Re: [GOAL] COVID IP waiver request: interesting but not entirely informed?
perhaps this might be of interest: in its new research framework programme Horizon Europe the European Commission states this (https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/agr-contr/general-mga_horizon-euratom_en.pdf, p. 102) ... *** Where the call conditions impose additional exploitation obligations in case of a public emergency, the beneficiaries must (if requested by the granting authority) grant for a limited period of time specified in the request, non-exclusive licences — under fair and reasonable conditions — to their results to legal entities that need the results to address the public emergency and commit to rapidly and broadly exploit the resulting products and services at fair and reasonable conditions. This provision applies up to four years after the end of the action. *** As there was no such statement in the model grant agreements of earlier framework programmes, I interpret this regulation a direct reaction to the COVID pandemic... Best regards Ulrich - Am 2. Sep 2021 um 22:07 schrieb Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com: Il 01/09/21 23:25, Heather Morrison ha scritto: > The WHO letter mentions but does not request what I suggest is a more likely > approach to avoiding IP interference with addressing the pandemic in the > short term: compulsory licensing. This is the official reason used by the EU to block the waiver (or at least it was until Biden came out in support of it and force everyone to change tune). https://www.keionline.org/36300 It's true that the USA could easily implement compulsory licensing overnight, but for other countries it can prove more difficult. There are dozens of articles in the KEI website on this matter, I'm unable to summarise them. It's highly recommended reading. Communia, Wikimedia and others have also supported the extension of waiver to copyright, see most recently: https://www.communia-association.org/2021/03/22/communia-supports-the-wto-trips-waiver-for-covid-19/ Best regards, Federico ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Dr. Ulrich Herb Saarländische Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Referent für elektronisches Publizieren und Open Access, Drittmittel-Projekte Postanschrift: Postfach 15 11 41 | 66041 Saarbrücken Besucheranschrift: Campus B1 1 | Raum 10.07. | 66123 Saarbrücken T: +49 681 302-2798 F: +49 681 302-2796 u.h...@sulb.uni-saarland.de www.sulb.uni-saarland.de ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Open Access Transformation in Switzerland & Germany: A synopsis of agreements with Wiley, Springer Nature & Elsevier
Dear lists, as a follow-up to Christian's posting I wrote a piece on "Open Access Transformation in Switzerland & Germany: A synopsis of agreements with Wiley, Springer Nature & Elsevier" https://scidecode.com/2020/08/19/open-access-transformation-in-switzerland-germany/ Perhaps is it of interest to Open Access interested people outside the two countries. Thanks to Christian for discussing and sharing information with me! best regards Ulrich Am 16.08.2020 um 22:22 schrieb Christian Gutknecht: > Hi all > > Since the beginning of 2020, the Swiss universities have a Read & > Publish agreement with Elsevier (4 years for 57 mio EUR): > > I have created a dashboard to continuously track all „Swiss" > publications at Elsevier: > https://oa-monitoring.ch/metabase/public/dashboard/a88453fb-aebc-4d90-b44f-ed37092f4dcf > > The data show that so far only 30% of all publications of the > institutions participating in the agreement have become Open Access via > the agreement. For reasons I cannot explain, many Swiss Corresponding > Author Papers remain Closed Access, even though they are entitled to > publication under the Open Access agreement. The agreed quota of APCs is > unlikely to be exhausted. If it stays like this, the agreement threatens > to become a major disaster. > https://oa-monitoring.ch/post/the_swiss_57_mio_euro_deal_with_elsevier/ > > Best regards > > Christian Gutknecht > https://twitter.com/chgutknecht > > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > -- Dr. Ulrich Herb ./scidecode science consulting & research https://scidecode.com +49-(0)157 30306851 twitter.com/scidecode -- Dr. Ulrich Herb ./scidecode science consulting and research https://scidecode.com 0049 157 30306851 Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Re: [GOAL] Number of Open Access journals per country/ Open Access Heatmap
Dear Peter, thank you for your message. I have an addition to this ... > The amount of money they need > (25,000 USD) is a mere EIGHT papers in the German Springer DEAL (2750Eur > each) and a mere FIVE papers for Open Access in Nature or Am Chem Soc. That is even worse: The DEAL articles cost EUR 2,750 plus EUR 150 overhead plus 19% VAT, i.e. EUR 3,451 gross. > The Budapest Declaration of Open Access has one of the great paragraphs > of liberation: ... > In the North we forget this. How many Open Access deals actively strive > for this outcome? And how many put the benefits to authors and > universities above global knowledge by propping up legacy bloated > publishers? I totally agree with you. Best regards Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Herb ./scidecode science consulting & research https://scidecode.com +49-(0)157 30306851 twitter.com/scidecode ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Number of Open Access journals per country/ Open Access Heatmap
