[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Anticipated new journal, eLife, publishes first articles

[William Gunn]

Marc, that's been their standard line since I first heard of them,
about a year ago. What part of it do you find interesting?

William Gunn
+1 646 755 9862
http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/

Support free access to scientific journal articles arising from
taxpayer-funded research: http://wh.gov/6TH


On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Couture Marc  wrote:
> An interesting information on eLife website:
>
> "Publishing in eLife will be free of charge, at least for an initial period"
> http://www.elifesciences.org/the-journal/publishing-fees
>
> More details found on Wellcome Trust website :
>
> "For the first three to four years, to help establish the journal, no fees 
> will be charged to authors. Once the journal is established and we begin to 
> expand its scope and size, we anticipate that authors will be charged an 
> article processing fee to cover some of the ongoing costs of publication. As 
> we progress this initiative we will ensure full transparency and publish 
> details of the journal's costs."
> http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Policy/Spotlight-issues/Open-access/Journal/WTVM051948.htm
>
>
> Marc Couture
>
> ___
> 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: A case for strong fair use / fair dealing with restrictive licenses

[William Gunn]

Thanks for sharing your well - thought position, Heather.

My background is science, where the arguments for CC-BY are clear (legal
uncertainty inhibits reuse), but I don't profess to know the dynamics of
communication studies. In your example of a film still, why would it be ok
to use in the first paper, but not downstream? Is the argument that TV &
film producers will seek to prevent even scholarly use of their works if
authors retain copyright vs. publishers?
On Apr 25, 2015 3:11 PM, "Heather Morrison" 
wrote:

> The types of works that many students and faculty would like to be able to
> include in scholarly works are not necessarily from other scholarly works.
> For example, scholars in my doctoral discipline of communication study a
> wide range of types of works including newspapers, television, films,
> cartoons, advertising, blogs and social media, and public relations
> materials. It is very useful for scholars to be able to include images and
> text from the primary source materials, either as illustration or for
> purposes of critique. Obtaining permission to use even small excerpts of
> such works is time-consuming at best. I argue that it would be in the best
> interests of scholarship to advocate for strong fair use / fair dealing
> exceptions for research and academic critique globally and accept that more
> restrictive licenses may be necessary to avoid the potential for re-use
> errors that could easily occur with blanket licenses allowing broad re-use.
> For example, while it makes sense to allow scholars to include small movie
> stills in an academic piece, it could be quite problematic for scholars to
> include such items in works that grant blanket commercial and re-use rights
> downstream.
>
> This illustrates what I see as one of the problems with the one size fits
> all CC-BY license preferred by some open access advocates (which I consider
> to be a serious error): what I interpret as an implicit assumption that all
> of the works scholars are likely to want to re-use are other scholarly
> works. Rather than making assumptions, let's do some research to find out
> what scholars and students would like to be able to re-use. Anecdotally, in
> my experience the most popular items for re-use are images from popular
> culture (especially characters from the Simpsons TV series), not scholarly
> works. Scholarly journals like to use photos to add interest and aesthetic
> value. If it is the case that the greatest interest in re-use for scholars
> involves works from popular culture / outside the academy, then ubiquitous
> CC-BY licenses for absolutely every scholarly article, book, and dataset in
> the whole world would not solve the primary re-use question for a majority
> of scholars.
>
> This is not meant to suggest that advocacy for global fair use / fair
> dealing rights for academic research and critique is an easy task, rather
> to raise the question of whether this is an appropriate and useful goal for
> scholarly works.
>
> This post is part of the Creative Commons and Open Access Critique series
> on my scholarly blog, The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics. To comment
> on the blogpost:
> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2015/04/a-case-for-strong-fair-use-fair-dealing.html
>
> Creative Commons and Open Access Critique series:
> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/10/critique-of-cc-by-series.html
>
> best,
>
> --
> Dr. Heather Morrison
> Assistant Professor
> École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
> University of Ottawa
> http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
> Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca
>
>
>
> ___
> 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: A case for strong fair use / fair dealing with restrictive licenses

[William Gunn]

On Apr 26, 2015 2:08 PM, "Heather Morrison" 
wrote:
>
> There are arguments against CC-BY as a default that apply across all
disciplines. The most important is the potential for downstream
enclosure... A broad-based CC-BY success of the open access movement could
easily and quickly revert to toll access on a massive scale in the future
(short, medium or long term).

I think I'm missing a key part of your argument. Can you explain how a
CC-BY licensed work would revert to toll access?
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Elsevier: Trying to squeeze the virtual genie back into the physical bottle

[William Gunn]

Eric,

I'm not sure I'm reading it the same way you are, nor am I as convinced as
Mike is that Green OA (of pre-prints & author manuscripts) is a threat to
publishers.

