Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] On Academic Freedom
Repeating wrong answers makes them not right. We have discussed this several times and I cannot see the sense to do this once again. I have made my point clear in 2012: https://jlsc-pub.org/articles/abstract/10.7710/2162-3309.1043/ Klaus Graf 2018-03-24 20:26 GMT+01:00 SANFORD G THATCHER <s...@psu.edu>: > So, Danny, let me ask if you are ok with funders requiring authors to > publish > under a CC BY license and waive all rights they otherwise would have to > have > input into how and where their writings get translated and how and where > their > works are republished (e.g., in edited form that distorts the author's > meaning > and associates the author with a cause, ideology, etc. that the author > finds > abhorrent)? > > Is these rights do not pertain to academic freedom, please explain why. > > The same might be asked of those universities that require immediate OA > posting > of dissertations, allowing no time for an author to revise it and find a > publisher for it. Various associations (in history, medieval studies, etc.) > have adopted recommended embargo periods to deal with this problem. You are > saying that those associations are wrong to be concerned about this > problem? > That this has nothing to do with academic freedom either? > > Sandy thatcher > > > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 04:07 AM Danny Kingsley <da...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > > >Hi all, > > > >Can we have a quick chat about Academic Freedom? I am frankly fed up with > this > being trotted out in multiple discussions in relation to open access. It is > akin to the PhD student who recently tearfully told me that the > University’s > requirement for her to provide a digital version of her thesis in addition > to > the hardbound one was a ‘breach of her human rights’. I feel the academic > freedom argument is moving into similar levels of hysteria. > >I wrote a blog recently that addresses this issue: Scare campaigns, we > have > seen a few<https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p 05> > https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p 05 (relevant bits below) > >Usually I hear ‘Academic Freedom’ thrown in in relation to being able to > choose where to publish. On the SCHOLCOMM and GOAL lists in the discussion > about Willinsky’s copyright proposal, academic freedom has been thrown into > the mix again. Given, there is potentially some validity in the statement > that: > “Policies that impact academics that are not developed and supported by > academics are not consistent with academic freedom.” But copyright > ownership > (other than the moral right to be identified as an author of a work), and > the > place of publication are NOT enshrined in academic freedom. > > > >Academic Freedom is not being threatened by copyright licensing > requirements. > This is a stupid side issue. We are fiddling while Rome burns. The real > threat > to academic freedom is the systematic undermining of expertise and > academia. As > the UK justice secretary recently said - “People in this country have had > enough of experts” > https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c Let’s not > even begin to talk about what is happening in the land of stripes and > stars. > > > >Let’s keep focus on the issues that matter. > > > >Danny > > > >* > >The new scare – threats to ‘Academic Freedom’ > > > >The term ‘Academic Freedom’ comes up a fair bit in discussions about open > access. In his tweet sent during the Researcher to Reader conference*, > one of > my Advisory Board colleagues Rick Anderson tweeted this > comment<https://twitter.com/Looptopper/status/968463945190313984>: > > > >“Most startling thing said to me in conversation at the #R2RConf: > >“I wonder how much longer academic freedom will be tolerated in IHEs.” > (Specific context: authors being allowed to choose where they publish.) > > > >In this blog I’d like to pick up on the ‘Academic Freedom’ part of the > comment (which is not Rick’s, he was quoting). > > > >Academic Freedom, according to a summary in the Times Higher > Education<https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/ > 12/21/defining-academic-freedom> is primarily that “Academic freedom > means that both faculty members and students can engage in intellectual > debate without fear of censorship or retaliation”. > > > >This definition was based on the American Association of University > Professors’ (AAUP) Statement on Academic Freedom<https://www.aaup.org/ > report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure> which > includes, quite specifically, “full freedom in resear
[GOAL] Re: [SCHOLCOMM] New Year's challenge for repository developers and managers: awesome cross-search
This isn't entirely new. I have written some entries on Full Text search for repositories, see http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/19457827/ in German Klaus Graf Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 03.01.2013 um 00:07 schrieb Heather Morrison hgmor...@sfu.ca: The Digital Commons Network has created an awesome repositories cross-search tool - with a signficant limitation, that this is limited to the Digital Commons platform. My challenge for repository developers and managers: are you developing your platforms and repositories to facilitate development of search services like this that would work across platforms? If not, why not? Here is the link to the Digital Commons tool (thanks to Isaac Gilman): http://network.bepress.com/ best, Heather G. Morrison http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: [Open-access] Re: Permissions attaching to pre-publication material
This article was published by Elsevier, and written by an NIH employee. The work of US government employees does not attract copyright in the US, US government agencies may claim copyright abroad While US government works generally are in the public domain in the US, they may be protected by copyright abroad. The feds may claim copyright protection for US government works in other countries depending on how those countries treat their own government works. So just be aware that US government agencies sometimes claim copyright in their works outside the US. http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/us-government-works.html http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#317 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government Klaus Graf ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Re: The numbers - Re: [BOAI] Success of U Liege Mandate Linked to Performance Assessment
I have counted for the well known Journal Nature (This is a RoMEO yellow publisher) the ORBI deposits since publication date 2002: R = Request copy (no full text = NO OPEN ACCESS forever or author's dead + 70 years whichever comes first) F = Full text PP/R-AP/F = 2 files, one publisher postprint with Request button, one author postprint full-text 2010 R 2009 F 2008 2 R, 1 PP/R-AP/F 2007 2 R 2005 6 R 2004 2 R, 1 F 2003 1 R, 1 F, 1 PP/R-AP/F 2002 3 R Summa summarum: 22 Nature articles, only 5 full-text. This is in no way a success for OA. The Liege mandate is worthless. Because authors tend to deposit publisher's PDFs with request button (which is, as I have shown several times, evil) instead of the preprint or (in the Nature case after an embargo of 6 months) postprint the request button is against OA. Klaus Graf
Re: The numbers - Re: [BOAI] Success of U Liege Mandate Linked to Performance Assessment
2010/6/2 Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com: [With some misgivings, I approved Dr. Graf's earlier posting referring to liar, and now this one referring to evil, but I remind Dr. Graf that the patience of this Forum's readership for his habitual rudeness is wearing mighty thin by now, and temperateness would be advisable if he wishes to have further postings approved.] I do not appreciate censorship and personal attacks. Mr. Harnad is misusing his authority as list moderator for both things. May I remember at http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/6339908/ I would like to see a not-Harnad-censored list discussing OA problems with free speech. BTW: From the first 19 of the 49 2008 ORBI deposits in the field of History have only 2 OA full text, and under the journal articles with request-button is one in a (non-peer-reviewed) OA journal (literaturkritik.de)! Klaus Graf
Re: wikipedia, open access and publishing
There are some Harnad-spread dogmatic misunderstandings of Open Access. Establishing open access as a worthwhile procedure ideally requires the active commitment of each and every individual producer of scientific knowledge and holder of cultural heritage. Open access contributions include original scientific research results, raw data and metadata, source materials, digital representations of pictorial and graphical materials and scholarly multimedia material. (Berlin Declaration) Therefore it is wrong to define OA as access to scholarly literature. Open Access also concerns cultural heritage. My suggestion for the Wikipedia article is: Open Access (scholarly movement) Klaus Graf 2010/5/19 Marc Couture jaamcout...@gmail.com: Heather Morrison wrote: Could it be that Wikipedia needs a way to disambiguate the term open access? The page titled Open Access (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access) is indeed a disambiguation page, leading to several other pages, among them: - Open Access (publishing), whose title is being discussed in this forum; - Open Access journal, which has a significant overlap with the former and opens with a suggestion that both be merged, a matter of sometimes heated discussion in the Talk pages of both articles. One suggestion would be open access to scholarly works. There likely is better phrasing, this is just to give an idea. I had thought of Open Access (published scholarly literature) because what is at issue is not access to personal, unrefereed documents or works (which is normally open) but to (normally refereed) documents are counted as publications in the scholarly universe. One could think also of Open Access to scholarly publications, which is shorter and carry the same meaning. I was about to make this change in Wikipedia, when I read their page about article titles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles and decided to follow their advice : Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia. So I will instead try to improve the content of the articles instead of joining the kind of guerrilla, well documented in the Talk page, regarding this particular issue. Doing so, I aim to contribute to increasing the reliability of Wikipedia, whatever that reliability may be at the moment (by the way, though I'm highly interested in all things Wikipedia, I will refrain from discussing Wikipedia ideology rather than OA pragmatics, following Harna's dutiful suggestion). Marc Couture
Re: Is Harvard's OA Policy pure bragging?