Dear lists, I produced an Open Access heatmap that shows the number of OA journals per country. Furthermore, I put this information in relation to the number of scientists per 1,000 employees (if this information was available) to see which countries have a high output of journals with a low number of scientists. The map can be found here: https://scidecode.com/2020/04/09/open-access-heatmap-2020/ best regards, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Herb ./scidecode science consulting & research https://scidecode.com +49-(0)157 30306851 twitter.com/scidecode ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Steering science through Output Indicators & Data Capitalism
Dear lists, in a few days I will give a lecture on "Steering science through Output Indicators & Data Capitalism". You can find a paper about it at https://zenodo.org/record/395 and its abstract here: "The paper describes how commercial companies create operating systems with highly integrated services, which scientists use in every phase of their daily work and which by the way produce data about this work. These data, in turn, are processed by the commercial providers and converted into further products, which are now offered to the science bureaucracy as a tool for recruitment and research planning. The structure and marketing of both the tools for scientists and the controlling tools for the administration have features that are widely known from electronic environments (compliance through convenience, vendor-lock-in), but also features that show at the same time elements of the centrally planned economy and (although at first sight incompatible with it) a strong competitive connotation. The presentation also discusses the possible consequences of such a data-driven science control for individual researchers as well as for science as a social enterprise." In preparation for the lecture I am currently looking for information about institutions that use steering tools such as SciVal (Elsevier), Dimensions (Digital Science), Professional Services / Essential Science Indicators (Clarivate Analytics). Whoever might have information on this: I am very grateful for any hints! Best regards, Ulrich Herb -- Dr. Ulrich Herb ./scidecode POB 11 54 66266 Kleinblittersdorf Germany http://scidecode.com/en +49-(0)157 30306851 twitter.com/scidecode twitter.com/scinoptica ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts
Dear Heather, even though I share your thoughts on APCs, I doubt that transparent pricing will always lower prices. Conversely, it can also lead to higher prices, e.g. by better market analysis. If I remember right, Australia's FuelWatch (an open-access database for fuel prices) did not cause prices to fall. But maybe someone here knows more. Best regards, Ulrich Herb Am 2019-09-04 19:41, schrieb Heather Morrison: > Exactly, Lisa. Scholarly communication does not have to be a market, > and I argue it is better if it is not. > > Dr. Heather Morrison > Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of > Ottawa > Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université > d'Ottawa > Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC > Insight Project > sustainingknowledgecommons.org > heather.morri...@uottawa.ca > https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 > [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020] > > - > > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org on behalf of > Lisa Hinchliffe > Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 1:28:40 PM > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Subject: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts > > Attention : courriel externe | external email > > I agree these are interesting projects/products/goods. However, as > examples they aren't examples of a market are they? > > ___ > > Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe > lisalibrar...@gmail.com > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 12:22 PM Heather Morrison > wrote: > >> Two examples of transparent pricing: >> >> SSHRC Aid to Scholarly Journals (Canad): >> > http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/programs-programmes/scholarly_journals-revues_savantes-eng.aspx >> [1] >> >> This is a peer-reviewed journal subsidy program. The $ value, >> journal eligibility, application and review process, are all clearly >> articulated. Canada is not unusual in subsidizing journal >> publishing. In areas such as the social sciences, humanities and >> arts, this is necessary because local knowledge is important >> (everywhere). Law is an important topic in every country, but >> Canadian law is most relevant in Canada and for scholarship to >> flourish in this area, scholars need publication venues. This is >> true of history, culture/arts, local social and environmental >> issues. Some knowledge is universal; some knowledge is specific to a >> particular region, group, environment, etc. >> >> One key benefit of this model is cost. The base - maximum per >> journal is $30 - $35,000 per year (Cdn). At the mid-point of >> $32,500, a journal publishing 40 peer-reviewed articles per year >> would receive about $850 Canadian per article. Per-journal funding >> eliminates the need to count articles and gives journals flexibility >> to increase or decrease volume based on need. The funding in >> Canadian dollars gives journals budgeting stability, as costs such >> as local journal hosting and staffing costs are in Canadian dollars >> as well. Currency fluctuations are a problem in budgeting for many >> journals. As Salhab & I discussed here, >> > https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/13/how-a-flat-apc-with-no-price-increase-for-3-years-can-be-a-6-77-price-increase/ >> >> PLOS One's flat pricing in USD over 3 years was in effect a 6 - 77% >> price increase for authors and funders based on country and local >> currency. >> >> To illustrate