[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On 16 May 2012, at 13:42, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Jan Velterop wrote: What I don't understand, Steve, is your apparent hostility to OA articles in hybrid journals. Whence this hostility? Why 'gold-only' journals? Why not 'gold-only' publishers? As long as the OA articles in question are CC-BY, then what's the problem? There are several practical problems with hybrid OA. These are all down to the publisher and could be rectified if they wished. Indeed. It's clear that there are practical problems. But they are not necessarily related to 'hybrid' and as you say, the publishers could rectify those. o labelling. It is extremely difficult to determine whether something is hybrid OA. Many publishers don't label the OA articles differently from the toll-access. Those that do call them tings like "Free Access", "Author Choice", which are operationally useless. Sometimes it's stamped on the table of contents and not the paper, sometimes the otehr way round, etc. Not a consequence of the hybrid model, just of sloppy publishers. o o licences. Many hybrid articles have no licences. Almost all that do have specifically added CC-NC. This is not BOAI-compliant Indeed. This is also true of some so-called 'OA-only' journals. o The readers' rights are often impossible to determine, even by very intelligent and perceptive humans. Indeed. This is also true of some so-called 'OA-only' journals. My point is, gold OA is only gold OA if clearly covered by a CC-BY licence. Also in hybrid journals. o  Discoverability? Well, CC-BY articles, including those published in hybrid journals, can be deposited in institutional archives without the slightest hesitation (remember, gold *includes* green), if that helps. In fact, if the reasoning is that all of an institute's output should be in that institute's repository, all gold articles should be deposited in any event (and the advantage is even that any FUD has no bearing on gold CC-BY articles). * Firstly, not all authors HAVE institutions. Pharma companies? Charities? etc. Fair enough. More of a problem for 'green', I would have thought, than for gold OA, even if the latter is in hybrid journals. o Even if it's in an IR it's almost undiscoverable unless you are looking for a specific article by someone-you-know-worked/works there. Unfortunately true across the board. No specific hybrid problem. o  So if I have an article by Foo (@bar) and Plugh (@XYYZY) how do I know where to look (@foo) or @XYZZY and what are my chances of success? Can anyone answer questions like: * find me all hybrid deposited articles in Repo XYZZY - not a chance * find me all hybrid articles in UK/PMC - not a chance * find me all chemistry hybrid articles But the questions should be: * Find me all CC-BY articles in Repo XYZZY * Find me all CC-BY articles in UK-PMC (or in PMC) * Find me all chemistry CC-BY articles. Btw, in Google and Google Scholar (advanced searching) you can search with 'search term' in the search box, 'Creative Commons Attribution' in the 'exact phrase' box, and 'non-commercial' in the exclude box. Advanced searching in Google (though not in Google Scholar, strangely) allows you to limit the search to, say, the UK-PMC site, and then you have what you want. If you leave the primary search box empty, you have every CC-BY article in UK-PMC (but how believable the number â 498,000 â of results is I don't know). Until we build 21st C search and index engines then all repository-based OA is rooted in the 20th Century Again, not a hybrid problem, but a 'green' problem.  In the Bethesda Statement on Open Access (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm#definition) a note was included saying that "Open access is a property of individual works, not necessarily journals or publishers." That seems to me an entirely logical and reasonable stipulation. I agree completely. And it is appallingly supported by both publishers and Institutional Repositories (many of which do not label anything or blanket-stamp everything as non-resuable (like Cambridge). Unfortunately it is. But that's not a problem specifically of the hybrid model.  P. -- 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@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal [ Part 2: "Attached Text" ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Jan Velterop wrote: What I don't understand, Steve, is your apparent hostility to OA articles in hybrid journals. Whence this hostility? Why 'gold-only' journals? Why not 'gold-only' publishers? As long as the OA articles in question are CC-BY, then what's the problem? There are several practical problems with hybrid OA. These are all down to the publisher and could be rectified if they wished. * labelling. It is extremely difficult to determine whether something is hybrid OA. Many publishers don't label the OA articles differently from the toll-access. Those that do call them tings like "Free Access", "Author Choice", which are operationally useless. Sometimes it's stamped on the table of contents and not the paper, sometimes the otehr way round, etc. * licences. Many hybrid articles have no licences. Almost all that do have specifically added CC-NC. This is not BOAI-compliant * The readers' rights are often impossible to determine, even by very intelligent and perceptive humans.  Discoverability? Well, CC-BY articles, including those published in hybrid journals, can be deposited in institutional archives without the slightest hesitation (remember, gold *includes* green), if that helps. In fact, if the reasoning is that all of an institute's output should be in that institute's repository, all gold articles should be deposited in any event (and the advantage is even that any FUD has no bearing on gold CC-BY articles). * Firstly, not all authors HAVE institutions. Pharma companies? Charities? etc. * Even if it's in an IR it's almost undiscoverable unless you are looking for a specific article by someone-you-know-worked/works there.  So if I have an article by Foo (@bar) and Plugh (@XYYZY) how do I know where to look (@foo) or @XYZZY and what are my chances of success? Can anyone answer questions like: * find me all hybrid deposited articles in Repo XYZZY - not a chance * find me all hybrid articles in UK/PMC - not a chance * find me all chemistry hybrid articles Until we build 21st C search and index engines then all repository-based OA is rooted in the 20th Century  In the Bethesda Statement on Open Access (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm#definition) a note was included saying that "Open access is a property of individual works, not necessarily journals or publishers." That seems to me an entirely logical and reasonable stipulation. I agree completely. And it is appallingly supported by both publishers and Institutional Repositories (many of which do not label anything or blanket-stamp everything as non-resuable (like Cambridge).  P. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 [ Part 2: "Attached Text" ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
It should be no surprise that I'm strongly in favour of CC-BY, whether gold or green. For gold nothing less than CC-BY should be acceptable in my view. As for green, CC-BY if possible; if not possible, Ocular Access only is still better than no OA. What I don't understand, Steve, is your apparent hostility to OA articles in hybrid journals. Whence this hostility? Why 'gold-only' journals? Why not 'gold-only' publishers? As long as the OA articles in question are CC-BY, then what's the problem? Discoverability? Well, CC-BY articles, including those published in hybrid journals, can be deposited in institutional archives without the slightest hesitation (remember, gold *includes* green), if that helps. In fact, if the reasoning is that all of an institute's output should be in that institute's repository, all gold articles should be deposited in any event (and the advantage is even that any FUD has no bearing on gold CC-BY articles). Double-dipping? This is an old chestnut and somehow based on presuming that there is an objective way of determining if a subscription price is 'fair' (or too low or too high). Anybody who has ever looked at journal subscription prices per article published in the journal in question, has found that there is an enormously wide range of such prices. And that is because setting subscription prices is an art, not a mathematical formula, and informed by elements such as the wish to achieve a certain profit level (or surplus level in the case of not-for-profits), efficiency of the publishing operation (overhead costs, scale), acceptance/rejection rates, etc. It's essentially based on "what can we get away with", given the perceived quality, the quantity of articles published, the quantity of articles downloaded, the width of the journal's scope, the inclusion in bundles, the number of subscribers, etcetera. Or, rather, estimates of all these things, as subscription prices are determined before any of the 'promise-ware' that a subscription essentially is, can be fulfilled. In the Bethesda Statement on Open Access (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm#definition) a note was included saying that "Open access is a property of individual works, not necessarily journals or publishers." That seems to me an entirely logical and reasonable stipulation. An OA policy should be as simple as "OA mandatory; CC-BY preferred; if CC-BY not possible, then minimally Ocular Access" (Ocular Access: read-only, 'Gratis' Open Access, human-readable OA, or whatever similar description of the idea.) Jan Velterop On 16 May 2012, at 10:46, Steve Hitchcock wrote: Lots of valid viewpoints. We can agree, we can disagree. But somewhere there needs to be some action. My suggestion is aimed at top-level OA policy-making, at updated advice from BOAI, and from governments and funders agitating for open access, such as in the UK. Broad policy should be set to allow two specific routes to OA: 1 Gold-only journals, CC-BY only 2 Green (best model policy to be specified, no publisher fudges allowed) Do NOT allow 3 Hybrid journals. Hybrid journals are 'experiments'; it's time to decide green or gold, or call the publishers' bluff. Without this the advisory committees will be mired. I believe the political will is there. Now is the moment for clear decisive action. The objective is clear - open access. We should not let the common desire for open access to divide. Remove non-OA from the equation and the two routes will take care of themselves. Steve Hitchcock WAIS Group, Building 32 School of Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK Email: sh...@ecs.soton.ac.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/stevehit Connotea: http://www.connotea.org/user/stevehit Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 9379    Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 9379 On 15 May 2012, at 21:28, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde wrote: If Open Access is the only goal then all we need to do is follow Stevan's advice. However, the goal of Open Access itself is to change the scholarly information system into a system suitable for the 21st century. In this sense, Green Open Access is an incremental change, which is expected to lead to more fundamental changes over time. It is disheartening to witness how hard it is to implement this incremental change. It is also clear that Green OA fixes our view of publishing in the last century. It does not encourage change. It holds the "paper" (sic) as the element of value and the publisher as an essential component and legislates for the continuance of both. It also builds in inefficiency into t
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
Lots of valid viewpoints. We can agree, we can disagree. But somewhere there needs to be some action. My suggestion is aimed at top-level OA policy-making, at updated advice from BOAI, and from governments and funders agitating for open access, such as in the UK. Broad policy should be set to allow two specific routes to OA: 1 Gold-only journals, CC-BY only 2 Green (best model policy to be specified, no publisher fudges allowed) Do NOT allow 3 Hybrid journals. Hybrid journals are 'experiments'; it's time to decide green or gold, or call the publishers' bluff. Without this the advisory committees will be mired. I believe the political will is there. Now is the moment for clear decisive action. The objective is clear - open access. We should not let the common desire for open access to divide. Remove non-OA from the equation and the two routes will take care of themselves. Steve Hitchcock WAIS Group, Building 32 School of Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK Email: sh...@ecs.soton.ac.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/stevehit Connotea: http://www.connotea.org/user/stevehit Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 9379Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 9379 On 15 May 2012, at 21:28, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde > wrote: > > > If Open Access is the only goal then all we need to do is follow Stevan's > advice. However, the goal of Open Access itself is to change the scholarly > information system into a system suitable for the 21st century. In this > sense, Green Open Access is an incremental change, which is expected to lead > to more fundamental changes over time. It is disheartening to witness how > hard it is to implement this incremental change. > > It is also clear that Green OA fixes our view of publishing in the last > century. It does not encourage change. It holds the "paper" (sic) as the > element of value and the publisher as an essential component and legislates > for the continuance of both. It also builds in inefficiency into the system. > > However, it does not matter. Major disruption will come. When it comes, it > will be sudden and chaotic. We have witnessed it before. It has been > documented extensively. Most people in technology have read Clayton > Christensen's seminal work The Innovator's Dilemma, and whoever has not > should do as soon as possible. We are right in the run-up to a classical > disruption where a low-margin/low-overhead business replaces a > high-margin/high-overhead business. Initially, the low-margin business is > sneered at because it offers low quality. By the time the high-margin > business realizes it is in trouble it is too late. > > I completely agree. The tensions in the earthquake zone are palpable. Among > the most obvious ones are: > * the increasing failure of the academic-publisher system to follow the rapid > development of technology. Sending manuscripts off to be retyped must be one > of the most inefficient activities on the planet. > * no evidence of the social web revolution > * the impatience of the younger generation with the closed minds of the > present. > > These are additional to the other tensions of: > * financial strain in the system > * the mismatch between traditional citation analysis and more modern forms of > assessment > * the voice of the scholarly poor > > There are more, but that's enough. > > > > This disruption (or one similar to it) is inevitable. The only question is > when it will happen, and the precise path it will take. > > Yes - anyone getting it right and backing it stands to become rich and > famous. There is a huge opportunity for well-directed investment. > > P. > > > -- > 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@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: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On 16 May 2012, at 13:42, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: > > > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Jan Velterop wrote: > > What I don't understand, Steve, is your apparent hostility to OA articles in > hybrid journals. Whence this hostility? Why 'gold-only' journals? Why not > 'gold-only' publishers? As long as the OA articles in question are CC-BY, > then what's the problem? > > There are several practical problems with hybrid OA. These are all down to > the publisher and could be rectified if they wished. Indeed. It's clear that there are practical problems. But they are not necessarily related to 'hybrid' and as you say, the publishers could rectify those. > > labelling. It is extremely difficult to determine whether something is hybrid > OA. Many publishers don't label the OA articles differently from the > toll-access. Those that do call them tings like "Free Access", "Author > Choice", which are operationally useless. Sometimes it's stamped on the table > of contents and not the paper, sometimes the otehr way round, etc. Not a consequence of the hybrid model, just of sloppy publishers. > > licences. Many hybrid articles have no licences. Almost all that do have > specifically added CC-NC. This is not BOAI-compliant Indeed. This is also true of some so-called 'OA-only' journals. > The readers' rights are often impossible to determine, even by very > intelligent and perceptive humans. Indeed. This is also true of some so-called 'OA-only' journals. My point is, gold OA is only gold OA if clearly covered by a CC-BY licence. Also in hybrid journals. > > Discoverability? Well, CC-BY articles, including those published in hybrid > journals, can be deposited in institutional archives without the slightest > hesitation (remember, gold *includes* green), if that helps. In fact, if the > reasoning is that all of an institute's output should be in that institute's > repository, all gold articles should be deposited in any event (and the > advantage is even that any FUD has no bearing on gold CC-BY articles). > > Firstly, not all authors HAVE institutions. Pharma companies? Charities? etc. Fair enough. More of a problem for 'green', I would have thought, than for gold OA, even if the latter is in hybrid journals. > Even if it's in an IR it's almost undiscoverable unless you are looking for a > specific article by someone-you-know-worked/works there. Unfortunately true across the board. No specific hybrid problem. > > So if I have an article by Foo (@bar) and Plugh (@XYYZY) how do I know where > to look (@foo) or @XYZZY and what are my chances of success? > > Can anyone answer questions like: > * find me all hybrid deposited articles in Repo XYZZY - not a chance > * find me all hybrid articles in UK/PMC - not a chance > * find me all chemistry hybrid articles > But the questions should be: Find me all CC-BY articles in Repo XYZZY Find me all CC-BY articles in UK-PMC (or in PMC) Find me all chemistry CC-BY articles. Btw, in Google and Google Scholar (advanced searching) you can search with 'search term' in the search box, 'Creative Commons