Re: [GOAL] Projekt DEAL is a very serious impediment to BOAI Open Access
Nature Publishing have an interesting approach to reviewers. If all the reviewers AND authors of any given article agree (assuming its published), then the no-longer anonymous reviews can be included alongside the article itself, with name attribution at least to the reviewers. As per everything else, the reviewers would not be paid for such exposure. I have yet to establish who could successfully claim copyright for these reviews. One might think the reviewers, but things are never that simple. BUT: A colleague reports he was invited to write an "commentary" (rather than a review) to go alongside an article. After writing and submitting it, he was hit with a full APC for his invited commentary. I also note that if a review is considered particularly substantive, it might instead be directed towards eg https://www.nature.com/ncomms/submit/matters-arisingThis information clearly states "Matters Arising and their Replies are not subject to article processing charges". But it might be tempting to conclude that some other publishers might be tempted to use open reviews as yet another income stream? Henry Rzepa > On 1 Sep 2019, at 09:08, Thomas Krichel wrote: > > Peter Murray-Rust writes > >> * set a precedent for everyone else - the "true price" of an article at >> 2750 Eur. > > It would not be outrageous if the reviewers---who do all the real > work---would get 2k, say 500 for each of four reviewers. But I guess > they will get only three things: zilch, nada, and sweet fa. > > -- > > Cheers, > > Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel > skype:thomaskrichel > ___ > 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: Quo vadere?
On 5 Jan 2016, at 08:13, Jan Velterop mailto:velte...@gmail.com>> wrote: This is most interesting, Arthur. Is this a unique case, as far as you know? Is there anything that makes this possible at the U of Tasmania but not elsewhere? You say that the economics stack up. Intuitively I feel that must be right. I also think pay-per-view as substitute for subscriptions is what many publishers fear most. Of course, if the idea of pay-per-view instead of subscriptions gains traction, you may see article viewing fees go up. Re PPV, here at Imperial we operate a British Library ILL (inter library loan) scheme, which about 3 years ago went fully electronic, resulting in one receiving by email about two days later a PDF of the requested article which was otherwise unavailable via subscription. The PDF came with an extraordinary set of rights management restrictions. As I recollect, 1. The PDF self expired after 30 days. This meant you could not place it into any kind of local personal digital library (Mendeley and the like) 2. You could print it only once as your permanent record 3. You could not then make further copies of your print, eg to pass on to students, colleagues etc, who would have to make their own ILL request (fee £8 I believe). 4. This would apply even if the original WAS open access (although why you would request such?) There may have been more (and things might have changed since then) but when I queried the restrictions with our head librarian, I was told it was imposed by the British library, who in turn were adhering to British copyright law imposed by the “British creative industries” lobbying of Government. I would love to hear from someone that this has now changed (I have not made such a request for about 14 months now. That request by the way was for Alan Turing’s “The chemical basis of morphogenesis” dating from ~1952 and for which I encountered the above). ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Bifurcation: narrative (GOLD/GREEN etc etc) and data (always GOLD, and for free)
We have tried an experiment in bimodal publishing, sending a narrative to a conventional publisher and the associated data to a data publisher. The latter can then be transcluded into the former, but both have individual doi assignments and can be treated quite separately. Finding the debate about whether the combined narrative+data entity is open or closed, Green or Gold, actually quite sterile, I tried this different approach to see how it is received, and to try to break away from the previous boundaries. You can see it in action (GOLD!) at http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/09/open-repository-data-sharing-rzepa-figshare (or, if you prefer, the narrative only, NOT GOLD, at http://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.1751 ). I might mention that we are encouraging the "golden moment", at which data has been created/captured and understood by a PhD student, to correspond to the data deposition (+time stamp). This can be embargoed as needed, or not. This means getting the students hearts and minds engaged early on. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Interesting Gold initiative by Royal Society of Chemistry