As you know it's pure censorship what you are doing. As moderator you have to be neutral but it is clear that you are misusing your administrative power regarding postings you don't like. I am not professor. Klaus Graf 2010/3/22 Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk: On 20-Mar-10, at 9:57 PM, Klaus Graf wrote: A short update on the Knoll case: http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/6250326/ Klaus Graf For Prof. Shieber's remarkably patient and polite reply to Prof. Graf's prior posting along much the same lines, see http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5918219/ (I think Prof. Shieber's reply pretty much covers Prof. Graf.'s latest installment too.) There are constructive criticisms one might make of some of the current implementational details of Harvard's policy -- http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/364-guid.html  --  but certainly not the way Prof. Graf goes about it; moreover, chances are that Prof. Graf would continue in much the same tone even once those implementational details were fixed, since they are not the target of his criticism. Stevan Harnad P.S. I think I made a judgment error, as moderator, in approving Prof. Graf's subject header, as well as the pointer to his comment on his website. Let this be taken as notice that as of now, no subject headers like the above one will be approved for posting in this Forum; nor will postings, even with temperate headings, if they merely point to intemperate postings elsewhere, as the above one does.
Is Harvard's OA Policy pure bragging?
A short update on the Knoll case: http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/6250326/ Klaus Graf
Re: EPrint Request Button
2010/2/9 Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk: Authors should be encouraged to provide their forwarding logins and also to export all their deposits to the repository of their new institution too! This is nonsense (like the whole button). Deposits should'nt be transferred from one repository to another. At RWTH Aachen IR there is no possibility to deposit eprints from former affiliations. I do not appreciate this but the reason is the connection with the university bibliography. If an author dies should he be encouraged to export all his deposits to heaven or hell?? Klaus Graf
Re: Is the request copy button good for OA?
I have replied there: http://archiv.twoday.net/search?q=button (i) The button is making scholars to beggars. (ii) There is evidence that asking directly the author is more successful. Having used the button without success a following direct mail would diminish the chances. (iii) My own experiences with the button (for test purposes) have shown that the success rate is low. (iv) DON'T LET THE AUTHOR DECIDE IF DARK OR OPEN. If there are no cogent copyright reasons DON'T ACCEPT dark deposits. (v) DON'T ACCEPT DARK DEPOSITS WITHOUT FIXED EMBARGO TERM. Klaus Graf 2010/2/3 C.J.Smith c.j.sm...@open.ac.uk: Members of this list may be interested in a blog post Iâve just written on the ârequest copyâ button used by some repositories (including my own). Iâd welcome your responses not only on this list, but also as comments to the blog post itself. http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/ORO/?p=92
Re: Gratis OA and LIbre OA
2010/1/20 Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com: On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Andy Powell andy.pow...@eduserv.org.uk wrote: Worth remembering that OA is about more than being available for download, at least according to the BOAI... Â http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#openaccess [and Bethesda] http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm The definition of OA has since been updated: http://bit.ly/5YAtVj Mr Harnad and Mr Suber cannot update the dfefinition of OA. The definition of OA is the common wording of the BBB definitions. Both are OA Gratis OA isn't OA according the BBB definition. What most users need (urgently) is Gratis OA There is no evidence for this. What leading gold OA journals offer is Libre OA. What institutional and funder mandates mandate is Gratis OA. Some are mandating also libre OA. Klaus Graf
Re: Roundtable Press Release (Access to Research Results)
2010/1/19 Marc Couture jaamcout...@gmail.com: There is also the (undocumented) Google Scholar's green triangle (see http://bit.ly/5cAlrX for details), which seems to be good at identifying repository-based versions, but apparently less in the case of âfreeâ (gratis) articles on publisher websites. I cannot see the triangle from here (Germany). There are fulltext links on the right side instead. Unfortunately most IR contents are only in the Google websearch not in Google scholar. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=num=100btnG=Scholar-Sucheas_epq=as_oq=as_eq=as_occt=anyas_sauthors=%22klaus+graf%22as_publication=as_ylo=as_yhi=hl=de Let me say first that 100+ of my publications as historian are gratis OA, including 4 of my 5 books. Most articles are deposited in IRs (Freiburg, Heidelberg, Frankfurt, etc.). On the first page there are 7 articles on the right side flagging free full texts. If you follow the links on the left side you will find additional 18 full texts. Same outcome: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=deq=autor%3A%22graf+klaus%22btnG=Suchelr=as_ylo=as_vis=0 Klaus Graf
Re: Roundtable Press Release (Access to Research Results)
I cannot see any empirical evidence that the assertion below is more than wishful thinking. 2010/1/17 Heather Morrison hgmor...@sfu.ca: On 17-Jan-10, at 6:42 AM, Sally Morris wrote: Stevan asserts that researchers who cannot afford access to the published version of articles are perfectly happy with the self-archived author's final version. There is in contrary evidence that researchers strongly prefer publisher's PDF and that they prefer to deposit publisher's PDFs in IRs although they aren't free in eternity. The best way to get a citable version is to mail the author if he has a publisher's PDF. (i) It is a myth (and Harnadian orthodoxy) that mail buttons in IRs are working well - no empirical evidence. (ii) It is a myth that there is a well working central OAI harvesting scholars know. OAIster is down and this was the most unfortunate OA event for me in 2009 - but nobody cares (except Mr Krichel, maybe). Klaus Graf
Re: OA mandate from the US National Center for Atmospheric Research
Professor Harnad is defining the reality according his wishes once more. 2009/10/17 Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com: is institutional repository in this press release a complete misnomer? OpenSky will be a multi-institution, *disciplinary* repository, not so? Unless they are planning selective OAI-PMH harvesting from IRs, which isn't how I read the release. The relevant distinction is institutional vs central repository, The authoritative list of OA disciplinary repositories is http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Disciplinary_repositories There is absolutely no need to have one central repository for each discipline (like arxiv). Professor Harnad is ignoring the fact that * most universities have no repository * most researchers are not affiliated to an institution with an repository. An estimated 185,000 people were employed as active researchers in the UK during 2006-07, of which around 94,000 were in the business sector, 82,000 in higher education and 9,500 in government (Houghton et al., p. 139) http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/rpteconomicoapublishing.pdf This means that one cannot exclude non-university-affiliated researchers from OA deliberations. Klaus Graf
Re: Parallel journals
2009/10/6 Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk: Begin forwarded message: (4) The difference between the publisher's PDF and the author's self-archived final refereed, revised draft are completely trivial. This is not something a researcher would worry about. Researchers are worried about access denial, not PDF. I think this is wishful thinking. My experiences with ZORA or Harvard's new IR are going in the same direction: a strong preference for publisher's pdf (and no OA, because it isn't free). (5) A journal issue is just a hodge-podge of mostly unrelated articles; no need to reconstruct that; open access to all the articles plus good boolean search power is all that's needed. I do not think that you can prescribe readers how to browse journal issues. There are lots of theme-issues where browsing makes sense. Klaus Graf
DASH = Disappointing Access to Scholarship at Harvard
Some first remarks in German at http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5918167/ Klaus Graf
Harvard's DASH
As I have argued in http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5918219/ scientists prefer depositing publisher's pdfs in IRs even with the consequence that there cannot be open access. Klaus Graf
Re: Correction: U. Tampere Policy Merely A Request, Not A Mandate
2009/8/30 Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com: Correction: Finland's U. Tampere's OA self-archiving policy was erroneously listed as a mandate. It is not. It is merely a request, not a requirement. As such, it is likely to fail, just as the first version of the NIH Public Access failed, for two years, as a request (5% compliance), until it was upgraded to a requirement, whereupon it became successful (over 60% compliance and growing). (1) request or require is only a play on words. See http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2009/06/30/university-open-access-policies-as-mandates/ http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/605-Whats-in-a-Word-To-Legislate-andor-to-Legitimize-the-Double-Meaning-of-Open-Access-Mandate.html (2) You cannot compare a funder madate (NIH) with an university mandate. Request in a funder mandate means: May be there will be disadvantages if I don't selfarchive Request in a university mandate means: Nothing will happen if I do so. Harvard-style: I can get all waivers I need. (3) I cannot see any proof that the very few documented high deposit rates after a mandate have the mandate as causa instead of the readiness of a faculty/university to deposit. Klaus Graf