Attribution' in the 'exact phrase' box, and 'non-commercial' in the exclude box. Advanced searching in Google (though not in Google Scholar, strangely) allows you to limit the search to, say, the UK-PMC site, and then you have what you want. If you leave the primary search box empty, you have every CC-BY article in UK-PMC (but how believable the number – 498,000 – of results is I don't know). > Until we build 21st C search and index engines then all repository-based OA > is rooted in the 20th Century Again, not a hybrid problem, but a 'green' problem. > > > In the Bethesda Statement on Open Access > (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm#definition) a note was > included saying that "Open access is a property of individual works, not > necessarily journals or publishers." That seems to me an entirely logical and > reasonable stipulation. > > I agree completely. And it is appallingly supported by both publishers and > Institutional Repositories (many of which do not label anything or > blanket-stamp everything as non-resuable (like Cambridge). Unfortunately it is. But that's not a problem specifically of the hybrid model. > > P. > > -- > 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@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: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Jan Velterop wrote: What I don't understand, Steve, is your apparent hostility to OA articles > in hybrid journals. Whence this hostility? Why 'gold-only' journals? Why > not 'gold-only' publishers? As long as the OA articles in question are > CC-BY, then what's the problem? > > There are several practical problems with hybrid OA. These are all down to the publisher and could be rectified if they wished. - labelling. It is extremely difficult to determine whether something is hybrid OA. Many publishers don't label the OA articles differently from the toll-access. Those that do call them tings like "Free Access", "Author Choice", which are operationally useless. Sometimes it's stamped on the table of contents and not the paper, sometimes the otehr way round, etc. - licences. Many hybrid articles have no licences. Almost all that do have specifically added CC-NC. This is not BOAI-compliant - The readers' rights are often impossible to determine, even by very intelligent and perceptive humans. > Discoverability? Well, CC-BY articles, including those published in hybrid > journals, can be deposited in institutional archives without the slightest > hesitation (remember, gold *includes* green), if that helps. In fact, if > the reasoning is that all of an institute's output should be in that > institute's repository, all gold articles should be deposited in any event > (and the advantage is even that any FUD has no bearing on gold CC-BY > articles). > - Firstly, not all authors HAVE institutions. Pharma companies? Charities? etc. - Even if it's in an IR it's almost undiscoverable unless you are looking for a specific article by someone-you-know-worked/works there. So if I have an article by Foo (@bar) and Plugh (@XYYZY) how do I know where to look (@foo) or @XYZZY and what are my chances of success? Can anyone answer questions like: * find me all hybrid deposited articles in Repo XYZZY - not a chance * find me all hybrid articles in UK/PMC - not a chance * find me all chemistry hybrid articles Until we build 21st C search and index engines then all repository-based OA is rooted in the 20th Century > In the Bethesda Statement on Open Access ( > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm#definition) a note was > included saying that "Open access is a property of individual works, not > necessarily journals or publishers." That seems to me an entirely logical > and reasonable stipulation. > > I agree completely. And it is appallingly supported by both publishers and Institutional Repositories (many of which do not label anything or blanket-stamp everything as non-resuable (like Cambridge). P. -- 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@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
It should be no surprise that I'm strongly in favour of CC-BY, whether gold or green. For gold nothing less than CC-BY should be acceptable in my view. As for green, CC-BY if possible; if not possible, Ocular Access only is still better than no OA. What I don't understand, Steve, is your apparent hostility to OA articles in hybrid journals. Whence this hostility? Why 'gold-only' journals? Why not 'gold-only' publishers? As long as the OA articles in question are CC-BY, then what's the problem? Discoverability? Well, CC-BY articles, including those published in hybrid journals, can be deposited in institutional archives without the slightest hesitation (remember, gold *includes* green), if that helps. In fact, if the reasoning is that all of an institute's output should be in that institute's repository, all gold articles should be deposited in any event (and the advantage is even that any FUD has no bearing on gold CC-BY articles). Double-dipping? This is an old chestnut and somehow based on presuming that there is an objective way of determining if a subscription price is 'fair' (or too low or too high). Anybody who has ever looked at journal subscription prices per article published in the journal in question, has found that there is an enormously wide range of such prices. And that is because setting subscription prices is an art, not a mathematical formula, and informed by elements such as the wish to achieve a certain profit level (or surplus level in the case of not-for-profits), efficiency of the publishing operation (overhead costs, scale), acceptance/rejection rates, etc. It's essentially based on "what can we get away with", given the perceived quality, the quantity of articles published, the quantity of articles downloaded, the width of the journal's scope, the inclusion in bundles, the number of subscribers, etcetera. Or, rather, estimates of all these things, as subscription prices are determined before any of the 'promise-ware' that a subscription essentially is, can be fulfilled. In the Bethesda Statement on Open Access (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm#definition) a note was included saying that "Open access is a property of individual works, not necessarily journals or publishers." That seems to me an entirely logical and reasonable stipulation. An OA policy should be as simple as "OA mandatory; CC-BY preferred; if CC-BY not possible, then minimally Ocular Access" (Ocular Access: read-only, 'Gratis' Open Access, human-readable OA, or whatever similar description of the idea.) Jan Velterop On 16 May 2012, at 10:46, Steve Hitchcock wrote: > Lots of valid viewpoints. We can agree, we can disagree. But somewhere there > needs to be some action. My suggestion is aimed at top-level OA > policy-making, at updated advice from BOAI, and from governments and funders > agitating for open access, such as in the UK. > > Broad policy should be set to allow two specific routes to OA: > > 1 Gold-only journals, CC-BY only > 2 Green (best model policy to be specified, no publisher fudges allowed) > > Do NOT allow > > 3 Hybrid journals. > > Hybrid journals are 'experiments'; it's time to decide green or gold, or call > the publishers' bluff. Without this the advisory committees will be mired. > > I believe the political will is there. Now is the moment for clear decisive > action. > > The objective is clear - open access. We should not let the common desire for > open access to divide. Remove non-OA from the equation and the two routes > will take care of themselves. > > Steve Hitchcock > WAIS Group, Building 32 > School of Electronics and Computer Science > University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK > Email: sh...@ecs.soton.ac.uk > Twitter: http://twitter.com/stevehit > Connotea: http://www.connotea.org/user/stevehit > Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 9379Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 9379 > > > On 15 May 2012, at 21:28, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: > >> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde >> wrote: >> >> >> If Open Access is the only goal then all we need to do is follow Stevan's >> advice. However, the goal of Open Access itself is to change the scholarly >> information system into a system suitable for the 21st century. In this >> sense, Green Open Access is an incremental change, which is expected to lead >> to more fundamental changes over time. It is disheartening to witness how >> hard it is to implement this incremental change. >> >> It is also clear that Green OA fixes our view of publishing in the last >> century. It does not encourage change. It holds the "paper" (sic) as the >> element of value and the publisher as an essential component and legislates >> for the continuance of both. It also builds in inefficiency into the system. >> >> However, it does not matter. Major disruption will come. When it comes, it >> will be sudden and chaotic. We have witnessed it before. It has been >> documented extensively. Most
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
Lots of valid viewpoints. We can agree, we can disagree. But somewhere there needs to be some action. My suggestion is aimed at top-level OA policy-making, at updated advice from BOAI, and from governments and funders agitating for open access, such as in the UK. Broad policy should be set to allow two specific routes to OA: 1 Gold-only journals, CC-BY only 2 Green (best model policy to be specified, no publisher fudges allowed) Do NOT allow 3 Hybrid journals. Hybrid journals are 'experiments'; it's time to decide green or gold, or call the publishers' bluff. Without this the advisory committees will be mired. I believe the political will is there. Now is the moment for clear decisive action. The objective is clear - open access. We should not let the common desire for open access to divide. Remove non-OA from the equation and the two routes will take care of themselves. Steve Hitchcock WAIS Group, Building 32 School of Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK Email: sh...@ecs.soton.ac.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/stevehit Connotea: http://www.connotea.org/user/stevehit Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 9379Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 9379 On 15 May 2012, at 21:28, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde > wrote: > > > If Open Access is the only goal then all we need to do is follow Stevan's > advice. However, the goal of Open Access itself is to change the scholarly > information system into a system suitable for the 21st century. In this > sense, Green Open Access is an incremental change, which is expected to lead > to more fundamental changes over time. It is disheartening to witness how > hard it is to implement this incremental change. > > It is also clear that Green OA fixes our view of publishing in the last > century. It does not encourage change. It holds the "paper" (sic) as the > element of value and the publisher as an essential component and legislates > for the continuance of both. It also builds in inefficiency into the system. > > However, it does not matter. Major disruption will come. When it comes, it > will be sudden and chaotic. We have witnessed it before. It has been > documented extensively. Most people in technology have read Clayton > Christensen's seminal work The Innovator's Dilemma, and whoever has not > should do as soon as possible. We are right in the run-up to a classical > disruption where a low-margin/low-overhead business replaces a > high-margin/high-overhead business. Initially, the low-margin business is > sneered at because it offers low quality. By the time the high-margin > business realizes it is in trouble it is too late. > > I completely agree. The tensions in the earthquake zone are palpable. Among > the most obvious ones are: > * the increasing failure of the academic-publisher system to follow the rapid > development of technology. Sending manuscripts off to be retyped must be one > of the most inefficient activities on the planet. > * no evidence of the social web revolution > * the impatience of the younger generation with the closed minds of the > present. > > These are additional to the other tensions of: > * financial strain in the system > * the mismatch between traditional citation analysis and more modern forms of > assessment > * the voice of the scholarly poor > > There are more, but that's enough. > > > > This disruption (or one similar to it) is inevitable. The only question is > when it will happen, and the precise path it will take. > > Yes - anyone getting it right and backing it stands to become rich and > famous. There is a huge opportunity for well-directed investment. > > P. > > > -- > 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@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: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote: One of the dangers in this type of discussion is to confuse people with organizations. Alicia is an employee of Elsevier and her role in "Universal Access" - whatever than means - is ultimately to promote the profitability of the company. Which is what she is doing on this list. I won't impute her motives and I can only guess at the corporate policy instructions she may or may not have to adhere to. I also have no idea whether she has any power to change anything - I suspect not. She has written about me:  Peter M-R â You are frustrated by, and distrust, publishers. I trust publishers about as much as I trust other organizations in parallel markets. So I compare Elsevier to Microsoft and - yes - I trust Elsevier as much as I trust Microsoft. They are out to dominate the market (nothing immoral or illegal about that) and they use whatever business tools are legal (and occasionally overstep - but most companies jut about obey the law). So yes, I generally trust Elsevier to obey the law and to maximize profits. I've had 3 intense years with helpful employees of Elsevier - like Elsevier - and I trust them to keep the discussion going, keep things complicated, introduce delaying tactics, appeal to our better natures, etc. The last in particular. We academics actually like to look for the good in others and we don't like to cause problems. We're not actually very good at business - in fact we are lousy. Which is why we have meaningless contracts with publishers, and why we don't lobby in an an aggressive way. Despite this it may still be more practical to work with us to evolve the current system into one more to your liking than to create a completely new one. 15 years of more under Elsevier hegemony doesn't excite me for another 15.   Either way we agree absolutely that content mining is essential to advance science, but perhaps will need to agree to disagree (at least for the time being) about the best tactics to enable this to happen more broadly. Yes - I want it to happen know and you - quite rightly for your shareholders - want to delay and obfuscate and trivialise and Balkanise. That's what any good company would do in your position. The main trouble is that up to now it's been possible to do this behind the scenes with confidential contracts with librarians. I'm not keen on that and I intend - in so far as individuals can do it - to make sure that this is as public an issue a possible. I'll be writing about some of this on my blog over the new few days.  -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 [ Part 2: "Attached Text" ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On 14 May 2012, at 23:59, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote: Hi all, [cut]  Jan â thank you for the constructive suggestion to make all the journal material available with delayed open access (CC-BY, fully re-usable and mine-able) after a reasonable embargo period. Why do you suppose it is that more publishers have not done just this, and are there any ways to offer reassurance or otherwise help to overcome any real or perceived barriers? Hi Alicia, The ideal situation in my view is immediate BOAI-compliant open access (CC-BY) whereby the peer-reviewed published version of an article, the version of record, is made available, with full re-use and mining rights, immediately upon publication, in both XML/HTML and PDF formats. That means 'gold' open access, and that in turn means, in practice, author-side paid CC-BY open access, as offered by e.g. PLoS and BMC. There are few exceptions to the 'author-side paid' element, though sometimes they take the form of behind-the-scenes subsidies (charities, etc.), either direct or indirect. Note the 'author-side paid' as opposed to 'author-paid'. When publishers offer author-side paid open access, it makes no sense not to cover the resulting publications with a CC-BY (or equivalent) licence, and retain some kind of 'control', such as an NC clause, which I've described as 'profit-spite' as it is neither logical nor reasonable. Btw, not only publishers display these visceral 'control' reactions; some authors do as well. The control culture of © is perhaps debit to that. Some publishers, however, are simply not able to offer such author-side paid open access and at the same time sustain their profit levels, as the amount of revenue they make per article published is such that it would translate into an open access 'article processing fee' that is beyond what authors â and, more to the point, funding bodies â would recognise as reasonable and therefore potentially acceptable. I suspect Elsevier falls in this category. (In contrast, Springer, for example, could offer open access to all its journals â the hybrid option â because it made only in the order of half the average revenue per article that Elsevier made at the time, and so Springer would run no risks of losing revenues in the hypothetical event of every author all of a sudden choosing the open access option at the article processing fee levels deemed acceptable by major funders. How to reconcile the legitimate desire â need even â of academia for immediate full (CC-BY) open access, with the desire â and need in the capitalist system we live in â of publishers to protect their revenue and profit levels? We can't. So what's the next best solution? Serious concessions have already been made to the ideal situation of immediate CC-BY open access. The full open access as described in the BOAI (CC-BY is the best representation of it) has already been watered down to 'ocular access' only, a.k.a. 'gratis OA', just human-readable. Another concession has been the quiet dropping of the call for immediacy. In many institutional mandates there is a provision for an embargo. Instead of reacting with fear to demands from the scientific community, Elsevier could proact and take a lead in seeing these concessions as an opportunity. Asking why other publishers haven't done this is really below the dignity of the largest publisher, who should, and could, show leadership instead of meek followship. One step could be to promote self-archiving instead of reluctantly allowing it and then only under certain circumstances. But given that immediacy is obviously not considered the most important feature of OA by many of its advocates (vide many mandates), and immediacy is perhaps the most understandable of the publishers' fears, there is an opportunity for Elsevier to make all the journal material it publishes available with full open access, CC-BY, after a reasonable embargo of a year, maybe two years in less fast-moving disciplines. It is highly unlikely that revenue levels would be materially affected (to the chagrin of some, no-doubt, but that's another discussion), and yet the usefulness of the published literature to the world at large would increase spectacularly, so here is a potential coup for Elsevier. And a chance to reclaim a leadership role in scientific publishing. There will be fears about 'slippery slopes' in the company, of course (what if academics demand a shorter embargo?; what if librarians cancel because they believe their patrons can wait a year for access?), but they cut little ice and can be characterised as 'cold water fears'. Unintended consequences and customer demands are a fact of life in any scenario, and the slippery slope of retentive policies (academic/author resentment, boycotts, atrocious PR, etc.) may be far more slippery and ultimately destructive. Your call. Best, Jan [ Part 2: "Attached Text" ] _
