[GOAL] Re: ROARMAP: Microsoft Research Adopts Green Open Access Self-Archiving and Copyright Reservation Policy
Jacinto I think you are indeed being overly suspicious! Our Microsoft Research OA policy has been deliberately modeled on Harvard and the University of California's policies. Peter Suber and Stuart Sheiber from Harvard were particularly helpful in arriving at the precise wording. The policy is genuinely Harnad-style Green Open Access. Tony Hey Sent from my Windows Phone From: Jacinto Dávilamailto:jacinto.dav...@gmail.com Sent: 1/21/2014 16:41 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)mailto:goal@eprints.org Subject: [GOAL] Re: ROARMAP: Microsoft Research Adopts Green Open Access Self-Archiving and Copyright Reservation Policy Sorry If i sound over skeptic (believe me, I have reasons), but shouldn't we know the text of that licence (or licences) before we actually call this Open Access? On 20 January 2014 17:42, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.commailto:amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: http://roarmap.eprints.org/998/ http://t.co/rNfKxz3N4L Microsoft Research (20 Jan 2014) INSTITUTION or FUNDER URL: http://research.microsoft.comhttp://research.microsoft.com/ MANDATE URL and TEXT Microsoft Research Open Access Policyhttp://research.microsoft.com/en-us/help/openaccess.aspx Microsoft Research is committed to disseminating the fruits of its research and scholarship as widely as possible because we recognize the benefits that accrue to scholarly enterprises from such wide dissemination, including more thorough review, consideration and critique, and general increase in scientific, scholarly and critical knowledge. To advance this commitment, Microsoft Research has adopted the following policy: RETENTION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS In connection with our open-access goals, for Microsoft Research-authored scholarly publications (“Works”) submitted to third-party conferences and publishing houses (“Publishers”) for publication, Microsoft Research retains a license to make our Works available to the research community in our online Microsoft Research open-access repository. AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO PUBLISHER AGREEMENTS Microsoft researchers are authorized to enter into standard publication agreements with Publishers on behalf of Microsoft in order to assign or license the copyrights in their Works (but no other rights) to Publishers for publication purposes subject to the rights retained by Microsoft as per the previous paragraph. This applies to all scholarly articles authored or co-authored by a researcher while employed by Microsoft. DEPOSIT To assist in disseminating and archiving its scholarly work, Microsoft researchers commit to helping Microsoft Research obtain copies of their articles by providing an electronic copy of each article for inclusion in a Microsoft Research open-access repository. Microsoft Research will endeavor to make every Microsoft Research-authored article available to the public in an open-access repository, though in rare cases, certain publisher-imposed conditions may not allow such availability. ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.orgmailto:GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Jacinto Dávila http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/ingenieria/jacinto ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Fwd: AmSci Forum Migrating to Global Open Access List (GOAL): New Moderator, Richard Poynder
I too have also followed this debate largely from the sidelines. I think that Stevan must take some credit from the UK Government's decision to insist on open access to publications and data ... Well done Stevan and thanks for all your tireless proselytizing on behalf of open access! Tony -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Henri Cohen Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 1:53 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Fwd: AmSci Forum Migrating to Global Open Access List (GOAL): New Moderator, Richard Poynder Thanks to everyone that has been involved. From someone who followed all of this from the sidelines. Henri On 2011-12-13, at 7:22 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com Date: Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:02 PM Subject: AmSci Forum Migrating to Global Open Access List (GOAL): New Moderator, Richard Poynder To: American Scientist Open Access Forum american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Dear AmSci Forum, The straw poll is complete (the full results are reproduced at the end of this message). The vote is for (1) continuing the Forum, under (2) the moderatorship of Richard Poynder. The AmSci list will now be migrating to http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal where the BOAI list is also being hosted. You need not re-subscribe. Your subscription will be automatically transferred to the new host site. The name of the list has been changed to the Global Open Access List (GOAL) to reflect the fact that Open Access is no longer just an American or a Scientific matter. It has become a global movement. The old AmSci Forum Archives (1998-2011) will stay up at the Sigma Xi site (indefinitely, I hope -- though we do have copies of the entire archive). The new GOAL archive, starting 2012 will be at: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/ (Till the end of December, AmSci and GOAL will run in duplicate. Although we hope the transfer will be smooth, there may be a few glitches. We apologize and hope you will be patient until they are sorted out.) Stevan Harnad (soon to be replaced by Richard Poynder!) --- Below are the complete results of Straw Poll on whether to continue the Forum, and on who should be the new moderator: AGAINST CONTINUING AMSCI: ARIF JINHA: I believe it would be better to have one forum, the BOAI. This forum has developed a doctrinal bias defined by the values and personality of its leadership. Though the leadership is to be commended for its credibility and vigour, it is not without its blind spots. It has not always OPEN to a diversity of perspectives. AMSCI is driven by assertive and competitive advocacy for mandates over Gold OA publishing. The rush to conclusion on the right path is premature and overly authoritative in its expression, therefore it is alienating. In truth, we have only really got started with the web in the last 10 years and authority is completely flattened by the learning curve. The BOAI is much wider in its representation of Open Access alternatives, it is therefore more neutral as well as having a wider reach for the promotion of Green OA. It means less duplication and less work devoted to instant communication, giving more time to develop a rigorous and scientific approach to meta-scholarship in the digital age. FOR CONTINUING AMSCI: DANA ROTH: I would disagree with Arif Jinha, in that it is the 