[GOAL] Re: Retirement from SHERPA Services
Dear Peter, What you've achieved with SHERPA remains a mainstay for global Open Access services and support. Thank you and all the very best for the future. Regards, Garret McMahon University College Dublin On 1 September 2015 at 17:26, Jean-Claude Guédon < jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca> wrote: > It is certainly an opportunity to thank not only Peter, but the whole > Sherpa team for the extraordinary work they have done. The Sherpa list has > been of immense help in providing answers to people (or even audiences) > that expressed various forms of scepticism with regard to Open Access, or > that expressed worries about ways to implement the Green Road. > > Many thanks, Peter, and your colleagues, for the great contribution to an > important element of the emerging structure for OA. > > And the best to you personally, > > Jean-Claude > > > -- > Jean-Claude Guédon > > Professeur titulaire > Littérature comparée > Université de Montréal > > > > Le mardi 01 septembre 2015 à 15:58 +, Peter Millington a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > I will be retiring from SHERPA Services on the 6th September 2015. My > email address will be deactivated on that date, and I will therefore be > unsubscribing from this list. My last day in the office will be Thursday > 3rd September. > > > > I will be retaining an interest in open access, especially as my personal > research will be even more reliant on it. I am particularly interested in > how paywalls affect non-affiliated researchers. > > > > I have been part of the SHERPA Services team for the past 9 years. While I > did not create the original SHERPA/RoMEO and *Open*DOAR, I was > responsible for redeveloping and extending them. I am proud of my role in > these services, as well as SHERPA/JULIET, SHERPA/FACT and the forthcoming > SHERPA/REF, not to mention our other projects such as RSP. > > > > SHERPA/RoMEO in particular continues to be heavily used by the open access > community worldwide. Not many developers can say they developed an API that > averages 200k requests per day. The SHERPA/RoMEO API peaked at 1.5m > requests per day before we made download files available ( > http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/downloads/). I only wish I could have made more > progress with our wish list of enhancements, but I have to leave something > for my successors to do! > > > > I would like to thank my colleagues both in the team and in the > international open access community for their friendship and good company, > not least at the annual Open Repositories and OAI conferences. > > > > I wish you all well > > > > Peter Millington > > > > Retiring SHERPA Technical Development Officer > > Centre for Research Communications > > University of Nottingham, UK > > > > > 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. > ___ > GOAL mailing > listGOAL@eprints.orghttp://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: In Defence of Elsevier
I think it's reasonable and realistic to frame this latest policy shift as part of the ongoing efforts of Elsevier to define Open Access on its own terms. This is yet another example of a series of successful policy tacks and canny acquisitions that consolidate existing market share while laying the foundation for future service expansion. The obvious intent to further undermine the effectiveness of institutional repository services by showing a preference toward fragmented dissemination via 'personal homepage or blog' or the Janus-faced endorsement of subject repository deposit is very illuminating. The institutional Open Access mandate has been in Elsevier's cross-hairs for some time now and this will undermine it further. Regards, Garret McMahon - University College Dublin On 28 May 2015 at 00:30, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Michael Eisen mbei...@gmail.com wrote: I could rewrite that entire plea substituting CC-BY-NC-ND with posting in institutional repositories with an embargo. Just because you don't care about something does not mean that the rest of the OA community should stop caring about it. To me the use of CC-BY-NC-ND is not a step it in the right direction - it is an explicit effort on the part of publishers like Elsevier to define open access down - to reify a limited license in a way that will be difficult to change in the future. Now - before the use of CC-BY-NC-ND becomes widespread - is the time to stop it. Later will be too late. On the road from subscription access to Fair-Gold CC-BY, (1) posting with an embargo and no license is getting almost nowhere, (2) posting with no embargo and no license is getting further ahead, and (3) posting with CC-BY-NC-ND is getting still further. Don't insist on what is not yet within reach, dismissing what already is within practical reach as not enough. Advocating a practical transitional strategy does not mean not caring. (And it's already late for OA, but no step forward now makes it too late for any later step forward.) On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: I beg the OA community to remain reasonable and realistic. *Please don't demand that Elsevier agree to immediate CC-BY. *If Elsevier did that, I could immediately start up a rival free-riding publishing operation and sell all Elsevier articles immediately at cut rate, for any purpose at all that I could get people to pay for. Elsevier could no longer make a penny from selling the content it invested in. CC-BY-NC-ND https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ is enough for now. It allows immediate