On 23 Jul 2012, at 09:19, CHARLES OPPENHEIM wrote: > http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=420640#.UA0GGbst_KE.twitter > states: > The Royal Society of Chemistry is to waive its open-access publication fees > for researchers from universities that subscribe to all its > journals.Institutions that subscribe to the learned society’s “RSC Gold” > collection will be given credit equal to the cost of their subscription, > valid until the end of 2013. They will be able to use the credit to pay the > society’s £1,600 open-access article fees for any paper whose corresponding > author is affiliated to them. This is not entirely what it seems. My head of department tells me that the RSC has given my department "16 Gold Open access articles for free". We published > 50 with the RSC last year, which means that >34 of our putative articles will continue to be charged £1600.00. We are now trying to come up with an equitable scheme for distributing these (I am bracing myself for eg having to write an "impact statement" in order to qualify for one of these). Still, 16 is better than none, which is what some other learned society publishers currently offer! ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers
On 12 May 2012, at 15:37, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: > This is a very good summary - as a;ways RP gets to the essence with clarity. > > On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Richard Poynder > wrote: > >> List members will doubtless correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me >> that the nub of this issue is that Peter Murray-Rust believes that when a >> research library pays a subscription for a scholarly journal (or a >> collection of journals) the subscription should give researchers at that >> institution the right both to read the content with their eyeballs, and to >> mine it with their machines -- and that this should be viewed as an >> automatic right. I consider myself a practicing scientist, who has probably wasted 1000s of hours (as have my students) scanning 1000s of articles over the years, with the aim of tracking down a single (and unindexed) fact which may or may not be contained in free text, and wondering why my time was in effect being so wasted. Multiply that up a million times or so and the wasted time accumulates rather impressively. Worse, students may be tempted to avoid this pain by not doing it. There are many examples of re-invention of the wheel because the literature can be so impenetrable to (and as Peter argues, less so to a trained machine which does not get bored). ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers
On 12 May 2012, at 15:37, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: > This is a very good summary - as a;ways RP gets to the essence with clarity. > > On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Richard Poynder > wrote: > >> List members will doubtless correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me >> that the nub of this issue is that Peter Murray-Rust believes that when a >> research library pays a subscription for a scholarly journal (or a >> collection of journals) the subscription should give researchers at that >> institution the right both to read the content with their eyeballs, and to >> mine it with their machines -- and that this should be viewed as an >> automatic right. I consider myself a practicing scientist, who has probably wasted 1000s of hours (as have my students) scanning 1000s of articles over the years, with the aim of tracking down a single (and unindexed) fact which may or may not be contained in free text, and wondering why my time was in effect being so wasted. Multiply that up a million times or so and the wasted time accumulates rather impressively. Worse, students may be tempted to avoid this pain by not doing it. There are many examples of re-invention of the wheel because the literature can be so impenetrable to (and as Peter argues, less so to a trained machine which does not get bored). ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Hotel in Philadelphia
Peter, As a seasoned traveller, you probably have your favourite guest house in Philadelphia! ACS registration opened yesterday, and from past experience the cheaper (= good value) hotels tend to book out fast. I went through the official ACS hotels; the average is ~$220 + TAX, probably not including breakfast. I found a TravelLodge just opposite the convention centre however for $124, including tax, breakfast and free WiFi, and where I have reserved a room for two, this being about half the "ACS" rate. Do you recollect our arrival in the middle of the nite in San Diego. I was checking into the hotel at a "special rate" of around $90, when the receptionist overheard the two of us chatting about the ACS. She instantly insisted that she had to charge us the "special" ACS rate, which was about $150. I denied all knowledge of the ACS, and we got the $90 rate, but it taught me that when the ACS says it negotiates special rates, they mean more expensive! No need to point out that the TravelLodge is NOT in the ACS list!! Frankly, I am getting quite fed up with the ACS circus, which is just a rip off all round. I suspect this might turn out to be my last ACS meeting (unless in the very unlikely event, they give me another prize!). http://www.travelodge.com/hotels/pennsylvania/philadelphia/travelodge-philadelphia-convention-center/ 1227 Race Street Off Hwy 676 Philadelphia , PA 19107 US Phone: 1-215-564-2888 PS I am passing your emails regarding datamining to others at Imperial. It is incredibly important what you are doing and whilst it might indeed be a distraction from research, the whole community will owe you a great debt! ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Libre open access, copyright, patent law, and other intellectual property matters