the potential with a full flip using this kind of >> approach: >> >> The Canadian Research Knowledge Network (CRKN) spends approximately >> $100 million per year on subscriptions / purchase and some OA >> transitional funding. CRKN is just one of the academic library >> sources of funding in Canada. There are other regional consortia, >> such as the Ontario Council of University Libraries. Also, large >> university libraries such as the University of Ottawa and University >> of Toronto also spend considerably sums. >> >> If the CRKN's 100 million per year were transformed to support a >> subsidy program modeled on that of SSHRC, this amount could >> subsidize over 3,000 scholarly journals (at the rate in between the >> base and maximum). This example is meant just as an illustration; >> we also need to fund book publication and new forms of publication >> such as research blog archiving and data publication, but it is not >> clear that Canada would need 3,000 journals and there are there >> existing sources of funding as mentioned in the paragraph above. >> >> Anot
Re: [GOAL] SpringerOpen, Egypt and academic freedom
Public Health Association Middle East Current Psychiatry The Cardiothoracic Surgeon The Egyptian Heart Journal The Egyptian Journal of Neurology, Psychiatry and Neurosurgery Holmes, A. & Aziz, A. (2019). Egypt’s lost academic freedom. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace . Retrieved August 9, 2019 from [ https://carnegieendowment.org/sada/78210 | https://carnegieendowment.org/sada/78210 ] This is the full text of the post - here is the link in case anyone would like to comment on the blog: [ https://wordpress.com/post/sustainingknowledgecommons.org/3522 | https://wordpress.com/post/sustainingknowledgecommons.org/3522 ] Dr. Heather Morrison Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight Project [ http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/ | sustainingknowledgecommons.org ] [ mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca | heather.morri...@uottawa.ca ] [ https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 | https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 ] ___ GOAL mailing list [ mailto:GOAL@eprints.org | GOAL@eprints.org ] [ http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal | http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ] ___ GOAL mailing list [ mailto:GOAL@eprints.org | GOAL@eprints.org ] [ http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal | http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Dr. Ulrich Herb Saarländische Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Referent für elektronisches Publizieren und Open Access, Drittmittel-Projekte http://www.sulb.uni-saarland.de/ Brief: Postfach 15 11 41 D-66041 Saarbrücken Paket: Universität des Saarlandes Gebäude B1 1, Zi. 10.07. D-66123 Saarbrücken Telefon:+49-681-302-2798 Fax:+49-681-302-2796 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Re: [GOAL] Sage Open Access
--- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20190403/649823b7/attachment-0001.html -- ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal End of GOAL Digest, Vol 89, Issue 2 *** ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal We have moved! SAGE UK is on the move (temporarily), please find our new offices at 1 Broadgate, London EC2M 2QS How to find us We're located at Broadgate Circle in between Moorgate and Liverpool Street Nearest Tube Stations: Liverpool Street (5 minute walk), Moorgate (5 minute walk), Old Street (10 minute walk) ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Dr. Ulrich Herb Saarländische Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Referent für elektronisches Publizieren und Open Access, Drittmittel-Projekte http://www.sulb.uni-saarland.de/ Brief: Postfach 15 11 41 D-66041 Saarbrücken Paket: Universität des Saarlandes Gebäude B1 1, Zi. 10.07. D-66123 Saarbrücken Telefon:+49-681-302-2798 Fax:+49-681-302-2796 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Published: "Open Divide? Critical Studies on Open Access"
Dear colleagues, On April 1st, the anthology "Open Divide? Critical Studies on Open Access" was published, http://litwinbooks.com/open-divide.php. It reflects the seldomly discussed effects and tendencies of Open Access, such as its instrumentalisation for scientific monitoring, its economisation, its ambivalent functions for the North-South-Divide and analyses its diversity, e.g. through a genealogy of Open Access. The editors, Joachim Schöpfel and me, did not choose to publish the book in Gold Open Access but the publisher, Rory Litwin of Litwin Books, allowed the authors to retain rights for a Green Open Access publication of their contributions. Each of the articles in the book, but not the book as a whole, can be made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License. Here you will find a list of all contributions, including links to Open Access versions of the contributions. If new Open Access versions are made available, the list will be updated: https://www.scinoptica.com/open-divide-critical-studies-on-open-access/ Best regards Ulrich Herb -- Dr. Ulrich Herb Saarlaendische Universitaets- und Landesbibliothek Referent für elektronisches Publizieren und Open Access, Drittmittel-Projekte http://www.sulb.uni-saarland.de/de/service/publikationsangebote/ Brief: Postfach 15 11 41, D-66041 Saarbruecken Paket: Universitaet des Saarlandes, Gebaeude B1 1, Zi. 7.07., D-66123 Saarbruecken Telefon:+49-681-302-2798 Fax: +49-681-302-792798 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Re: [GOAL] American Psychological Association "pilot program" of takedown notices
