored group see 
https://sites.google.com/a/arl.org/techguides_arl/login. 
https://sites.google.com/a/arl.org/techguides_arl/login.%C2%A0

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

[GOAL] Re: Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for open access

[Dana Roth]

And the fact the ones that are not free are generally very modestly priced?

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 


-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Jan Szczepanski
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 1:53 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for 
open access

Is more than sixteen thousand free e-journals in the humanities and social 
sciences of any importance in this discussion?

http://www.scribd.com/Jan%20Szczepanski

Jan



2012/7/25  l.hurt...@ed.ac.uk:
 Webster concisely articulates the concerns that I briefly mooted a few 
 days ago.
 Larry Hurtado

 Quoting Omega Alpha Open Access oa.openacc...@gmail.com on Wed, 25 
 Jul 2012 11:03:30 -0400:

 Hat Tip: Let’s not leave Humanities behind in the dash for open 
 access http://wp.me/p20y83-no

 Nice article this morning by Peter Webster on the Research Fortnight 
 website entitled Humanities left behind in the dash for open 
 access.
 http://www.researchresearch.com/index.php?option=com_newstemplate=r
 r_2colview=articlearticleId=1214091 Check it out.

 Webster observes that much of the current conversation around the 
 growth of open access focuses on the sciences and use of an 
 “author-pays” business model. He feels inadequate attention in the 
 conversation has been given to the unique needs of humanities 
 scholarship, and why it may be harder for humanist scholars to 
 embrace open access based on the “author-pays” model.

 There is no Public Library of History to match the phenomenally 
 successful Public Library of Science.
 …

 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 @ gmail.com | 
 @OAopenaccess


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





 L. W. Hurtado, PhD, FRSE
 Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature  Theology 
 Honorary Professorial Fellow New College (School of Divinity) 
 University of Edinburgh Mound Place Edinburgh, UK. EH1 2LX Office 
 Phone:  (0)131 650 8920. FAX:  (0)131 650 7952 www.ed.ac.uk/divinity

 --
 The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
 Scotland, with registration number SC005336.



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



-- 
Jan Szczepański
F.d Förste bibliotekare och chef för f.d Avdelningen
för humaniora vid Göteborgs universitetsbibliotek
E-post: jan.szczepansk...@gmail.com

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

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

[GOAL] Re: Becoming Unglued ... a rejoinder ...

[Dana Roth]

In regards e-books in the sciences and engineering ...


This from one of our undergrads … who didn’t want an e-book …
---

It is mostly personal preference that I prefer paper copies -

  *   I like being able to quickly flip through pages (especially with math 
books) to refer back to equations/concepts, while I'm not tech-savvy enough to 
open two pages in a e-publication.
  *   Similar concept - having multiple books open and available is useful
  *   Being able to look up references online in books
  *   I take notes on my computer, so if I have an e-publication up, I can't 
take notes
I suppose I'm just old fashioned. I realize now that this is not so much 
anti-epublication as not enough e-readers to look at several of these e-pubs 
simultaneously.




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.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Eric F. 
Van de Velde [eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 6:35 PM
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Becoming Unglued...

I posted my latest blog a couple of days ago. It is slightly off-topic for this 
list in that it is about books, not journals. However, it is 100% about open 
access and an innovative way of getting around long copyright terms. Who knows, 
it can be translated to journals...

On Becoming Unglued...
On June 20th, the e-book world changed: One innovation cut through the fog of 
the discussions on copyright, digital rights management (DRM), and various 
other real and perceived problems of digital books. It did not take a 
revolution, angry protests, lobbying of politicians, or changes in copyright 
law. All it took was a simple idea, and the talent and determination to 
implement it.


http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2012/06/on-becoming-unglued.html


--Eric.

http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com

Google Voice: (626) 898-5415
Telephone:  (626) 376-5415
Skype: efvandevelde -- Twitter: @evdvelde
E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.commailto:eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com


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

[GOAL] Re: A suggestion

[Dana Roth]

Publications to avoid ... one could use http://www.journalprices.com

Journal Cost-Effectiveness 2011

Select a subject area and sort by price per article ...  with descending 
results ...

And quickly see the most outrageously priced journals.

The problem, however, is that the list could use some editing for obvious 
errors.

Most Librarians should be able to prepare a list of representative journals, 
obtain the 2011 subscription price and check Web of Science of the number of 
published articles and run the numbers.

We did this 20 years ago to alert faculty to the major disparity between 
non-profit society and commercially published journals.

It is very important NOT to compare review journals with research journals and 
make allowances for added value content like Nature and Science.

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 


-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
R. Stephen Berry
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:29 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] A suggestion

Would it be useful to have a listing available to let working scientists know 
which publications they should avoid using, based on field and, more important, 
on the publishing policies of the publisher?

Steve Berry
___
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: A few Religious Studies articles showing up in SAGE Open open access “mega journal”; reviewers being solicited

[Dana Roth]

It seems that Sage Open is almost too reasonably priced for what they offer …
but I am a science librarian who doesn’t know much about the soft
sciences/humanities publishing.