On the first point, if you read Karen's statement as "the author version,
including peer-review revisions is now considered to be a pre-print" this
is indeed a advancement over the previous policy as is doing the opposite
of what you state. They're essentially saying with this policy, as I read
it, that the major value-add the publisher brings is the branding & the
hosting of the version of record, because the peer review is included in
the free-to-post preprint.

On the second point, we need data. Are there any libraries who say they
will definitely cancel a subscription if they can find all papers from a
given journal in a repository somewhere? What does that even mean, given
that libraries don't buy subscriptions a la carte, but as bundles? We need
data!



William Gunn
+1 (650) 614-1749
http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Éric Archambault <
eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote:

>  Stevan
>
>
>
> The point you make is important. Elsevier HAS changed its policy and in
> fact the difference is that the peer-review process, done for free by
> academics, is now under embargo, whereas it wasn't before. So you are right
> to mention that Elsevier is backpedalling on OA. The pre-print,
> pre-peer-reviewed was not embargoed before the latest policy, and it is not
> with that policy either. In a way, Elsevier says the original contribution
> to knowledge that academics and researchers submit for publication does not
> belong to them, and so authors are free to make this available for free.
> Fair enough, this is paid for by public money (the greatest majority of it
> anyway).
>
>
>
> What Elsevier says now is that the peer-review process belongs exclusively
> to Elsevier, at least during the embargo period. This is problematic as
> most of the value-added in the peer-review process is paid for by the
> public and income taxes. As Elsevier paid only between 6% of to 8% of its
> revenues in income taxes in the last two years, it can't pretend to
> contribute highly to paying the salary of academics who do that job. We do
> that, us the members of the middle-income earners as we are the most taxed
> of all, all over the world (as % of income, and certainly even more as a %
> of wealth as Thomas Piketty would notice). So basically, the peer-review
> process as well as the papers submitted to that process are largely paid
> for by the public, and should both remain public in the interest of
> consistency and efficiency of economic and social policies.
>
>
>
> Coming to the discussion on "fair-gold", I think it is not productive
> given our most urging challenges. We don't care if companies make profit
> (well, I do as an entrepreneur as I try to produce it, and as a citizen,
> just like you, I do care about social justice and am bothered with the
> profits of Apple and Google and the fact that they barely pay taxes, but
> this is beside the current debate). The core problem with access is when
> companies take public goods and appropriate them exclusively. This is the
> problem with the current publishing system. If we switch to gold, Elsevier
> and others could continue to earn their $10-15 billion per year, and
> provided everything becomes widely available we will have tackled a huge
> problem of private appropriation of a public good, one that means that $450
> billion is locked behind paywalls to generate a comparatively paltry $10-15
> billion in revenues (a large part of it being profit admittedly, it's a
> great business model they have). The present situation is akin to people
> taking down power lines from public utilities to sell the copper in the
> wires for melting - the private rewards to social cost ratio is firmly
> against the public interest. If we switch to gold for the same social cost
> ($10-15 billion per year), we will have sorted the problem. If you then
> feel that Elsevier continues to earn exorbitant profits, you will be free
> to quit your job and compete with them by publishing honest-gold journals,
> Beall will be happy, and everyone will celebrate.
>
>
>
> Yet, though your quest about unfair-embargoing important, there is one
> important aspect you nearly always omit as part of your exercise in
> vigilante. It is currently close to impossible for the public to monitor
> the "à la pièce gold", also frequently called "hybrid OA" that appears in
> subscription-based journals. For example, Elsevier maintains robots.txt
> files that preclude academics and companies alike from crawling its web
> 

[GOAL] Re: New - Brazilian Portal of Scientific Publications in Open Access (oasisbr)

[William Gunn]

Hi Bianca,

Can you explain how this project relates to SciELO?

