[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-12 Thread Rzepa Henry 

On 12 May 2012, at 15:37, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:

> This is a very good summary - as a;ways RP gets to the essence with clarity.
> 
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Richard Poynder > wrote:
> 
>> List members will doubtless correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me
>> that the nub of this issue is that Peter Murray-Rust believes that when a
>> research library pays a subscription for a scholarly journal (or a
>> collection of journals) the subscription should give researchers at that
>> institution the right both to read the content with their eyeballs, and to
>> mine it with their machines -- and that this should be viewed as an
>> automatic right.

I consider myself a practicing scientist, who has probably wasted  1000s of 
hours (as have my students) scanning 1000s of articles over the years, with the 
aim of tracking down a single (and unindexed) fact which may or may not be 
contained in free text, and wondering why my time was in effect being so 
wasted. Multiply that up a million times or so and the wasted time accumulates 
rather impressively. Worse, students may be tempted to avoid this pain by not 
doing it. There are many examples of re-invention of the wheel because  the 
literature can be so impenetrable to  (and as Peter argues, less so to 
a trained  machine which does not get bored). 


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-12 Thread Peter Murray-Rust 
ke silence as assent that this is agreed.
 

  Finally, we have an existing agreement with the U of
  Cambridge library and we need to ensure there is some
  language in that agreement – or a side letter - to
  enable content-mining.  We aren’t far off at all – and I
  suspect we could resolve this in 1, possibly 2, quick
  conversations.  If you prefer not to interact with the
  Cambridge librarians, I can do this separately.


The librarian has indicated that it is important that I be allowed
to text-mine and believes that publishers should set out terms. I
will ask her permission whether I can reproduce her letter publicly.
She does not believe I should be wasting my research time
negotiation with indivdiual publishers and she sets out one
publisher (not Elsevier) as having made their terms clear. So the
first thing is for you to say something in plain language which says
what I can do.

I do not regard this as a negotiation. I believe I have rights and
will - with otherrs such as RichardP be putting out those rights
shortly. If libraries wish to agree on a more limited use I shall be
unhappy with them.
 

   

  Perhaps it would be helpful for me to clarify the
  important role that I believe the Cambridge library has
  to play.  This role is not to vet your research to see
  if you can carry it out, but to ensure that the language
  necessary to enable this to happen is included in their
  various agreements with publishers.


And to take out the restrictions that you have added.
 

   This is the way that libraries have been able to create
  the existing information environment on campus where
  you, and your colleagues, can access e-journals from
  home or your office or out in the field.  All the
  agreements/arrangements/technology that the library has
  put in place to create this environment, and to ensure
  that it is easy to access and use, are generally
  invisible to researchers - even those who use this
  information environment on a daily basis. 


And we pay enormous amounts for it. My grant income is paying
Elsevier, including you. IMO it is one fo the most inefficient uses
of public money. 

   

  This is the sort of environment/experience needed for
  researchers who wish to text mine as well.  As an early
  adopter – indeed a pioneer in text mining – you are
  forging a trail.  Librarians will help to maintain that
  trail so that many, many others can follow easily in
  your footsteps.


Let me be  clear. This discussion is wasting my time - I could be
doing research. If I have to do this with every publisher it will
destroy this research.

If I leave it to my librarians, then they may well agree to the
awful and restrictive deal that Elsevier forced on Heather Piwowar
at UBC where one researcher was given permission for one project.
She is not allowed to publish the full research openly so it's of no
use to me.

So I reiterate:
* a public statement that I can mine Elsevier journals in any amount
for whatever purpose and in whatever form.
* that I can publish the factual information extracted without
restriction.

I have no details of the negotiations you are transacting with my
library - I am a scientist not a contract negotiator. I have made my
wishes very clear to the library.

P.

   

  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: 11 May 2012 23:47


  To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
      Subject: [GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

 

 

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Richard Poynder
 wrote:

Many thanks to Alicia Wise for starting a new conversation
thread.

 

Let’s recall that Alicia’s question was, “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?”


Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email
from me. The publishers show withdraw contractual restrictions
on content-mining. That's all they need to do.

My university has paid Elsevier for subscription to the
content in Elsevier journals. I believe I have the right to
mine the content. Elsevier has written a contract which
forbids me to use this in any way other than reading with
human eyeballs - I cannot crawl it, index it, extract content
for whatever purpose. I have spent THREE years trying to deal
with Elsevier and get a straight answer.

Seehttp:

[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-12 Thread Arthur Sale 

Peter

 

To what extent does “fair-use” over-ride the publisher wishes? It seems to 
me
that the Australian copyright act is quite clear about using copyright material
for criticism, legal purposes, extracting data, etc, but I am not an expert in
UK law.

 

Lawyers could have a good argument too about whether copyright acts say anything
about eyeballing whatsoever. Is automatic text speaking (for blind persons) not
permitted, or reading aloud by others? Can the speech program not index the
material so one can find something one heard earlier?

 

This whole mess depends on totally obsolete copyright legislation.

 

Arthur Sale

Tasmania, Australia

 

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
Peter Murray-Rust
Sent: Saturday, 12 May 2012 8:47 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

 

 

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Richard Poynder 
wrote:

Many thanks to Alicia Wise for starting a new conversation thread.

 

Let’s recall that Alicia’s question was, “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?”


Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from me. The
publishers show withdraw contractual restrictions on content-mining. That's all
they need to do.

My university has paid Elsevier for subscription to the content in Elsevier
journals. I believe I have the right to mine the content. Elsevier has written a
contract which forbids me to use this in any way other than reading with human
eyeballs - I cannot crawl it, index it, extract content for whatever purpose. I
have spent THREE years trying to deal with Elsevier and get a straight answer.

Seehttp://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/11/27/textmining-my-years-negotiating-with-e
lsevier/

The most recent "discussions" ended with Alicia Wise suggesting that she and
Cambridge librarians discuss my proposed research and see if they could agree to
my carrying it out. I let the list decide whether this is a constructive offer
or a delaying tactic. It certainly does not scale if all researchers have to get
the permission of their librarians and every publisher before they can mine the
content in the literature. And why should a publisher decide what research I may
or may not do?

All of this is blogged on http://blogs.cam.ac.uk/pmr

Yes - I asked 6 toll-access publishers for permission to mine their content
before I submitted my opinion to the Hargreaves enquiry.  Of the 6 publishers
(which we in the process of summarising - this is hard because of the wooliness
of the language) the approximate answers were:
1 possibly
4 mumble (e.g. "let's discuss it with your librarians")
1 no (good old ACS pulls no punches - I'd rather have a straight "no" than
"mumble")
 
In no other market would vendors be allowed to get away with such awful customer
service. A straight question deserves a straight answer, but not in scholarly
publishing.

Just in case anyone doesn't understand content mining, the technology is
straightforward. The only reason it's not done is because Universities are
afraid of publishers. I estimate that tens of billions of dollars worth of value
is lost through being forbidden to mine the scholarly literature.

If Alicia Wise can say "yes" to me unreservedly, I'll be happy.

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: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-12 Thread Laurent Romary 
Librarians will help to maintain that trail so that
  many, many others can follow easily in your footsteps.


Let me be  clear. This discussion is wasting my time - I could be doing
research. If I have to do this with every publisher it will destroy this
research.

If I leave it to my librarians, then they may well agree to the awful and
restrictive deal that Elsevier forced on Heather Piwowar at UBC where one
researcher was given permission for one project. She is not allowed to
publish the full research openly so it's of no use to me.

So I reiterate:
* a public statement that I can mine Elsevier journals in any amount for
whatever purpose and in whatever form.
* that I can publish the factual information extracted without
restriction.

I have no details of the negotiations you are transacting with my library
- I am a scientist not a contract negotiator. I have made my wishes very
clear to the library.

P.

   

  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: 11 May 2012 23:47


  To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
      Subject: [GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

 

 

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Richard Poynder
 wrote:

Many thanks to Alicia Wise for starting a new conversation thread.