Re: New Open Access Repository for Unrefereed Preprints: PLoS Contents
2009/8/25 Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com: [Hyperlinked version of this posting: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/621-guid.html ] (1) Peer Review is absolutely overestimated. In the humanities there is outside the anglo-american world few peer review. (2) Scholars need all publications OA in which the essential scholarly progress is made. In the humanities these are monographs and contributions in books/conference proceedings. Most of these are not peer-reviewed. (3) It is wrong to think that all relevant research is made from university affiliated scholars. It would be good to have valid numbers for scholars without deposit access to an institutional repository. (4) Institutional repositories are NOT better than central disciplinary repositories. Repetition makes false things not true. Klaus Graf
Zurich's ZORA: no progress for Open Access
From the 21 eprints deposited yesterday in Zurich's IR ZORA only one Status: O is free available as full text: an article from a BMC = OA journal. Journal articles from 2003 are'nt avaliable as full text although there isn't any embargo. See http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5815961/ If scholars can choose between depositing a postprint file as free full text and depositing publisher's PDF plus request-button most will choose the second option. The reason is simple: the PDF can be cited and the request-button allows to know who is using the article. Therefore the request-button is evil regarding Open Access. Klaus Graf
Re: Self-Archiving in a Repository is a Supplement, not a Substitute, for Publishing in a Peer-Reviewed Journal
2009/3/4 Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com: Repository deposit is definitely not for papers that cannot meet the peer-review standards of journals; the preprint is not a preprint if it will never be acceptable to a journal. (1) This is IMHO only your opinion. (2) Repositories are not only for journal articles. (3) OA isn't only for journal articles and scientific data. (4) Not all disciplines and countries have journals with formal peer review. (5) It is misleading to speak of peer-review standards of journals because they differ from journal to journal and discipline to discipline. Klaus Graf http://archiv.twoday.net
Re: Monographes and Open Access
There is enough anecdotical evidence for increasing hardcopy sales. See my link collection of 40 links at http://delicious.com/Klausgraf/monograph_open_access There are also NO valid empirical studies for the contrary and NO anecdotical evidence for this AFAIK. A very few assumptions on OA are made plausible by valid empirical studies. Klaus Graf 2009/2/28 Reckling, Falk, Dr. falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at: Is anybody aware of recent valid empirical studies on monographes in science and humanities and open access? For example, does open access increase or decrease sales figures of hardcopy mongraphes? Many thanks, all the best Falk Reckling
Re: Chronicle of Higher Education: Misunderstanding about the Evans Reimer OA Impact Study
2009/2/24 Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com: (Re: Phil Davis) No, E R do not show that the vast majority of freely-accessible scientific articles are not published in OA journals, but are made freely available by non-profit scientific societies using a subscription model. E R did not even look at the vast majority of freely-accessible articles, which are the ones self-archived by their authors. E R looked only at journals that make their entire contents free after an access-embargo of up to a year or more. Is there any empirical evidence that there are more self-archived articles in the web than articles free after an embargo? There is a lot af free backfile access for TA journals. And even you exclude that you have to proof your assertion. Klaus Graf
Re: Fair-Use/Schmair-Use...
2009/2/16 Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com: I wish Mr. Graf well in his goal of copyright reform. I urge him to pursue it through some more positive, practical means than just disparaging Green OA. Meanwhile, we have heard his views repeatedly on this Forum (which is a Forum devoted to practical OA policy-making) and I urge him to post again if and when he has something constructive and substantive to say about policies that will accelerate or facilitate our reaching universal OA. I do not accept your explanation of my motives and especially the connection with my advocating of re-use and fair copyright. As a list moderator you don't have the right to decide if my contributions are constructive and substantive. Most of your own contributions are only dogmatic repetitions of your well known position and therefore either constructive nor substantive. You have censored my contributions in the past several times. You should consider that nobody gave you the right to decide what is right or wrong. You are playing god instead of fair moderating this list. Klaus Graf
Re: Fair-Use/Schmair-Use...
2009/2/15 Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com: On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com wrote: As I have shown at http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5193609/ the Request button isn't legal in Germany. I have serious doubts that you have the knowledge to refute my legal interpretations of German copyright law. How many years have you studied German copyright law? I am not a lawyer but experienced in this field since 1989. Or simply NO - ...most scholars in my several tests have'nt reacted on my request button tests. (4) Mr. Graf, I cannot explain why some of the authors from whom you have requested eprints have declined to fulfill your eprint-request. Every one can repeat my little experiment with a mail adress not indicating his name or affiliation. I am sure that a harvard.edu adress will have higher rates. Writing in English to an Quebec scientist will have very low rates. I am sure that some racist Mississipi scholars will be unwillingly to fulfill a request from a Mohammed N. OA means: each scholar with internet access has the same chance to get the paper. Thus it is clear that your request-button-ideology has NOTHING to do with OA. (5) The decision to send a reprint or eprint is a discretionary one, on the part of the author, and that is exactly how it should be. Basing an OA instrument which you falsely think it is important on personal motives is unethical. Basing the ability to get a urgently needed medical article in let us say Gambia on the discretion of wealthy scholars in the US which are free in their decision and their prejudices is unethical. Each day people die because there isn't OA for medical literature. Any delay of OA and especially propagating a random generator called request-button is immoral. The decision to deposit an eprint is a discretionary one, on the part of the author, and that is exactly how it should be. This would also be academic freedom. Klaus Graf
Re: The German problem with OA
Unfortunately it isn't enough to read the German constitution. You have also to read the influential legal interpretations and court decisions. I have made a suggestion for a university mandate in 2007 at http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/4369539/ But I have to take into account that not only jurists against OA see the constitutional barriers. OA friends like Eric Steinhauer or Gerd Hansen (advocating a copyright law change that publicly funded scholars would have the right to deposit in repositories after a 6 months embargo) are also against mandates. You can read Hansen's influential refutation (2005) of the Pflüger/Ertmann mandate suggestion in German at: http://www.gerd-hansen.net/Hansen_GRUR_Int_2005_378ff.pdf If you all would applaud Sale's interpretation of the German constitution - that wouldn't change nothing. German jurists only read German legal journals or books. And I cannot see any discussion on the OA via mandates problem in the German OA community (discussions are very rare there). Klaus Graf
Re: Repositories: Institutional or Central ? emergent properties and the compulsory open society
There is an article of a scholar (German studies) against OA in the leading German newspaper arguing that mandates (he cites ZORA) and the Konstanz request to deliver a full text when sending the data for the university bibliography ar against academic freedom. Read it in Google's English: http://tinyurl.com/bv58fe See also: http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5509895/ It is wrong to think mandates are the only way to fill the repositories. It is ignored in this list by Harnad and the other Mandate-Advocates that Cream of Science project in the NL had a very high OA rate. Thus I applaud the DFG which is planning a similar program. Klaus Graf
Re: Repositories: Institutional or Central ? emergent properties and the compulsory open society