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On 15 May 2012 00:59, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote: > Dan â you noted schema.org and suggested that authors should not only post > articles but standardized metadata for them as well. Is there a potential > supportive role for librarians and/or publishers to play here? How might > they be encouraged/incentivized to play it? The single biggest supportive role publishers could play right now, is to unambiguously clarify that institutional mandates don't affect author's rights to post to websites and repositories. How might publishers be persuaded to do this? Why guess, when we can ask them directly - what would it take to see the following change?: > He is correct that all our authors can post voluntarily to their websites and > institutional repositories. Posting is also fine where there is a > requirement/mandate AND we have an agreement in place. Just replace "AND" with ", regardless of whether" and we're good to go. Without that, no end of confusion. On the metadata front, publishers will likely want to make sure there are useful entry points into their various Web sites (by topic, author etc.) that HTML-oriented per-article metadata can usefully include. Assuming they have some use for greater incoming Web traffic... cheers, Dan ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Jan Velterop wrote: > One step could be to promote self-archiving instead of reluctantly > allowing it and then only under certain circumstances. But given that > immediacy is obviously not considered the most important feature > of OA by many of its advocates (vide many mandates), and immediacy > is perhaps the most understandable of the publishers' fears, there > is an opportunity for Elsevier to make all the journal material it > publishes available with full open access, CC-BY, after a reasonable > embargo of a year, maybe two years in less fast-moving disciplines. Asking Elsevier to drop its ambivalence about Green OA self-archiving is good. But then saying that immediate OA is so unimportant to researchers and OA advocates that this is an opportunity for Elsevier to change its current policy is not good. Elsevier has been Green -- meaning immediate, unembargoed OA self-archiving â since 2004. Karen Hunter has repeatedly affirmed this position. Signalling to Elsevier now that back-pedalling to a "reasonable" embargo of a year or two is acceptable is a definite step in the wrong direction. It is true that many mandates allow an embargo, but that is precisely because the 40% of publishers that are not yet Green still insist on an embargo as a condition for allowing self-archiving at all. In other words, the reason such mandates allow embargoes is not because all researchers and all mandates don't consider immediate, unembargoed OA to be important. It is in order to accommodate these non-Green publishers that don't yet allow immediate, unembargoed OA. Jan has introduced the issue of Libre OA into the Elsevier discussion. Immediate, unembargoed OA may be less important for Libre OA than for Gratis OA, but what is at issue here is Gratis OA. Up until now, this conversation was about urging Elsevier to remove its recent self-serving and self-contradictory hedging clause about Gratis OA mandates. And it is probably best not to bring any potentially obfuscating issues into the conversation or the company will use them to slide away from addressing the issue at point â gratis OA permissions. I urge Elsevier to drop the self-contradictory hedging clause about Green Gratis OA in its author rights retention agreement: it is confusing, works against the interests of science, is clearly against the interests of the public, counter-productive and helping to fuel the anti-Elsevier protests. Iâm sure we all look forward to hearing an affirmative answer from Alicia Wise that the company has thought the matter through and is removing that clause. Stevan Harnad ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
To answer Alicia Wise's query, 6 proposals of positive things from publishers that should be encouraged : 1. Allow systematically and under no condition and at no cost depositing the peer-reviewed postprint â either the author's refereed, revised final draft or â even better for the Publishers publicity â the publisher's version of record in the author's institutional repository. 2. Remove from authors' contracts the need to sign away their rights and transform it into a "non exclusive license" of their rights. 3. Agree that by default, part of the rights on an article belong to the author's Institution if public and/or to the Funding organization, if public. 4. Reduce significantly (or at least freeze for 5 years) the purchasing cost of periodicals, then increase at the real inflation rate, officially measured in Western countries (1-3 % per year). 5. Reduce significantly the number of periodical titles published, aiming for excellence and getting rid of the mediocre title which are bundled in Elsevier's "Big Deals" and similar "deals" by other publishers. This would reduce their monopolistic position. 6. Reward Institutions for the work provided by reviewers, editors and⦠authors, either directly or indirectly through lower subscription costs. Bernard Rentier [ Part 2: "Attached Text" ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Jan Velterop wrote: > One step could be to promote self-archiving instead of reluctantly > allowing it and then only under certain circumstances. But given that > immediacy is obviously not considered the most important feature > of OA by many of its advocates (vide many mandates), and immediacy > is perhaps the most understandable of the publishers' fears, there > is an opportunity for Elsevier to make all the journal material it > publishes available with full open access, CC-BY, after a reasonable > embargo of a year, maybe two years in less fast-moving disciplines. Asking Elsevier to drop its ambivalence about Green OA self-archiving is good. But then saying that immediate OA is so unimportant to researchers and OA advocates that this is an opportunity for Elsevier to change its current policy is not good. Elsevier has been Green -- meaning immediate, unembargoed OA self-archiving – since 2004. Karen Hunter has repeatedly affirmed this position. Signalling to Elsevier now that back-pedalling to a "reasonable" embargo of a year or two is acceptable is a definite step in the wrong direction. It is true that many mandates allow an embargo, but that is precisely because the 40% of publishers that are not yet Green still insist on an embargo as a condition for allowing self-archiving at all. In other words, the reason such mandates allow embargoes is not because all researchers and all mandates don't consider immediate, unembargoed OA to be important. It is in order to accommodate these non-Green publishers that don't yet allow immediate, unembargoed OA. Jan has introduced the issue of Libre OA into the Elsevier discussion. Immediate, unembargoed OA may be less important for Libre OA than for Gratis OA, but what is at issue here is Gratis OA. Up until now, this conversation was about urging Elsevier to remove its recent self-serving and self-contradictory hedging clause about Gratis OA mandates. And it is probably best not to bring any potentially obfuscating issues into the conversation or the company will use them to slide away from addressing the issue at point – gratis OA permissions. I urge Elsevier to drop the self-contradictory hedging clause about Green Gratis OA in its author rights retention agreement: it is confusing, works against the interests of science, is clearly against the interests of the public, counter-productive and helping to fuel the anti-Elsevier protests. I’m sure we all look forward to hearing an affirmative answer from Alicia Wise that the company has thought the matter through and is removing that clause. Stevan Harnad ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) < a.w...@elsevier.com> wrote: One of the dangers in this type of discussion is to confuse people with organizations. Alicia is an employee of Elsevier and her role in "Universal Access" - whatever than means - is ultimately to promote the profitability of the company. Which is what she is doing on this list. I won't impute her motives and I can only guess at the corporate policy instructions she may or may not have to adhere to. I also have no idea whether she has any power to change anything - I suspect not. She has written about me: > * * > > *Peter M-R *– You are frustrated by, and distrust, publishers. > I trust publishers about as much as I trust other organizations in parallel markets. So I compare Elsevier to Microsoft and - yes - I trust Elsevier as much as I trust Microsoft. They are out to dominate the market (nothing immoral or illegal about that) and they use whatever business tools are legal (and occasionally overstep - but most companies jut about obey the law). So yes, I generally trust Elsevier to obey the law and to maximize profits. I've had 3 intense years with helpful employees of Elsevier - like Elsevier - and I trust them to keep the discussion going, keep things complicated, introduce delaying tactics, appeal to our better natures, etc. The last in particular. We academics actually like to look for the good in others and we don't like to cause problems. We're not actually very good at business - in fact we are lousy. Which is why we have meaningless contracts with publishers, and why we don't lobby in an an aggressive way. Despite this it may still be more practical to work with us to evolve the > current system into one more to your liking than to create a completely new > one. > 15 years of more under Elsevier hegemony doesn't excite me for another 15. > Either way we agree absolutely that content mining is essential to > advance science, but perhaps will need to agree to disagree (at least for > the time being) about the best tactics to enable this to happen more > broadly. > Yes - I want it to happen know and you - quite rightly for your shareholders - want to delay and obfuscate and trivialise and Balkanise. That's what any good company would do in your position. The main trouble is that up to now it's been possible to do this behind the scenes with confidential contracts with librarians. I'm not keen on that and I intend - in so far as individuals can do it - to make sure that this is as public an issue a possible. I'll be writing about some of this on my blog over the new few days. > > ** ** > > -- 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@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On 14 May 2012, at 23:59, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote: > Hi all, > [cut] > > Jan – thank you for the constructive suggestion to make all the journal > material available with delayed open access (CC-BY, fully re-usable and > mine-able) after a reasonable embargo period. Why do you suppose it is that > more publishers have not done just this, and are there any ways to offer > reassurance or otherwise help to overcome any real or perceived barriers? Hi Alicia, The ideal situation in my view is immediate BOAI-compliant open access (CC-BY) whereby the peer-reviewed published version of an article, the version of record, is made available, with full re-use and mining rights, immediately upon publication, in both XML/HTML and PDF formats. That means 'gold' open access, and that in turn means, in practice, author-side paid CC-BY open access, as offered by e.g. PLoS and BMC. There are few exceptions to the 'author-side paid' element, though sometimes they take the form of behind-the-scenes subsidies (charities, etc.), either direct or indirect. Note the 'author-side paid' as opposed to 'author-paid'. When publishers offer author-side paid open access, it makes no sense not to cover the resulting publications with a CC-BY (or equivalent) licence, and retain some kind of 'control', such as an NC clause, which I've described as 'profit-spite' as it is neither logical nor reasonable. Btw, not only publishers display these visceral 'control' reactions; some authors do as well. The control culture of © is perhaps debit to that. Some publishers, however, are simply not able to offer such author-side paid open access and at the same time sustain their profit levels, as the amount of revenue they make per article published is such that it would translate into an open access 'article processing fee' that is beyond what authors – and, more to the point, funding bodies – would recognise as reasonable and therefore potentially acceptable. I suspect Elsevier falls in this category. (In contrast, Springer, for example, could offer open access to all its journals – the hybrid option – because it made only in the order of half the average revenue per article that Elsevier made at the time, and so Springer would run no risks of losing revenues in the hypothetical event of every author all of a sudden choosing the open access option at the article processing fee levels deemed acceptable by major funders. How to reconcile the legitimate desire – need even – of academia for immediate full (CC-BY) open access, with the desire – and need in the capitalist system we live in – of publishers to protect their revenue and profit levels? We can't. So what's the next best solution? Serious concessions have already been made to the ideal situation of immediate CC-BY open access. The full open access as described in the BOAI (CC-BY is the best representation of it) has already been watered down to 'ocular access' only, a.k.a. 'gratis OA', just human-readable. Another concession has been the quiet dropping of the call for immediacy. In many institutional mandates there is a provision for an embargo. Instead of reacting with fear to demands from the scientific community, Elsevier could proact and take a lead in seeing these concessions as an opportunity. Asking why other publishers haven't done this is really below the dignity of the largest publisher, who should, and could, show leadership instead of meek followship. One step could be to promote self-archiving instead of reluctantly allowing it and then only under certain circumstances. But given that immediacy is obviously not considered the most important feature of OA by many of its advocates (vide many mandates), and immediacy is perhaps the most understandable of the publishers' fears, there is an opportunity for Elsevier to make all the journal material it publishes available with full open access, CC-BY, after a reasonable embargo of a year, maybe two years in less fast-moving disciplines. It is highly unlikely that revenue levels would be materially affected (to the chagrin of some, no-doubt, but that's another discussion), and yet the usefulness of the published literature to the world at large would increase spectacularly, so here is a potential coup for Elsevier. And a chance to reclaim a leadership role in scientific publishing. There will be fears about 'slippery slopes' in the company, of course (what if academics demand a shorter embargo?; what if librarians cancel because they believe their patrons can wait a year for access?), but they cut little ice and can be characterised as 'cold water fears'. Unintended consequences and customer demands are a fact of life in any scenario, and the slippery slope of retentive policies (academic/author resentment, boycotts, atrocious PR, etc.) may be far more slippery and ultimately destructive. Your call. Best, Jan _
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