 

Let’s recall that Alicia’s question was, “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?”


Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from
me. The publishers show withdraw contractual restrictions on
content-mining. That's all they need to do.

My university has paid Elsevier for subscription to the content in
Elsevier journals. I believe I have the right to mine the content.
Elsevier has written a contract which forbids me to use this in any
way other than reading with human eyeballs - I cannot crawl it,
index it, extract content for whatever purpose. I have spent THREE
years trying to deal with Elsevier and get a straight answer.

Seehttp://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/11/27/textmining-my-years-negotiating-with-e
lsevier/

The most recent "discussions" ended with Alicia Wise suggesting that
she and Cambridge librarians discuss my proposed research and see if
they could agree to my carrying it out. I let the list decide
whether this is a constructive offer or a delaying tactic. It
certainly does not scale if all researchers have to get the
permission of their librarians and every publisher before they can
mine the content in the literature. And why should a publisher
decide what research I may or may not do?

All of this is blogged on http://blogs.cam.ac.uk/pmr

Yes - I asked 6 toll-access publishers for permission to mine their
content before I submitted my opinion to the Hargreaves enquiry.  Of
the 6 publishers (which we in the process of summarising - this is
hard because of the wooliness of the language) the approximate
answers were:
1 possibly
4 mumble (e.g. "let's discuss it with your librarians")
1 no (good old ACS pulls no punches - I'd rather have a straight
"no" than "mumble")
 
In no other market would vendors be allowed to get away with such
awful customer service. A straight question deserves a straight
answer, but not in scholarly publishing.

Just in case anyone doesn't understand content mining, the
technology is straightforward. The only reason it's not done is
because Universities are afraid of publishers. I estimate that tens
of billions of dollars worth of value is lost through being
forbidden to mine the scholarly literature.

If Alicia Wise can say "yes" to me unreservedly, I'll be happy.

P.







--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069

Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, O
xford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales).


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal




--
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


Laurent Romary
INRIA & HUB-IDSL
laurent.rom...@inria.fr






[ Part

[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-12 Thread Richard Poynder 
ut terms. I will ask
her permission whether I can reproduce her letter publicly. She does not
believe I should be wasting my research time negotiation with indivdiual
publishers and she sets out one publisher (not Elsevier) as having made
their terms clear. So the first thing is for you to say something in plain
language which says what I can do.

I do not regard this as a negotiation. I believe I have rights and will -
with otherrs such as RichardP be putting out those rights shortly. If
libraries wish to agree on a more limited use I shall be unhappy with
them.
 

   

  Perhaps it would be helpful for me to clarify the important
  role that I believe the Cambridge library has to play.  This
  role is not to vet your research to see if you can carry it
  out, but to ensure that the language necessary to enable this
  to happen is included in their various agreements with
  publishers.


And to take out the restrictions that you have added.
 

   This is the way that libraries have been able to create the
  existing information environment on campus where you, and your
  colleagues, can access e-journals from home or your office or
  out in the field.  All the agreements/arrangements/technology
  that the library has put in place to create this environment,
  and to ensure that it is easy to access and use, are generally
  invisible to researchers - even those who use this information
  environment on a daily basis. 


And we pay enormous amounts for it. My grant income is paying Elsevier,
including you. IMO it is one fo the most inefficient uses of public
money. 

   

  This is the sort of environment/experience needed for
  researchers who wish to text mine as well.  As an early
  adopter – indeed a pioneer in text mining – you are forging a
  trail.  Librarians will help to maintain that trail so that
  many, many others can follow easily in your footsteps.


Let me be  clear. This discussion is wasting my time - I could be doing
research. If I have to do this with every publisher it will destroy this
research.

If I leave it to my librarians, then they may well agree to the awful and
restrictive deal that Elsevier forced on Heather Piwowar at UBC where one
researcher was given permission for one project. She is not allowed to
publish the full research openly so it's of no use to me.

So I reiterate:
* a public statement that I can mine Elsevier journals in any amount for
whatever purpose and in whatever form.
* that I can publish the factual information extracted without
restriction.