2009/2/11 Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com: Klaus Graf: It is wrong to think mandates are the only way to fill the repositories... Cream of Science project in the NL had a very high OA rate. Despite the enormous value and importance of Netherlands Cream of Science and the DARE project, its award-winning architect, Leo Waaijers has a rather different view ... The short email conversation says nothing on CREAM OF SCIENCE. Don't confuse DARE and Cream of Science which is a subset of DARE. Cream of Science showcases prominent research from the Netherlands. The website lists the names of 217 top Dutch academics, providing worldwide access to their 48,559 publications. About 60% of these can be accessed full text. These full-text publications are a subset of NARCIS and DAREnet. 60 % is a very high rate. It was a project which has shown that the leading scholars of a small European countries support OA. That's the fact. If DARE is unable to learn from the CoS experience then this isn't an argument against CoS. Klaus Graf
Re: Repositories: Institutional or Central ? emergent properties and the compulsory open society
2009/2/8 Bernard Rentier brent...@ulg.ac.be: On 07-Feb.-09 at 14:18, Klaus Graf wrote : 2009/2/6 Bernard Rentier brent...@ulg.ac.be: 1. Universities may legitimately own a repository of all the publications by their employees, no matter what their statutes can be, they may also impose a mandate and simply enforce it by making it conditional for futher in-house funding, advancement, promotions, etc. This isn't true for Germany, see http://archiv.twoday.net/search?q=mandat Legal mainstream in Germany says that the freedom of research forbidds mandating on university level. Klaus Graf It is most unfortunate for German researchers and for German Institutions (Universities Research Centres). As opposed to researchers in other countries, they are missing a superb opportunity for efficient worldwide dissemination of the knowledge they generate... I have a hard time understanding what this legal mainstream means and what is the rationale for it... It sounds more like a moral mainstream to me. Indeed, is it unclear whether it is a law, a decree, a widely followed institutional rule, or a dominant frame of mind ? I do not share the opinions of the German legal experts but it is a fact that the legal mainstream in Germany regards a mandate not compatible with the freedom of research (art. 5 Grundgesetz) i.e. against a fundamental right of the German constitution. It wouldn't be enough to change a law according these opinions - the constitution has to be changed (with other words: forget it). I do not think that there is a chance to convince the German jurists. Klaus Graf
Re: Repositories: Institutional or Central ? emergent properties and the compulsory open society
2009/2/6 Bernard Rentier brent...@ulg.ac.be: I believe we are getting carried away here. My point was much simpler... 1. Universities may legitimately own a repository of all the publications by their employees, no matter what their statutes can be, they may also impose a mandate and simply enforce it by making it conditional for futher in-house funding, advancement, promotions, etc. This isn't true for Germany, see http://archiv.twoday.net/search?q=mandat Legal mainstream in Germany says that the freedom of research forbidds mandating on university level. Klaus Graf
Fwd: Repositories: Institutional or Central ? [in French, from Rector's blog, U. Li�ge]
-- Forwarded message -- From: Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: 2009/2/5 Subject: Re: Repositories: Institutional or Central ? [in French, from Rector's blog, U. Liège] To: fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org (1) Please consider that most universites worldwide doesn't have IRs. (2) Please take into account that thousands of scholars have NO university affiliation. (I cannot see that my idea to open IRs for alumni research has get any feedback.) (3) IR managers can take all eprints from institution-affiliated scholars which are libre OA (under CC-BY or CC-BY-NC/ND) and available on a publisher's website or in a CR/TR. This is one reason why gratis OA isn't enough. Klaus Graf http://archiv.twoday.net
Re: The Liege IR Mandate is definitely (Immediate Deposit/Optional Access -- Dual Deposit/Release) (fwd)
2009/1/3 Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com: -- Forwarded message -- From: leo waaijers leowaa -- xs4all.nl Date: Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 12:49 PM Subject: Re: The Liege IR Mandate is definitely (Immediate Deposit/Optional Access -- Dual Deposit/Release) (fwd) To: JISC-REPOSITORIES -- jiscmail.ac.uk Dear Klaus Graf, I think this debate is useless. I read your lengthy comment and ultimately your point is that the Liège Mandate does not go beyond the well known fair use clause. I think you are right; the Liège is converting 'fair use' into 'smart use'. It is a non-confronting endeavour to bypass the proprietary review process of the big publishing houses. Why calling it nonsense? It is just one way to better access to knowledge and Stevan Harnad and Bernard Rentier are strong believers in it. So, please Klaus Graf, what's your point? Leo Waaijers. Read my contribution in German at http://archiv.twoday.net I have given enough arguments that the legal framework of Liege ORBi is not valid or misleading. I didn't say anything on the policy/the mandate. If we have the BBB definition of OA we should avoid the impression that everybody can interprete it as he likes. ORBi's license has nothing to do with the OA definition of the Budapest Open Access Initiative although it is referring to it in a very misleading way. BBB has the aim to remove permission barriers, but ORBi - not allowing derivative works or commercial use - gives by referring to BOAI the false impression it is LIBRE OA. Almost all contents in green OA repositories are'nt LIBRE, that's not the point.For few exceptions see http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/01-02-09.htm chapter 9 It cannot be accepted that a legal license referring to the principles of BOAI simply means that the normal Belgian copyright (and its exceptions) is valid. It's a sort of fraud. Klaus Graf
Re: ORBi, r�pertoire institutionnel de l'Universit� de Li�ge
I have given a legal analysis of ORBi in German at: http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5420548/ The practice and legal framework is nonsense. (1) Repository managers should make available all content OA if there are no publisher's permission barriers. I guess most scholars are using the request button without having asked for publisher's permission. (2) University-wide access is allowed if and only if (i) there is a special license (from the author or the publisher for this) Such a publisher's repository license only for university-wide access is'nt usual. (ii) national copyright law regards university-wide access not as public. I have argued that according to European directives there are serious doubts that this is the case in Belgium. In Germany it is definitively not the case. (3) It is nonsense that the OA-license is applicable to items which can be requested with the button. (4) It is absolutely unclear what the Liege OA license referring to BOAI means and if it is LIBRE OA. Are derivative works allowed or mirroring of eprints in other repositories without author's consent? (5) Please note that commercial use (which is forbidden in Liege) is not compatible with the BBB definition of OA. The authoritative source for gratis/libre OA is http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/08-02-08.htm not all libre OA is BBB OA. For example, permitting all uses except commercial use (the CC-NC license) and permitting all uses except derivative works (the CC-ND license) are not equivalent to one another and --ignoring certain subtleties-- not compatible with the BBB definition. There is no difference between BOAI and Berlin Definition of OA regarding commercial use or derivative works. If Liege is referring to BOAI commercial use has to be allowed. (6) I cannot understand why Liege isn't using Creative Commons licenses. They are clear and simple. Klaus Graf
Comment on a German court decision
Comment http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5393086/ (in German) (1) Refutation of the Harnad/Suber-myth that journal editor's work always falls under give away (2) German court says that peer review resp. editor's work makes a journal as collection of articles a copyrighted work. (3) Negative consequences for OA: If a repository has almost all articles of a journal issue legally self-archived according German law with references to the journal (citation of issue and pages) this is a violation of the right in the collection according the court. If the editor is the rights holder he must consent (some extremists propagating the useless request-button would argue that scholars always have the natural aim to support open access ...) but in the most cases the publisher has the rights. If and only if the publisher has an explicite self-archiving policy and the publication in the (disciplinary) repository is according this policy there is no danger. In all other cases he can block OA to most articles even authors have OA deposit rights according the German copyright act. Klaus Graf
Re: Zurich's Mandate doesn't work