'assertive and competitive advocacy for mandates over Gold OA publishing' that make AMSCI such an interesting listserv. SUBBIAH ARUNACHALAM: First, I wish to express my grateful thanks to Stevan for all that he has done so far, and in particular for moderating this Forum for so long and so well. That he will continue to devote much of his time to promoting open access and institutional repositories gives me strength to do the same. Second, if Richard Poynder agrees (or if we could persuade him) to moderate this list, there is nothing like it. The baton would have moved to safe hands. Not only he has the stamina of a long distance runner, but he is also endowed with the qualities needed for a moderator. He is knowledgeable and levelheaded. Welcome Richard! DOMINIQUE BABINI: Discussions and ideas in this forum are also inspiring for regional OA forums and lists, e.g., the Latin America and the Caribbean Open Access List (LLAAR, in Spanish). Thank you, Stevan, for your dedication as moderator all these years, and especially for your new OA initiatives and ideas. Thank you for your Skype contribution at the OA Experts Meeting last week in UNESCO headquarters, where we missed you [in person]. I also support Richard Poynder as [new] moderator for this Forum. MICHAEL E. SMITH: I am in favor of continuing the list, and
Re: OA in High Energy Physics Arxiv Yields Five-Fold Citation Advantage
I agree. This seems inadequate. Tony -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of David Prosser Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:44 AM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: FW: OA in High Energy Physics Arxiv Yields Five-Fold Citation Advantage Am I the only person who thinks this just isn't good enough? We need either a citation or a retraction. David -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Sally Morris (Morris Associates) Sent: 21 July 2009 10:44 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: OA in High Energy Physics Arxiv Yields Five-Fold Citation Advantage Since my informants are no longer at IOP, I can't give you chapter and verse, but assure you I'm not making it up (and it was about subscriptions). I recall a speaker at an ALPSP seminar telling us much the same story for London Mathematical Society journals. Back to the Gentil-Beccot et al article, however - they only looked at clickstream data on SPIRES, didn't they? When Kurtz et al (http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/095315107779490661 - see Fig 5) looked at ArXiv stats directly, together with ADS statistics for access to astrophysics journals (which must be an underestimate, since not all readers come in via ADS), they found that while HE physicists use ArXiv about twice as frequently for older papers as do astrophysicists or condensed matter scientists (who go directly to the journals). Unless HE physicists have a very different pattern of use from astrophysicists, however, it would seem that they still preferentially use the journals for older articles. Sally Sally Morris Partner, Morris Associates - Publishing Consultancy South House, The Street Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK Tel: +44(0)1903 871286 Fax: +44(0)8701 202806 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 20 July 2009 18:04 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: OA in High Energy Physics Arxiv Yields Five-Fold Citation Advantage On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Sally Morrissa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: Stevan is, I'm sure, well aware that IOP at least has claimed that point (2) is erroneous and that it was misquoted by Swan No, I am not aware of that at all. All I am aware of is that IOP said that they had data showing that downloads of their online contents declined with the growth of Green OA self-archiving. That point is not in the least disputed, and is not the question at issue. (Indeed, the recent preprint by Gentil-Beccot et al (2009) http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.5418v1 in HEP, Figure 6, showed quite clearly that where there is a Green OA version accessible in Arxiv, HEP users prefer to use that, rather than going to the journal site; Kurtz et al had some slightly different behavior patterns in astrophysics, where usage shifts to the journal version -- probably because of ADS -- once it becomes available.) But the journal destruction issue is not about preferred download sites, but about subscriptions. And that was what Alma Swan asked APS and IOP specifically about: Has Green OA caused a decline in subscriptions? And the answer to that question -- from both APS and IOP -- was and is: No. If what you are instead referring to is the hypothesis that a decline in downloads will lead to a decline in subscriptions, then this is very much the same as the original hypothesis that Green OA will lead to a decline in subscriptions: The objective evidence in both cases is and remains that it has not done so, in 18 years of HEP self-archiving, the last 10 of them at near 100%. Stevan Harnad -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 20 July 2009 16:35 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: OA in High Energy Physics Arxiv Yields Five-Fold Citation Advantage On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Sally Morrissa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: It could be that the HE physicists (a) value journals too much to let them be destroyed by green OA and (b) are convinced that, if they don't put an alternative funding model in place, that is what will eventually happen That is a logical possibility but: (1) HE physicists have been doing Green OA self-archiving for 18 years -- the last 10 of them at virtually 100% (see Figure 1 of Gentil-Beccot et al 2009 http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.5418v1 ). (2) The two most important physics publishers -- APS and IOP -- have reported that there has been no
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
I agree with Derek. From the 'votes' that have been reported it is clear that a large majority support Stevan's role in moderating this list. There should be an end date from the process and this should be within a few days. I think that Sally should set such a deadline so that the list can move on. Tony Hey -Original Message- From: Derek Law d@strath.ac.uk Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 7:53 PM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum Am I the only one who finds this febrile discussion increasingly wearing and irritating? If we must have this vote can we please do the normal thing and have A closing date (ideally about 48 hours ahead for my money) and get back to What actually matters? Derek Law __ Professor Derek Law Turnbull Building University of Strathclyde 155 George Street Glasgow G1 1 RD Tel: +44 141 548 4997 The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, number SC015263.