** Cross-Posted ** On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote: > ...you would like all publishers to allow immediate green oa posting. > What do you think some of the potential concerns about this might be, and > how might those concerns be alleviated? > > ...With our posting policy our intent is certainly > not to confuse or intimidate authors, but to ensure the sustainability of > the journals in which they choose to publish. Perhaps the Finch group will > shed light on how to solve this challenge! The concern is not about Elsevier's business goals but about the *meaning* of a self-contradictory publisher agreement (sic) on the rights (sic) retained (sic) by Elsevier authors that states: "[As Elsevier author you retain] the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your personal or institutional website or server for scholarly purposes" and then follow it by a clause that contains the following piece of unmitigated FUD that (if authors and institutions don't ignore it completely, as they should) contradicts everything that came before it: "(but not in... institutional repositories with mandates for systematic postings unless there is a specific agreement with the publisher)." An author right is either retained or it is not. And if it is a right, and it is retained, and a publisher agreement formally states that it is retained, then the author can exercise that retained right irrespective of whether the author's institution mandates that the author should exercise that retained right. It is as simple as that. And any attempt by Elsevier to defend retaining the clause is just more FUD: A right is a right (and a formal publisher agreement attesting that it is a right is only an agreement) only if the agreed author right can be exercised without requiring further publisher agreement. Stevan Harnad ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On 15 May 2012 00:59, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote: > Dan – you noted schema.org and suggested that authors should not only post > articles but standardized metadata for them as well. Is there a potential > supportive role for librarians and/or publishers to play here? How might > they be encouraged/incentivized to play it? The single biggest supportive role publishers could play right now, is to unambiguously clarify that institutional mandates don't affect author's rights to post to websites and repositories. How might publishers be persuaded to do this? Why guess, when we can ask them directly - what would it take to see the following change?: > He is correct that all our authors can post voluntarily to their websites and > institutional repositories. Posting is also fine where there is a > requirement/mandate AND we have an agreement in place. Just replace "AND" with ", regardless of whether" and we're good to go. Without that, no end of confusion. On the metadata front, publishers will likely want to make sure there are useful entry points into their various Web sites (by topic, author etc.) that HTML-oriented per-article metadata can usefully include. Assuming they have some use for greater incoming Web traffic... cheers, Dan ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
Hi all,  Thanks for the various responses about positive things for which publishers should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized. Iâm on the road for a bit (so wonât be able to stay so actively involved in the discussion although I will continue to read/reflect with interest!), but thought it might be helpful to do a little round-up of some of the ideas that have surfaced. So in no particular order⦠ Peter B - thanks for the constructive thought piece, and suggestion for an open access journal in remote sensing. I'm sure all the publishers on this list have taken note! In the interim if you would like your article to be published in one of our established journals you could make it freely available for non-commercial reuse through our sponsorship (i.e. hybrid oa) option. I note your (and Davidâs and Janâs and Peter M-Râs) preference for a CC-BY licensing option. We are currently in a test and learn phase and experimenting with a number of licensing options.  Reme â you would like all publishers to allow immediate green oa posting. What do you think some of the potential concerns about this might be, and how might those concerns be alleviated?  Stevan â You want the same. With our posting policy our intent is certainly not to confuse or intimidate authors, but to ensure the sustainability of the journals in which they choose to publish. Perhaps the Finch group will shed light on how to solve this challenge!  Falk â you asked under what conditions Elsevier would be willing to change the business model from subscriptions to OA. Iâm not quite sure about the scope of your question, so will answer at two levels of granularity. We already use both open access and subscription (and other!) business models and will continue to do so. If you are thinking of the conditions to flip the business model of an individual journal title, then we â and other publishers too, no doubt â will be very interested to participate in and learn from initiatives such as SCOAP3.  Bernhard â you asked if our posting agreements involve payments to Elsevier by the funding bodies and/or authors and/or authors institutions. If an institution is willing to use an embargo period before the manuscript is made publicly available, then no payment is involved. Some funders/institutions prefer to make manuscripts available before the articleâs embargo period has expired, and in these cases sometimes a gold oa agreement or a blended gold/green agreement is more suitable. Iâm happy to talk offline if you (or anyone else on the list) would like to explore further.  Keith â one of your questions was how to get free access to researchers and the public everywhere. What are your thoughts on initiatives such as Research4Life (http://www.research4life.org/) or the APS programme to provide free access in public libraries (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=419118)? Good initiatives worth celebrating?  Laurent â thank you for the suggestion that a clause allowing full data mining should be a systematic component of any subscription agreement, in particular in the case of big deals or national license programs.  David â you provided helpful examples of publishers using gold oa publishing models (and this is another opportunity to draw attention to the wide array of signatories for the STM statement that publishers support sustainable open access http://www.stm-assoc.org/publishers-support-sustainable-open-access/).  Also constructive are your comments that support publishers who make obvious which papers are oa, and your encouragement for publishers to invest in order to get their various back office processes in order. I also note your (and Janâs and Peter M-Râs and Peterâs) strong preference for CC-BY licensing.  Dan â you noted schema.org and suggested that authors should not only post articles but standardized metadata for them as well. Is there a potential supportive role for librarians and/or publishers to play here? How might they be encouraged/incentivized to play it?  Sally â great to see you taking active part in this discussion!!  Peter M-R â You are frustrated by, and distrust, publishers. Despite this it may still be more practical to work with us to evolve the current system into one more to your liking than to create a completely new one. Either way we agree absolutely that content mining is essential to advance science, but perhaps will need to agree to disagree (at least for the time being) about the best tactics to enable this to happen more broadly.  Jan â thank you for the constructive suggestion to make all the journal material available with delayed open access (CC-BY, fully re-usable and mine-able) after a reasonable embargo period. Why do you suppose it is that more publishers have not done just this, and are there any ways to offer reassurance or otherwise help t
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
** Cross-Posted ** On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote: > ...you would like all publishers to allow immediate green oa posting. > What do you think some of the potential concerns about this might be, and > how might those concerns be alleviated? > > ...With our posting policy our intent is certainly > not to confuse or intimidate authors, but to ensure the sustainability of > the journals in which they choose to publish. Perhaps the Finch group will > shed light on how to solve this challenge! The concern is not about Elsevier's business goals but about the *meaning* of a self-contradictory publisher agreement (sic) on the rights (sic) retained (sic) by Elsevier authors that states: "[As Elsevier author you retain] the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your personal or institutional website or server for scholarly purposes" and then follow it by a clause that contains the following piece of unmitigated FUD that (if authors and institutions don't ignore it completely, as they should) contradicts everything that came before it: "(but not in... institutional repositories with mandates for systematic postings unless there is a specific agreement with the publisher)." An author right is either retained or it is not. And if it is a right, and it is retained, and a publisher agreement formally states that it is retained, then the author can exercise that retained right irrespective of whether the author's institution mandates that the author should exercise that retained right. It is as simple as that. And any attempt by Elsevier to defend retaining the clause is just more FUD: A right is a right (and a formal publisher agreement attesting that it is a right is only an agreement) only if the agreed author right can be exercised without requiring further publisher agreement. Stevan Harnad ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
To answer Alicia Wise's query, 6 proposals of positive things from publishers that should be encouraged : Allow systematically and under no condition and at no cost depositing the peer-reviewed postprint – either the author's refereed, revised final draft or — even better for the Publishers publicity — the publisher's version of record in the author's institutional repository. Remove from authors' contracts the need to sign away their rights and transform it into a "non exclusive license" of their rights. Agree that by default, part of the rights on an article belong to the author's Institution if public and/or to the Funding organization, if public. Reduce significantly (or at least freeze for 5 years) the purchasing cost of periodicals, then increase at the real inflation rate, officially measured in Western countries (1-3 % per year). Reduce significantly the number of periodical titles published, aiming for excellence and getting rid of the mediocre title which are bundled in Elsevier's "Big Deals" and similar "deals" by other publishers. This would reduce their monopolistic position. Reward Institutions for the work provided by reviewers, editors and… authors, either directly or indirectly through lower subscription costs. Bernard Rentier___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
Hi all, Thanks for the various responses about positive things for which publishers should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized. I'm on the road for a bit (so won't be able to stay so actively involved in the discussion although I will continue to read/reflect with interest!), but thought it might be helpful to do a little round-up of some of the ideas that have surfaced. So in no particular order... Peter B - thanks for the constructive thought piece, and suggestion for an open access journal in remote sensing. I'm sure all the publishers on this list have taken note! In the interim if you would like your article to be published in one of our established journals you could make it freely available for non-commercial reuse through our sponsorship (i.e. hybrid oa) option. I note your (and David's and Jan's and Peter M-R's) preference for a CC-BY licensing option. We are currently in a test and learn phase and experimenting with a number of licensing options. Reme - you would like all publishers to allow immediate green oa posting. What do you think some of the potential concerns about this might be, and how might those concerns be alleviated? Stevan - You want the same. With our posting policy our intent is certainly not to confuse or intimidate authors, but to ensure the sustainability of the journals in which they choose to publish. Perhaps the Finch group will shed light on how to solve this challenge! Falk - you asked under what conditions Elsevier would be willing to change the business model from subscriptions to OA. I'm not quite sure about the scope of your question, so will answer at two levels of granularity. We already use both open access and subscription (and other!) business models and will continue to do so. If you are thinking of the conditions to flip the business model of an individual journal title, then we - and other publishers too, no doubt - will be very interested to participate in and learn from initiatives such as SCOAP3. Bernhard - you asked if our posting agreements involve payments to Elsevier by the funding bodies and/or authors and/or authors institutions. If an institution is willing to use an embargo period before the manuscript is made publicly available, then no payment is involved. Some funders/institutions prefer to make manuscripts available before the article's embargo period has expired, and in these cases sometimes a gold oa agreement or a blended gold/green agreement is more suitable. I'm happy to talk offline if you (or anyone else on the list) would like to explore further. Keith - one of your questions was how to get free access to researchers and the public everywhere. What are your thoughts on initiatives such as Research4Life (http://www.research4life.org/) or the APS programme to provide free access in public libraries (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=419118)? Good initiatives worth celebrating? Laurent - thank you for the suggestion that a clause allowing full data mining should be a systematic component of any subscription agreement, in particular in the case of big deals or national license programs. David - you provided helpful examples of publishers using gold oa publishing models (and this is another opportunity to draw attention to the wide array of signatories for the STM statement that publishers support sustainable open access http://www.stm-assoc.org/publishers-support-sustainable-open-access/). Also constructive are your comments that support publishers who make obvious which papers are oa, and your encouragement for publishers to invest in order to get their various back office processes in order. I also note your (and Jan's and Peter M-R's and Peter's) strong preference for CC-BY licensing. Dan - you noted schema.org and suggested that authors should not only post articles but standardized metadata for them as well. Is there a potential supportive role for librarians and/or publishers to play here? How might they be encouraged/incentivized to play it? Sally - great to see you taking active part in this discussion!! Peter M-R - You are frustrated by, and distrust, publishers. Despite this it may still be more practical to work with us to evolve the current system into one more to your liking than to create a completely new one. Either way we agree absolutely that content mining is essential to advance science, but perhaps will need to agree to disagree (at least for the time being) about the best tactics to enable this to happen more broadly. Jan - thank you for the constructive suggestion to make all the journal material available with delayed open access (CC-BY, fully re-usable and mine-able) after a reasonable embargo period. Why do you suppose it is that more publishers have not done just this, and are there any ways to offer reassurance or otherwise help to overcome any real or perceived barriers? Eric - thanks for the constructive posting just mad
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
Hi all,
Â
Stevan Harnad has helpfully summarized Elsevierâs posting policy for accepted
author manuscripts, but has left out a couple of really important elements.Â
Â
He is correct that all our authors can post voluntarily to their websites and
institutional repositories. Posting is also fine where there is a
requirement/mandate AND we have an agreement in place. We have a growing
number
of these agreements.
Â
An overview of our funding body agreements can be read here:Â
www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/fundingbodyagreements . These
agreements, for example, mean that we post to UKPMC for authors who receive
funding from a number of funding agencies including the Wellcome Trust. We
deposit manuscripts into PMC for NIH-funded authors. Posting in the arXiv is
fine too.Â
Â
We are also piloting open access agreements with a growing number of
institutions, including posting in institutional repositories. It is already
clear that one size does not fit all institutions, and we are keen to continue
learning, listening, and partnering.
Â
Our access policies can be read in full at
www.elsevier.com/wps/find/intro.cws_home/access_policies (health warning: they
are written for those who really enjoy detail) and weâve been working on a
more
friendly and succinct summary too (but this is still a work in progress).
 Â
With kind wishes,
Â
Alicia
Â
Â
Â
Dr Alicia Wise
Director of Universal Access
Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB
P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com I
Twitter: @wisealic
Â
Â
Â
Â
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
Peter Murray-Rust
Sent: 13 May 2012 16:51
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that
should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
Â
Â
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote:
** Cross-Posted **
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>>
>
> Stevan,
> Could you please explain this clause? (This is my ignorance as I don't
> publish with Elevier and so am unfamiliar with their author-side contracts).
> Does it mean that Elsevier sometimes allows Green Open Access and sometimes
don't?
It means that Elsevier formally endorses its authors' right to make
their final, peer-reviewed drafts Open Access immediately upon
publication (no embargo) by posting them on their institutional
website (Green Gratis OA) -- "but not in institutional repositories
with mandates for systematic postings."
It is exactly this sort of clause - usually badly written - that is widespread
in publishers documents (if you can even find them). Just remember that *we*
pay for their lawyers' salaries. The strategy is common and exemplified by Ross
Mounce's work on licences. Make it complex and make it different from every
other publisher. Never use a single community-agreed approach.
If the publishers wanted to make it simple and professional it could have been
done a decade ago. It's not hard. A protocol and licence saying what could/not
be done in Green OA.
What I worry about is that the publishers can change the rules whenever they
feel like. They are quit capable of saying it's "Green" just as Wiley has done
for highly paid "Fully Open Access" (not even as green as Stevan is asking for).
The point is that these rules are made by people who don't care about scholarly
publishing. The sooner we admit we are dealing with an industry every bit as
lovable as bankers the sooner we'll put in place *our* rules and not theirs.
Â
The distinction between an institutional website and an
institutional
repository is bogus.
Of course it is. Unless you are trying to appear helpful and trying not to be.
Â
The distinction between nonmandatory posting (allowed) and mandatory
posting (not allowed) is arbitrary nonsense. ("You retain the right
to
post if you wish but not if you must!")
Of course it is. It takes a highly paid marketeer to dream that up.