This from: 
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsProdDesc.nav?prodId=Journal202037#tabview=title

 

 1. Quick review and decision times for authors
 2. Speedy, continuous-publication online format
 3. Global distribution of your research via SAGE Journals Online, including
enhanced online features such as:

public usage metrics, comments features, subject categories, and article ranking
and recommendations

 1. Professional copyediting and typesetting of your article will ensure quality
 2. $395 introductory author acceptance fee (discounted from the regular price
of $695)

 

 

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 [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
Omega Alpha Open Access
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 8:34 AM
To: goal@eprints.org; sparc-oafo...@arl.org; Caroline Porter
Subject: [GOAL] A few Religious Studies articles showing up in SAGE Open open
access “mega journal”; reviewers being solicited

 

Greetings. I have just updated 
my blog http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com/ for
your interest.

 

A few Religious Studies articles showing up in SAGE Open open access “mega
journal”; reviewers being solicited

http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/a-few-religious-studies-articles-
showing-up-in-sage-open-open-access-mega-journal-reviewers-being-solicited/

 

The other day I received an email from a librarian colleague who is also a
scholar in New Testament. He considers himself an “under-employed Ph.D.,” by
which I gather means having the academic credentials but not a full teaching
position. I don’t know the circumstances of his situation, but I do know he is
not alone. Professorships in Biblical Studies are notoriously difficult to come
by.

 

His email was interesting on a number of levels. He was asking, as someone who
is trying to establish himself “as a competent scholar,” why he should 
consider
open access instead of trying to get his articles accepted in “well-known and
prestigious journal[s].” He was also curious about copyright issues with open
access.

 

These are important questions that I want to follow-up with in a subsequent
post. In this post, however, I want to write about the specific situation that
prompted his questions. A couple of weeks ago he received an unsolicited
invitation from SAGE Publications to be a reviewer for their new open access
journal, SAGE Open. He had never heard of SAGE Open. He wanted to know what 
this
was all about.

 

As always, your comments (posted to the post) are welcome.

 

Gary F. Daught

Omega Alpha | Open Access

http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com

oa.openaccess @ gmail.com





[ Part 2: Attached Text ]

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

[GOAL] Re: MIT Press does not support Research Works Act

[Dana Roth]

I suspect that there are a number of members of the AAP that would prefer to 
indicate their disapproval by simply not 'signing on' ... I think it is safe to 
assume that silence is disapproval.

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


-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Andrew A. Adams
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 6:18 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: MIT Press does not support Research Works Act


Perhaps those of us with contacts in other academic presses (particularly the
major ones such as Oxford, Cambridge, Chicago...) could press their contacts
to push for a disavowal from there, as well. They might also look at how such
AAP lobbying and press releases is working in so diametrically opposed a
fashion to parts of their interests (though I understand that such
organisations have multiple facets and why MIT Press feels unable to drop its
membership over this particular individual issue).

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

Re: Stepping down as Moderator of American Scientist Open Access

[Dana Roth]

I would disagree with Arif Jinha, in that it is the ‘assertive and competitive
advocacy for mandates over Gold OA publishing’ that make AMSCI such an
interesting listserv. 

 

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: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf
Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 11:49 AM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Stepping down as Moderator of American Scientist Open Access

 

Update on responses about (1) continuing the Forum (2) Richard Poynder as new
moderator:



AGAINST CONTINUING AMSCI:

 

 

ARIF JINHA: I believe it would be better to have one forum, the BOAI.  This
forum has developed a doctrinal bias defined by the values and personality of
its leadership.  Though the leadership is to be commended for its credibility
and vigour, it is not without its blind spots. It has not always OPEN to a
diversity of perspectives.  AMSCI is driven by assertive and competitive
advocacy for mandates over Gold OA publishing.  The rush to conclusion on the
right path is premature and overly authoritative in its expression, therefore it
is alienating.  In truth, we have only really got started with the web in the
last 10 years and authority is completely flattened by the learning curve. The
BOAI is much wider in its representation of Open Access alternatives, it is
therefore more neutral as well as having a wider reach for the promotion of
Green OA.  It means less duplication and less work devoted to instant
communication, giving more time to develop a rigorous and scientific approach to
meta-scholarship in the digital age.

 

 

 

FOR CONTINUING AMSCI:

 

 

SUBBIAH ARUNACHALAM: First, I wish to express my grateful thanks to Stevan for
all that he has done so far, and in particular for moderating this Forum for so
long and so well. That he will continue to devote much of his time to promoting
open access and institutional repositories gives me strength to do the same.
Second, if Richard Poynder agrees (or if we could persuade him) to moderate this
list, there is nothing like it. The baton would have moved to safe hands. Not
only he has the stamina of a long distance runner, but he is also endowed with
the qualities needed for a moderator. He is knowledgeable and levelheaded.
Welcome Richard!

 

 

DOMINIQUE BABINI: Discussions and ideas in this forum are also inspiring for
regional OA forums and lists, e.g., the Latin America and the Caribbean Open
Access List (LLAAR, in Spanish). Thank you, Stevan, for your dedication as
moderator all these years, and especially for your new OA initiatives and ideas.
Thank you for your Skype contribution at the OA Experts Meeting last week in
UNESCO headquarters, where we missed you [in person].  I also support Richard
Poynder as [new] moderator for this Forum.  

 

 

MICHAEL E. SMITH: I am in favor of continuing the list, and either of the people
you mentioned as potential moderators would be good choices.