[ 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. ] 2008/12/8 Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com: On 8-Dec-08, at 11:23 AM, Klaus Graf wrote: Here are my new findings (entry in German): http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5374120/ There a now lots of bibliographical entries but very few fulltexts. Below are listed ZORA's total deposits to date. http://www.zora.uzh.ch/view/year/ 2009 (3) 2008 (2235) 2007 (441) 2006 (415) 2005 (472) 2004 (402) 2003 (367) 2002 (298) 2001 (363) 2000 (298) 1999 (210) 1998 (210) 1997 (203) 1996 (255) 1995 (118) 1994 (27) 1993 (21) 1992 (2) 1991 (14) 1990 (6) 1989 (2) 1988 (1) 1986 (2) 1985 (2) 1981 (1) 0208 (1) UNSPECIFIED (71) Number of deposits on December 5, 2008: 50 Free fulltext: 10 No fulltext: 13. I'm not sure where the figure of 50 came from for Dec 5. http://www.zora.uzh.ch/cgi/latest Friday Beneke, S; Cohausz, O; Malanga, M; Boukamp, P; Althaus, F R; Bürkle, A (2008). Rapid regulation of telomere length is mediated by poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1. Nucleic Acids Research, 36(19):6309-6317. Weber, R H (2008). Internet governance: Transparency and the governance of the Internet. Computer Law and Security Report, 24(4):342-348. Plato-Shinar, R; Weber, R H (2008). Three models of the bank's fiduciary duty. Law and FInancial Markets Review, 2(5):422-438. Weber, R H; Vlcek, M. Kartellrecht: Entwicklungen 2007. Bern, Switzerland, 2008. Weber, R H; Darbellay, A (2008). Combating market abuse: the new swiss circular on market behaviour, regulatory challenges for fair financial markets. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Finanzmarktrecht:299-312. Szydlik, M (2008). Intergenerational solidarity and conflict. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 39(1):97-114. Esterhammer, A. Romanticism and improvisation, 1750-1850. In: SAUTE Annual Meeting, Neuchatel, 23 May 2008 - 23 May 2008. Proyer, R T; Häusler, J. MOI: Multimethodische Objektive Interessentestbatterie (Testhandbuch). Mödling, 2008. Insolvenzrecht: Kommentar der InsO und der InsVV mit Schriftsätzen und Mustern für die Insolvenzrechtspraxis. Edited by: Blersch, J; Goetsch, H-W; Haas, U. Berlin, Germany, 1999, 2008. Jakoby, N. (Wahl-)Verwandtschaft - zur Erklärung verwandtschaftlichen Handelns. Wiesbaden, 2008. Arcaro, A. Signaling by phosphoinositide 3-kinase isoforms downstream of receptor tyrosine kinases in human cancer. 2007, University of Zurich, Faculty of Medicine. Guerrero, T (2008). Situación clínica en cirugía. Consulta de Difusión Veterinaria, 155:73-75. Mahlow, C; Piotrowski, M. Computational linguistics for word processing: opportunities and limits. In: Workshop on NLP for Reading and Writing: Resources, Algorithms and Tools, Stockholm, Sweden, 20 November 2008 - 20 November 2008. Weber, R H; Vlcek, M. Tafeln zum Kartellrecht. Bern, Switzerland, 2008. Spiess, B M (2008). Diseases and surgery of the canine orbit. In: Gelatt, K N. Essentials of Veterinary Ophthalmology. Ames, Iowa, 35-52. Geitzenauer, W; Michels, S; Prager, F; Rosenfeld, P J; Kornek, G; Vormittag, L; Schmidt-Erfurth, U (2008). Comparison of 2.5 mg/kg and 5 mg/kg systemic bevacizumab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: twenty-four week results of an uncontrolled, prospective cohort study. Retina, 28(10):1375-1386. Strebel, R T; Müntener, M; Sulser, T (2008). Intraoperative complications of laparoscopic adrenalectomy. World Journal of Urology, 26(6):555-560. Rieger, M O; Zimmer, J (2008). Young measure flow as a model for damage. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Physik (ZAMP):Epub ahead of print. Rieger, M O (2008). Higher dimensional problems with volume constraints? Existence and Gamma-convergence. Interfaces and Free Boundaries, 10(2):155-172. Geyer, M A; Vollenweider, F X (2008). Serotonin research: contributions to understanding psychoses. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 29(9):445-453. Yu , N; Hollnagel, C; Blickenstorfer, A; Kollias, S S; Riener, R (2008). Comparison of MRI-compatible mechatronic systems with hydrodynamic and pneumatic actuation. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 13(3):268-277. Reips, U D; Funke, F (2008). Interval level measurement with visual analogue scales in Internet-based research: VAS Generator. Behavior Research Methods , 40(3):699-704. Lawrence, J M; Stroman, P W; Kollias, S S (2008). Functional magnetic resonance imaging of the human spinal cord during vibration stimulation of different dermatomes. Neuroradiology, 50(3):273-280. Schulthes, L; Neuenschwander, M P; Herzog, W (2008). Die Entwicklung des schulischen Fähigkeitsselbstkonzepts bei Primarschulkindern mit einer Nomination als hochbegabt. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 55(2):143-151. Coluccia, D; Wolf, O T; Kollias, S; Roozendaal, B; Forster, A; de Quervain, D J F (2008). Glucocorticoid therapy-induced memory deficits: acute versus
Re: Mandating OA: Don't Let the Best Be the Enemy of the Good
2008/12/3 Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com: On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com wrote: 2008/12/2 Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com: As I have shown according German law it is not possible for all researchers to data-crunch digital documents. Until you show how and why any German researcher cannot do exactly the same thing I can do with any peer-reviewed journal article I find on the web, I am afraid you have not shown anything at all. Read carefully http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/4851871/ and don't ignore that, although I am not a lawyer, I am a copyright expert in German law. As I have shown the button is in Germany illegal No, I'm afraid you have not *shown* that the (email eprint request) button is illegal in Germany. You have merely *said* that it is. No I have given enough legal arguments at http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5193609/ I didn't read from you any substantial legal argument rejecting my conclusions based on my knowledge of German copyright law. and my few tests make it clear that it is realistic not to speak of 37 % but let us say of 10 %. The 63%/37% figure comes from the 10,198 journals indexed by Romeo (and this includes most of the top international journals). It is not clear what sample your few tests are based on. I have given the numbers at http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5193609/ http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5247312/ and for the U of Tasmania repository in this list. Zurich: 6 requested, not got 5 St. Gallen: 6 requested, not got 6 (read the confirmation of the repository manager that the success rate is low) Tasmania: 7 requested, not got 5 Summa summarum: 19 requested, got 3 The button wasn't tested by ROMEO. You are manipulating the facts. If the success rate of the button is poor you cannot say that the rest of 37 % will be reached by the button. Klaus Graf
Re: Mandating OA: Don't Let the Best Be the Enemy of the Good
2008/12/2 Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com: Digital documents that are made freely accessible on the web can be accessed, read on-screen, downloaded, stored, printed-off, and data-crunched by any individual user. (They can also be harvested by harvesters like google.) That is all the use that researchers need, and that is all the use that (Gratis) OA need provide. No, researchers also need libre OA. As I have shown according German law it is not possible for all researchers to data-crunch digital documents. For the remaining 37%, the author has the option of depositing in Closed Access and letting users rely on the email eprint request button during any publisher embargo. As I have shown the button is in Germany illegal, and my few tests make it clear that it is realistic not to speak of 37 % but let us say of 10 %. THE BUTTON DOESN'T WORK IN THIS WAY. He technically works but that's all. Klaus Graf
Re: Elsevier Again Confirms Its Position on the Side of the Green OA Angels
2008/11/26 Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com: Green OA self-archiving provides the opportunity for achieving universal OA precisely because it is author SELF-archiving. Thus is it is perfectly reasonable for Green publishers to endorse only self-archiving, not 3rd-party archiving, to endorse self-archiving in the author's own institutional repository, but not in a 3rd-party repository, and to endorse depositing the author's own final draft, not the publisher's draft. Harnadian nonsense as usual. If there is no IR for the author there is no OA in this case, because depositing on the author's website (the only other possibility allowed by Elsevier) doesn't fall under OA according the Berlin declaration. If the author deposits the eprint or the IR manager in behalf of the author is the same. The best way for users is to have publisher's PDF OA, not publisher's draft nor author's draft. This is the position of most scholars in the humanities, I believe. See also http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/PDFandIR.html Taking the high Elsevier profit into account Elsevier bashing is only fair. Klaus Graf
Re: Please Don't Conflate Green and Gold OA