The "systematic" criterion is also nonsense. (Systematic posting
would
be the institutional posting of all the articles in the journal; but
any single institution only contributes a tiny, arbitrary fraction
of
the articles in any journal, just as any single author does; so the
mandating institution would not be a 3rd-party "free-rider" on the
journal's content: its researchers would simply be making their own
articles OA, by posting them on their institutional website, exactly
as described.)
This "systematic" cl
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote:
** Cross-Posted **
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Peter Murray-Rust
wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Stevan Harnad
wrote:
>>
>
> Stevan,
> Could you please explain this clause? (This is my ignorance as I
don't
> publish with Elevier and so am unfamiliar with their author-side
contracts).
> Does it mean that Elsevier sometimes allows Green Open Access and
sometimes don't?
It means that Elsevier formally endorses its authors' right to make
their final, peer-reviewed drafts Open Access immediately upon
publication (no embargo) by posting them on their institutional
website (Green Gratis OA) -- "but not in institutional repositories
with mandates for systematic postings."
It is exactly this sort of clause - usually badly written - that is widespread
in publishers documents (if you can even find them). Just remember that *we*
pay for their lawyers' salaries. The strategy is common and exemplified by Ross
Mounce's work on licences. Make it complex and make it different from every
other publisher. Never use a single community-agreed approach.
If the publishers wanted to make it simple and professional it could have been
done a decade ago. It's not hard. A protocol and licence saying what could/not
be done in Green OA.
What I worry about is that the publishers can change the rules whenever they
feel like. They are quit capable of saying it's "Green" just as Wiley has done
for highly paid "Fully Open Access" (not even as green as Stevan is asking for).
The point is that these rules are made by people who don't care about scholarly
publishing. The sooner we admit we are dealing with an industry every bit as
lovable as bankers the sooner we'll put in place *our* rules and not theirs.
Â
The distinction between an institutional website and an
institutional
repository is bogus.
Of course it is. Unless you are trying to appear helpful and trying not to be.
Â
The distinction between nonmandatory posting (allowed) and mandatory
posting (not allowed) is arbitrary nonsense. ("You retain the right
to
post if you wish but not if you must!")
Of course it is. It takes a highly paid marketeer to dream that up.
The "systematic" criterion is also nonsense. (Systematic posting
would
be the institutional posting of all the articles in the journal; but
any single institution only contributes a tiny, arbitrary fraction
of
the articles in any journal, just as any single author does; so the
mandating institution would not be a 3rd-party "free-rider" on the
journal's content: its researchers would simply be making their own
articles OA, by posting them on their institutional website, exactly
as described.)
This "systematic" clause is hence pure FUD, designed to scare or
bully
or confuse institutions into not mandating posting, and authors into
not complying with their institutional mandates. (There are also
rumours that in confidential licensing negotiations with
institutions,
Elsevier has been trying to link bigger and better pricing deals to
the institution's agreeing not to adopt a Green OA mandate.)
That's why I raised it a few days ago. We are dealing with people many of whose
staff have probably never seen a scholarly pub.
Â
Along with the majority of publishers today, Elsevier is a Green
publisher: It has endorsed immediate (unembargoed) institutional
Green
OA posting by its authors ever since 27 May 2004:
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3771.html
But that is no a legally binding contract and that's the problem.
Â
Elsevier's public image is so bad today that rescinding its Green
light to self-archive after almost a decade of mounting demand for
OA
is hardly a very attractive or viable option:
http://cdn.anonfiles.com/1334923359479.pdf
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#32.Poisoned
And double-talk, smoke-screens and FUD are even less attractive:
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/822-.html
It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and
their
institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops
its "you may if you wish but not if you must" clause, which is not
only incoherent, but intimidates authors. (This would also help
counteract some of the rather bad press Elsevier has been getting
lately...)
I actually suspect that no-one reading this list has any power to change
Elsevier policy - it's set at boardroom level by people who could be selling
soap.
--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
[ Part 2: "Attached Text"
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
Hi all,
Stevan Harnad has helpfully summarized Elsevier's posting policy for
accepted author manuscripts, but has left out a couple of really
important elements.
He is correct that all our authors can post voluntarily to their
websites and institutional repositories. Posting is also fine where
there is a requirement/mandate AND we have an agreement in place. We
have a growing number of these agreements.
An overview of our funding body agreements can be read here:
www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/fundingbodyagreements .
These agreements, for example, mean that we post to UKPMC for authors
who receive funding from a number of funding agencies including the
Wellcome Trust. We deposit manuscripts into PMC for NIH-funded authors.
Posting in the arXiv is fine too.
We are also piloting open access agreements with a growing number of
institutions, including posting in institutional repositories. It is
already clear that one size does not fit all institutions, and we are
keen to continue learning, listening, and partnering.
Our access policies can be read in full at
www.elsevier.com/wps/find/intro.cws_home/access_policies (health
warning: they are written for those who really enjoy detail) and we've
been working on a more friendly and succinct summary too (but this is
still a work in progress).
With kind wishes,
Alicia
Dr Alicia Wise
Director of Universal Access
Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB
P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com
I
Twitter: @wisealic
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On
Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust
Sent: 13 May 2012 16:51
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from
publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Stevan Harnad
wrote:
** Cross-Posted **
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Peter Murray-Rust
wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Stevan Harnad
wrote:
>>
>
> Stevan,
> Could you please explain this clause? (This is my ignorance as I don't
> publish with Elevier and so am unfamiliar with their author-side
contracts).
> Does it mean that Elsevier sometimes allows Green Open Access and
sometimes don't?
It means that Elsevier formally endorses its authors' right to make
their final, peer-reviewed drafts Open Access immediately upon
publication (no embargo) by posting them on their institutional
website (Green Gratis OA) -- "but not in institutional repositories
with mandates for systematic postings."
It is exactly this sort of clause - usually badly written - that is
widespread in publishers documents (if you can even find them). Just
remember that *we* pay for their lawyers' salaries. The strategy is
common and exemplified by Ross Mounce's work on licences. Make it
complex and make it different from every other publisher. Never use a
single community-agreed approach.
If the publishers wanted to make it simple and professional it could
have been done a decade ago. It's not hard. A protocol and licence
saying what could/not be done in Green OA.
What I worry about is that the publishers can change the rules whenever
they feel like. They are quit capable of saying it's "Green" just as
Wiley has done for highly paid "Fully Open Access" (not even as green as
Stevan is asking for).
The point is that these rules are made by people who don't care about
scholarly publishing. The sooner we admit we are dealing with an
industry every bit as lovable as bankers the sooner we'll put in place
*our* rules and not theirs.
The distinction between an institutional website and an
institutional
repository is bogus.
Of course it is. Unless you are trying to appear helpful and trying not
to be.
The distinction between nonmandatory posting (allowed) and
mandatory
posting (not allowed) is arbitrary nonsense. ("You retain the
right to
post if you wish but not if you must!")
Of course it is. It takes a highly paid marketeer to dream that up.
The "systematic" criterion is also nonsense. (Systematic posting
would
be the institutional posting of all the articles in the journal;
but
any single institution only contributes a tiny, arbitrary
fraction of
the articles in any journal, just as any single author does; so
the
mandating institution would not be a 3rd-party "free-rider" on
the
journal's content: its researchers would simply be making their
own
articles OA, by posting them on their institutional website,
exactly
as described.)
This "systematic" clau
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
** Cross-Posted **
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, May 12, 2012, Alicia Wise (Elsevier Director of Universal
>> Access) wrote:
>>
>> It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their
>> institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops
>> its "you may if you wish but not if you must" clause, which is not
>> only incoherent, but intimidates authors.
>
> Stevan,
> Could you please explain this clause? (This is my ignorance as I don't
> publish with Elevier and so am unfamiliar with their author-side contracts).
> Does it mean that Elsevier sometimes allows Green Open Access and sometimes
> don't?
It means that Elsevier formally endorses its authors' right to make
their final, peer-reviewed drafts Open Access immediately upon
publication (no embargo) by posting them on their institutional
website (Green Gratis OA) -- "but not in institutional repositories
with mandates for systematic postings."
The distinction between an institutional website and an institutional
repository is bogus.
The distinction between nonmandatory posting (allowed) and mandatory
posting (not allowed) is arbitrary nonsense. ("You retain the right to
post if you wish but not if you must!")
The "systematic" criterion is also nonsense. (Systematic posting would
be the institutional posting of all the articles in the journal; but
any single institution only contributes a tiny, arbitrary fraction of
the articles in any journal, just as any single author does; so the
mandating institution would not be a 3rd-party "free-rider" on the
journal's content: its researchers would simply be making their own
articles OA, by posting them on their institutional website, exactly
as described.)
This "systematic" clause is hence pure FUD, designed to scare or bully
or confuse institutions into not mandating posting, and authors into
not complying with their institutional mandates. (There are also
rumours that in confidential licensing negotiations with institutions,
Elsevier has been trying to link bigger and better pricing deals to
the institution's agreeing not to adopt a Green OA mandate.)
Along with the majority of publishers today, Elsevier is a Green
publisher: It has endorsed immediate (unembargoed) institutional Green
OA posting by its authors ever since 27 May 2004:
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3771.html
Elsevier's public image is so bad today that rescinding its Green
light to self-archive after almost a decade of mounting demand for OA
is hardly a very attractive or viable option:
http://cdn.anonfiles.com/1334923359479.pdf
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#32.Poisoned
And double-talk, smoke-screens and FUD are even less attractive:
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/822-.html
It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their
institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops
its "you may if you wish but not if you must" clause, which is not
only incoherent, but intimidates authors. (This would also help
counteract some of the rather bad press Elsevier has been getting
lately...)
Stevan Harnad
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Dan Brickley wrote: [snip] Thought experiment: what if authors posted to their personal sites, but with enough metadata (e.g. http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle) for generic (rather than topical/institutional) search engine discovery to be feasible? I'm generally in favour of schema.org because I think it will succeed and will be simple enough to be used. However there are at least the following problems for #scholpub. * The websites are impermanent. "Personal" = departmental pages ? or family pages? both (and other variants are extremely prone to decay * There are no rights. Therefore it is essential that the author gives the right at least to copy. No institutional repository would take the risk of perserving anything outside. It might violate copyright. * It is unclear who if anyone would archive this. Not universities. National libraries, yes - but this is very patchy and is probably locked away in dark archives. It might otherwise violate copyright. * It is undiscoverable. So without an index the usage would be appallingly low. Of course there is the academic's friend Google. But we aren't paying them anything for this and the traffic isn't worth much. They probably don't want to offend big publishers because they get income from them. I know another academic search engine which worries about this * Certain publishers forbid it. So it has to be "illegal". Many academics don't like doing illegal things. Mind you a strong lead from senior academics could change this. But the number of senior academics trying to change the system is almost negligible, so we have to take Planck's approach and wait till they die. And even then they are training their successors to be just as illiberal. So even if 100% of authors do this, and they won't (chemistry??) it's a grey archive at best. The best chance I think is to create completely disruptive business models and tools - and who knows, schema.org might be part of that even without the academics involvement -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 [ Part 2: "Attached Text" ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> ** Cross-Posted **
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Peter Murray-Rust
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Stevan Harnad
> wrote:
> >>
> >
> > Stevan,
> > Could you please explain this clause? (This is my ignorance as I don't
> > publish with Elevier and so am unfamiliar with their author-side
> contracts).
> > Does it mean that Elsevier sometimes allows Green Open Access and
> sometimes don't?
>
> It means that Elsevier formally endorses its authors' right to make
> their final, peer-reviewed drafts Open Access immediately upon
> publication (no embargo) by posting them on their institutional
> website (Green Gratis OA) -- "but not in institutional repositories
> with mandates for systematic postings."
>
> It is exactly this sort of clause - usually badly written - that is
widespread in publishers documents (if you can even find them). Just
remember that *we* pay for their lawyers' salaries. The strategy is common
and exemplified by Ross Mounce's work on licences. Make it complex and make
it different from every other publisher. Never use a single
community-agreed approach.
If the publishers wanted to make it simple and professional it could have
been done a decade ago. It's not hard. A protocol and licence saying what
could/not be done in Green OA.
What I worry about is that the publishers can change the rules whenever
they feel like. They are quit capable of saying it's "Green" just as Wiley
has done for highly paid "Fully Open Access" (not even as green as Stevan
is asking for).
The point is that these rules are made by people who don't care about
scholarly publishing. The sooner we admit we are dealing with an industry
every bit as lovable as bankers the sooner we'll put in place *our* rules
and not theirs.
> The distinction between an institutional website and an institutional
> repository is bogus.
>
> Of course it is. Unless you are trying to appear helpful and trying not to
be.
> The distinction between nonmandatory posting (allowed) and mandatory
> posting (not allowed) is arbitrary nonsense. ("You retain the right to
> post if you wish but not if you must!")
>
Of course it is. It takes a highly paid marketeer to dream that up.
>
> The "systematic" criterion is also nonsense. (Systematic posting would
> be the institutional posting of all the articles in the journal; but
> any single institution only contributes a tiny, arbitrary fraction of
> the articles in any journal, just as any single author does; so the
> mandating institution would not be a 3rd-party "free-rider" on the
> journal's content: its researchers would simply be making their own
> articles OA, by posting them on their institutional website, exactly
> as described.)
>
> This "systematic" clause is hence pure FUD, designed to scare or bully
> or confuse institutions into not mandating posting, and authors into
> not complying with their institutional mandates. (There are also
> rumours that in confidential licensing negotiations with institutions,
> Elsevier has been trying to link bigger and better pricing deals to
> the institution's agreeing not to adopt a Green OA mandate.)
>
> That's why I raised it a few days ago. We are dealing with people many of
whose staff have probably never seen a scholarly pub.
> Along with the majority of publishers today, Elsevier is a Green
> publisher: It has endorsed immediate (unembargoed) institutional Green
> OA posting by its authors ever since 27 May 2004:
> http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3771.html
>
> But that is no a legally binding contract and that's the problem.