 

 

PAOLA GARGIULO: I also agree that the list should continue. I'm in favour or
Richard Poynder as moderator. Hope you will continue to contribute.

 

 

PETER SUBER: If Richard is willing to moderate, I vote for him.  I second 
Alma's
reasons why Richard would do well in this role.  I second Arthur's best wishes
to you, and I second (or third) Barbara and Hélène's tribute to your work.
 Finally, as the former moderator of SOAF and BOAI, I welcome you to civilian
life.  It's amazing what one can do when one has more time to do it.

 

 

BERNARD RENTIER: I vote for Richard Poynder. The excellence of his critical and
fair papers speaks for his designation. If he is willing to do that, I am sure
he will be an outstanding moderator. And that this will let Stevan be even more
tirelessly to the point in every debate!

 

 

TOM COCHRANE: The value of the Forum cannot be overstated. It has provided a
unique service in assessing the events and health of OA developments. It would
be a regressive step in several ways if it were to fall over. It is not too much
to claim that its way of charting developments, alerting readers to new issues,
identifying useful research and work on OA, and in your hands, reminding its
readership of the main issues – all these have had a direct impact on 
practical
developments. This has occurred to a degree that no single one of us – from
whatever part of the world -  can comprehensively take in. But believe me, it
has played a vital role. But individual workloads need to be shared, and we at
QUT understand your reasoning. We are happy with the Richard Poynder suggestion.

 

 

ELOY RODRIGUES:  I also support Richard Poynder for moderator.  I strongly
support the 

Re: 60% of Journals Allow Immediate Archiving of Peer-Reviewed Articles - but it gets much much better...

[Dana Roth]

Stevan: would it be helpful to have a 'hall of shame' where titles of journals 
that do not allow self-archiving are 'outed'??

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: American Scientist Open Access Forum 
[american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] on behalf of 
Peter Millington [peter.milling...@nottingham.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 3:59 AM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: 60% of Journals Allow Immediate Archiving of Peer-Reviewed 
 Articles - but it gets much much better...

*** Apologies for cross posting ***

New charts published on the SHERPA/RoMEO Blog show that 87% of journals allow 
some form of immediate self-archiving of articles, although in only 60% of 
cases is this a post-peer-reviewed version.

http://romeo.jiscinvolve.org/wp/?p=196

This rises impressively once embargo periods have expired and any other 
restrictions have been complied with, showing that 94% of journals permit 
peer-reviewed articles to be archived. Furthermore, nearly a quarter of 
journals allow the publisher's version/PDF to be archived. Only 5% of journals 
do not permit any form of archiving.

The statistics were compiled from a snapshot of the RoMEO Journals database 
taken on the 15th Nov.2011, when it contained about 19,000 titles.

Peter Millington

SHERPA Technical Development Officer
Centre for Research Communications
Greenfield Medical Library, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, 
Nottingham, NG7 2UH, England
This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may 
contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, 
please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.   Please do not use, copy 
or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.  
Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily 
reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.

This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.

Re: The affordability problem vs. the accessibility problem

[Dana Roth]

I think there is a tendency to overly generalize the access problem which, in my
mind, is primarily a problem with the biomedical literature. 

 

Lack of access, by members of the general public who need to go from PubMed to
the full text, is obviously very frustrating.

 

My sense, however,  is that few serious researchers or students are truly 
having
a problem with access to the scientific literature. 

 

Granted there are problems for non-subscribers desirous of immediate ...
seamless ... access.

 

But with options such as institutional document delivery, visiting or contacting
a friend at a subscribing library, direct purchase of individual articles,
author websites, institutional repositories, etc. ... I doubt that very many
researchers are having a serious problem with access.

 

There is, however, another angle to this ... and that is the need for young
researchers to get published quickly in peer-reviewed journals.  For them,
reasonably priced non-commercial Gold OA may be a necessity for obtaining
research grants.

 

I fully agree with efforts to achieve Green OA ... and applaud groups of
researchers developing  non-commercial OA journals.

 

Having lived thru a time when there was a reasonable balance between author page
charges and subscription pricing ... my concern is the inherent unfairness ...
of both commercially published OA journals to authors, and of commercially
published subscription journals to libraries.

 

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

 

Re: Fool's Gold Journal Spam

[Dana Roth]

Reme brings up an excellent, if unstated, point ... commercially published OA
journals like commercially published subscription journals are the problem ...
not the society/non-commercial OA and subscription journals.

 

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: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf
Of Reme Melero
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 1:28 AM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Fool's Gold Journal Spam

 

El 30/10/2011 17:03, Stevan Harnad escribió:

 

 

Not only is it regrettable that OA is so unthinkingly identified in

most people's minds exclusively with gold OA publishing, but this

growing spate of relentless fool's-gold junk-OA spamming is now

coalescing with that misconception -- and at the same time more and

more universities and funders are reaching into their scarce funds to

pay for this kind of thing, thinking this is the way to provide OA.

 

 

  


I am also an OA supporter, but I do not agree 100% with this afirmation, because
the situation depends also on different areas of the world, for instance in
Latinamerican and Caribbean countries (LAC) , gold OA exists for years (even if
their journals were not called OA journals, in fact most of them are gratis
journals) but the repositories landscape is an emerging area, in fact there are
very few institutional repositories. However, projects like Scielo, Redalyc or
Latindex that have been working for years with journals editors successfully.
So, there are diverse OA landscapes, and depends on where you are the route to
achieve OA could be different, said that I have also to say that I do not agree
with paying 3000 dollars or euros to publish a paper, but in mostly LAC
journals, authors do not pay any fee to publish a paper.