very interesting news, I also blogged about it (https://www.scinoptica.com/2017/06/apa-starts-monitoring-unauthorized-internet-posting-of-published-articles/). To me it is a bit unclear whether only publishing on unauthorized servers and publishing of unauthorized versions is pursued, or also the omission of the copyright statement, the omission of the publisher's DOI and the absence of the note regarding the consistency of the Open Access version and the formally published version. Best Ulrich > Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@cantab.net> hat am 16. Juni 2017 um 09:16 > geschrieben: > > > List members will perhaps be aware that the American Psychological > Association recently launched a "pilot program" in which it has been issuing > takedown notices to authors who have posted the final published PDFs of > their articles on personal websites and third-party sites. > > (http://www.apa.org/pubs/authors/unauthorized-internet-posting.aspx). > > > > There have been a number of articles about this e.g. here > (http://retractionwatch.com/2017/06/14/researchers-protest-publishers-orders > -remove-papers-websites/) and here > (http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49670/title/Authors-P > eeved-by-APA-s-Article-Takedown-Pilot/ > <http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49670/title/Authors-P > eeved-by-APA-s-Article-Takedown-Pilot/_campaign=NEWSLETTER_TS_The-Scient > ist-Daily_2016> _campaign=NEWSLETTER_TS_The-Scientist-Daily_2016). > > > > Yesterday the APA announced that it is refocusing the program -- here > (http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/06/curtailing-journal-articles. > aspx?utm_content=1497568913 > <http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/06/curtailing-journal-articles. > aspx?utm_content=1497568913_medium=social_source=twitter> > _medium=social_source=twitter). > > > > >From that announcement: > > > > "We are refocusing this program to target commercial piracy sites," said APA > Executive Publisher Jasper Simons. "We regret that our recent takedown > messages upset some of our authors, who are not the target of the program. > Our goal remains to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record and stop > the illegal sharing of content on piracy sites. We support the > non-commercial sharing of content by our authors in line with our posting > guidelines." > > > > "We are sorry that we put the scholars in the middle," Simons said. "APA > welcomes and encourages the sharing of scientific research by APA authors. > We value our work with the scientific community and want to continue this > collaboration." > > > > Under APA's publishing guidelines, authors are free to post the final > accepted, preformatted versions of their articles - the accepted manuscript > - on their personal websites, university repositories and author networking > sites without an embargo. However, any posted manuscripts must include a > note linking to the final published article, the authoritative document. > > > > Richard Poynder > > > > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal Dr. Ulrich Herb POB 1154 D-66266 Kleinblittersdorf http://www.scinoptica.com 0049 157 30306851 http://twitter.com/#!/scinoptica ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
Dear all, thanks a lot to Ross for pointing us to PURE. Of course (by now!) most institutions are using PURE as a CRIS not as a repository. But in the end it is the same as it is with dropbox, googledocs or mendeley: they all are offering seductive functionalities needed by scholars or people from university administrations. Facing declining budegts it may only be a matter of time until university administrations will start to question the sense of running a CRS *and* a repository - especially if the CRIS (as PURE does) offers IR-functionalities. Best regards Ulrich Herb - Ursprüngliche Mail - Hi Jessica (et al.), I guess it depends which list you read. Elsevier's own list boasts over 200 PURE implementations at different institutions including 28 in the UK: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/pure/who-uses-pure/clients Even Elsevier's list isn't complete. I know for a fact that for instance that the University of Bath uses PURE http://www.bath.ac.uk/ris/pure/ and yet this doesnt appear on Elsevier's list, nor OpenDOAR. OpenDOAR is a registry run by people with close links to EPrints & DSpace. It's no surprise then that EPrints and DSpace are well registered within OpenDOAR. Time to remove the blinkers. PURE is much more prevalent than you'd think from a glance at OpenDOAR. On 18 May 2016 at 13:08, Jessica Lindholm <jessica.lindh...@chalmers.se> wrote: > Hi Ross (et al.), > > Out of curiosity I had to check the amount of Pure instances as you > mentioned that many institutional repositories run on Pure. > > > > Checking openDOAR’s registry of repositories (http://www.opendoar.org/) I > find 16 PURE-repositories listed, whereas e.g. Eprints has +400 instances > and DSpace has +1300 instances. However I am not at all sure to what degree > openDOAR is containing exhaustive data (or rather I am quite sure it > doesn’t) -it is either lacking data about PURE instances – or if not, I do > not agree that they are many.. > > > > Regards > > Jessica Lindholm > > > > > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On > Behalf Of *Ross Mounce > *Sent:* den 17 maj 2016 22:54 > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org> > *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier > > > > Elsevier have actually done a really good job of > infiltrating institutional repositories too: > > > http://rossmounce.co.uk/2013/01/25/elseviers-growing-monopoly-of-ip-in-academia/ > > > > They bought Atira back in 2012 which created PURE which is the software > that many of world's institutional repositories run on. > > I presume it reports back all information to Elsevier so they can further > monetise academic IP. > > > > Best, > > > > Ross > > > > > > > > > > On 17 May 2016 at 21:22, Joachim SCHOPFEL <joachim.schop...