> Elsevier's public image is so bad today that rescinding its Green
> light to self-archive after almost a decade of mounting demand for OA
> is hardly a very attractive or viable option:
> http://cdn.anonfiles.com/1334923359479.pdf
> http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#32.Poisoned
>
> And double-talk, smoke-screens and FUD are even less attractive:
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/822-.html
>
> It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their
> institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops
> its "you may if you wish but not if you must" clause, which is not
> only incoherent, but intimidates authors. (This would also help
> counteract some of the rather bad press Elsevier has been getting
> lately...)
>
I actually suspect that no-one reading this list has any power to change
Elsevier policy - it's set at boardroom level by people who could be
selling soap.
--
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@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
** Cross-Posted **
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, May 12, 2012, Alicia Wise (Elsevier Director of Universal
>> Access) wrote:
>>
>> It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their
>> institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops
>> its "you may if you wish but not if you must" clause, which is not
>> only incoherent, but intimidates authors.
>
> Stevan,
> Could you please explain this clause? (This is my ignorance as I don't
> publish with Elevier and so am unfamiliar with their author-side contracts).
> Does it mean that Elsevier sometimes allows Green Open Access and sometimes
> don't?
It means that Elsevier formally endorses its authors' right to make
their final, peer-reviewed drafts Open Access immediately upon
publication (no embargo) by posting them on their institutional
website (Green Gratis OA) -- "but not in institutional repositories
with mandates for systematic postings."
The distinction between an institutional website and an institutional
repository is bogus.
The distinction between nonmandatory posting (allowed) and mandatory
posting (not allowed) is arbitrary nonsense. ("You retain the right to
post if you wish but not if you must!")
The "systematic" criterion is also nonsense. (Systematic posting would
be the institutional posting of all the articles in the journal; but
any single institution only contributes a tiny, arbitrary fraction of
the articles in any journal, just as any single author does; so the
mandating institution would not be a 3rd-party "free-rider" on the
journal's content: its researchers would simply be making their own
articles OA, by posting them on their institutional website, exactly
as described.)
This "systematic" clause is hence pure FUD, designed to scare or bully
or confuse institutions into not mandating posting, and authors into
not complying with their institutional mandates. (There are also
rumours that in confidential licensing negotiations with institutions,
Elsevier has been trying to link bigger and better pricing deals to
the institution's agreeing not to adopt a Green OA mandate.)
Along with the majority of publishers today, Elsevier is a Green
publisher: It has endorsed immediate (unembargoed) institutional Green
OA posting by its authors ever since 27 May 2004:
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3771.html
Elsevier's public image is so bad today that rescinding its Green
light to self-archive after almost a decade of mounting demand for OA
is hardly a very attractive or viable option:
http://cdn.anonfiles.com/1334923359479.pdf
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#32.Poisoned
And double-talk, smoke-screens and FUD are even less attractive:
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/822-.html
It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their
institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops
its "you may if you wish but not if you must" clause, which is not
only incoherent, but intimidates authors. (This would also help
counteract some of the rather bad press Elsevier has been getting
lately...)
Stevan Harnad
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Dan Brickley wrote: > [snip] > > Thought experiment: what if authors posted to their personal sites, but > with enough metadata (e.g. http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle) for > generic (rather than topical/institutional) search engine discovery to be > feasible? > > I'm generally in favour of schema.org because I think it will succeed and will be simple enough to be used. However there are at least the following problems for #scholpub. - The websites are impermanent. "Personal" = departmental pages ? or family pages? both (and other variants are extremely prone to decay - There are no rights. Therefore it is essential that the author gives the right at least to copy. No institutional repository would take the risk of perserving anything outside. It might violate copyright. - It is unclear who if anyone would archive this. Not universities. National libraries, yes - but this is very patchy and is probably locked away in dark archives. It might otherwise violate copyright. - It is undiscoverable. So without an index the usage would be appallingly low. Of course there is the academic's friend Google. But we aren't paying them anything for this and the traffic isn't worth much. They probably don't want to offend big publishers because they get income from them. I know another academic search engine which worries about this - Certain publishers forbid it. So it has to be "illegal". Many academics don't like doing illegal things. Mind you a strong lead from senior academics could change this. But the number of senior academics trying to change the system is almost negligible, so we have to take Planck's approach and wait till they die. And even then they are training their successors to be just as illiberal. So even if 100% of authors do this, and they won't (chemistry??) it's a grey archive at best. The best chance I think is to create completely disruptive business models and tools - and who knows, schema.org might be part of that even without the academics involvement -- 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@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: On Sat, May 12, 2012, Alicia Wise (Elsevier Director of Universal Access) Â wrote: It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops its "you may if you wish but not if you must" clause, which is not only incoherent, but intimidates authors. Stevan, Could you please explain this clause? (This is my ignorance as I don't publish with Elevier and so am unfamiliar with their author-side contracts). Does it mean that Elsevier sometimes allows Green Open Access and sometimes don't? P. Â -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 [ Part 2: "Attached Text" ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
I object to the notion of sustainable applied to publications for two reasons : 1. Scientific research is unsustainable and has been so since at least the 17th century. 2. Peer-reviewing research results and making resulting version available to all interested is an integral part of the research process. Building on the shoulders of "giants" requires this. Therefore, why ask of the publishing phase to be sustainable when the rest of the research process is not sustainable? Let us have subsidized publishing to complete subsidized research. Jean-Claude Guédon -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal Le samedi 12 mai 2012 à 17:11 +0100, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) a écrit : > Hi all, > > I agree that we are mixing up several issues/objectives, and helpfully Keith > has identified some of these. I can think of a few others and I suspect > there are more strands in this knot which others will hopefully identify. > > * we are probably conflating needs/practices in different disciplines > > * we are certainly conflating temporal challenges - how we xxx or yyy in 2012 > may be different from the way we do it in 2015 or 2020. Text mining is an > example. > > * we sometimes construct the false dichotomy of an open access world vs. a > subscription world - there is already a blend of gold, green, subscription, > and other business models, and there will continue to be for awhile (possibly > forever) > > * we conflate pragmatic and idealistic discussions and yet need both > > * we too often duck the important issue of funding - for example could the > dynamics of sustainable gold+green be different from the dynamics of > sustainable subscription+green? Could the price be different for gratis gold > oa vs. libre gold oa? > > To refer back to my original query about what positive things are established > scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access > and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, > recognized let me be cheeky and suggest one. The recent STM public statement > that publishers support sustainable open access > (http://www.stm-assoc.org/publishers-support-sustainable-open-access/) is one > thing I would suggest should be celebrated by others who are also interested > in open access. > > With very kind wishes, > > Alicia > > > Dr Alicia Wise > Director of Universal Access > Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB > P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com I > Twitter: @wisealic > > > > -Original Message- > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of > keith.jeff...@stfc.ac.uk > Sent: 12 May 2012 15:47 > To: goal@eprints.org > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers > that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized" > > All - > > I have been following the several threads of argument with interest. As I > see it recent postings on this list are mixing up several issues/objectives, > confusions, mechanisms for access and utilisation and mechanisms to achieve > any kind of OA. > > Issues and Objectives > - > > 1. how do we get gratis OA (free access to eyeball) for all researchers (and > others including the public) everywhere; > > 2. how do we get libre OA (including data mining and other machine processing > of articles) for all researchers (and others including the public) everywhere; > > 3. how do we get libre OA (including processing of datasets associated with a > publication using associated software or other software) for all researchers > (and others including the public) everywhere; > > Confusions > -- > > Confusing each of these objectives is the position (or more accurately > different and evolving positions) of the commercial publishers - including > the OA publishers - and the learned societies in role publisher. Many allow > (1) but Elsevier has the unfortunate 'not if mandated' clause. > > Attempting to expedite these objectives are mandates by research institutions > and funding organisations. However even here there is no clear > recommendation emerging on either green (subscription-based) or gold (author > pays) for each of (1),(2). It appears clear that gold is more expensive - at > least for now - for high production research institutions. There is no > settled position yet on whether green or gold for publications are applicable > to (3). > > The situation in each case is not assisted by current legislation in each > country on copy
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
I object to the notion of sustainable applied to publications for two reasons : 1. Scientific research is unsustainable and has been so since at least the 17th century. 2. Peer-reviewing research results and making resulting version available to all interested is an integral part of the research process. Building on the shoulders of "giants" requires this. Therefore, why ask of the publishing phase to be sustainable when the rest of the research process is not sustainable? Let us have subsidized publishing to complete subsidized research. Jean-Claude Guédon -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal Le samedi 12 mai 2012 à 17:11 +0100, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) a écrit : Hi all, I agree that we are mixing up several issues/objectives, and helpfully Keith has identified some of these. I can think of a few others and I suspect there are more strands in this knot which others will hopefully identify. * we are probably conflating needs/practices in different disciplines * we are certainly conflating temporal challenges - how we xxx or yyy in 2012 ma y be different from the way we do it in 2015 or 2020. Text mining is an example . * we sometimes construct the false dichotomy of an open access world vs. a subsc ription world - there is already a blend of gold, green, subscription, and other business models, and there will continue to be for awhile (possibly forever) * we conflate pragmatic and idealistic discussions and yet need both * we too often duck the important issue of funding - for example could the dynam ics of sustainable gold+green be different from the dynamics of sustainable subs cription+green? Could the price be different for gratis gold oa vs. libre gold oa? To refer back to my original query about what positive things are established sc holarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and f uture scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized let me be cheeky and suggest one. The recent STM public statement that publish ers support sustainable open access (http://www.stm-assoc.org/publishers-support -sustainable-open-access/) is one thing I would suggest should be celebrated by others who are also interested in open access. With very kind wishes, Alicia Dr Alicia Wise Director of Universal Access Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com I Twitter: @wisealic -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of ke ith.jeff...@stfc.ac.uk Sent: 12 May 2012 15:47 To: goal@eprints.org Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that s hould be encouraged, celebrated, recognized" All - I have been following the several threads of argument with interest. As I see i t recent postings on this list are mixing up several issues/objectives, confusio ns, mechanisms for access and utilisation and mechanisms to achieve any kind of OA. Issues and Objectives - 1. how do we get gratis OA (free access to eyeball) for all researchers (and oth ers including the public) everywhere; 2. how do we get libre OA (including data mining and other machine processing of articles) for all researchers (and others including the public) everywhere; 3. how do we get libre OA (including processing of datasets associated with a pu blication using associated software or other software) for all researchers (and others including the public) everywhere; Confusions -- Confusing each of these objectives is the position (or more accurately different and evolving positions) of the commercial publishers - including the OA publish ers - and the learned societies in role publisher. Many allow (1) but Elsevier has the unfortunate 'not if mandated' clause. Attempting to expedite these objectives are mandates by research institutions an d funding organisations. However even here there is no clear recommendation eme rging on either green (subscription-based) or gold (author pays) for each of (1) ,(2). It appears clear that gold is more expensive - at least for now - for hig h production research institutions. There is no settled position yet on whether green or gold for publications are applicable to (3). The situation in each case is not assisted by current legislation in each countr y on copyright and database right. (3) in the academic environment is becoming convolved with the 'data.gov' agenda and citizen access. The rights of the public to have gratis/libre access to publicly-funded research products is a moralistic backdrop to the whole argument. The commercial publishers understandably wish to preserve their (very profitable ) business model as there is a (slow) transition from subscription access to som e other model(s) such as author pays access. In a world wher
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