Good morning form the Mediterranean side.
Reme


--

Reme Melero

Científico Titular CSIC

IATA

Avda Agustin Escardino 7, 46980 Paterna, Valencia

Tel 963900022 ext 3121

www.accesoabierto.net

Re: Mandates: Practical Questions

[Dana Roth]

Could this be due to the failure of a business model that depends on donated 
time/money? 

Which sounds similar to the inherent problems with the SCOAP3 initiative from 
CERN.

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


-Original Message-
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum 
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf 
Of Sally Morris
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 5:15 AM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Mandates: Practical Questions

When I looked at OA journals a few years ago I found that (a) they tended to
publish very little and (b) they seemed much more likely to disappear or
wither on the vine

Sally

When is a journal not a journal?  A closer look at the DOAJ.  Sally Morris,
Learned Publishing Vol 19: 1, pp73-6, Jan 2006.   DOI
10.1087/095315106775122565 (Open Access)


Sally Morris
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
Email:  sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk

-Original Message-
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On
Behalf Of Heather Morrison
Sent: 02 September 2010 05:12
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Mandates: Practical Questions

On 1-Sep-10, at 1:28 PM, Jan Velterop wrote:

Were academics at large capable of -- or interested in -- organising and
managing the publishing of their results, it would look very different and
likely be much cheaper.

Comment:  Edgar and Willinsky (2010)'s survey of 998 journals using Open
Journal Systems found, among other things, that most of these journals are
scholar-led, and indeed, much cheaper, with an average cost of $188 per
article produced.
http://openarchive.stanford.edu/handle/10408/134

This is a small subset of the over 5,000 journals using OJS.

Heather Morrison, MLIS
PhD Student, SFU School of Communication
http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/

Re: Mandates: Practical Questions

[Dana Roth]

Jan makes some good points but I think that a distinction should be made 
between society publishers and commercial publishers.

I find it hard to imagine that the significance of society publishers is 
diminishing rapidly given the rapidly growing importance of their journals.

Doesn't the future really belong to journal publishers who provide a reasonable 
subscription product and/or a reasonable page charge for Open Access?

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


-Original Message-
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum 
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf 
Of Jan Szczepanski
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 11:51 PM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Mandates: Practical Questions

Velterop is discussing important aspects that are missing in the green
part of the OA-movement! Beyond their lofty ideas there is
something called real life.When the ideas didn't match their dreams they
had to change reality by force, the mandate..

Publishers are not only artisans. Who created truly international
scientific journals after the second world war? Who
expanded and diversified scientific journals after the Sputnik crises
during the sixties and seventies? That was the
commercial publishers best days. No one can take that from them.

But their significance today are diminishing rapidly. The future belongs
to the free open access journals. I can't see
how the commercial publishers can match that in the long run. They have
had their time and they can be proud
of what they have accomplished.

See page two

http://ezb.uni-regensburg.de/anwender/Jahresbericht_EZB_2008.pdf

And the future is here

http://pkp.sfu.ca/?q=ojs

Jan


Jan Velterop skrev:
 Traditionally, publishers provide organisation and management services. 
 That's it. No more, no less. They organise peer review and dissemination. 
 (They do not *provide* peer review.)  Dissemination includes printing and 
 posting on the web.

 The reason publishers exist is that organisation and management skills needed 
 for publishing are extremely scarce in academia (and maybe even incompatible 
 with the creative processes). They couldn't organise the proverbial piss-up 
 in a brewery. Either that, or academics are simply not interested in 
 organising and managing the publishing process. No problem, as publishers 
 step into the breach.

 Were academics at large capable of -- or interested in -- organising and 
 managing the publishing of their results, it would look very different and 
 likely be much cheaper. Jounals (virtual ones, by now) might in that -- 
 almost hypothetical -- scenario require submitted manuscripts to be endorsed 
 by reviewers willing to stake their names and reputations by endorsing the 
 work, and would then publish it without delay, on a well-run repository. With 
 full OA, of course.

 That may still happen, but likely at the initiative of one or other publisher 
 willing to take on practically the whole scientific 'ego-system' that's 
 stacked against it. Just as happened with OA publishing ('gold' OA for 
 cognoscenti).

 Well, here is the challenge. Who picks up the gauntlet?

 Jan Velterop


 Sent from Jan Velterop's iPhone. Please excuse for brevity and typos.

 On 31 Aug 2010, at 21:29, C Oppenheim c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk wrote:


 Just because something is logical, technically possible, eminently sensible 
 and economically viable does not mean it is either inevitable or necessarily 
 the option chosen. A glance at the policies aopted by governments regardng 
 global warning shows that.  Human beings can be irrational and often adopt 
 strategies (or choose not to have a strategy at all)  for the short term. 
 Reasons and evidence is not enough.
 
 From: American Scientist Open Access Forum 
 [american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of 
 Stevan Harnad [amscifo...@gmail.com]
 Sent: 31 August 2010 13:44
 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
 Subject: Mandates: Practical Questions

 On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Jan Velterop velterop -- gmail.com wrote:


 What I disagree with Stevan on is the primacy of 'green' over 'gold'. He
 regards that more or less as a given, even an axiom; I don't.