Best,


William Gunn
+1 (650) 614-1749
http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:22 PM,  wrote:

>
> (sorry for cross-posting)
>
> Colleagues,
>
>
> It is with great pleasure that I divulge the new Brazilian Portal of
> Scientific Publications in Open Access (oasisbr), completely reworked. This
> is an important initiative of the Brazilian Institute of Information in
> Science and Technology (IBICT), and aims at gathering the Brazilian
> scientific publications in open access in a single search portal. Are
> scientific articles, books, book chapters, theses, dissertations and papers
> published in scientific events available in open access on the internet.
>
>
> It's almost 1,000,000 of Brazilian scientific publications in open access.
> The oasisbr has, today, in total, more than 1,200,000 documents because it
> brings together scientific production also present in Open Access
> Scientific Repository of Portugal (RCAAP).
>
>
> Access: oasisbr.ibict.br
>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be
> clean.
>
>
> ___
> 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: A new high level peered review journal at nearly zero cost by Tim Gowers

[William Gunn]

I'm watching this experiment with interest, but I will note that their use
of the Scholastica service means the prices could go up at any time.
On Oct 1, 2015 1:44 PM, "Y.Nobis"  wrote:

> hi Dana.
>
> I doubt it, unless you can motivate HEP people to buy into the concept...
>
> Yvonne
> >A great idea ... that hopefully will make SCOAP3 redundant.
> >
> > Dana L. Roth Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32 1200 E. California Blvd.
> > Pasadena, CA 91125 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
> > dzr...@library.caltech.edu
> > http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm
> >  From: goal-boun...@eprints.org
> > [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of Nicolas Pettiaux
> > [nico...@pettiaux.be] Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 11:22 PM To:
> > goal@eprints.org Subject: [GOAL] A new high level peered review journal
> > at nearly zero cost by Tim Gowers
> >
> >Dear All,
> >
> >I want to share with you this information I have just come accross.
> >
> > A new post-publication high level peered review journal at nearly zero
> > cost, by a famous mathematician
> >
> >
> >
> https://gowers.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/discrete-analysis-an-arxiv-overlay-journal/
> >
> >Your comments are most welcome.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >Nicolas
> >
>
> --
> Yvonne Nobis
>
> Head of Science Information Services
>
> Betty and Gordon Moore Library
> Wilberforce Road,
> Cambridge, CB3 0WD.
> Tel : 01223 765673
>
> Central Science Library
> Bene't Street,
> Cambridge CB2 3PY.
> Tel (01223)334744
>
> ___
> 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: EU considering link taxing and blocking

[William Gunn]

Graham, I'm having a hard time seeing how regulating aggregation of content
or links to content makes text and data mining easier. Seems like it would
be harder, and especially if any publication of results becomes infringing.
On Nov 18, 2015 3:39 AM, "Graham Triggs"  wrote:

> The EU is not considering link blocking.
>
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/16/eu_wont_make_hyperlinks_illegal_copyright/
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/05/ec_copyright_framework_leak/
>
> Any effects of restrictions seem to be limited to commercial sites
> aggregating copyrighted material - but then copyrighted material by
> definition has restrictions of use, subject to whatever licences may be
> granted.
>
> Open Access - material that explicitly grants a licence to reuse (and
> link) content - is not going to be, and can’t be, affected.
>
> The most likely outcome of this bill is make text and data mining of
> copyrighted material easier for research purposes.
>
>
> On 17 Nov 2015, at 23:12, Heather Morrison 
> wrote:
>
> Open Access depends on linking - and is one of the best exemplars of why
> links should not be blocked. Please sign.
>
> https://savethelink.org/yourvoice?src=158734
>
> best,
>
> Heather Morrison
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
>
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: EU considering link taxing and blocking

[William Gunn]

I guess I'm just suspicious of any copyright framework advanced right now,
even if it does throw a bone to something I favor. Any good commentary on
the legislation as a whole?


William Gunn
+1 (650) 614-1749
http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Graham Triggs 
wrote:

> Correct, regulating the commercial aggregation of content does not
> directly provide for easier content mining.
>
> But this is a Copyright Framework, which would have a number of
> provisions. One of them is likely to be specific exceptions for
> non-commercial text and data mining.
>
> On 18 Nov 2015, at 18:55, William Gunn  wrote:
>
> Graham, I'm having a hard time seeing how regulating aggregation of
> content or links to content makes text and data mining easier. Seems like
> it would be harder, and especially if any publication of results becomes
> infringing.
> On Nov 18, 2015 3:39 AM, "Graham Triggs"  wrote:
>
>> The EU is not considering link blocking.
>>
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/16/eu_wont_make_hyperlinks_illegal_copyright/
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/05/ec_copyright_framework_leak/
>>
>> Any effects of restrictions seem to be limited to commercial sites
>> aggregating copyrighted material - but then copyrighted material by
>> definition has restrictions of use, subject to whatever licences may be
>> granted.
>>
>> Open Access - material that explicitly grants a licence to reuse (and
>> link) content - is not going to be, and can’t be, affected.
>>
>> The most likely outcome of this bill is make text and data mining of
>> copyrighted material easier for research purposes.
>>
>>
>> On 17 Nov 2015, at 23:12, Heather Morrison 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Open Access depends on linking - and is one of the best exemplars of why
>> links should not be blocked. Please sign.
>>
>> https://savethelink.org/yourvoice?src=158734
>>
>> best,
>>
>> Heather Morrison
>> ___
>> GOAL mailing list
>> GOAL@eprints.org
>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> GOAL mailing list
>> GOAL@eprints.org
>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>>
>> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