harvesting for data-mining. The OA movement must stop shooting itself in the foot by over-reaching, insisting on having it all, immediately, thus instead ending up with next to nothing, as now. As I pointed out in a previous posting, *the fact that Elsevier requires all authors to adopt **CC-BY-NC-ND license is a positive step*. Please don't force them to back-pedal! Please read the terms, and reflect. SH Accepted Manuscript http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-posting-policy#accepted-manuscript Authors can share their accepted manuscript: *Immediately * - via their non-commercial personal homepage or blog. - by updating a preprint http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-policies/preprint_lightbox in arXiv or RePEc with the accepted manuscript. - via their research institute or institutional repository for internal institutional uses or as part of an invitation-only research collaboration work-group. - directly by providing copies to their students or to research collaborators for their personal use. - for private scholarly sharing as part of an invitation-only work group on commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement. *After the embargo period * - via non-commercial hosting platforms such as their institutional repository. - via commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement. *In all cases accepted manuscripts should:* - Link to the formal publication via its DOI http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/lightbox-doi. - Bear a CC-BY-NC-ND license – this is easy to do, click here http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/lightbox_attach-a-user-license to find out how. - If aggregated with other manuscripts, for example in a repository or other site, be shared in alignment with our hosting policy http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/hosting. - Not be added to or enhanced in any way to appear more like, or to substitute for, the published journal article. How to attach a user license http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/lightbox_attach-a-user-license Elsevier requires authors posting their accepted manuscript to attach a non
[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories
Hopefully germane to this (developing) position, I've pushed for a CC-BY use licence on all content exposed through the soon to be launched Research Portal/IR at QUB. The leverage provided by RCUK's strong position on this is at least one positive during what has been a difficult summer for policy alignments. What we hope to achieve is a cascading licensing arrangement flagged to the item record with the top level as open as we can make it. Garret McMahon Queen's University Belfast On 10 October 2012 12:15, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, It would simplify things a lot. So, the norm would be (mandated where needed) to deposit one's final manuscript, accepted for publication after peer-review, with a CC-BY licence, in a suitable repository, as soon as possible upon acceptance for publication. This has many similarities with deposit of preprints in arXiv. Publishers have not been concerned about arXiv. One reason is that versions of record are not deposited in arXiv. Subsequent publication of the 'version of record' takes place in a journal. In case that journal is a 'gold' journal with CC-BY licences, authors may replace the manuscript in the repository by the published version. Or not deposit a manuscript version at all but simply wait until the open, CC-BY version of record is published and deposit that. Some automated arrangement to do so may be available for some 'gold' journals and some repositories, as is already the case here and there (e.g for UKPMC). You may well be right that this very simple procedure would resolve most, perhaps all, problems of the Finch Report and RCUK policy plans. It also 'de-conflates' money and cost concerns from open access and reuse concerns. The only thing I'm not clear about is who the we all are who'd have to agree to launch this for Open Access week :-) Jan Velterop On 9 Oct 2012, at 22:28, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote: There is an inconsistency here, either way. We've always heard, from Stevan Harnad, that the author was the one who intrinsically had copyright on the manuscript version, so could deposit it, as an open access article, in an open repository irrespective of the publisher's views. If that is correct, then the author could also attach a CC-BY licence to the manuscript version. If it is incorrect, the author can't deposit the manuscript with open access without the explicit permission of the publisher of his final, published version, and the argument advanced for more than a decade by Stevan Harnad is invalid. Which is it? I think Stevan was right, and a manuscript can be deposited with open access whether or not the publisher likes it. Whence his U-turn, I don't know. But if he was right at first, and I believe that's the case, that also means that it can be covered by a CC-BY licence. Repositories can't attach the licence, but 'gold' OA publishers can't either. It's always the author, as copyright holder by default. All repositories and OA publishers can do is require it as a condition of acceptance (to be included in the repository or to be published). What the publisher can do if he doesn't like the author making available the manuscript with open access, is apply the Ingelfinger rule or simply refuse to publish the article. Jan, I think this is very important. If we can establish the idea of Green-CC-BY as the norm for deposition in repositories then I would embrace it enthusiastically. I can see no downside other than that some publishers will fight it. But they fight anyway It also clairfies the difference between the final author ms and the publisher version of record. It would resolve all the apparent problems of the Finch reoprt etc. It is only because Green licences are undefined that we have this problem at all. And if we all agreed it could be launched for Open Access Week -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Funder mandated deposit in centralised or subject based repositories