Hi all, I agree that we are mixing up several issues/objectives, and helpfully Keith has identified some of these. I can think of a few others and I suspect there are more strands in this knot which others will hopefully identify. * we are probably conflating needs/practices in different disciplines * we are certainly conflating temporal challenges - how we xxx or yyy in 2012 may be different from the way we do it in 2015 or 2020. Text mining is an example. * we sometimes construct the false dichotomy of an open access world vs. a subscription world - there is already a blend of gold, green, subscription, and other business models, and there will continue to be for awhile (possibly forever) * we conflate pragmatic and idealistic discussions and yet need both * we too often duck the important issue of funding - for example could the dynamics of sustainable gold+green be different from the dynamics of sustainable subscription+green? Could the price be different for gratis gold oa vs. libre gold oa? To refer back to my original query about what positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized let me be cheeky and suggest one. The recent STM public statement that publishers support sustainable open access (http://www.stm-assoc.org/publishers-support-sustainable-open-access/) is one thing I would suggest should be celebrated by others who are also interested in open access. With very kind wishes, Alicia Dr Alicia Wise Director of Universal Access Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com I Twitter: @wisealic -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of keith.jeff...@stfc.ac.uk Sent: 12 May 2012 15:47 To: goal@eprints.org Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized" All - I have been following the several threads of argument with interest. As I see it recent postings on this list are mixing up several issues/objectives, confusions, mechanisms for access and utilisation and mechanisms to achieve any kind of OA. Issues and Objectives - 1. how do we get gratis OA (free access to eyeball) for all researchers (and others including the public) everywhere; 2. how do we get libre OA (including data mining and other machine processing of articles) for all researchers (and others including the public) everywhere; 3. how do we get libre OA (including processing of datasets associated with a publication using associated software or other software) for all researchers (and others including the public) everywhere; Confusions -- Confusing each of these objectives is the position (or more accurately different and evolving positions) of the commercial publishers - including the OA publishers - and the learned societies in role publisher. Many allow (1) but Elsevier has the unfortunate 'not if mandated' clause. Attempting to expedite these objectives are mandates by research institutions and funding organisations. However even here there is no clear recommendation emerging on either green (subscription-based) or gold (author pays) for each of (1),(2). It appears clear that gold is more expensive - at least for now - for high production research institutions. There is no settled position yet on whether green or gold for publications are applicable to (3). The situation in each case is not assisted by current legislation in each country on copyright and database right. (3) in the academic environment is becoming convolved with the 'data.gov' agenda and citizen access. The rights of the public to have gratis/libre access to publicly-funded research products is a moralistic backdrop to the whole argument. The commercial publishers understandably wish to preserve their (very profitable) business model as there is a (slow) transition from subscription access to some other model(s) such as author pays access. In a world where ICT is making (re-engineered) processes in business much more effective (including increased offerings), efficient and less costly it is surprising one does not see similar improvements in scholarly communication. Access and Utilisation -- There are requirements (a) to find the article or dataset (with software) of interest and (b) to utilise it effectively (including text-mining or deeper mining of publications and data processing of datasets). Furthermore, in general there are requirements to do this locally (for specific institutional or funder purposes) or globally (find all articles on left-handed widgets'). In all cases metadata is required
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On Sat, May 12, 2012, Alicia Wise (Elsevier Director of Universal Access) wrote: > I agree that we are mixing up several issues/objectives, and helpfully Keith > has identified some of these.  I can think of a few others and I suspect > there are more strands in this knot which others will hopefully identify. The first and foremost issue on the Global Open Access List is Open Access (OA). It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops its "you may if you wish but not if you must" clause, which is not only incoherent, but intimidates authors. (This would also help counteract some of the rather bad press Elsevier has been getting lately...) > * we are probably conflating needs/practices in different disciplines All disciplines need, want, and benefit from OA. It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops its "you may if you wish but not if you must" clause, which is not only incoherent, but intimidates authors. (This would also help counteract some of the rather bad press Elsevier has been getting lately...) > > * we are certainly conflating temporal challenges - how we xxx or yyy in 2012 > may be different from the way we do it in 2015 or 2020.  Text mining is an > example. OA is needed now, not in 2015 or 2020. It will be very helpful if... > > * we sometimes construct the false dichotomy of an open access world vs. a > subscription world - there is already a blend of gold, green, subscription, > and other business models, and there will continue to be for awhile (possibly > forever) OA is not a business model, it is Open Access. It will be very helpful if... > * we conflate pragmatic and idealistic discussions and yet need both A purely pragmatic issue: It will be very helpful if... > > * we too often duck the important issue of funding - for example could the > dynamics of sustainable gold+green be different from the dynamics of > sustainable subscription+green?  Could the price be different for gratis > gold oa vs. libre gold oa? Subscription publishing is being paid for via subscriptions. If and when subscriptions become unsustainable, because institutions have cancelled them, publishing can convert to Gold OA and the institutions will have the windfall subscription cancellation savings to pay for it. But for now: It will be very helpful if... > > To refer back to my original query about what positive things are established > scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access > and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, > recognized let me be cheeky and suggest one.  The recent STM public > statement that publishers support sustainable open access > (http://www.stm-assoc.org/publishers-support-sustainable-open-access/) is one > thing I would suggest should be celebrated by others who are also interested > in open access. Statements of support are always welcome. But as we are talking pragmatics rather than ideology: It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops its "you may if you wish but not if you must" clause, which is not only incoherent, but intimidates authors. (This would also help counteract some of the rather bad press Elsevier has been getting lately...) http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/822-.html Stevan Harnad Begin forwarded message: From: Stevan Harnad List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: May 11, 2012 8:11:19 AM EDT To: "Global Open Access List \(Successor of AmSci\)" Subject: [GOAL] Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized" El 11/05/2012 11:19, Wise, Alicia (Elsevier) asked: [W]hat positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized? Dr Alicia Wise Director of Universal Access Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com I Twitter: @wisealic On 2012-05-11, at 6:13 AM, Reme Melero wrote: I would recommend the following change in one clause of the  What rights do I retain as a journal author*? stated in Elsevier's portal, which says "the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your personal or institutional website or server for scholarly purposes*, incorporating the complete citation and with a link to the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the article (but not in subject-oriented or centralized repositories or institutional repositori
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: For my part I will continue my narrow focus on the goal of getting OA (sic) universally provided. It had been my (foolish) fancy that that was GOAL's goal too! I am quite happy for the list members, guided by the moderator, to decide whether or not content mining should be in scope for this list. If they decide not, I'm happy - in conjunction with others - to explore a new list. It may be the best solution. And in any case I should applaud Stevan for having created the GOAL list and also decided to hand it over to RP when the time was right. In Open Source I have termed this the "Doctor Who model".(http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/19/1326254/the-doctor-who-model-of-open-s ource ) Â [...] PS For the terminologically tipsy: Unrestricted article content-mining, like Google's book content-mining, would allow the extraction and republication of "factual data" from journal articles by licensees, but it would not provide unlicensed users with access to the full-text. That is very clearly put and effectively exactly what I am asking for. I'm not quite sure what "terminology" has to do with it - I don't know a formal term for it - yet. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 [ Part 2: "Attached Text" ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
ual research product, NOT the channel (i.e. impact factors); (4) clarity on rights issues - ideally their removal for publicly-funded research products; (5) recognition and reward for making research products available fully OA; But above all a consistent, clear, simple message to all from the 'in favour of OA' community. Best Keith Keith G Jeffery Director International Relations STFC --- The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it The STFC telecommunications systems may be monitored in accordance with the policy available from <http://dlitd.dl.ac.uk/policy/monitoring/monitoring%20statement.htm>. -- -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 12 May 2012 14:03 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized" On 2012-05-12, at 8:42 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: > Thought experiment: what if authors posted to their personal sites, but with > enough metadata (e.g. http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle) for generic (rather > than topical/institutional) search engine discovery to be feasible? 1. If 100% of authors posted (self-archived) the full-text of their articles, free for all, on their websites, we would have 100% OA; there would be no need to post to topical or institutional repositories, and google-style full-text indexing would do the rest. 2. The trouble is that 80% of authors do not post the full-text of their articles, free for all, *anywhere*. 3. That's why we need Institutional Repositories, and (Green, Gratis) OA self-archiving (posting) mandates from institutions and funders. 4. And that's why it matters what we put on out wish-list for well-intentioned publishers. 5. Metadata have next to nothing to do with it: It's about the posting (anywhere, free online) of the full-text. > On 2012-05-11, at 6:47 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: > >> Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from me. The >> publishers should withdraw contractual restrictions on content-mining. >> That's all they need to do. >> >> If Alicia Wise can say "yes" to me unreservedly, I'll be happy. > > So let's all forget about OA... ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Scanned by iCritical. ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
[snip] Thought experiment: what if authors posted to their personal sites, but with enough metadata (e.g. http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle) for generic (rather than topical/institutional) search engine discovery to be feasible? Dan (hatless) ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: > On Sat, May 12, 2012, Alicia Wise (Elsevier Director of Universal > Access) wrote: > > It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their > institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops > its "you may if you wish but not if you must" clause, which is not > only incoherent, but intimidates authors. > Stevan, Could you please explain this clause? (This is my ignorance as I don't publish with Elevier and so am unfamiliar with their author-side contracts). Does it mean that Elsevier sometimes allows Green Open Access and sometimes don't? P. -- 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@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On Sat, May 12, 2012, Alicia Wise (Elsevier Director of Universal Access) wrote: > I agree that we are mixing up several issues/objectives, and helpfully Keith > has identified some of these. I can think of a few others and I suspect > there are more strands in this knot which others will hopefully identify. The first and foremost issue on the Global Open Access List is Open Access (OA). It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops its "you may if you wish but not if you must" clause, which is not only incoherent, but intimidates authors. (This would also help counteract some of the rather bad press Elsevier has been getting lately...) > * we are probably conflating needs/practices in different disciplines All disciplines need, want, and benefit from OA. It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops its "you may if you wish but not if you must" clause, which is not only incoherent, but intimidates authors. (This would also help counteract some of the rather bad press Elsevier has been getting lately...) > > * we are certainly conflating temporal challenges - how we xxx or yyy in 2012 > may be different from the way we do it in 2015 or 2020. Text mining is an > example. OA is needed now, not in 2015 or 2020. It will be very helpful if... > > * we sometimes construct the false dichotomy of an open access world vs. a > subscription world - there is already a blend of gold, green, subscription, > and other business models, and there will continue to be for awhile (possibly > forever) OA is not a business model, it is Open Access. It will be very helpful if... > * we conflate pragmatic and idealistic discussions and yet need both A purely pragmatic issue: It will be very helpful if... > > * we too often duck the important issue of funding - for example could the > dynamics of sustainable gold+green be different from the dynamics of > sustainable subscription+green? Could the price be different for gratis gold > oa vs. libre gold oa? Subscription publishing is being paid for via subscriptions. If and when subscriptions become unsustainable, because institutions have cancelled them, publishing can convert to Gold OA and the institutions will have the windfall subscription cancellation savings to pay for it. But for now: It will be very helpful if... > > To refer back to my original query about what positive things are established > scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access > and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, > recognized let me be cheeky and suggest one. The recent STM public statement > that publishers support sustainable open access > (http://www.stm-assoc.org/publishers-support-sustainable-open-access/) is one > thing I would suggest should be celebrated by others who are also interested > in open access. Statements of support are always welcome. But as we are talking pragmatics rather than ideology: It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops its "you may if you wish but not if you must" clause, which is not only incoherent, but intimidates authors. (This would also help counteract some of the rather bad press Elsevier has been getting lately...) http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/822-.html Stevan Harnad Begin forwarded message: From: Stevan Harnad Date: May 11, 2012 8:11:19 AM EDT To: "Global Open Access List \(Successor of AmSci\)" Subject: [GOAL] Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized" El 11/05/2012 11:19, Wise, Alicia (Elsevier) asked: [W]hat positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized? Dr Alicia Wise Director of Universal Access Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com I Twitter: @wisealic On 2012-05-11, at 6:13 AM, Reme Melero wrote: I would recommend the following change in one clause of the What rights do I retain as a journal author*? stated in Elsevier's portal, which says "the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your personal or institutional website or server for scholarly purposes*, incorporating the complete citation and with a link to the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the article (but not in subject-oriented or centralized repositories or institutional repositories with mandates for systematic postings unless there is a specific agreement with
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On 2012-05-12, at 8:20 AM, Richard Poynder wrote:
> List members will doubtless correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that
> the nub of this issue is that Peter Murray-Rust believes that when a research
> library pays a subscription for a scholarly journal (or a collection of
> journals) the subscription should give researchers at that institution the
> right both to read the content with their eyeballs, and to mine it with their
> machines -- and that this should be viewed as an automatic right.
Licensing rights are an excellent topic for the
Library licensing list: LibLicense-L Discussion
Forum liblicens...@listserv.crl.edu
I am not implying that they should not be discussed
on the Global Open Access List (GOAL) too, when
they are relevant to OA.
But it seems to me that when the Director for
Universal Access of a rather large publisher
posts a query to an open access list about
what we wish to encourage publishers to do
(and praise), we should encourage and praise
measures that will help us reach OA, not
measures that are either orthogonal to OA or
even potential sops to sweeten the failure to
rescind measures that make it harder to
reach OA.
Stevan Harnad
> On 11/05/2012 11:19, Wise, Alicia (Elsevier) asked:
>> [W]hat positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to
>> facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly
>> communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized?
>> Dr Alicia Wise
>> Director of Universal Access
>> Elsevier
>> On 2012-05-11, at 6:47 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
>>
>>> Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from me. The
>>> publishers should withdraw contractual restrictions on content-mining.
>>> That's all they need to do.
>>> If Alicia Wise can say "yes" to me unreservedly, I'll be happy.
>
> SH: So let's all forget about OA...
>> Elsevier's shameful, cynical, self-serving and incoherent
>> clause about "mandates for systematic postings" ("you may
>> post if you wish but not if you must"), which attempts
>> to take it all back, should be dropped, immediately.
>>
>> That clause -- added when Elsevier realized that
>> Green Gratis OA mandates were catching on -- is a
>> paradigmatic example of the publisher FUD and
>> double-talk. It has no legal force or meaning, but it
>> scares authors.
>>
>> Dropping it would be a great cause for encouragement,
>> celebration and recognition, and would put Elsevier
>> irreversibly on the side of the angels.