> > this has screenshots of the BL charges. I entered into considerable > correspondence and I think the conclusions was that it was too much trouble > to work out what articles were open access so it was easier t charge for > all of them. I have no idea where the money ended up. > > The BL did say that if you came to the actual reading room at St Pancras it > was free (but you have to pay the train fare). > > But maybe it's changed after 5 years and maybe it hasn't. I don't have time > to check. I would add my various experiences with this national library (I am interesting if its different in other national libraries) In search of a famous article on topology by Listing written in the 1850s, I did indeed visit St Pancras a few years back. 1. Whilst it is "free" to be there, they did charge something like ?1 per photocopied page, which of course cost ?40 for a 40 page reprint. 2. I asked if they could provide the scans on USB drive (which I had taken with me). The answer was no. 3. I recently made a request on line for a journal which my own library does not subscribe to, using a system known as SED (secure electronic delivery). Understanding the semantics of "secure" is an interesting exercise. One might imagine that the interests of the reader were being served by "secure delivery". In fact, the term secure refers to the interests of the publisher, in that it implements DRM (digital rights management) which protects the document from unauthorised actions. 3.1 A permitted action for the reader is to request one print copy. This is achieved by by-passing the normal print driver interfaces and enforcing a special print driver. 3.2 I immediately fell foul of this. I have on my computer a selected printer which uses itself an "authenticating" driver, which associates any print operation with the user's swipe card. The SED document could not access this driver, and my one allowed attempt at a print failed because the job was not authenticated. 3.3 Forbidden actions upon the SED document include any attempt to copy/paste data out of that document. 3.4 Or to insert the document into any software that attempts to detect metadata contained within it. 3.5 The document itself has a finite life, and the only permitted permanent instance is that single print copy (which I did not end up with).
[GOAL] Re: Libre open access, copyright, patent law, and other intellectual property matters
> > this has screenshots of the BL charges. I entered into considerable > correspondence and I think the conclusions was that it was too much trouble > to work out what articles were open access so it was easier t charge for > all of them. I have no idea where the money ended up. > > The BL did say that if you came to the actual reading room at St Pancras it > was free (but you have to pay the train fare). > > But maybe it's changed after 5 years and maybe it hasn't. I don't have time > to check. I would add my various experiences with this national library (I am interesting if its different in other national libraries) In search of a famous article on topology by Listing written in the 1850s, I did indeed visit St Pancras a few years back. 1. Whilst it is "free" to be there, they did charge something like £1 per photocopied page, which of course cost £40 for a 40 page reprint. 2. I asked if they could provide the scans on USB drive (which I had taken with me). The answer was no. 3. I recently made a request on line for a journal which my own library does not subscribe to, using a system known as SED (secure electronic delivery). Understanding the semantics of "secure" is an interesting exercise. One might imagine that the interests of the reader were being served by "secure delivery". In fact, the term secure refers to the interests of the publisher, in that it implements DRM (digital rights management) which protects the document from unauthorised actions. 3.1 A permitted action for the reader is to request one print copy. This is achieved by by-passing the normal print driver interfaces and enforcing a special print driver. 3.2 I immediately fell foul of this. I have on my computer a selected printer which uses itself an "authenticating" driver, which associates any print operation with the user's swipe card. The SED document could not access this driver, and my one allowed attempt at a print failed because the job was not authenticated. 3.3 Forbidden actions upon the SED document include any attempt to copy/paste data out of that document. 3.4 Or to insert the document into any software that attempts to detect metadata contained within it. 3.5 The document itself has a finite life, and the only permitted permanent instance is that single print copy (which I did not end up with). ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Re: "Are Chemical Journals Too Expensive and Inaccessible?"