@univ-lille3.fr> > wrote: > > Uh - "the distributed network of Green institutional repositories > worldwide is not for sale"? Not so sure - the green institutional > repositories can be replaced by other solutions, can't they ? Better > solutions, more functionalities, more added value, more efficient, better > connected to databases and gold/hybrid journals etc. > > > > - Mail d'origine - > De: Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com> > À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org> > Envoyé: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:03:18 +0200 (CEST) > Objet: Re: [GOAL] SSRN Sellout to Elsevier > > > > Shame on SSRN. > > > > Of course we know exactly why Elsevier acquired SSRN (and Mendeley): > > > > It's to retain their stranglehold over a domain (peer-reviewed > scholarly/scientific research publishing) in which they are no longer > needed, and in which they would not even have been able to gain as much as > a foothold if it had been born digital, instead of being inherited as a > legacy from an obsolete Gutenberg era. > > > > I don't know about Arxiv (needless centralization and its concentrated > expenses are always vulnerabe to faux-benign take-overs) but what's sure is > that the distributed network of Green institutional repositories worldwide > is not for sale, and that is their strength... > > > > Stevan Harnad > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Bo-Christer Björk < > bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi> wrote: > > This is an interesting news item which should interest the > readers of this list. Let's hope arXiv is not for sale. > > Bo-Christer Björk > > > > > > > Forwarded Message > > *Subject:* > > Message from Mike Jensen, SSRN Chairman > > *Date:* > >
[GOAL] Open Science in Sociology
Dear lists, recently my dissertation thesis on Open Science (especially focusing on the discipline Sociology) was published both Open Access and as a printed book. Perhaps this might be of interest for some people here - even though it is written in German language. Here is some information on the book: *** Open Science aims to provide open access to all items produced within the research process, primarily to text publications, research data and research software. Moreover, Open Science should also bring transparency in moderating processes (such as the assessment and the review of text publications or data) and the production and utilizations of para-informations (as impact metrics). Open Science proponents describe it as a efficient, innovation-friendly and transparent science because open information can be disseminated,reused and re-analyzed more quickly and easily than closed information. The work is based on a multidisciplinary inventory of Open Access to text publications, Open Access to research data, Open Access to research software, Open Review and Open Metrics, all more typically in the STM subjects (Science, Technology, Medicine) to find than in the social sciences or humanities. Based on this synopsis the work is dedicated to the specifics of sociology, which is commonly regarded as a latecomer in the Open Science. It empirically investigates the prevalence and relevance of Open Science, Open Access to text publications, Open Access to research data, Open Access to research software, Open Review and Open Metrics in Sociology. *** Open Access: https://zenodo.org/record/31234 Print: Ulrich Herb (2015). Open Science in der Soziologie: Eine interdisziplinäre Bestandsaufnahme zur offenen Wissenschaft und eine Untersuchung ihrer Verbreitung in der Soziologie. Schriften zur Informationswissenschaft; Bd. 67 [Zugleich: Diss., Univ. des Saarlandes, 2015], p. 502 Verlag Werner Hülsbusch : Glückstadt. ISBN 978-3-86488-083-4. Order form: http://www.vwh-verlag.de/vwh/?p=996 or via amazon http://www.amazon.de/Open-Science-Soziologie-interdisziplin%C3%A4re-Informationswissenschaft/dp/3864880831 best regards Ulrich Herb -- Dr. Ulrich Herb scinoptica science consulting & publishing consulting POB 11 54 D-66266 Kleinblittersdorf Germany http://www.scinoptica.com/pages/en/start.php +49-(0)157 30306851 http://twitter.com/#!/scinoptica ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Open Access Journals in Sociology charging publication fees
Dear lists, another by-product of my PhD project: Based on data from the Directory of Open Access Journals DOAJ I examined to what extent open access journals in sociology charge their authors with publication fees. Surprisingly, the information of the DOAJ about the prevelance of these fees in journals from sociology were wrong to a large extent. A manual survey found that only three of the 109 selected journals used publication fees. http://www.scinoptica.com/pages/topics/open-access-journals-in-sociology-charging-publication-fees.php best Ulrich Herb -- scinoptica science consulting publishing consulting POB 11 54 D-66266 Kleinblittersdorf Germany http://www.scinoptica.com/pages/en/start.php +49-(0)157 30306851 http://twitter.com/#!/scinoptica --- Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast! Antivirus Schutz ist aktiv. http://www.avast.com ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Editors of sociological Open Access journals seem hesitant to adopt Open Knowledge principles