I have no details of the negotiations you are transacting with my library
- I am a scientist not a contract negotiator. I have made my wishes very
clear to the library.

P.

   

  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: 11 May 2012 23:47


  To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
      Subject: [GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

 

 

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Richard Poynder
 wrote:

Many thanks to Alicia Wise for starting a new conversation thread.

 

Let’s recall that Alicia’s question was, “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?”


Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from
me. The publishers show withdraw contractual restrictions on
content-mining. That's all they need to do.

My university has paid Elsevier for subscription to the content in
Elsevier journals. I believe I have the right to mine the content.
Elsevier has written a contract which forbids me to use this in any
way other than reading with human eyeballs - I cannot crawl it,
index it, extract content for whatever purpose. I have spent THREE
years trying to deal with Elsevier and get a straight answer.

Seehttp://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/11/27/textmining-my-years-negotiating-with-e
lsevier/

The most recent "discussions" ended with Alicia Wise suggesting that
she and Cambridge librarians discuss my proposed research and see if
they could agree to my carrying it out. I let the list decide
whether this is a constructive offer or a delaying tactic. It
certainly does not scale if all researchers have to get the
permission of their librarians and every publisher before they can
mine the content in the literature. And why should a publisher
decide what research I may or may not do?

All of this is bl

[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-12 Thread Peter Murray-Rust 
research openly so it's of no use to me.

So I reiterate:
* a public statement that I can mine Elsevier journals in any amount for
whatever purpose and in whatever form.
* that I can publish the factual information extracted without restriction.

I have no details of the negotiations you are transacting with my library - I am
a scientist not a contract negotiator. I have made my wishes very clear to the
library.

P.

   

  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: 11 May 2012 23:47


  To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
      Subject: [GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

 

 

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Richard Poynder
 wrote:

Many thanks to Alicia Wise for starting a new conversation thread.

 

Let’s recall that Alicia’s question was, “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?”


Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from me. The
publishers show withdraw contractual restrictions on content-mining.
That's all they need to do.

My university has paid Elsevier for subscription to the content in
Elsevier journals. I believe I have the right to mine the content.
Elsevier has written a contract which forbids me to use this in any way
other than reading with human eyeballs - I cannot crawl it, index it,
extract content for whatever purpose. I have spent THREE years trying to
deal with Elsevier and get a straight answer.

Seehttp://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/11/27/textmining-my-years-negotiating-with-e
lsevier/

The most recent "discussions" ended with Alicia Wise suggesting that she
and Cambridge librarians discuss my proposed research and see if they
could agree to my carrying it out. I let the list decide whether this is a
constructive offer or a delaying tactic. It certainly does not scale if
all researchers have to get the permission of their librarians and every
publisher before they can mine the content in the literature. And why
should a publisher decide what research I may or may not do?

All of this is blogged on http://blogs.cam.ac.uk/pmr

Yes - I asked 6 toll-access publishers for permission to mine their
content before I submitted my opinion to the Hargreaves enquiry.  Of the 6
publishers (which we in the process of summarising - this is hard because
of the wooliness of the language) the approximate answers were:
1 possibly
4 mumble (e.g. "let's discuss it with your librarians")
1 no (good old ACS pulls no punches - I'd rather have a straight "no" than
"mumble")
 
In no other market would vendors be allowed to get away with such awful
customer service. A straight question deserves a straight answer, but not
in scholarly publishing.

Just in case anyone doesn't understand content mining, the technology is
straightforward. The only reason it's not done is because Universities are
afraid of publishers. I estimate that tens of billions of dollars worth of
value is lost through being forbidden to mine the scholarly literature.

If Alicia Wise can say "yes" to me unreservedly, I'll be happy.

P.







--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069

Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, O
xford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales).


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal




--
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: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-12 Thread Peter Murray-Rust 


On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Arthur Sale  wrote:

  Peter

   

  To what extent does “fair-use” over-ride the publisher wishes?