[William Gunn]

Thanks for your comments, Eric F! If we want to improve scholarly
communications, we have to drop the idea that top-down grant funded
projects are the ideal. The best way to keep Elsevier from dominating the
space would be for there to be plenty of lean and hungry startups seeing
opportunities here.


William Gunn
+1 (650) 614-1749
http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde <
eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Eric Archambault:
> This is quite impressive and potentially very helpful.
>
> Stevan:
> We started with IRs that would grow organically. When that did not work,
> we pursued institutional mandates. Now, it is national funder mandates.
> This attitude of top-down enforced innovation is at odds with today's tech
> culture of bottom-up innovation. The top-down approach is just too slow.
>
> Libraries have now been managing IRs for over 15 years without any
> significant changes to IRs. They still have no social component, like
> Figshare or academia.edu. As we have seen elsewhere, the social component
> is crucial to achieve organic growth.
>
> Worse than not adding features is the attitude that IRs are the goal. The
> real goal should be better scholarly communication. This may require a new
> IR: Individual Repositories. Social platforms are far more suited for the
> individual researcher.
>
> I am not an absolute free marketer, but the free market is rather good at
> forcing innovation. Perhaps, it is time to make libraries compete for the
> IR/OA management business and force some innovation that way.
> --Eric.
>
>
> http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @evdvelde
> E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Éric Archambault <
> eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote:
>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>>
>> At 1science, we have developed a robust solution to address some of the
>> problems you are mentioning. In contrast to the optimistic view of the
>> repositories that Stevan has, in our efforts to locate all the contents
>> which is available in green and gold (including hybrid), we are finding
>> that most of the IRs have only about 5-8% of the papers published by
>> authors at the universities hosting these repositories. Another contrast,
>> the latest data we have compiled at 1science shows that we are fast
>> approaching 60% of the papers indexed the Thomson Reuters Web of Science
>> which can be found in gratis OA form somewhere on the internet. Given the
>> law of large numbers, on average, there is a gap of more than 50% between
>> what is available somewhere on the net, and what is available in local IR.
>> It’s clear tat a solution that fills that gap quickly can remove a huge
>> pain point in the filling of IR with full-text (or links to full-text) and
>> proper metadata.
>>
>>
>>
>> We have developed a product called oaFoldr which basically repatriates
>> these papers to the IRs. Our privileged model is to feed the IRs with good
>> quality metadata (and when institutions are subscribing to the Web of
>> Science, we can install the WoS API and populate the repository with very
>> high quality metadata and this removes a lot of the pain of entering data
>> manually) and then place URLs that points to locations (other IR,
>> publishers’ websites, arXiv, Scielo, PMC,…) where a gratis OA version is
>> located. This turns empty IRs into institutional knowledge hubs. Of course,
>> many librarians are also actively examining these links and copying a
>> physical version of the paper in the IR (where possible considering
>> licencing and rights issues). If the uptake is good for this product (which
>> we think it will as we developed this solution because we kept hearing from
>> tens of university librarians that something of the kind was really
>> needed), IRs are going to be way more populated, way faster, and librarians
>> and researchers will be able to spend more time archiving and
>> self-archiving pre-prints and post-prints that do not exist anywhere else.
>> For libraries to spend time looking at what is uniquely missing makes
>> sense, this is an exercise in search engine optimization as the Bing and
>> Google bots will see unique content. This solution will help move
>> universities towards 100% OA availability at the institutional level. Take
>> Caltech – they already have a stunningly good IR but using 1science’s data
>> it’ll be every better – we can find close to 80% of Caltech’s paper in
>> Gratis OA somewhere on the internet. Of course, this solution is not a
>> silver bullet and some problems will remain but it w

Re: [GOAL] Prophylactic Against Elsevier Predation

[William Gunn]

My point is that there need to be more potential acquirers than Elsevier,
Springer, or Wiley, but it's certainly true that as acquisitions go up, the
capital pouring into the space goes up.