Robert?s arguments for CR over IR do seem to rest on funders? service requirements (rights management, format, version tracking) being best served by a centralised locus of deposit. I can see the attraction of developing processes with publishers that meet funder OA policies through facilitating direct deposit into a CR in terms of economies of scale. However service development in support of OA hinges on policy and this approach does appear less flexible when it comes to adapting to future changes in service demand and delivery. The Elsevier example is illuminating. The CR model achieves traction through processes put in place by publishers to meet funder policies. If, for whatever reasons, a publisher does not favour CR deposit then there will be an implicit failure (with the onus on the authors presumably) to meet the funder?s grant requirement of OA to research outputs. With the principal of academic freedom in mind CR deposit in this instance surely undermines the effectiveness of the funder?s OA policy. I have little to add to Stevan?s eloquence on the ?deposit locally, harvest centrally? model and I accept his points regarding the need for an institutional policy on IR deposit as being central to its success. From a data management standpoint I am unconvinced that service requirements, current or future, are best served by the CR model. The repository in my home institution is fully integrated with the Research Support System (TCD?s CRIS) allowing our research community to manage data relative to their research interests and outputs. It is also the primary point of ingest into the IR providing content which is aggregated by national and international services. An infrastructure to support funder requirements regarding reporting and OA is already in existence. It seems that an insistence on CR deposit may be over-egging the OA pudding. Regards, Garret McMahon Trinity College Dublin
Re: Google/Google Scholar merge?
Both Stephen Downes [ http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=45607 ] and Stuart Lewis [ http://blog.stuartlewis.com/2008/08/13/google-bring-scholar-richness-into-normal-search-results/ ] posted on this back in August. Regards, Garret 2008/10/16 Leslie Carr l...@ecs.soton.ac.uk: This may be a small change in the user interface, but it is a large step in the convergence between green open access resources (repositories) and publisher resources. Now researchers will be able to find (together, in one place) the various for-free and for-pay manifestations of a publication, and then they can make informed decisions about whether the preprint, author's postprint or published version will satisfy their requirements. Of course, they could have done that through Google Scholar, but most researchers aren't using Google Scholar, and they would have to use two different services for different types of information. -- Les Carr On 16 Oct 2008, at 14:31, Frank McCown wrote: I haven't seen any formal announcements, but I think this is part of Google's larger strategy of merging results from multiple sources (news, images, etc.) into a single results page, what they call universal search. http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/pressrel/universalsearch_20070516.html Regards, Frank On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 6:36 AM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: Leslie Carr lac -- ecs.soton.ac.uk Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:05:14 +0100 Subject: Google/Google Scholar merge? To: JISC-REPOSITORIES -- jiscmail.ac.uk I was just using Google to search for items in repositories when I noticed that some Google results have Google Scholar data associated with them - author name, year of publication, number of citations and links to the Google scholar records. See the following examples: (EPrints Soton) http://www.google.com/search?num=100hl=ensafe=offclient=safarirls=en-usq=site%3Aeprints.soton.ac.uk+%22institutional+repositories%22btnG=Search (DSpace MIT) http://www.google.com/search?num=100hl=ensafe=offclient=safarirls=en-usq=site%3Adspace.mit.edu+%22digital+preservation%22btnG=Search I'm not aware of any announcements about this. Does anyone have any more information? On closer inspection, it seems that any of the versions of a paper that Google Scholar has identified will appear with the enhanced information - whether in a repository or on a publisher's website or an author's home page. The author names are sometimes somewhat awry - you will often see authors listed as Submission R because the paper is listed under Recent Submissions or similar. The vast majority of repository usage comes from Google, not Google scholar, and so this development is very welcome because it allows users to see some kind of scholarly perspective on top of Google's (and the Web's) model of individual document resources. -- Les Carr -- Frank McCown, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Computer Science Harding University http://www.harding.edu/fmccown/