Inhttp://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/blog/fair-use/lessig-fair-use-and-open-vide
o-alliance Lessig reiterates "fair use if the right to call a lawyer".
EVERYTHING depends on the law. The law of the land trumps everything.

If I am arrested in a police station I have rights. I know them by heart - I
have been there so many times. "You have the right to remain silent". The law
and case law gives me that right.

In scholpub there are two laws:
* the law of the land. It differs by jurisdiction. There is no "fair use" in UK.
In other jurisdictions it may depend on case law or it may depend on getting a
judicial review. In scholpub there is no case law because no University would
dare to challenge the publishers - it is left to individuals (I do not expect my
University to help me in this regard)
* the law of the publishers. The publishers have set their own arbitrary law
through their contracts. You may NOT do x,y,z. There is no reason why
universities have to agree to these contracts but they universally and
comprehensively give in to the publishers. They even agree to secrecy on these
negotiations so we don't even know what they have given into.

Hargreaves has said that these contracts are unacceptable and they should be
removed. The IPO(UK) and other organs are in the process of reviewing
submissions to Hargreaves and will come up with legal instruments (not
necessarily acts of Parliament) which will (I hope) forbid restrictive
contracts.

Alicia Wise asks how she can help. Elsevier set these restrictions - Elsevier
can remove them today if they wished.

If she is true to form there will be lots of apparently helpful words that "we
want to help" but no absolute permission. Read what she writes carefully to see
if she has actually given any substance or it's only "let's start a discussion".
Discussions have wasted three year of my research and made no progress.
 

  It seems to me that the Australian copyright act is quite clear
  about using copyright material for criticism, legal purposes,
  extracting data, etc, but I am not an expert in UK law.

   

  Lawyers could have a good argument too about whether copyright acts
  say anything about eyeballing whatsoever. Is automatic text speaking
  (for blind persons) not permitted, or reading aloud by others? Can
  the speech program not index the material so one can find something
  one heard earlier?


The great thing about being a l;awyer is that people like me have to pay lots of
money to find out what I can and cannot do. The Universities should do this.

P.

   

  This whole mess depends on totally obsolete copyright legislation.

   


And on publishers who are unwilling to change their business model. The real
problem for Open Access is the publishers, isn't it.

--
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: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-12 Thread Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) 

Hi Peter,

 

Thanks for this.  I’ve communicated that we are happy in principle for you to
mine our content, and there are only some practical issues to resolve.  We have
successfully concluded the technical discussion, and I believe you, your
colleagues, and my technical colleagues are all happy with the proposed
technical mechanism.  Next, I’ld like to double-check that I have correctly
understood what you and your colleagues will do and who will have access to
which content/extracts.  Finally, we have an existing agreement with the U of
Cambridge library and we need to ensure there is some language in that agreement
– or a side letter - to enable content-mining.  We aren’t far off at all 
– and I
suspect we could resolve this in 1, possibly 2, quick conversations.  If you
prefer not to interact with the Cambridge librarians, I can do this separately.

 

Perhaps it would be helpful for me to clarify the important role that I believe
the Cambridge library has to play.  This role is not to vet your research to 
see
if you can carry it out, but to ensure that the language necessary to enable
this to happen is included in their various agreements with publishers.  This 
is
the way that libraries have been able to create the existing information
environment on campus where you, and your colleagues, can access e-journals from
home or your office or out in the field.  All the
agreements/arrangements/technology that the library has put in place to create
this environment, and to ensure that it is easy to access and use, are generally
invisible to researchers - even those who use this information environment on a
daily basis. 

 

This is the sort of environment/experience needed for researchers who wish to
text mine as well.  As an early adopter – indeed a pioneer in text mining 
– you
are forging a trail.  Librarians will help to maintain that trail so that many,
many others can follow easily in your footsteps.

 

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: 11 May 2012 23:47
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

 

 

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Richard Poynder 
wrote:

Many thanks to Alicia Wise for starting a new conversation thread.

 

Let’s recall that Alicia’s question was, “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?”


Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from me. The
publishers show withdraw contractual restrictions on content-mining. That's all
they need to do.

My university has paid Elsevier for subscription to the content in Elsevier
journals. I believe I have the right to mine the content. Elsevier has written a
contract which forbids me to use this in any way other than reading with human
eyeballs - I cannot crawl it, index it, extract content for whatever purpose. I
have spent THREE years trying to deal with Elsevier and get a straight answer.

Seehttp://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/11/27/textmining-my-years-negotiating-with-e
lsevier/

The most recent "discussions" ended with Alicia Wise suggesting that she and
Cambridge librarians discuss my proposed research and see if they could agree to
my carrying it out. I let the list decide whether this is a constructive offer
or a delaying tactic. It certainly does not scale if all researchers have to get
the permission of their librarians and every publisher before they can mine the
content in the literature. And why should a publisher decide what research I may
or may not do?

All of this is blogged on http://blogs.cam.ac.uk/pmr

Yes - I asked 6 toll-access publishers for permission to mine their content
before I submitted my opinion to the Hargreaves enquiry.  Of the 6 publishers
(which we in the process of summarising - this is hard because of the wooliness
of the language) the approximate answers were:
1 possibly
4 mumble (e.g. "let's discuss it with your librarians")
1 no (good old ACS pulls no punches - I'd rather have a straight "no" than
"mumble")
 
In no other market would vendors be allowed to get away with such awful customer
service. A straight question deserves a straight answer, but not in scholarly
publishing.

Just in case anyone doesn't understand content mining, the technology is
straightforward. The only reason it's not done is because Universities are
afraid of publishers. I estimate that tens of billions of dollars worth of value
is lost through being forbidden to m

[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-12 Thread Rzepa Henry 

On 12 May 2012, at 15:37, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:

> This is a very good summary - as a;ways RP gets to the essence with clarity.
> 
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Richard Poynder > wrote:
> 
>> List members will doubtless correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me
>> that the nub of this issue is that Peter Murray-Rust believes that when a
>> research library pays a subscription for a scholarly journal (or a
>> collection of journals) the subscription should give researchers at that
>> institution the right both to read the content with their eyeballs, and to
>> mine it with their machines -- and that this should be viewed as an
>> automatic right.

I consider myself a practicing scientist, who has probably wasted  1000s of 
hours (as have my students) scanning 1000s of articles over the years, with the 
aim of tracking down a single (and unindexed) fact which may or may not be 
contained in free text, and wondering why my time was in effect being so 
wasted. Multiply that up a million times or so and the wasted time accumulates 
rather impressively. Worse, students may be tempted to avoid this pain by not 
doing it. There are many examples of re-invention of the wheel because  the 
literature can be so impenetrable to  (and as Peter argues, less so to 
a trained  machine which does not get bored). 


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-12 Thread Reckling, Falk, Dr. 
Alicia,



Just a simple question: under what conditions Elsevier would be willing to 
change the business modell from subscriptions to OA?



All the best,

Falk





Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org]" im Auftrag von "Wise, 
Alicia (ELS-OXF) [a.w...@elsevier.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 11. Mai 2012 11:19
An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Betreff: [GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

Hi all,

I’m glad we’re now moving our conversation on in new directions, and I’ld 
like to suggest one which I hope will be productive.  The discussion on this 
list often seems to me be based on the assumption that scholarly publishers are 
a wholly negative force in the open access world, and a community to be 
avoided/undermined/mistrusted at all costs.  This feels unwarranted to me – 
and perhaps other publishers on this list who are not so audacious as to stick 
their heads over the parapet.  So, knowing that positive messages are powerful 
ways to influence:  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?

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 
CHARLES OPPENHEIM
Sent: 11 May 2012 09:27
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] UK Defamation Bill and OA

This has just been published - see 
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0005/13005.pdf.  
Clause 6 gives special protection against defamation actions to peer reviewed 
scholarly articles (the first time peer review has figured in a piece of 
legislation??). This is something that scholarly publishers will no doubt pick 
up on as an argument against unrefereed green OA.