 The primacy of green over gold is not an axiom. It is based on reasons
 and evidence:

 (1) Most authors (80%) are not providing OA of their own accord today
 -- either Green or Gold OA.

 (2) Green OA costs the author nothing (and the institution next to
 nothing per article)

 (3) Gold OA (BMC, PLOS) costs extra money per article (from the
 author, institution or funder)

 (4) Authors are even less likely to do what they are not already doing
 of their own accord if it costs extra money

Re: Facing up to fraud - China's exponential research growth could fuel fraud

[Dana Roth]

While that may be true ... isn't most of the TA fraud in the medical field ... 
which occurs because long range studies can't reasonably be reproducable.  I 
would suggest that publication growing at an exponendial rate, that goes far 
beyond what can be professionally peer-reviewed, is almost by definition 
problematic.

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: American Scientist Open Access Forum 
[american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of C 
Oppenheim [c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 7:45 AM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Facing up to fraud - China's exponential research growth   
   could fuel fraud

And don't forget the all too numerous instances of fraud which involved 
hoodwinking professional peer reviewers in the USA, UK, etc. and involved 
toll access journals. Of course high quality peer reviewing is important, but 
such refereeing occurs in OA just as much as in TA.

Charles

Professor Charles Oppenheim
Department of Information Science
Loughborough University
Loughborough
Leics LE11 3TU

e mail c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk
-Original Message-
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum 
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf 
Of Leslie Carr
Sent: 19 February 2010 10:13
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Facing up to fraud - China's exponential research growth could 
fuel fraud

On 19 Feb 2010, at 05:00, Dana Roth wrote:

 The January 25 issue of Chemistry  Industry (issue 2, 2010) has a short 
 article on research fraud which includes a sidebar on the situation in China 
 (see below).  This suggests that, contrary to Heather Morrison's suggestion, 
 scholar led open access publishing is not a viable solution.  Without a cadre 
 of truly professional peer-reviewers, publication in Chinese journals will 
 become increasingly suspect.

I draw the reverse conclusion. The frauds were discovered precisely because the 
already-peer-reviewed-material was available in an open access form for 
subsequent analysis.
See the IUCR editorial http://journals.iucr.org/e/issues/2010/01/00/me0406/ , 
and the 2004 presentation to the BCA Crystal Structure EPrints: Publication @ 
Source Through the Open Archive Initiative ( http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/1633/ )
--
Les Carr

Facing up to fraud - China's exponential research growth could fuel fraud

[Dana Roth]

The January 25 issue of Chemistry  Industry (issue 2, 2010) has a short 
article on research fraud which includes a sidebar on the situation in China 
(see below).  This suggests that, contrary to Heather Morrison's suggestion, 
scholar led open access publishing is not a viable solution.  Without a cadre 
of truly professional peer-reviewers, publication in Chinese journals will 
become increasingly suspect.

--

China’s research output has exploded four-fold over the past decade, far 
outpacing research activity in the rest of the world, according to a global 
research report by Thomson Reuters. The country generated nearly 112,000 
research papers in 2008, up from just over 20,000 in 1998. China surpassed 
Japan, the UK and Germany in 2006 and now stands second only to the US (CI 
2009, 22, 7).

‘All the data we analyse refer to publications in journals that meet Thomson 
Reuters editorial standards, including those on peer review,’ says Jonathan 
Adams, director of research evaluation at Thomson Reuters. ‘We can therefore 
regard the indexed growth of China’s share of world publications as 
representing a real increase in research outputs meeting international quality 
standards.’

It has been reported that rates of duplicate publications are higher in China 
and Japan than other industrialised countries (Nature doi:10.1038/451397a). 
However, it is not clear whether the levels of other fraud or misconduct are 
elevated in Chinese academia. ‘We understand that there is significant 
pressure on researchers to publish and, where possible, to publish in 
high-quality international journals. This may be more explicit in China – for 
example, it has been reported that incentive payments are offered to those who 
publish in Nature and Science,’ says Adams. But he points out that pressure 
is also applied to researchers in the UK and the US to meet these challenges, 
and that promotion and tenure in many countries may hang on regular output in 
top quality journals.

Nevertheless, a recent editorial in The Lancet paints a picture of growing 
scientific fraud in China (Lancet, 2009, 375, 94). Recently, 70 Chinese papers 
had to be retracted by Acta Crystallographica Section E after the crystal 
structures were discovered to be fabricated. The journal’s editors warn that 
preliminary investigations suggest that the number of retractions will rise. 
The editorial calls on China’s government, which funds nearly all scientific 
research, to take a more active role in promoting integrity and establishing 
robust and transparent procedures to handle misconduct.

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

Re: Is the request copy button good for OA?

[Dana Roth]

Isn't it more likely that researchers would be extra 'busy' trying to sort out 
what is relevant from everything else on the web?

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: American Scientist Open Access Forum 
[american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of 
Leslie Carr [l...@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 6:16 AM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Is the request copy button good for OA?

On 17 Feb 2010, at 10:56, Jan Szczepanski wrote:

 Publishers are indispensible even today.