Dear lists, just a hint to a blog posting on Open Access Journals from the discipline of Sociology and their hesitation to adopt open licenses. I used data from the Directory of Open Access Journals to compare OA journals from all disciplines and Sociology journals and found out that sociological journals tend not to use the open Creative Commons licenses (CC By, CC By SA). http://www.scinoptica.com/pages/topics/numbers-and-shares-of-open-access-journals-from-all-disciplines-and-sociological-open-access-journals-using-creative-commons-licenses.php The data used is available via Zenodo, you'll find the DOI in the posting mentioned. best Ulrich Herb -- scinoptica science consulting publishing consulting POB 11 54 D-66266 Kleinblittersdorf Germany http://www.scinoptica.com/pages/en/start.php +49-(0)157 30306851 http://twitter.com/#!/scinoptica --- Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast! Antivirus Schutz ist aktiv. http://www.avast.com ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] The prevalence of Open Access publication fees
Dear lists, yesterday I had a look at the ten countries that publish the most Open Access journals and the share of journals charging their authors with article processing charges (APCs) per country. You'll find my posting under http://www.scinoptica.com/pages/topics/the-prevalence-of-open-access-publication-fees.php The data is also available under a CC By license via Zenodo: doi:10.5281/zenodo.10480 Best regards Ulrich -- scinoptica science consulting publishing consulting POB 11 54 D-66266 Kleinblittersdorf Germany http://www.scinoptica.com/pages/en/start.php +49-(0)157 30306851 http://twitter.com/#!/scinoptica --- Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast! Antivirus Schutz ist aktiv. http://www.avast.com ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: [Open-access] Institutional deposits and retracted papers
Dear Florence, perhaps this might be of interest: Davis, P. M. (2012). The persistence of error : a study of retracted articles on the Internet and in personal libraries. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 100(July). doi:10.3163/1536-5050.100.3.008, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3411255/ kind regards Ulrich Herb Am 11.12.2013 00:35, schrieb Florence Piron: Hi, The forced retraction of the Séralini paper from an Elsevier journal (an attack in itself on the integrity of the scientific publication process and a clear sign that the Pre publication review process is really agonizing) makes me wonder what happens to a paper that has been retracted from a journal, but that had been deposited in a repository. Should it be also retracted from the repository? By whom? On whose authority? Did it happen already? Florence Piron, Québec http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Open_letter_to_FCT_and_Elsevier.php ___ open-access mailing list open-acc...@lists.okfn.org http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access -- scinoptica science consulting publishing consulting POB 10 13 13 D-66013 Saarbrücken Germany http://www.scinoptica.com/pages/en/start.php +49-(0)157 30306851 http://twitter.com/#!/scinoptica ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] US policy on making federal data public?
dear all, this was new to me: the scholarly kitchen reports that an US policy on making federal data public is circulating on Capitol Hill and that it would include STM data, unlike the sk-author I would welcome such an initiative. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/01/17/leaked-data-policy-raises-monster-stm-data-issues/ best ulrich -- scinoptica science consulting and publishing consulting POB 10 13 13 D-66013 Saarbrücken Germany http://www.scinoptica.com/pages/en/start.php +49-(0)157 84759877 http://twitter.com/#!/scinoptica ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Fwd: Dark Side of Openness: Identity Theft and Fraudulent Postings By Predatory OA Publishers
I tend to agree with Thomas. Of course I appreciate Jeffrey Beals list and his work very much, but we should not forget that predatory publishing is also a practice of toll access publishers - or let's say of publishing itself. And I even think it is more widespread in toll access than in open access as TA is more opaque. Just think of Elseviers fake journals or the fake reviews reported by the chronicle and others. As far as I know some TA publishers start to make OA publishing predatory by pushing submissions that did not make it through the review process of their TA journals into their fee-based OA journals ... which is just a simple trick to make money from papers that did not make it into their TA products and cannot be sold via subscriptions. best regards Ulrich Herb Am 19.12.2012 03:25, schrieb Thomas Krichel: Stevan Harnad writes The research community needs to unite to expose, name and shame these increasingly criminal practices by predatory publishers I wonder if there is a criterion for when a publisher is predatory. bent on making a fast buck by abusing the research community's legitimate desire for open access (OA) (as well as exploiting some researchers' temptation to get accepted for publication fast, no matter what the cost or quality). If the aim open access then we should first expose the toll-gated publishers who have for many years extraordinary profits from material they obtained for free and that was reviewed for them for free. Surely the amounts wasted on open access publishing dwarf the sum spent on library subscriptions to buy access to articles that nobody ever seems to cite, so probably nobody ever reads. Cheers, Thomas Krichelhttp://openlib.org/home/krichel http://authorprofile.org/pkr1 skype: thomaskrichel ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Postfach 10 13 13 D-66013 Saarbrücken http://www.scinoptica.com +49-(0)157 84759877 http://twitter.com/#!/scinoptica ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] SAGE Plattform socialsciencespace.com bashes OA: Why Open Access is Good News for Neo-Nazis