On 10 Sep 2004, at 09:24, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: "Representation and Use of Chemistry in the Global Electronic Age" Peter Murray-Rust, Henry S. Rzepa, Simon. M. Tyrrell and Y. Zhang http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/obc/ Peter uses the term "extended" publication. If you extend publication with "data" , particularly as an integral part of a document (a "datument") then rather subtle consequences accrue for archival. A trivial one first: The publisher argued that our use of colour in our original diagrams was not "integral to the scientific case being made". Our intended retention of colour in the self-archived version presumably implies the possibility of slightly different perception of this version of the article for people reading it this way. At what point does this possibility become scientifically significant? More important is that the original (author prepared) article was actually written in HTML/XML, and hence much data was included in this original. To prepare it for the journal production process, we convert this to Word, from which the journal then produces proofs; during this process of course, much of the value of the original data is lost. There is no need for this particular transform in the self-archived version, which therefore contains the data in "re-usable" form, something which cannot be said with the traditional print/Acrobat publishing process. So in effect, the self-archived version is a true superset of the "definitive" published version. As the "added value" of this version increases (eg as tools for handling it become more common and sophisticated, see for example http://www.wolfram.com/products/publicon/) so the "published" version may well become perceived as a low-value version. In data-rich areas such as chemistry, this possible bifurcation has some interesting implications. Henry Rzepa Pertinent Prior AmSci Topic Threads: "Refereed Research Archiving and Data Archiving" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1582.html "Peer reviewed research publication and data-access" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1582.html "OECD Committee for Scientific & Technological Policy: Declaration on Access to Research Data from Public Funding" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3511.html
Validation of posted archives
Validation/authentication seems to be an area where sociology rather than technology has been relied on. Might I point out to this forum that about a year ago, my accumulated "conventional" publication list since around 1995 had mostly migrated to (or had always been in) electronic form, and I decided to download all of the available "reprint" files from the various journals (for which we had site licesenes to do so I add). This amounted to around 25 Acrobat files (yes, they were all Acrobat). I decided to see if any of them were "validatable" in a digital sense; a technology that Adobe have in fact built into Acrobat via so called X.509 certificates. None were. Indeed, any "validation" (really authentication, see below) there was was often associated with the production company, which is of course a sub-contractor to the publisher. Most of the Acrobat files also had no "security" settings, ie they were readily editable. Several publishers I phoned admitted that no form of digital authentication was being applied; worse they seem unaware that it could be applied. Whilst I am prepared to believe any current problem with validation and authenticity is tiny, we all thought that about computer viruses ten yeara ago. Few would think so now. I might add that two of our last articles have been in XML form, and that these have in fact been digitally signed as both authentic and valid (see below) using X.509 certificates. To prove the point, my X.509 certificate is attached with this email to prove its authenticity! The destination of the article mentioned above is in fact as supplemental data rather than the primary published article, but by so signing, our article at least can be authenticated as coming from us, and that it was created on a given date, and has not been changed since, and furthermore that it can be assumed to be "valid" XML. I have alluded above at the difference in meaning between validation and authentication, since I suspect the two words sometimes are used interchangeably. Authentication is the ability to verify that a document/assertion has been created by the authority to whom it is attributed and that it is uncorrupted after its creation Validation is the ability to show that a specified validation process has been correctly carried out; for example that the carbon alencies in a specified molecule all are four, or that say an XML document has the correct form. The latter is of course far more significant to science in the long term, but also far more difficult to implement. -- Henry Rzepa. +44 (0)20 7594 5774 (Office) +44 (0870) 132-3747 (eFax) Dept. Chemistry, Imperial College, London, SW7 2AY, UK. http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
UK "RAE" Evaluations