Without researchers, academic journal publishers would have nothing to publish.

Without publishers, researchers would still be very busy indeed doing research.
They would probably also have worked out a way to use the Web to review and 
disseminate their research.
--
Les Carr

Re: Authors Re-using Their Own Work

[Dana Roth]

Isn't this similar to the 'right of way' laws which preclude property owners 
from putting up a fence across a long-used public path through private property.

It would seem that a long term absence of any active attempt to restrict 
authors from sharing their publications for non-commercial personal use by 
others ... constitutes an easement granted by publishers ...

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

Re: [CLS Junk released by Allow List] Re: Submission Fees (was: RE: Overlay Journals Over Again...)

[Dana Roth]

Two thoughts here 1) shouldn't an increase in the size of the journal be 
factored into the discussion before making the 'double-dipping' charge and 2) 
PLOS One has published ~6000 articles while the Journal of Biological Chemistry 
(and probably several others) have published almost 10,000 articles in the same 
time span.

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: American Scientist Open Access Forum 
[american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of 
Heather Morrison [heath...@eln.bc.ca]
Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 11:04 AM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: [CLS Junk released by Allow List]  Re: Submission Fees (was:  RE: 
Overlay Journals Over Again...)

On 5-Jul-09, at 4:37 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:

So it seems double-dipping unless it's honest? Perhaps it's honest
unless it's clearly double-dipping.

A very wide-spread misconception, on this list and elsewhere, is that
subscriptions somehow are priced linearly.

Comment:

Publisher revenue is indeed linear.  If 10% of last year's revenue
stream is coming from publication charges, prices should be decreased
by 10%.  OR, libraries and others such as funding agencies,
departments, etc., should not support the publication charges.  This
may help explain why submissions are growing at fully open access
journals at a greater rate than the hybrid open access choice models
- for example, PLoS One is already among the world's largest
journals, and may well become THE largest journal by 2010.  If I have
missed a success story list this from the open choice model, it would
be appreciate if someone could fill me in.

Jan Velterop wrote:

Another characteristic of subscriptions is that, in science in any
case (due to the monopoloid nature of journals and the uniqueness of
articles), they are utterly inelastic in economic terms. Or rather,
somewhat elastic in one direction, but inelastic in the opposite one.
When prices go up, there is a chance of cancellation. When prices go
down, there is essentially no chance of selling more subscriptions.

Comments:

On decreasing prices:  in library consortial deals, it is very common
for pricing for individual libraries to decrease considerably over
publisher list price, while the publisher / vendor receives maximum
revenue through a larger customer base and (often) the efficiencies
of central billing.

On inelasticity:  I would argue that the inelastic market has already
passed its prime.  Today, any researcher or group of researchers can
easily disseminate their own research results through repositories,
and/or set up their own open access journals, at minimal expense.
Publishers that have relied on an inelastic market in the past, would
be well advised to prepare for a future where there is competition.

Any opinion expressed in this e-mail is that of the author alone, and
does not represent the opinion or policy of BC Electronic Library
Network or Simon Fraser University Libraries.

Heather Morrison, MLIS
The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com

Re: [CLS Junk released by Allow List] Re: [CLS Junk released by Allow List] Re: Submission Fees (was: RE: Overlay Journals Over Again...)

[Dana Roth]

PLOS One at 4800 articles in 2009 will clearly be one of the largest journals,  
only  PHYS REV B (5782) and APPL PHYS LETT  (5449)   published more articles in 
2008.

Other journals in the 'largest' category, with their 2008 article counts, are:

J APPL PHYS (4168)
PHYS REV LETT  (3905)
J BIOL CHEM  (3761)
ACTA CRYSTALLOGR E  (3533)
P NATL ACAD SCI USA  (3508)
J AM CHEM SOC  (3242)
J PHYS CHEM C  (2888)
PHYS REV D (2863)

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: American Scientist Open Access Forum 
[american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of 
Heather Morrison [heath...@eln.bc.ca]
Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 5:16 PM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: [CLS Junk released by Allow List]  Re: [CLS Junk released by Allow 
List]  Re: Submission Fees  (was:  RE: Overlay Journals Over 
Again...)

Clarification: PLoS One is among the world's largest journals,
anticipating publication of about 4,800 articles in 2009 - it is not
THE largest journal, at least not yet.

If anyone has data about average annual output of the world's largest
journals, that would be most helpful.  If PLoS One does become the
world's largest - perhaps in 2010?  - it would be nice to know.

Any opinion expressed in this e-mail is that of the author alone, and
does not represent the opinion or policy of BC Electronic Library
Network or Simon Fraser University Library.

Heather Morrison
heath...@eln.bc.ca
Sent from my mobile device

On 2009-07-05, at 12:42 PM, Dana Roth dzr...@library.caltech.edu
wrote:

 Two thoughts here 1) shouldn't an increase in the size of the
 journal be factored into the discussion before making the 'double-
 dipping' charge and 2) PLOS One has published ~6000 articles while
 the Journal of Biological Chemistry (and probably several others)
 have published almost 10,000 articles in the same time span.

 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: American Scientist Open Access Forum [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-
 access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison
 [heath...@eln.bc.ca]
 Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 11:04 AM
 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
 Subject: [CLS Junk released by Allow List]  Re: Submission Fees
 (was:  RE: Overlay Journals Over Again...)