2008/11/22 Arthur Sale a...@ozemail.com.au: Klaus I find your conclusions regarding the Request Button unproven. · Firstly, it is obvious that the button works in the case of the University of Tasmania. You got two papers, so the software works. That was'nt the point. Like Professor Harnad you seems to use a rabulistic discussion style. · Secondly the sample was ridiculously small. This is true. So what? I requested 7 articles and received only 2. In find this a very poor result for a Harnadian patent recipe. · Thirdly, you have given no indication of what you asked for. For example if you had asked for a thesis, the following could have happened: I did'nt ask for a thesis. Do you think I am an idiot not knowing what OA a la Harnad means? I asked for the following papers: Reading, AM and Kennett, BLN and Goleby, B (2007) New constraints on the seismic structure of West Australia: Evidence for terrane stabilization prior to the assembly of an ancient continent? Geology, 35 (4). pp. 379-382. ISSN 0091-7613 Reading_2007_Geology.pdf Smith, KH (2006) Promoting innovation in Australia: business and policy issues. Discussion Paper. Australian Business Foundation, Sydney. InnovationKnowledgeEconomyFull.pdf Kellow, AJ and Haward, M and Welch, K (2005) Salmon and Fruit Salad: Australia's Response to World Trade Organisation Quarantine Disputes*. Australian Journal of Political Science, 40 (1). pp. 17-32. ISSN 1036-1146 K4H24P2700606224.pdf Cooke, DR and McPhail, DC (2001) Epithermal Au-Ag-Te Mineralization, Acupan, Baguio District, Philippines: Numerical Simulations of Mineral Deposition. Economic Geology, 96 (1). pp. 109-131. ISSN 0361-0128 Cooke_McPhail_ECON_GEOL_2001.pdf Haward, M and Rothwell, DR and Jabour, J and Hall, R and Kellow, AJ and Kriwoken, L and Lugten, GL and Hemmings, AD (2006) Australia's Antarctic agenda. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 60 (3). pp. 439-456. ISSN 1035-7718 CAJI_A_186498_O.pdf Large, RR and Maslennikov, V and Robert, F and Danyushevsky, LV and Chang, Z (2007) Multistage sedimentary and metamorphic origin of pyrite and gold in the giant Sukhoi Log deposit, Lena gold province, Russia. Economic Geology, 102 (7). pp. 1233-1267. ISSN 0361-0128 Multistage_Sedimentary.pdf [received] Canty, AJ and Deverell, JA and Gomann, A and Guijt, RM and Rodemann, T and Smith, JA (2008) Microfluidic Devices for Flow-Through Supported Palladium Catalysis on Porous Organic Monolith. Australian Journal of Chemistry, 61 (8). pp. 630-633. ISSN 0004-9425 AustJChem_2008.pdf [received] Klaus Graf
Re: Please Don't Conflate Green and Gold OA
2008/11/19 Jean-Claude Guédon jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca: Larry is right, and Stevan is right. Both routes should be followed and both routes should be demanded by students. Let us stop this exclusive attitude with regard to OA. Two roads exist. They are equally valuable. Rather than declaring one suprior to the other, it would be far more useful to examine how to make these two approaches help each other. I agree with this. Rainer Kuhlen has posted in INETBIB a question regarding Professor Harnad's position to the aims of the German Urheberrechtsbündnis (improving copyright is slowing the OA movement): http://www.ub.uni-dortmund.de/listen/inetbib/msg37662.html I have replied to this at http://www.ub.uni-dortmund.de/listen/inetbib/msg37671.html Here is a short summary in English: 1. It is a myth that green OA only works with a mandate. Have a look at the NL Cream of Science! 2 It is a myth that mandates are legally possible in all contries. At least in Germany it is impossible or very difficult to make mandates legally valid. 3. It is a myth that deposit with closed access is legally possible in all countries. At least in Germany the copyright act forbidds such depositing without the consent of the holder of the exclusive rights. See http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5193609/ 4. It is a myth that the Request Button works. See my little tests http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5193609/ http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5247312/ On October 11, I requested 7 titles from the U of Tasmania repository found with the following query: http://tinyurl.com/5dbssm On October 12 and 14 I get summa summarum 2 results, i.e. the PDFs of the requested eprints. For me this is enough empirical evidence to say that there is until now no empirical evidence that the RCB works! 5. It is a myth to think that is all a question of embargo terms. There are disciplines with publishers which are making case-to-case decisions and publishers which don't accept green OA. Depositing eprints closed access which cannot be used before the last dying author is 70 years dead doesn't make sense. 6. It is am myth that the primary aim of the OA movement is to make the journal literature free. A lot of people don't share this position. For a broader definition of OA see http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5251764/ Klaus Graf .
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
I am not a friend of Stevan's discussion style but I find this discussion boring. Can we please return to our topic? In Australia is already OPEN ACCESS DAY Please consider what you can do today (Tuesday) to spread the word about OPEN ACCESS. In my weblog at http://archiv.twoday.net there will be a lot of entries on OA including guest contributions or testimonials by Peter Suber, Rainer Kuhlen, Thomas Hoeren and others (mostly in German) . (Feel free to contribute in English - Archivalia is a colloborative weblog - you can write entries after a short registration.) Klaus Graf
Re: RE : [SERIALST] Plan B for NIH Public Access Mandate: A Deposit Mandate
I cannot see any sense in the Email button before there is an empirical study on its success. For Open Access this button has the same status as Interlibrary Loan (with the difference that ILL is more successful than the button). We have interlibrary loan so we need no Open Access? On September 7 I received 6 confirmation mails from the Zurich repository ZORA which has a similar button for a part of the non-OA items. On September 8 I received one PDF - seven days later I can say that 5 of 6 authors didn't fulfill the request. If you cannot bring harder facts this seems me enough empirical proof that the button doesn't work. Professor Harnard, maybe it would be a great idea to suggest a sample letter in English with bootlicking words for those who request but who are not known to the author. Dr. Klaus Graf
Zurich Open Access: Still disappointing
http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5173851/ (in German) Some results of my test: There are in the Arts faculty 58 eprints with 26 OA full texts. Without Psychology: 25 eprints and 7 full texts. I have also checked the 21 eprints from the last Tuesday: only 2 OA full texts. From the 13 eprints with fulltext only available for registered users only 5 have a Request a copy button. This feature doesn't work in all cases well. If the request is technically accepted one receives a mail confirmation: If you do not receive a reply or need advice at a later time please contact the administrator. For items with copyright implications, you may also be able to contact your local interlibrary loan service. The low percentage of full texts in Zurich seems to give some evidence against the OA mantra that most publishers allow green OA: http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5169934/ Klaus Graf
Re: Max Planck Society Pays for Gold OA and Still Fails to Mandate Green OA
2008/8/21 Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com: One can only leave it to posterity to judge the wisdom of the Max Planck Society in being prepared to divert central funds toward funding the publication of (some) MPS research in (some) Gold OA journals (PLoS)without first mandating Green OA self-archiving for all MPS research output. It is not as if MPS does not have an Institutional Repository (IR): It hasEDOC, containing 108,933 records (although it is not clear how many of those are peer-reviewed research articles, how many of them are OA, and what percentage of MPS's current annual research output is deposited and OA). Some observations can be found at http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/4159366/ (2007) On 2007 March 12 there were 14934 full text files on the server, only 5245 with Open Access. But, despite being a long-time friend of OA, MPS has no Green OA self-archiving mandate. I have been told, repeatedly, that in Germany one cannot mandate self-archiving, but I do not believe it, not for a moment. This is pure lack of reflection and ingenuity: As I have written several times I don't believe in the immediate deposit/ mail-button mantra. There are (overestimated) legal problems in Germany with mandating on the university level. For MPG one has to ask if the publication is made for hire. There is not an easy answer taking into account the right of research freedom (Forschungsfreiheit) in German constitutional law. Klaus Graf http://archiv.twoday.net
Re: Convergent IR Deposit Mandates vs. Divergent CR Deposit Mandates
It's pure arrogance to think that only authors at an institution should be privileged to deposit OA papers. Freelance-scholars must have a disciplinary repository. I have collected links to such repositories and the editors of the OAD have accepted the list. Feel free to add more repositories at: http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Disciplinary_repositories Some of these are not Central Repositories like Arxiv. Some are restricted on specific languages or regional provenance. These DR are without doubt important contributions to the OA community. We should support them. Klaus Graf
Re: The OA Deposit-Fee Kerfuffle: APA's Not Responsible; NIH Is