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
I absolutely agree with Michael - the list would die without Stevan Tony -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Michael Eisen Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 7:26 AM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum I disagree with Stevan often. He can be infuriating. He has a tendency to bloviate. Nonetheless - he has been a FANTASTIC moderator of this list. I have sent off many posts that have criticized Stevan directly, and he has never failed to send them to the group. I can think of no other list that has not just lasted for 10 years, but kept up a high level of discourse and relevance. Stevan has my complete confidence. The list would die without him. On Oct 7, 2008, at 5:37 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote: On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 3:37 AM, c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk wrote: I totally support Jean-Claude's view. I can only repeat what I said before: (1) I am happy to put an end to my 10-year moderatorship of the American Scientist Open Access Forum and hand it over to someone else who is willing to do it, but only if it is requested by a plurality of the membership, not if it is merely requested by a few dissatisfied members. (2) The moderator's role is to filter postings, approving the relevant ones, and rejecting the off-topic or ad-hominem ones. (3) Apart from that, the moderator has no special status or authority (other than what may accrue from the substance of his postings), and may post *exactly* as any other poster may post, including the posting of quotes, comments, critiques, elaborations, rebuttals *and summaries*. By my count, there have not been many votes one way or the other, but of the few votes there have been, more seem to be expressing confidence in my moderatorship than those that are calling for me to be replaced. I have also been accused of of censorship, by both Jean-Claude and Sally, the charge being subsequently rescinded. If there are doubts about whether I can be trusted to post or tally the votes -- or, more important, if we are to spare the Forum the bandwidth of votes appearing instead of OA substance -- I am also quite happy to direct the votes to be sent to a trusted 3rd party for tallying, if that is the wish of the Forum. Stevan Harnad Charles Professor Charles Oppenheim Head Department of Information Science Loughborough University Loughborough Leics LE11 3TU Tel 01509-223065 Fax 01509 223053 e mail c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS- fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Claude Guédon Sent: 06 October 2008 19:00 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: American Scientist Open Access Forum settings What I note is that my messages sometimes appear back very late and I wonder why. It is this detail which caused my recent angry reaction. While we are on technical matters, I would appreciate two things from this moderator/actor: 1. That he should refrain from ever summarizing somebody's words. We are all versed enough in the art of reading to be able to survive without this doubtful form of help. Besides, list moderators are not mentors or paternal figures. When the summary ends up distorting the original message, it becomes reprehensible; 2. Since the moderator also intervenes as member in this list, he should make clear which of his interventions are moderating interventions and which ones are participations in discussions. In the latter case, summaries should be avoided. I realize that Peter Suber manages a blog and not a list, but I really like the way in which he carefully delineates the pieces of news he wants to convey, and how he announces his own comments. This is a very good model to follow. I would also add that Peter Suber refrains from using judgements and terms that occasionally raise the ire of readers such as me. When I read a sentence such as Many silly, mindless things have been standing in the way of the optimal and inevitable (Sept 28), I ask myself if the silly, and mindless characterizations belong to this context. I also wonder whether the optimal and inevitable are objective, neutral terms. On Sept. 30th, in answering to me, Stevan made free to add: What on earth does this mean?. Was that useful? In short, Stevan acts as if there was one truth, one defender of this truth (himself). The list is his list and, on it, he can berate people at will (What on earth does this mean?). And then if you resist and respond with a few equivalents to What on earth... etc., then you are accused of flaming, being vituperative, or whatever. I wonder how the same individual,
Re: JISC Open Access Briefing Paper
Stevan Actually produced on behalf of JCSR and edited by me as well ... Tony -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Sent: Fri Apr 22 16:55:58 2005 Subject: JISC Open Access Briefing Paper JISC Open Access Briefing Paper http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=pub_openaccess http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/JISC-BP-OpenAccess-v1-final.pdf [This paper has been written by Alma Swan of Key Perspectives Ltd on behalf of JISC and produced and edited by Sara Hassen and the JISC Communications Team.] ** Internet communications are not secure and therefore EPSRC does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the EPSRC unless specifically stated. All EPSRC staff can be contacted using Email addresses with the following format: firstname.lastn...@epsrc.ac.uk **