William Gunn
+1 (650) 614-1749
http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/
On May 19, 2016 1:47 PM, "WALK Paul"  wrote:

> "The best way to keep Elsevier from dominating the space would be for
> there to be plenty of lean and hungry startups seeing opportunities here."
>
> That seems demonstrably untrue, when such lean and hungry startups often
> have acquisition as their main exit strategy...
>
> Paul
>
>
> > On 19 May 2016, at 11:17, William Gunn  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for your comments, Eric F! If we want to improve scholarly
> communications, we have to drop the idea that top-down grant funded
> projects are the ideal. The best way to keep Elsevier from dominating the
> space would be for there to be plenty of lean and hungry startups seeing
> opportunities here.
> >
> >
> > William Gunn
> > +1 (650) 614-1749
> > http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/
> >
> > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde <
> eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Eric Archambault:
> > This is quite impressive and potentially very helpful.
> >
> > Stevan:
> > We started with IRs that would grow organically. When that did not work,
> we pursued institutional mandates. Now, it is national funder mandates.
> This attitude of top-down enforced innovation is at odds with today's tech
> culture of bottom-up innovation. The top-down approach is just too slow.
> >
> > Libraries have now been managing IRs for over 15 years without any
> significant changes to IRs. They still have no social component, like
> Figshare or academia.edu. As we have seen elsewhere, the social component
> is crucial to achieve organic growth.
> >
> > Worse than not adding features is the attitude that IRs are the goal.
> The real goal should be better scholarly communication. This may require a
> new IR: Individual Repositories. Social platforms are far more suited for
> the individual researcher.
> >
> > I am not an absolute free marketer, but the free market is rather good
> at forcing innovation. Perhaps, it is time to make libraries compete for
> the IR/OA management business and force some innovation that way.
> > --Eric.
> >
> >
> > http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
> > Twitter: @evdvelde
> > E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com
> >
> > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Éric Archambault <
> eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote:
> > Eric
> >
> >
> >
> > At 1science, we have developed a robust solution to address some of the
> problems you are mentioning. In contrast to the optimistic view of the
> repositories that Stevan has, in our efforts to locate all the contents
> which is available in green and gold (including hybrid), we are finding
> that most of the IRs have only about 5-8% of the papers published by
> authors at the universities hosting these repositories. Another contrast,
> the latest data we have compiled at 1science shows that we are fast
> approaching 60% of the papers indexed the Thomson Reuters Web of Science
> which can be found in gratis OA form somewhere on the internet. Given the
> law of large numbers, on average, there is a gap of more than 50% between
> what is available somewhere on the net, and what is available in local IR.
> It’s clear tat a solution that fills that gap quickly can remove a huge
> pain point in the filling of IR with full-text (or links to full-text) and
> proper metadata.
> >
> >
> >
> > We have developed a product called oaFoldr which basically repatriates
> these papers to the IRs. Our privileged model is to feed the IRs with good
> quality metadata (and when institutions are subscribing to the Web of
> Science, we can install the WoS API and populate the repository with very
> high quality metadata and this removes a lot of the pain of entering data
> manually) and then place URLs that points to locations (other IR,
> publishers’ websites, arXiv, Scielo, PMC,…) where a gratis OA version is
> located. This turns empty IRs into institutional knowledge hubs. Of course,
> many librarians are also actively examining these links and copying a
> physical version of the paper in the IR (where possible considering
> licencing and rights issues). If the uptake is good for this product (which
> we think it will as we developed this solution because we kept hearing from
> tens of university librarians that something of the kind was really
> needed), IRs are going to be way more populated, way

Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier

[William Gunn]

On the infrastructure point, I think we need to be clear what we consider
to be infrastructure, and also what we think must be a public good vs.
something which we are ok with business models being developed around. Not
to make too much of the "roads and bridges" analogy, but I do fear we'll
just end up talking past one another and not make the progress that is
needed on this critical topic of infrastructure if we don't actually mean
the same thing when we say the word.

Right now, the way I think about it is that the identifiers and resolvers
and standards that allow you to point from one object to another and to
reuse an object in another place are infrastructure, but the things and
places themselves aren't infrastructure. A road is infrastructure but a
shop on the side of the road isn't, likewise a DOI is infrastructure, but
the repository which holds the document identified by the DOI isn't. The
pipes which deliver the water to your home are infrastructure, but the
water itself isn't. Water is considered a public good, but it's also sold
for a obscene markup by massive corporations, precisely because consumers
feel value has been added through distribution, filtering, and marketing.
Hmm... sound familiar? Open source software is a public good, but IDEs and
hosting and SLAs and support and stuff are may not be.

This is just the way I'm currently thinking about it - not any sort of
official company position - but if someone has a different idea about
infrastructure, let's hear it, please, so we can mean the same thing and
move this important conversation forward.