May I remember to the Berlin declaration which is defining what an OA contribution is: Open access contributions must satisfy two conditions: 1. [...] 2. A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials, including a copy of the permission as stated above, in an appropriate standard electronic format is deposited (and thus published) in at least one online repository using suitable technical standards (such as the Open Archive definitions) that is supported and maintained by an academic institution, scholarly society, government agency, or other well-established organization that seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution, inter operability, and LONG-TERM ARCHIVING (my emphasis). Thus it is clear that preservation is an important issue for the OA community including authors. Many humanities scholars are sceptic against electronic publishing because in their view true publishing is publishing on paper with long-term guarantee. Dr. Klaus Graf, archivist at RWTH Aachen University http://archiv.twoday.net
Re: Orphan works
2008/4/28 Bernard Lang bernard.l...@inria.fr: The issue of Orphan Works is more and more discussed in various places. Questions : - do you know whether the issue is raised in the context of open-access ? - where ? - should it be discussed, and where or how ? Yes, it should. (i) For the humanities monograph open access is essential. Peter Suber says in his authoritative OA overview: Nor need OA even be limited to literature. It can apply to any digital content, from raw and semi-raw data to learning objects, music, images, multi-media presentations, and software. It can apply to works that are born digital or to older works, like public-domain literature and cultural-heritage objects, digitized later in life. (ii) For the humanities and especially the historical disciplines is the access to historical monographs or journal literature conditio sine qua non. Publisher's retrodigitizing of journal literature is often not legal because publisher don't have the copyright. In Germany e.g. most authors of journal literatur didn't transfer the copyright to the publisher in such a way that the publishers can use their articles in a digital context. Nevertheless publishers are digitizing their journal backfiles - well knowing they don't have the rights to do so. It would be impossible to clear the rights for a 50 year old journal volume with reasonable financial effort (contacting the authors or all their heirs). A lot of scholarly useful photographs in the public archives are orphan works. (iii) If we need electronic Open Access to historical literature (and in the humanities we do) we have to adress the Orphans problem. (iv) As scholarly orphans are only a part of the orphans problem we should cooperate with open content initiatives which are propagating better access to orphan works. The best summary of the orphans problem which has been written in German is from Rainer Kuhlen in his new book Erfolgreiches Scheitern 2008 (pp. 315 sqq.). Kuhlen has also large chapters on Open Access he supports as speaker of the Urheberrechtsbuendnis. The book is online at: http://www.inf-wiss.uni-konstanz.de/RK2008_ONLINE/node/18 More information on orphans in German and English in my weblog: http://archiv.twoday.net/search?q=verwaist http://archiv.twoday.net/search?q=orphan Klaus Graf
We do NOT need to update the BBB definition
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/386-Dont-Risk-Getting-Less-By-Needlessly-Demanding-More.html Peter Suber has answered at http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/price-and-permission-barriers-again.html Peter Murray-Rust (and I) have often argued that permission barriers must be removed. See e.g. http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/4409408/ http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/4356023/ (and earlyer posts) See also MacCallum CJ (2007) When Is Open Access Not Open Access? PLoS Biol 5(10): e285 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050285 On the recent discussion on textmining and PubMedCentral: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/text-mining-licensed-non-oa-literature.html http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/non-oa-full-text-for-text-mining/ http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust/?p=1026 Harnad writes: OA is free online access. With that comes, automatically, the individual capability of linking, reading, downloading, storing, printing off, and data-mining (locally). Data-mining (locally) is nonsense. If I have to mine 1000 articles and are allowed to downlad automatically 10 articles/day I have to wait 100 days. Harnad repeats his ideas as mantras. We can do the same: FAIR USE IS NOT ENOUGH. There are scholars and scientists outside the U.S. under more rigid copyright regimes without Fair Use. Let's have a closer look on the German Copyright law: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__53.html It is allowed to make copies for scholarly use if and only if (i) there are good reasons and (ii) there is no commercial goal (keinen gewerblichen Zwecken dient). In my humble opinion medical research in a pharma business is (i) research according BBB (ii) commercial. A scientist in this company may according German law (since January 1, 2008) NOT (i) make copies of scholarly articles (§ 53 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 UrhG) for scholarly use (ii) data-mining. On the problems of the new commercial clausula for universities (Drittmittelforschung) see (in German) the position of the Urheberrechtsbündnis: http://www.dfn.de/fileadmin/3Beratung/Recht/Expertise-3-korb-urhg.pdf § 53 Abs. 2 Nr. 4 allows him making copies (of some articles in a journal issue) on paper or for non-digital use only. Because data mining needs digital use our German pharma scientist has only a chance to mine the CC-BY subset of OA publications (most hybrid journals have AFAIK CC-BY-NC). (i) OA is important for all researchers (including commercial research). (ii) Commercial medical research is important for world's health problems. (iii) Data-mining is a new scientific way to solve medical problems. (iii) Business companies engaged in commercial research cannot and will not afford journal licenses for large-scale data-mining. (SCNR: How many people must die because an OA guru says There is a need to update BBB and denies the need of re-use?) There is a simple solution (I will repeat it because it is important like a mantra): * MAKE ALL RESEARCH RESULTS CC-BY * MAKE ALL RESEARCH RESULTS CC-BY * MAKE ALL RESEARCH RESULTS CC-BY Klaus Graf
Scopus TopCited and OA
http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/4781179/ All 20 top cited articles are free of cost available in the internet. Klaus Graf
Re: OA's Problem Is Not Funding But Keystrokes: Solution Is Mandates
2008/2/18, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk: On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Thomas Krichel wrote: As Jean-Claude knows, I am a trained economist... Thus, here is what Jean and his gang should do: they should argue that the university should cancel physics, mathematics, computer science, economics journals (just to name a few where de facto open access is very high), and hand over the money to them so that they can help local author build high-quality digital scholarly assets. This is stunningly, breath-takingly bad advice! I hope readers of this Forum are by now well enough informed to know that they should ignore it, and why. OA's problem is not funding. Nor is it journal pricing. OA's problem is research access denial and impact loss. And what local authors need is not money to build high-quality digital scholarly assets. They need mandates -- from their institutions and their funders -- to deposit their published journal articles in their local OA Institutional Repositories. Forget about canceling journals until *after* we have OA (no discipline has it yet). Otherwise you are failing to reach for the obvious, which is completely within your grasp -- and gratuitously reducing access instead of increasing it. Here are my mantras: * There is poor empirical proof that mandates work. * In Germany institutional university mandates are nearly impossible because of legal reasons. * With a lot of money the Netherlands have brought important parts of the research output of a whole country in OA repositories (Cream of science) - without a mandate! * For publication in Not-English languages outside the STM field there are very few informations if publishers allow self-archiving. For a German historian like me Elsevier is irrelevant (although maintaining the most journals worldwide). For ALL leading historical journals in the German language there is NO information available about self-archiving. I repeat: NO. I think decisions are made by the publishers on a case by case basis. * Self-archiving isn't technically easy. Most scholars in the humanities prefer scanned articles and have no time to scan. * Very few repositories have an eprint mail button. We know nothing about the chance of interested citizen or scholars to get the permission of the author. OA needs a lot of experiments not a Harnadian orthodoxy of simple solutions. Klaus Graf
Re: OA's Problem Is Not Funding But Keystrokes: Solution Is Mandates
2008/2/18, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk: The ID/OA mandate is to *deposit* -- not to make OA. There are no legal strictures, for example, on Closed Access deposit. That's right. But such a mandate is in the same way helpful like convincing publishers that OA (= Open Access, not: Optional Access) is great. Closed Access deposit helps nothing. *If publishers don't want OA the articles remain CA permanently. * Why should scholarly authors act in a fair way using the mail button? If they don't know the person who requests the article there is high probability that they won't mail the article. There is no empirical proof that this would be a better model than the ask the author solution which is common practice without any mandate. Klaus Graf
Re: Open Access to Books?