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
Hi all, I agree that we are mixing up several issues/objectives, and helpfully Keith has identified some of these. I can think of a few others and I suspect there are more strands in this knot which others will hopefully identify. * we are probably conflating needs/practices in different disciplines * we are certainly conflating temporal challenges - how we xxx or yyy in 2012 may be different from the way we do it in 2015 or 2020. Text mining is an example. * we sometimes construct the false dichotomy of an open access world vs. a subscription world - there is already a blend of gold, green, subscription, and other business models, and there will continue to be for awhile (possibly forever) * we conflate pragmatic and idealistic discussions and yet need both * we too often duck the important issue of funding - for example could the dynamics of sustainable gold+green be different from the dynamics of sustainable subscription+green? Could the price be different for gratis gold oa vs. libre gold oa? To refer back to my original query about what positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized let me be cheeky and suggest one. The recent STM public statement that publishers support sustainable open access (http://www.stm-assoc.org/publishers-support-sustainable-open-access/) is one thing I would suggest should be celebrated by others who are also interested in open access. With very kind wishes, Alicia Dr Alicia Wise Director of Universal Access Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com I Twitter: @wisealic -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of keith.jeff...@stfc.ac.uk Sent: 12 May 2012 15:47 To: goal@eprints.org Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized" All - I have been following the several threads of argument with interest. As I see it recent postings on this list are mixing up several issues/objectives, confusions, mechanisms for access and utilisation and mechanisms to achieve any kind of OA. Issues and Objectives - 1. how do we get gratis OA (free access to eyeball) for all researchers (and others including the public) everywhere; 2. how do we get libre OA (including data mining and other machine processing of articles) for all researchers (and others including the public) everywhere; 3. how do we get libre OA (including processing of datasets associated with a publication using associated software or other software) for all researchers (and others including the public) everywhere; Confusions -- Confusing each of these objectives is the position (or more accurately different and evolving positions) of the commercial publishers - including the OA publishers - and the learned societies in role publisher. Many allow (1) but Elsevier has the unfortunate 'not if mandated' clause. Attempting to expedite these objectives are mandates by research institutions and funding organisations. However even here there is no clear recommendation emerging on either green (subscription-based) or gold (author pays) for each of (1),(2). It appears clear that gold is more expensive - at least for now - for high production research institutions. There is no settled position yet on whether green or gold for publications are applicable to (3). The situation in each case is not assisted by current legislation in each country on copyright and database right. (3) in the academic environment is becoming convolved with the 'data.gov' agenda and citizen access. The rights of the public to have gratis/libre access to publicly-funded research products is a moralistic backdrop to the whole argument. The commercial publishers understandably wish to preserve their (very profitable) business model as there is a (slow) transition from subscription access to some other model(s) such as author pays access. In a world where ICT is making (re-engineered) processes in business much more effective (including increased offerings), efficient and less costly it is surprising one does not see similar improvements in scholarly communication. Access and Utilisation -- There are requirements (a) to find the article or dataset (with software) of interest and (b) to utilise it effectively (including text-mining or deeper mining of publications and data processing of datasets). Furthermore, in general there are requirements to do this locally (for specific institutional or funder purposes) or globally (find all articles on left-handed widgets'). In all cases metadata is required
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On 2012-05-12, at 8:42 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: > Thought experiment: what if authors posted to their personal sites, but with > enough metadata (e.g. http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle) for generic (rather > than topical/institutional) search engine discovery to be feasible? 1. If 100% of authors posted (self-archived) the full-text of their articles, free for all, on their websites, we would have 100% OA; there would be no need to post to topical or institutional repositories, and google-style full-text indexing would do the rest. 2. The trouble is that 80% of authors do not post the full-text of their articles, free for all, *anywhere*. 3. That's why we need Institutional Repositories, and (Green, Gratis) OA self-archiving (posting) mandates from institutions and funders. 4. And that's why it matters what we put on out wish-list for well-intentioned publishers. 5. Metadata have next to nothing to do with it: It's about the posting (anywhere, free online) of the full-text. > On 2012-05-11, at 6:47 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: > >> Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from me. The >> publishers should withdraw contractual restrictions on content-mining. >> That's all they need to do. >> >> If Alicia Wise can say "yes" to me unreservedly, I'll be happy. > > So let's all forget about OA... ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: > For my part I will continue my narrow focus on the goal of getting OA > (sic) universally provided. It had been my (foolish) fancy that that was > GOAL's goal too! > > I am quite happy for the list members, guided by the moderator, to decide whether or not content mining should be in scope for this list. If they decide not, I'm happy - in conjunction with others - to explore a new list. It may be the best solution. And in any case I should applaud Stevan for having created the GOAL list and also decided to hand it over to RP when the time was right. In Open Source I have termed this the "Doctor Who model". ( http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/19/1326254/the-doctor-who-model-of-open-source) [...] > > PS For the terminologically tipsy: Unrestricted article content-mining, > like Google's book content-mining, would allow the extraction and > republication of "factual data" from journal articles by licensees, but it > would not provide unlicensed users with access to the full-text. > That is very clearly put and effectively exactly what I am asking for. I'm not quite sure what "terminology" has to do with it - I don't know a formal term for it - yet. > > > -- 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@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
ual research product, NOT the channel (i.e. impact factors); (4) clarity on rights issues - ideally their removal for publicly-funded research products; (5) recognition and reward for making research products available fully OA; But above all a consistent, clear, simple message to all from the 'in favour of OA' community. Best Keith Keith G Jeffery Director International Relations STFC --- The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it The STFC telecommunications systems may be monitored in accordance with the policy available from <http://dlitd.dl.ac.uk/policy/monitoring/monitoring%20statement.htm>. -- -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 12 May 2012 14:03 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized" On 2012-05-12, at 8:42 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: > Thought experiment: what if authors posted to their personal sites, but with > enough metadata (e.g. http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle) for generic (rather > than topical/institutional) search engine discovery to be feasible? 1. If 100% of authors posted (self-archived) the full-text of their articles, free for all, on their websites, we would have 100% OA; there would be no need to post to topical or institutional repositories, and google-style full-text indexing would do the rest. 2. The trouble is that 80% of authors do not post the full-text of their articles, free for all, *anywhere*. 3. That's why we need Institutional Repositories, and (Green, Gratis) OA self-archiving (posting) mandates from institutions and funders. 4. And that's why it matters what we put on out wish-list for well-intentioned publishers. 5. Metadata have next to nothing to do with it: It's about the posting (anywhere, free online) of the full-text. > On 2012-05-11, at 6:47 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: > >> Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from me. The >> publishers should withdraw contractual restrictions on content-mining. >> That's all they need to do. >> >> If Alicia Wise can say "yes" to me unreservedly, I'll be happy. > > So let's all forget about OA... ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Scanned by iCritical. ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On 2012-05-11, at 6:47 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from
me. The publishers should withdraw contractual restrictions on
content-mining. That's all they need to do.
If Alicia Wise can say "yes" to me unreservedly, I'll be happy.
So let's all forget about OA...Â
(If I were a subscription publisher, eager to sustain my income streams, I would
certainly be more than happy  to accommodate this "low bar" in order to put
paid
to the clamour for OA. It would even help draw users to my paid content, the way
Google's book content-mining does!)
Human cognition is endlessly puzzling. I'm good on OA but hopeless on human
cognition (even though that's my research specialty, not OA!). Social historians
will do a better job making sense of it all (but only after the present
generation is gone and the web generation has become the senior one).
For my part I will continue my narrow focus on the goal of getting OA (sic)
universally provided. It had been my (foolish) fancy that that was GOAL's goal
too!
Back to discussing defamation...
Stevan Harnad
PS For the terminologically tipsy: Unrestricted article content-mining, like
Google's book content-mining, would allow the extraction and republication of
"factual data" from journal articles by licensees, but it would not provide
unlicensed users with access to the full-text. (Asking for that too would not
just be raising the bar, but asking to take over the whole store.)
On 2012-05-11, at 8:11 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote:
**Cross-Posted**
El 11/05/2012 11:19, Wise, Alicia (Elsevier) asked:
[W]hat positive things are established scholarly
publishers doing to facilitate the various visions
for open access and future scholarly
communications that should be encouraged,
celebrated, recognized? Â Â
Dr Alicia Wise
Director of Universal Access
Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford
I OX5 1GB
P: +44 (0)1865 843317Â IÂ M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I
E: a.w...@elsevier.com I
Twitter: @wisealic
On 2012-05-11, at 6:13 AM, Reme Melero wrote:
I would recommend the following change in one clause of theÂ
What rights do I retain as a journal author*? stated in
Elsevier's portal, which says
"the right to post a revised personal version of the text of
the final journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer
review process) on your personal or institutional website or
server for scholarly purposes*, incorporating the complete
citation and with a link to the Digital Object Identifier
(DOI) of the article (but not in subject-oriented or
centralized repositories or institutional repositories with
mandates for systematic postings unless there is a specific
agreement with the publisher. Click here
for further information);"
By this one:
"the right to post a revised personal version of the text of
the final journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer
review process) on your personal, institutional website,Â
subject-oriented or centralized repositories or institutional
repositories or server for scholarly purposes, incorporating
the complete citation and with a link to the Digital Object
Identifier (DOI) of the article "
I think this could be something to be encouraged, celebrated
and recognized!
That would be fine. Or even this simpler one would be fine:
"the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final
journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process)Â on
your personal, institutional website or institutional repositories or
server for scholarly purposes, incorporating the complete citation and
with a link to the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the article "
The metadata and link can be harvested from theÂ
institutional repositories by institution-externalÂ
repositories or search services, and the shameful,
cynical, self-serving and incoherent clause aboutÂ
"mandates  for systematic postings"  ("you mayÂ
post if you wish but not if you must"), which attemptsÂ
to take it all back, is dropped.
That clause -- added when Elsevier realized that
Green Gratis OA mandates were catching on --Â is aÂ
paradigmatic example of the publisher FUD andÂ
double-talk that Andrew Adams and others wereÂ
referring to on GOAL.
Dropping it would be a great cause for encouragement,Â
celebration and recognition, and would put Elsevier
irreversibly on the side of the angels.
Stevan Harnad
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On 2012-05-12, at 8:20 AM, Richard Poynder wrote:
> List members will doubtless correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that
> the nub of this issue is that Peter Murray-Rust believes that when a research
> library pays a subscription for a scholarly journal (or a collection of
> journals) the subscription should give researchers at that institution the
> right both to read the content with their eyeballs, and to mine it with their
> machines -- and that this should be viewed as an automatic right.
Licensing rights are an excellent topic for the
Library licensing list: LibLicense-L Discussion
Forum liblicens...@listserv.crl.edu
I am not implying that they should not be discussed
on the Global Open Access List (GOAL) too, when
they are relevant to OA.
But it seems to me that when the Director for
Universal Access of a rather large publisher
posts a query to an open access list about
what we wish to encourage publishers to do
(and praise), we should encourage and praise
measures that will help us reach OA, not
measures that are either orthogonal to OA or
even potential sops to sweeten the failure to
rescind measures that make it harder to
reach OA.
Stevan Harnad
> On 11/05/2012 11:19, Wise, Alicia (Elsevier) asked:
>> [W]hat positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to
>> facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly
>> communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized?
>> Dr Alicia Wise
>> Director of Universal Access
>> Elsevier
>> On 2012-05-11, at 6:47 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
>>
>>> Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from me. The
>>> publishers should withdraw contractual restrictions on content-mining.
>>> That's all they need to do.
>>> If Alicia Wise can say "yes" to me unreservedly, I'll be happy.
>
> SH: So let's all forget about OA...
>> Elsevier's shameful, cynical, self-serving and incoherent
>> clause about "mandates for systematic postings" ("you may
>> post if you wish but not if you must"), which attempts
>> to take it all back, should be dropped, immediately.
>>
>> That clause -- added when Elsevier realized that
>> Green Gratis OA mandates were catching on -- is a
>> paradigmatic example of the publisher FUD and
>> double-talk. It has no legal force or meaning, but it
>> scares authors.
>>
>> Dropping it would be a great cause for encouragement,
>> celebration and recognition, and would put Elsevier
>> irreversibly on the side of the angels.
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On 2012-05-12, at 8:42 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: > Thought experiment: what if authors posted to their personal sites, but with > enough metadata (e.g. http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle) for generic (rather > than topical/institutional) search engine discovery to be feasible? 1. If 100% of authors posted (self-archived) the full-text of their articles, free for all, on their websites, we would have 100% OA; there would be no need to post to topical or institutional repositories, and google-style full-text indexing would do the rest. 2. The trouble is that 80% of authors do not post the full-text of their articles, free for all, *anywhere*. 3. That's why we need Institutional Repositories, and (Green, Gratis) OA self-archiving (posting) mandates from institutions and funders. 4. And that's why it matters what we put on out wish-list for well-intentioned publishers. 5. Metadata have next to nothing to do with it: It's about the posting (anywhere, free online) of the full-text. > On 2012-05-11, at 6:47 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: > >> Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from me. The >> publishers should withdraw contractual restrictions on content-mining. >> That's all they need to do. >> >> If Alicia Wise can say "yes" to me unreservedly, I'll be happy. > > So let's all forget about OA... ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
[snip] Thought experiment: what if authors posted to their personal sites, but with enough metadata (e.g. http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle) for generic (rather than topical/institutional) search engine discovery to be feasible? Dan (hatless) ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
On 2012-05-11, at 6:47 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from me. The
> publishers should withdraw contractual restrictions on content-mining. That's
> all they need to do.
>
> If Alicia Wise can say "yes" to me unreservedly, I'll be happy.
So let's all forget about OA...
(If I were a subscription publisher, eager to sustain my income streams, I
would certainly be more than happy to accommodate this "low bar" in order to
put paid to the clamour for OA. It would even help draw users to my paid
content, the way Google's book content-mining does!)
Human cognition is endlessly puzzling. I'm good on OA but hopeless on human
cognition (even though that's my research specialty, not OA!). Social
historians will do a better job making sense of it all (but only after the
present generation is gone and the web generation has become the senior one).
For my part I will continue my narrow focus on the goal of getting OA (sic)
universally provided. It had been my (foolish) fancy that that was GOAL's goal
too!
Back to discussing defamation...
Stevan Harnad
PS For the terminologically tipsy: Unrestricted article content-mining, like
Google's book content-mining, would allow the extraction and republication of
"factual data" from journal articles by licensees, but it would not provide
unlicensed users with access to the full-text. (Asking for that too would not
just be raising the bar, but asking to take over the whole store.)
On 2012-05-11, at 8:11 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> **Cross-Posted**
>
>> El 11/05/2012 11:19, Wise, Alicia (Elsevier) asked:
>
>>> [W]hat positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to
>>> facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly
>>> communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized?
>>> Dr Alicia Wise
>>> Director of Universal Access
>>> Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB
>>> P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com I
>>> Twitter: @wisealic
>
>
> On 2012-05-11, at 6:13 AM, Reme Melero wrote:
>
>> I would recommend the following change in one clause of the What rights do
>> I retain as a journal author*? stated in Elsevier's portal, which says
>>
>> "the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final
>> journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your
>> personal or institutional website or server for scholarly purposes*,
>> incorporating the complete citation and with a link to the Digital Object
>> Identifier (DOI) of the article (but not in subject-oriented or centralized
>> repositories or institutional repositories with mandates for systematic
>> postings unless there is a specific agreement with the publisher.
>> Click here for further information);"
>>
>> By this one:
>>
>> "the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final
>> journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your
>> personal, institutional website, subject-oriented or centralized
>> repositories or institutional repositories or server for scholarly purposes,
>> incorporating the complete citation and with a link to the Digital Object
>> Identifier (DOI) of the article "
>>
>> I think this could be something to be encouraged, celebrated and recognized!
>
> That would be fine. Or even this simpler one would be fine:
>
> "the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final
> journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your
> personal, institutional website or institutional repositories or server for
> scholarly purposes, incorporating the complete citation and with a link to
> the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the article "
>
> The metadata and link can be harvested from the
> institutional repositories by institution-external
> repositories or search services, and the shameful,
> cynical, self-serving and incoherent clause about
> "mandates for systematic postings" ("you may
> post if you wish but not if you must"), which attempts
> to take it all back, is dropped.
>
> That clause -- added when Elsevier realized that
> Green Gratis OA mandates were catching on -- is a
> paradigmatic example of the publisher FUD and
> double-talk that Andrew Adams and others were
> referring to on GOAL.
>
> Dropping it would be a great cause for encouragement,
> celebration and recognition, and would put Elsevier
> irreversibly on the side of the angels.
>
> Stevan Harnad
> ___
> 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