(ps: it's worth thinking about how user communities fit in with this. For
example, even if you could fork Mendeley, you couldn't fork our community
of users. This shows to me the value of a healthy ecosystem of apps and why
commercial players shouldn't be feared in the services space - if Mendeley
starts doing bad stuff, people will go use Zotero or Papers or whatever
other tool they like. Different economics entirely from selling access to
unique content.)


William Gunn
+1 (650) 614-1749
http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Peter Murray-Rust  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Éric Archambault <
> eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote:
>
>> Isidro
>>
>> Not so sure. Two weeks ago while visiting university libraries in Europe
>> I saw that many of them are switching/considering to switch to their CRIS
>> instead of continuing to rely on their traditional repositories and the
>> mostly open source software. We'll have to see how far it goes but the rise
>> of national research assessment exercises and national OA mandates, there
>> is growing pressure to consolidate research data and expect Elsevier,
>> Holtzbrinck (->Digital Science->Symplectic), and Thomson Reuters (and
>> whomever acquires the IP & Science unit - which the rumor mill suggests
>> could be acquired by BC Partners, itself Holtzbrinck's partner in Springer
>> Nature - thus possibly more consolidation on the way) to increase their
>> stronghold on research data and research intelligence.
>>
>> Only fools think we are witnessing an opening of research knowledge
>> dissemination. The winners of open data and open access will be large
>> corporates concerns. Research is big business and there are huge economies
>> of scale in that industry, just as in so many others. Consolidation is the
>> name of the game, and amateur bricolage solutions are giving way to
>> corporate professional solutions, whether we like it or not.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>> Eric Archambault, Ph.D.
>> President and CEO | Président-directeur général
>> Science-Metrix & 1science
>>
>> T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111
>> C. 1.514.518.0823
>> F. 1.514.495.6523
>>
>>
>>
> Completely agree with Eric. It's the increasing privatizing of academic
> Infrastructure that terrifies me. Geoff Bilder has also cogently argued
> this.
>
> Open (whether Green or Gold) is almost irrelevant if the material is held
> in non-discoverable fragmented repos. A commercial "solution" - TR,
> Elsevier, DigitalScience will effectively lock in discovery and access. The
> primary value of CC-BY open is that you can fork it. You can't fork Green.
> You can't fork academia.edu or Researchgate. You can't fork Mendeley
> (whose contents are "open" in name but not forkable in practice).
>
> My prediction is that DigitalScience and Elsevier will compete to manage
> university repos. What do repos cost? Peter Suber said 1.5 - 5 FTE/year.
> Multiply across UK (*150) and you get ca 400 FTEs. cost this at 100K rea

Re: [GOAL] BLOG: Press embargoes – a threat from the shadows

[William Gunn]

The issue, as I understand it, is that publishers want to be the ones who
announce the publications of articles in their journals. That part makes
sense, right? I mean, if someone else is publishing the news before you,
it's not news. Is there something else beyond this that's of concern?


William Gunn
+1 (650) 614-1749
http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Florence Piron <
florence.pi...@scienceetbiencommun.org> wrote:

> You could tell these researchers :
>
> - That ambition and competition are not the only values in life
>
> - That being terrified of displeasing abusive commercial journals is very
> dangerous for their (mental) health - they could look at what happens
> elsewhere in the world they share with other human beings - it would surely
> appease their terror
>
> - to have a good read of Discourse on Voluntary Servitude (1549), in
> which the 18 year-old author explains that a tyran lives only because
> subalterns recognize him as tyrant :
>
> Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for
> he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own
> enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to
> give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do
> anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is
> therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about,
> their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to
> their servitude.
>
> http://www.constitution.org/la_boetie/serv_vol.htm
>
> - To re-read what Merton wrote in 1942 about communism in science : « The
> substantive findings of science are a product of social collaboration and
> are assigned to the community. They are a common heritage in which the
> equity of the individual producer is severely limited... rather than
> exclusive ownership of the discoverer and their heirs. » and ponder over
> the priority between CVs and knowledge sharing
>
> - To re-read article 27 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights : «
> (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of
> the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and
> its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and
> material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic
> production of which he is the author. »
> and try to imagine what it means:
>
> - that our world has decided there is a collective right to science in
> which scientists have a big role to play in it (by freely sharing their
> work)
>
> - that researchers have a right to be protected against publishers
> that terrify them.
>
>
> Florence Piron (Université Laval), totally fed-up
>
>
>
> Le 2016-05-20 à 06:54, Danny Kingsley a écrit :
>
> 
>
> Hello all,
>
> Our latest blog on Unlocking Research is looking at the issue of press
> embargoes.
>
> Below is a teaser from "Press embargoes – a threat from the shadows" -
> https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=653
>
> 
> Something has been rumbling under the surface in the repository world
> recently, at least in the UK. Over the past six months or so, the Office of
> Scholarly Communication has had some fraught conversations with researchers
> who are terrified that their papers will be 'pulled' from publication by
> the journal. The reason is because some information about the upcoming
> paper is publicly available.
>
> 
>
> Our researchers are concerned that having the metadata about an article
> available means that publishers will consider this a breach of embargo and
> will pull the publication. Note that the Author’s Accepted Manuscript of
> the article itself (or the data files, in case of datasets) is locked down
> and the information about the volume, issue and pages are missing as the
> work is not yet published.
>
> The researchers are worried because there is a need for publication in
> high profile journals such as *Nature* for their careers and if a work
> was to be pulled from publication this would have huge implications for
> them. This has caused a challenge for us – clearly we do not wish to
> threaten our researchers’ publication prospects, but we are also bound by
> the requirements of the HEFCE policy.
> 
> *
>
> Comments welcomed.
>
> Danny
>
> --
> Dr Danny Kingsley
> Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
> Cambridge University Library
> West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
> P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
> M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
> E: da...@cam.ac.uk
> T: @dannykay68
> B: https:/