2008/1/20, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk: The default or null hypothesis -- not just in this instance, but in the much more general one, of which books are just a special case -- is that, ceteris paribus, yes, if you make a digital version of a product free for all online, you will hurt its sales (digital and analogue). There may be exceptions, but they have to be demonstrated. Is there any empirical proof for this default hypothesis? There is only empirical evidence for the contrary. It's purely nonsense to state a default hypothesis if empirical facts should be given. Klaus Graf
Re: A Simple Way to Optimize the NIH Public Access Policy
2008/1/5, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk: -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:34:24 -0500 From: Gavin Baker gavin -- gavinbaker.com Even the benefits of the NIH's excellent decision to mandate immediate deposit -- thereby offloading the 12-month embargo onto the date of Open-Access-setting rather than the date of the deposit itself -- are lost if the deposit is required to be made directly in PubMed Central, rather than in each author's own Institutional Repository (and thence harvested to PubMed Central): With direct IR deposit, authors can use their own IR's email eprint request button to fulfill would-be users' access needs during any embargo). http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/274-guid.html If this feature doesn't currently exist in PMC, perhaps it could be suggested to PMC's maintainers. (1) Email eprint request buttons are great. (2) Fair use allows in the US that a scholar communicates an eprint to a would-be user. (3) German copyright law doesn't allow to give away a protected text to a person to which no personal relationship exists before the contact. The communication of a work shall be deemed public if it is intended for a plurality of persons, unless such persons form a clearly defined group and are connected by personal relationship with each other or with the organizer. If German authors have given exclusive rights to the publisher they have according the law no right to allow mailing an eprint to a person with whom they haven't close contacts before. (4) It is common custom that German scholars doesn't care for this legal barrier. Und das ist gut so. Klaus Graf
Change of German Law
Readers might wish to read more on this issue in English at Peter Suber's weblog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2007/11/more-on-chance-for-oa-to-german.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2007/12/more-on-oa-for-german-scholarship.html There are links to German publications. Feel free to ask me personally if there are any questions open. Klaus Graf
Re: Harnad/Oppenheim-Strategie aus Sicht des deutschen Urheberrechts?
List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 00:14:30 +0100 (BST) From: Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org Cc: cni-copyri...@cni.org, Digital Copyright digital-copyri...@nova.umuc.edu, ure...@jurix.jura.uni-sb.de, netla...@listserv.gmd.de Subject: Harnad/Oppenheim-Strategie aus Sicht des deutschen Urheberrechts? Message-ID: pine.sol.4.20.0206032240110.5570-100...@penelope.ecs.soton.ac.uk =20 -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 14:17:53 -0400 From: Peter Suber pet...@earlham.edu To: Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk Subject: Harnad/Oppenheim-Strategie aus Sicht des deutschen Urheberrecht= s? =20 Stevan: If you haven't seen this, you might want to post it to Sept98 an= d=20 respond. Since there's no foundation for it in the FOS list, I probably= =20 won't post it. =09Graf sent the original to two legal=20 listservs: ure...@jurix.jura.uni-sb.de and=20 netla...@listserv.gmd.de. His own email is g...@uni-koblenz.de. =20 =09Peter Suber =20 Here are Klaus Graf's questions/comments, quoted, with my own comments appended. Chrs, Stevan Harnad =20 --cut here-- =20 Ich erhielt folgende Anfrage: darf ich Sie als profunden Kenner der Materie und engagierten FOS-Beforworter fragen, wie Sie die Harnad/Oppenheim-Strategie http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#Harnad/Oppen= heim aus Sicht des deutschen Urheberrechts sehen? Kennen Sie Literatur, die sich hiermit auseinandersetzt? The above asks how the preprintcorrigenda strategy looks according to German Law. Bei der Strategie handelt es sich um folgende Schritte: =20 6.1. Self-archive the pre-refereeing preprint 6.2. Submit the preprint for refereeing (revise etc.) 6.3. At acceptance, try to fix the copyright transfer agreement to allow self-archiving 6.4. If 6.3 is successful, self-archive the refereed postprint 6.5. If 6.3 is unsuccessful, archive thecorrigenda =20 Your pre-refereeing preprint has already been self-archived since prior to submission, and is not covered by the copyright agreement, which pertains to the revised final (value-added) draft. [...] Yet this simple, risible strategy is also feasible, and legal (Oppenheim 2001) -- and sufficient to free the entire current refereed corpus of all access/impact barriers immediately! =20 Ich bezweifle, dass auch im angloamerikanischen Rechtsraum die Dinge so einfach liegen, was die zentrale Unterscheidung von Preprint- und Postprint-Copyright angeht, bin aber fuer Hinweise offen. =20 Besonders dankbar waere ich aber fuer Stellungnahmen zum deutschen Recht, natuerlich auch fuer bibliographische Angaben. Eine Eroerterung oder ein Urteil ist mir nicht bekannt. Klaus Graf asks whether the preprint/postprint distinction is so clearcut. Answer: What is clearcut is that at the time of the self-archiving of the preprint, the copyright is 100% in the author's hands, as the paper is neither submitted nor accepted for publication yet. That is all that is required for the PC strategy to work. Most of the rest of the posting is about whether there is a legal way to compel the author to ERASE the preprint from the internet after it has been refereed, revised and accepted.=20 Answer: One can try to do so in a specially worded contract, but in practise it is virtually impossible to remove all traces of a text once it has been publicly disseminated on the Internet (picked up by countless search engines, caches, mirror-archives, etc.). Hence such a contract would be for all intents and purposes unenforceable. At best, the publisher would have to keep trying to go after particular incarnations of the paper (no longer in the hands of the author in any case, just as if he had read it into a public address system for all to hear, at the time when he had the full right to do so). The cost of doing this would vastly outweigh any possible savings, and again, there would be no hope of erasing them all. In addition, in the successive drafts of an author's successive papers, there is a slippery slope as to which texts count as the SAME paper. For purposes of detecting plagiarism by another author, an algorithm could perhaps be agreed upon, but when it is the author's own work, it is less clear what does and does not count as a different paper. In other words, the case of an author who WISHES to give away his text in this radically new medium (rather than to sell it, as in the old), it will be very hard to find a way to formulate and to enforce measures to erase it once it has been intentionally and legally made publicly acccessible online. Junker sagt in REMUS: http://remus.jura.uni-sb.de/faelle/onlinebibliothek.html Frage 7: Muss Professor P den Beitrag l=F6schen, wenn er ihn zun=E4chst = auf seiner Homepage publiziert hat und dann dem V-Verlag zur Ver=F6ffentlichung in einer Fachzeitschrift geben m=F6chte? Must