The UK runs "Research assessment exercises" in subject disciplines periodically. Ours (Chemistry) is coming up shortly. I enquired what the status of my "e-only" work might be. The answer, approximately, was that if it does not carry a page number, its not a journal. Publication in "journals" is of course one way in which my particular discipline judges quality and international significance. As the editor of four "e-print" conference in chemistry, archived as four CDROMs "without page numbers", I infer (to be confirmed) that none of this counts towards the RAE, or at least not at the same level as "page numbers". As it happens, I have hedged my bets, and published, hopefully adequately, in journals that DO carry page numbers. But if ones tenure, or future, were to depend on "page numbers", it could be a worrying period for some. If push came to shove, and someone were "shoved" because their "page numbers" were inadequate, I wonder if that could be tested legally, and whether the "e-print" would prevail? -- Henry Rzepa. +44 (0)20 7594 5774 (Office) +44 (0870) 132-3747 (eFax) Dept. Chemistry, Imperial College, London, SW7 2AY, UK. http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/
Re: eprints and authentication
>Why should a pdf be locked? Getting away from the idea that work is always >on paper says to me that it should not be read-only *at the user end*. The >emerging means of authentication described by Adrian should be an excellent >way forward, but why the need to lock as well? > >I ask because for projects such as ours, which involves adding third-party >reference links to pdf documents, locking is not insurmountable but is >against the principle of what we are trying to demonstrate. I prefer to use the term "signed". This authenticates the document (or a fragment of it) but does not prevent others from "re-using" it (although the original signature is now invalidated if they do quote it with changes). A document can be signed many times by many people of course. I am convinced that as we move into an "information anywhere and from anywhere" era, the need to know which bit came from where and when becomes essential. -- Henry Rzepa. +44 (0)20 7594 5774 (Office) +44 (0)20 7594 5804 (Fax) Dept. Chemistry, Imperial College, London, SW7 2AY, UK. http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/
eprints and authentication
Can I seek information about a topic which might constitute a new thread? I have been concerned for a little while about how one goes about "authenticating" a document, lets say an eprint. Authenticating means, inter alia, two things a) Is the author authentic, and how can one check this b) Has the article changed since the author last did so? If so, by whom? I saw no mention of these aspects in http://www.eprints.org/software.html but perhaps this topic is discussed, and if it is I would welcome pointers (and apologize for this FAQ). Although a rather different kind of eprint, I now have on my computer some 30 Acrobat PDF files from various publishers which constitutes most of my published opus of the last four years or so. I downloaded them all via site licenses, and also as their author. I presume my holding them is not inappropriate! Curiously, none of these 30 Acrobat files seem to have much in the way of any authentication mechanism. In this case, it would be "did this publisher really issue this Acrobat file, and has it been changed since they did so?" (I presume to trust the publisher to authenticate the author(s) ). What I was expecting was perhaps a digital signature, which Acrobat distiller can easily insert into the whole document (based on so called X.509 certificates), but found none in the random selection of the 30 articles I looked in. Acrobat also has mechanisms to lock the article to prevent it from being modified. These mechanisms too did not seem to be used by any of my publishers. Which I found quite surprising, maybe even distressing. Dealing specifically with the eprint software, I note that most any type of document could be accepted as an eprint format. Some might be more suitable for authentication than others! I also note from the eprint site that "4.2.2 Validation /opt/eprints/site_lib/Validate.pm contains routines which are called by the core code to ensure that uploaded information is valid." I wonder what that could constitute? Does valid mean authenticity checks for X.509 certificates for example, as provided by the author submitting the document? I presume valid does not mean valid in the SGML sense? Although that too would be a jolly good idea. I concluded that "authenticity" is a rather neglected area. Any comments? -- Henry Rzepa. +44 (0)20 7594 5774 (Office) +44 (0)20 7594 5804 (Fax) Dept. Chemistry, Imperial College, London, SW7 2AY, UK. http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/
Re: Elsevier's ChemWeb Preprint Archive
> > The ChemWeb chemistry preprint server can be reached via: > > http://preprint.chemweb.com Can I raise a different thread? One of the very first articles on the Chemweb forum was one which had previously been rejected by two referees after having been submitted to a "conventional" forum. The authors clearly felt frustrated that their science had not reached a wider audience through this route, and decided that the "pre" print (noprint?) forum might achieve this Presumably the H/O Strategy could lead to a more or less permanent presence somewhere for such articles. Without implying anything about the specific article noted above, I wonder whether there is a risk that with precedents established, such chemistry preprint servers might simply become a refuge for "unpublishable science". -- Henry Rzepa. Imperial College, Chemistry Dept. +44 020 7594 5774 (Office) +44 020 7594 5804 (Fax)