[GOAL] Re: op-ed on Research Works Act in today's NYT

[William Gunn]

The best place for petition-signing is probably Popvox. They (supposedly)
provide summary reports directly to legislative offices.
https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hr3699/report

William Gunn
+1 646 755 9862
http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/




On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Peter Murray-Rust  wrote:

> Although I am trying to find time to craft my own response is there any
> coordinated action on this issue. Somewhere where we can point 10,000
> people to and simply get them to add to the count. We did this is Europe
> for software patents and get 250,000 signatures.
>
> I have 30 people tomorrow that I want to urge to sign something but where
> is the something to sign?
>
> If I hadn't been actively involved in OA I wouldn't even heard of HR3699
> and RWA.
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
>
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120117/73ee52f4/attachment.html
 

Re: [GOAL] [open-science] Services owned / operated by Elsevier

[William Gunn]

atabase of
   clinical information for medical practitioners with tools for decision
   support, patient education, etc
   - Nursing Solutions <http://confidenceconnected.com/> - Curated content
   and tools for nurses including skills development and competency assessment
   - Medical Books <http://www.us.elsevierhealth.com/>
   - Academic Education
   <https://www.elsevier.com/clinical-solutions/academic-education> - test
   preparation and reference information for clinical education
   - Clinical Practice
   <https://www.elsevier.com/clinical-solutions/clinical-practice> - Evidence
   based content integrated directly into your EHR
   - Drug Information
   <https://www.elsevier.com/clinical-solutions/drug-information> -
   Resources for drug information, drug pricing, patient education, and
   clinical pharmacology
   - Patient Engagement
   <https://www.elsevier.com/clinical-solutions/patient-engagement> -
Interactive
   data collection and education tools for patient engagement
   - Professional Practice Services
   <https://www.elsevier.com/clinical-solutions/professional-practice-services>
   - EHR-based care planning solution to decrease care information
   fragmentation
   - Reference and Decision Support
   <https://www.elsevier.com/clinical-solutions/reference-and-decision-support>
   - Point-of-care decision support tools for clinicians
   - Team Performance
   <https://www.elsevier.com/clinical-solutions/team-performance> - Learning
   and competency management solutions for healthcare staff

Education <https://www.elsevier.com/education>

   - Evolve <http://evolve.elsevier.com/> - online learning and assessment
   resources for students and instructors
   - Adaptive Solutions <http://elsevieradvantage.com/adaptive> - A
   personalized learning system that optimizes the rate of instruction for
   nurses and health professions students
   - Elsevier Adaptive Learning <http://elsevieradvantage.com/eal>
   - Elsevier Adaptive Quizzing <http://elsevieradvantage.com/eaq>
   - Clinical Skills <http://elsevieradvantage.com/clinicalskills> - A
   standardized, consistent set of learning resources for nursing education
   - HESI <http://elsevieradvantage.com/HESI> - Test prep for HESI clinical
   exams
   - Sherpath <http://elsevieradvantage.com/sherpath> - A personalized,
   fully integrated digital teaching and learning ecosystem built specifically
   for healthcare education
   - Simulations <http://elsevieradvantage.com/simulations> - Virtual
   learning environments for nursing and medical offices
   - SimChart <http://elsevieradvantage.com/simchart>
   - SimChart for the Medical Office <http://elsevieradvantage.com/scmo>
   - Simulation Learning System <http://elsevieradvantage.com/sls>
   - Virtual Clinical Excursions <http://elsevieradvantage.com/vce>
   - Virtual Medical Office <http://elsevieradvantage.com/vmo>


See here <https://www.elsevier.com/solutions> for a full alphabetical list
and further details.