Dear all, fyi: a very stupid propaganda piece from socialsciencespace.com (run by SAGE) Why Open Access is Good News for Neo-Nazis http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2012/10/why-open-access-is-good-news-for-neo-nazis/ best regards Ulrich -- Ulrich Herb scinoptica science consulting POB 10 13 13 D-66013 Saarbrücken Germany http://www.scinoptica.com/pages/en/start.php +49-(0)157 84759877 http://twitter.com/#!/scinoptica ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Re: download counts and self-archiving
and another here is another project focusing on usage data and statistics: Open Access Statistics: http://www.dini.de/projekte/oa-statistik/english/ funded by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG). Best regards Ulrich Herb Saarland University and State Library, Germany Repository Manager, Specialist Electronic Publishing Open Access http://www.sulb.uni-saarland.de/de/service/publikationsangebote/ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ulrich_Herb Address:Â Â Â POB 15 11 41, D-66041 Saarbruecken Telephone:Â +49-681-302-2798 Fax:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â +49-681-302-2796 Am 23.08.2010 11:02, schrieb C.J.Smith: Of relevance here is the JISC-funded PIRUS project (http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwe do/programmes/pals3/pirus.aspx), which is developing publisher-repository-combin ed COUNTER-compliant usage stats, as I understand it. Colin Smith Research Repository Manager Open Research Online (ORO) Open University Library Walton Hall Milton Keynes MK7 6AA Tel: +44(0)1908 332971 Email: c.j.sm...@open.ac.uk Web: http://oro.open.ac.uk Blog: http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/ORO Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/smithcolin -Original Message- From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:amscifo...@gmail.com] Sent: 23 August 2010 04:27 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: download counts and self-archiving On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Michael Smith michael.e.smit...@asu.edu wrote: When I was pitching self-archiving to some colleagues last week, two of them mentioned the following argument AGAINST self-archiving. University bean-counters have started using the number of times articles are downloaded (from publishers sites, I guess) as a measure of faculty productivity or impact. If one self-archives, then people will be less likely to download from the publishers site, thereby lowering one's download score. I can think of various reasons why this is NOT a good reason to avoid self-archiving, but I wonder if there are any data on this, or if any bibliometric researchers have addressed this topic explicitly. Here are just a few reasons (each one of them a no-brainer): (1) More accessibility does not decrease total downloads, it increases them. (2) OA self-archiving, while increasing total downloads, may shift some of the download traffic from the publisher's website to the institutional repository. (3) Download counts from the institutional repository can be added to download counts from the publisher's websites. (4) Open Access self-archiving also increases citations -- another, more venerable target of the bean-counters. (5) Increased downloads lead to increased citations. How many more reasons do the bean-counters need, to mandate OA self-archiving? Michael E. Smith, Professor School of Human Evolution Social Change Arizona State University www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9
Open Access - a Panacea? Science, Society, Democracy, Digital Divide
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (theia.rz.uni-saarland.de [134.96.7.31]); Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:58:35 +0100 (CET) X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir MailGate (version: 2.1.2-14; AVE: 7.9.0.10; VDF: 7.1.0.33; host: AntiVir1) Dear list, I just published a preprint at SSRN, it focuses on sociological implications of Open Access. I still have to fix some things, but perhaps it might be of interest for some of you. It would be very nice if the ones that read it could give me some feedback. Link: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1294475 Abstract: Claims for Open Access are mostly underpinned with a) science-related arguments (Open Access accelerates scientific communication) b) financial arguments (Open Access relieves the serials crisis), c) social (Open Access reduces the Digital Divide), d) democracy-related arguments (Open Access facilitates participation) e) and socio-political arguments (Open Access levels disparities). Using sociological concepts and notions this article analyses some of the presumptions mentioned. It focuses strongly on Pierre Bourdieu's theory of (scientific) capital and its implications for the acceptance of Open Access, Michel Foucault's discourse analysis and the implications of Open Access for the Digital Divide concept. Bourdieu's theory of capital implies that the acceptance of Open Access depends on the logic of power and the accumulation of scientific capital. It does not depend on slogans derived from hagiographic self-perceptions of science (e.g. the acceleration of scientific communication) and scientists (e.g. their will to share their information freely). According to Bourdieu's theory it is crucial for Open Access (and associated concepts like alternative impact metrics) how scientists perceive its potential influence on existing processes of capital accumulation and how it will affect their demand for distinction. Considering the Digital Divide concept Foucault's discourse analysis suggests that Open Access may intensify disparities, scientocentrisms and ethnocentrisms. Keywords: Open Access, Scientific Publishing, Scientific Communication, Theory of Science, Sociology, Democracy, Digital Divide, Pierre Bourdieu, Social Capital, Scientific Capital, Journal Impact Factor, Michel Foucault, Discourse Analysis Best regards Ulrich Herb - - - - - Saarland University and State Library, Germany Repository Manager, Specialist Electronic Publishing Open Access http://www.sulb.uni-saarland.de/de/service/publiktationsangebote/ Address:POB 15 11 41, D-66041 Saarbruecken Telephone: +49-681-302-2798 Fax: +49-681-302-2796