 On 5-Jul-09, at 4:37 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:

 So it seems double-dipping unless it's honest? Perhaps it's honest
 unless it's clearly double-dipping.

 A very wide-spread misconception, on this list and elsewhere, is that
 subscriptions somehow are priced linearly.

 Comment:

 Publisher revenue is indeed linear.  If 10% of last year's revenue
 stream is coming from publication charges, prices should be decreased
 by 10%.  OR, libraries and others such as funding agencies,
 departments, etc., should not support the publication charges.  This
 may help explain why submissions are growing at fully open access
 journals at a greater rate than the hybrid open access choice models
 - for example, PLoS One is already among the world's largest
 journals, and may well become THE largest journal by 2010.  If I have
 missed a success story list this from the open choice model, it would
 be appreciate if someone could fill me in.

 Jan Velterop wrote:

 Another characteristic of subscriptions is that, in science in any
 case (due to the monopoloid nature of journals and the uniqueness of
 articles), they are utterly inelastic in economic terms. Or rather,
 somewhat elastic in one direction, but inelastic in the opposite one.
 When prices go up, there is a chance of cancellation. When prices go
 down, there is essentially no chance of selling more subscriptions.

 Comments:

 On decreasing prices:  in library consortial deals, it is very common
 for pricing for individual libraries to decrease considerably over
 publisher list price, while the publisher / vendor receives maximum
 revenue through a larger customer base and (often) the efficiencies
 of central billing.

 On inelasticity:  I would argue that the inelastic market has already
 passed its prime.  Today, any researcher or group of researchers can
 easily disseminate their own research results through repositories,
 and/or set up their own open access journals, at minimal expense.
 Publishers that have relied on an inelastic market in the past, would
 be well advised to prepare for a future where there is competition.

 Any opinion expressed in this e-mail is that of the author alone, and
 does not represent the opinion or policy of BC Electronic Library
 Network

Re: Elsevier's fake journal scandal

[Dana Roth]

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

The 7th title was v.1(1) which carried the title: Australasian journal of 
musculoskeletal medicine.

It is hard to imagine this was a 'rogue' operation since the journals have 
ISSNs ...

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.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: American Scientist Open Access Forum 
[american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of 
Hamaker, Charles [caham...@uncc.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 5:10 AM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: [CLS Junk released by User action] Re: Elsevier's fake journal scandal

The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine published  by Excerpta 
Medica  was published at least from 2002 to 2005. There are holdings of the 
journal at the State Library of New South Wales:, Vol. 1, issue 2 (2002)-v. 4, 
issue 1 (2005). Elsevier has indicated there are about 6 of these types of 
titles that they published between 2000 and 2005. See Peter Suber?s blog for 
more info: 
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/05/elsevier-confirms-6-fake-journals-more.html


Chuck Hamaker

From: American Scientist Open Access Forum 
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf 
Of c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 8:42 AM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Elsevier's fake journal scandal

My understanding - which may be wrong - was that Elsevier did NOT launch new 
journals in the Merck scandal, but rather issued a single issue of a fake 
journal stuffed with pro-Merck articles.  What Elsevier did was unethical and 
grossly misleading, but I don't think can be used as supporting evidence about 
publishers' motives for launching new journals.

Yes, commercial  publishers launch new journals in THE HOPE of making profits 
from them;  but those profits are often an extremely long time coming, or may 
never appear at all.

Charles


Professor Charles Oppenheim
Head
Department of Information Science
Loughborough University
Loughborough
Leics LE11 3TU

Tel 01509-223065
Fax 01509 223053
e mail c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk



From: American Scientist Open Access Forum 
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf 
Of Uhlir, Paul
Sent: 19 May 2009 06:43
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Elsevier's fake journal scandal
Sally, I don't wish to belabour the point, but I also don't want it to be 
missed. I appear to have been too oblique in my original comment, which may 
have obscured its relevance to you as well as to others on this listserv. What 
I meant to address was your assertion that you think it is a fallacy that 
publishers launch new journals in order to make money. The link I provided was 
to a report by Peter Suber that Elsevier in Australia launched 6 fake 
biomedical journals that included a series of sponsored article publications. 
Elsevier declined to name the sponsors, although when this story initially 
broke about the first two journals, it was reported that those were sponsored 
by Merck. It is quite clear, however, that all 6 journals were launched solely 
to make money, basically to provide infomercials written by Elsevier's 
clients under the guise of independent, peer-reviewed research results.

More important than addressing your assertion, however, was to bring this 
scandal to the attention of the recipients of this listserv, since these 
incidents do not appear to have been widely reported. They strike me as a 
rather fundamental breach of scientific integrity and publishing ethics in the 
sensitive area of public health that should be of concern to 
everyone--researchers, publishers, and the broader public.

Paul


From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Sally Morris
Sent: Sun 5/17/2009 4:48 AM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Kathryn Sutherland's Attack on OA in the THES
Sorry Paul, I don?t see the relevance of this to my general response to a 
wide-ranging and, IMHO, unfounded comment

Sally



Sally Morris



South House, The Street

Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK



Tel: +44(0)1903 871286

Fax: +44(0)8701 202806

Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk


From: American Scientist Open Access Forum 
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf 
Of Uhlir, Paul
Sent: 15 May 2009 22:38
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: 

Re: Note from Gene Garfield On: English Language, Scientific Journals, and Thompson-Reuters ISI Coverage

[Dana Roth]

I am also dumbfounded that some one would make such an absurd statement.