William Gunn
+1 (650) 614-1749
http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Ulrich Herb  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
> in preparation of a talk I will give in Linz (Austria) I am trying to find
> out which science-related services are owned by Elsevier. I published a
> list of the services known to me here: https://www.scinoptica.com/
> 2017/04/the-elsevier-empire-which-services-belong-to-it/
>
>
> It would be a great help if you could add other services missing on the
> list using the blog comments, email or twitter...
>
>
> Thanks a lot, best regards
>
> Ulrich
>
> Dr. Ulrich Herb
> POB 1154
> D-66266 Kleinblittersdorf
> http://www.scinoptica.com
> 0049 157 30306851
> http://twitter.com/#!/scinoptica
> ___
> open-science mailing list
> open-scie...@lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] DOAJ stability issues

[William Gunn]

Apologies if I'm telling you something you already know, but CloudFlare are
experts in defending sites from this sort of thing & have been known to
offer their services pro bono for good causes.

William Gunn
+1 (650) 614-1749
http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 4:56 AM Clara Armengou  wrote:

> Dear community,
>
> We deeply regret the current problems with the DOAJ site.  After much
> investigation and active measures, we can state that the DOAJ
> is effectively under attack from an unknown third party.
>
> We have deployed a number of counter-measures to halt this attack, but
> with limited success, and are therefore forced to take even more extreme
> measures to attempt to mitigate this.  We hope that this will work but we
> cannot predict the outcome at this stage.
>
> The DOAJ team would like to apologise for the intermittent service and to
> let you know we are doing our best to go back to normal operations.
>
> --
> Clara Armengou
> Project and Communications Manager
>
> *Directory of Open Access Journals*
> *www.doaj.org <http://www.doaj.org> *
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [GOAL] Who is leading the global charge for open access?

[William Gunn]

Indeed, our friends in the Global South have been quietly getting in with
it for some years & we could learn a few things from them.

About your comment "the commercial elements of our industry continue to
cause unprecedented damage to our research and our society", though...
PeerJ is a commercial element of the industry. I'm pretty sure you didn't
mean to say Pete Binfield & Jason Hoyt have caused unprecedented damage to
our society, so perhaps you'd like to rephrase & maybe be more careful with
your language in the future?

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 2:00 AM Jon Tennant  wrote:

> Dear list members, apologies for cross-posting as always,
>
> Many of you probably saw this powerful recent article by Humberto Debat
> and Dominique Babini, "Plan S in Latin America: A precautionary note"
> https://peerj.com/preprints/27834/, which is well worth reading if you
> haven't.
>
> Building upon this, in this latest video for the Open Science MOOC,
> Arianna Becerril-Garcia from AmeliCA and Redalyc discusses the leading role
> they are playing with Open Access in Latin America.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQDFHBJX7xI
>
> It is really quite inspiring. For those of us in the western world, I feel
> like a lot of the time we like to think we are leading the global charge
> for OA. I learned many years ago that this is not true, and in fact the
> commercial elements of our industry continue to cause unprecedented damage
> to our research and our society. We should be looking to our friends in
> Latin America about the incredible work they have been doing for decades
> now. It is quite eye-opening, and I think a discussion worth developing.
>
> Have a great weekend!
>
> Jon
>
> --
> *Rogue Palaeontologist; PhD, MEarthSci, MSc - *
> *Center for Research and Interdisciplinarity, Paris.*
>
> *Latest papers*: Ten hot topics around scholarly publishing
>  and Open Access in Palaeontology
> 
> .
>
>- Founder of the Open Science MOOC -* Join us today
>! *(open Slack
> channel)
>
>
> 
>
>- Founder of *paleorXiv* , a free, open source
>digital publishing platform for all Palaeontology research
>- Companion Website 
>- Independent open science communicator and consultant
>
>- Author of Excavate! Dinosaurs
>   
> 
>  and
>   World of Dinosaurs (coming 2018)
>
> *Personal website  - Home of the Green Tea and
> Velociraptors blog.*
>
> *ORCID:* -0001-7794-0218 
> *Twitter:* @protohedgehog
> 
> ___
> 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