Re: The OA Deposit-Fee Kerfuffle: APA's Not Responsible; NIH Is
Dear Stevan, dear all, a short comment from Germany: Saarland University and State Library holds the Special Subject Collection Psychology which is part of an information system for the supra-regional literature supply in Germany. Therefore we launched a disciplinary repository for psychological information (PsyDok, http://psydok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/index.php?la=en) back in 2003. Since the beginning of 2008 we started harvesting psychological content via OAI-PMH from institutional repositories in Germany. best regards Ulrich Herb - - - - - Saarland University and State Library, Germany Repository Manager, Specialist Electronic Publishing Open Access http://www.sulb.uni-saarland.de/de/service/publiktationsangebote/ Address:POB 15 11 41, D-66041 Saarbruecken Telephone: +49-681-302-2798 Fax: +49-681-302-2796 Stevan Harnad schrieb: Chris Armbruster, as in the past http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/182-guid.html, and like many others, completely conflates the problem of content and the problem of functionality: (1) Virtually all OA repositories today -- institutional and central -- are low on content: Only about 15% of annual refereed research is being deposited today. (2) The only two exceptions are the fields of physics and economics, where authors have been spontaneously depositing their papers in, respectively, Arxiv and various collections of working papers in economics, now harvested by RePEc. (3) Even after many years of their positive example, the self-archiving practices of these two fields have failed to generalize to the rest of scholarly and scientific research. (4) This is why self-archiving mandates -- from research institutions and research funders -- are needed. (5) Since all research, in all fields, originates from institutions, institutional repositories (IRs) are the natural, convergent locus of deposit for both institutional and funder mandates. (6) Because IRs are OAI-compliant, hence interoperable, their contents (metadata + links, or metadata + full-texts) can be harvested into central collections (CRs) of various kinds (subject-based, funder-based, nation-based, or global). (7) Functionality can be enhanced at the harvester level in many ways; all that is needed is the content itself. (8) But we won't have the content unless we mandate it. (9) And mandates won't work if funder mandates and institutional mandates are in competition, and diverge. (10) Institutions are the content-providers, in all fields, funded or unfunded. (11) Institutions share with their researchers a joint interest in maximizing the accessibility, uptake, usage, and impact of their joint research output. (12) Institutions can also monitor and ensure compliance with funder mandates (alongside their own institutional mandates). (13) Locus of deposit has absolutely nothing to do with functionality. (14) But locus of deposit has everything to do with ensuring that the content is provided. On 17-Jul-08, at 3:54 AM, Armbruster, Chris wrote: I would like to publicly applaud the NIH policy makers for strengthening a central repository. NIH could strengthen its central repository (CR) (PubMed Central) irrespective of the locus of deposit. Locus of deposit is relevant to maximizing content provision and unrelated to functionality. As far as I can see, after several years, institutional repositories have not made decisive progress in being useful to either authors or readers by providing services that are of any value (beyond storage). The purpose of IRs is not to provide services but to provide content. The services are provided at the harvested collection (CR) level. And the usefulness of CR services depends entirely on whether the content -- on which the service is to be based -- is actually provided in the first place. If I look at the kinds of services that arxiv, SSRN, CiteSeerX, RePEc and PMC offer, I see no equivalent emerging from the IRs, no matter how much you synchronize and harvest. I have great difficulty understanding the point Chris is trying to make here: Both CiteSeerX and RePEc are harvester services. There is no CR there in which authors deposit directly. CiteSeerX and RePEc (like Google Scholar) harvest their contents from IRs and other institutional and personal sites on the web. Arxiv, as noted, is a longstanding CR in which physicists have been depositing directly since 1991, but there is no sign of that spontaneous phenomenon duplicating itself in any other field (even though CRs are available in other fields too, including CogPrints, in cognitive sciences, which I created in 1997). SSRN is a CR, but the way to assess how full it is is to divide its annual contents by the global annual output in all the fields covered. It will be found to hover at the very same spontaneous deposit level (15%) as the IRs