A case in point is Gene's suggestion, some years ago, that Cyrillic articles 
should be transliterated to the Roman alphabet to make them more easily read 
and more affordable than translated 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.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: American Scientist Open Access Forum 
[american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of 
Stevan Harnad [amscifo...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 4:50 PM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Note from Gene Garfield On: English Language, Scientific Journals, and 
Thompson-Reuters ISI Coverage

Posted with permission. -- SH
GENE GARFIELD:



Dear Stevan: Do you happen to know Charles Durand? At one point he appears to 
have been at the Univ of Sherbrooke in Quebec, but I have not been able to 
locate his email or other address or phone?

In a recent posting he attributed a statement to me that was not true.

Here is the message I tried to send him but it was returned as undeliverable.

Eugene Garfield, PhD. email:  garfield -- 
codex.cis.upenn.edumailto:garfi...@codex.cis.upenn.edu
home page: www.eugenegarfield.orghttp://www.eugenegarfield.org/
Tel: 215-243-2205 Fax 215-387-1266
Chairman Emeritus, ISI www.isinet.comhttp://www.isinet.com/
3501 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-3302
President, The Scientist LLC. 
www.the-scientist.comhttp://www.the-scientist.com/
400 Market Street, Suite 1250, Philadelphia, PA 19106-2501
Past President, American Society for Information Science and
Technology (ASIST) www.asist.orghttp://www.asist.org/


In a paper (doi: 10.2167/cilp085.0)  you posted on the www you claim that I said

   If It's Not in English, It's Not Worth Reading

You refer to a 1998 paper of mine, but there is nothing in that paper about 
this topic.

Furthermore, I never said or believed what you attribute to me. Please inform 
me exactly where you obtained this misquotation.

This is a complete distortion of what I have said about the use of English as 
the lingua franca of science.  I am fully sympathetic with desires of 
Francophones to promote the use of the French language in daily life. Now in 
the era of electronic publication I would encourage those who are able to 
publish bilingually to do so since there is usually enough space on the web for 
such bilingual postings.

I became aware of your views just today  from a posting at:
http://www.ameriquebec.net/actualites/2009/02/02-pour-le-francais-dans-nos-universites.qc



STEVAN HARNAD:



Hi Gene,



The issue of the posting is not so much language of publication (though it does 
discuss that too) but the language of notices on walls in Francophone 
universities in Quebec: Sometimes they are in unilingual English -- which is 
regrettable, but it is sometimes unavoidable, if the source of the notice is an 
American university that does not produce French versions. This is something 
that is felt less acutely in France, where the language is strong and safe, 
than in Quebec, where its survival may be at risk. (There is, however, little 
excuse for notices produced by the Francophone University itself being in 
unilingual English. That has a note of laziness and inconsiderateness, if not 
of contempt. I think you might be able to understand that plaint.)



I am sure you never wrote anything like what was quoted above. That's typical 
hyperbolic distortion on 2nd hand repetition. The issue was probably about how 
ISI selects journals for coverage. ISI criteria are probably objective ones, 
based on readership, regularity, maybe citations, and it may simply be a 
demographic fact that it was mostly English-language journals that met those 
criteria at that time. Since then, coverage is cheaper and broader because of 
the online medium, but it's probably still true that most of the core 
journals in most(scientific) fields are in English.



Those statistics, not of ISI's creation, are of course a far cry from the 
distorted quote above.



If you give me permission, I could post our exchange on AmSci, to set the 
record straight.



The essence seems to be:



(1) Charles Durand repeated a common misinterpretation and misquotation of your 
view and writings.

(2) You had written that ISI had to base coverage on objective criteria on 
journal usage and reliability, as it could not index them all.

(3) In most fields, this meant that a majority of the journals covered, 
especially the core journals, were English-language ones

(4) This was not a value judgment but a demographic fact.

(5) Lately, the online medium has made it possible to widen ISI coverage.

(6) But it still remains a demographic fact that in most fields, 

Re: University ranking

[Dana Roth]

I agree ... ranking Caltech #38 seems odd ...

 

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: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]
On Behalf Of Yves Gingras
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 8:30 AM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM Digest - 6 Aug 2008
to 7 Aug 2008 (#2008-151)

 


Hello all,

This type of ranking is to me clearly a case of crank ranking

What is THAT supposed to mean? Quality? But of What? In fact it means
not much of anything in terms of academic reality that should be the
basic focus of universities and indicators rerlated to their
missions. The accompanying text of the message seems to imply that
the changes in positions are related  to any kind of improvement of a
university., which is clearly NOT the case.  Worst still, in terms of
interpretation, the text notes that  the UNAM climbs up to the
position number 51, a relevant change from previous number 59. (we
underline) Well... In fact, this changes of 8 positions among a
thousand is in all probability (99.99...) due to a random change from
year to year given the large variance of the sample.

Let us hope those who like constructing indicators wil use their time
to find meaningful ones instead of trying to interpret smalll
variations in pseudo common-sense  indicators (here web hits) which
are not really connected to universities' missions ...

Have a nice day


Yves Gingras