Charles

Professor Charles Oppenheim




Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, 
Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales).



___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-12 Thread Peter Murray-Rust 
 project, I expect to use 10,000 articles
> per year. So , in principle, I intend to mine millions per year.
>
> I shall take silence as assent that this is agreed.
>
>
>>   Finally, we have an existing agreement with the U of Cambridge library
>> and we need to ensure there is some language in that agreement – or a side
>> letter - to enable content-mining.  We aren’t far off at all – and I
>> suspect we could resolve this in 1, possibly 2, quick conversations.  If
>> you prefer not to interact with the Cambridge librarians, I can do this
>> separately.
>>
>
> The librarian has indicated that it is important that I be allowed to
> text-mine and believes that publishers should set out terms. I will ask her
> permission whether I can reproduce her letter publicly. She does not
> believe I should be wasting my research time negotiation with indivdiual
> publishers and she sets out one publisher (not Elsevier) as having made
> their terms clear. So the first thing is for you to say something in plain
> language which says what I can do.
>
> I do not regard this as a negotiation. I believe I have rights and will -
> with otherrs such as RichardP be putting out those rights shortly. If
> libraries wish to agree on a more limited use I shall be unhappy with them.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps it would be helpful for me to clarify the important role that I
>> believe the Cambridge library has to play.  This role is not to vet your
>> research to see if you can carry it out, but to ensure that the language
>> necessary to enable this to happen is included in their various agreements
>> with publishers.
>>
>
> And to take out the restrictions that you have added.
>
>
>>   This is the way that libraries have been able to create the existing
>> information environment on campus where you, and your colleagues, can
>> access e-journals from home or your office or out in the field.  All the
>> agreements/arrangements/technology that the library has put in place to
>> create this environment, and to ensure that it is easy to access and use,
>> are generally invisible to researchers - even those who use this
>> information environment on a daily basis.
>>
>
> And we pay enormous amounts for it. My grant income is paying Elsevier,
> including you. IMO it is one fo the most inefficient uses of public money.
>
>>
>>
>> This is the sort of environment/experience needed for researchers who
>> wish to text mine as well.  As an early adopter – indeed a pioneer in text
>> mining – you are forging a trail.  Librarians will help to maintain that
>> trail so that many, many others can follow easily in your footsteps.
>>
>
> Let me be  clear. This discussion is wasting my time - I could be doing
> research. If I have to do this with every publisher it will destroy this
> research.
>
> If I leave it to my librarians, then they may well agree to the awful and
> restrictive deal that Elsevier forced on Heather Piwowar at UBC where one
> researcher was given permission for one project. She is not allowed to
> publish the full research openly so it's of no use to me.
>
> So I reiterate:
> * a public statement that I can mine Elsevier journals in any amount for
> whatever purpose and in whatever form.
> * that I can publish the factual information extracted without restriction.
>
> I have no details of the negotiations you are transacting with my library
> - I am a scientist not a contract negotiator. I have made my wishes very
> clear to the library.
>
> P.
>
>
>>
>> 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 <%2B44%20%280%291865%20843317> I M: +44 (0) 7823
>> 536 826 <%2B44%20%280%29%207823%20536%20826> 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:* 11 May 2012 23:47
>>
>> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
>> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Richard Poynder <
>> ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Many thanks to Alicia Wise for starting a new conversation thread.
>>
>>
>>
>> Let’s recall that Alicia’s question was, “what positive things are
>> established sc

[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-12 Thread Laurent Romary 
;  
> 
> This is the sort of environment/experience needed for researchers who wish to 
> text mine as well.  As an early adopter – indeed a pioneer in text mining – 
> you are forging a trail.  Librarians will help to maintain that trail so that 
> many, many others can follow easily in your footsteps.
> 
> 
> Let me be  clear. This discussion is wasting my time - I could be doing 
> research. If I have to do this with every publisher it will destroy this 
> research.
> 
> If I leave it to my librarians, then they may well agree to the awful and 
> restrictive deal that Elsevier forced on Heather Piwowar at UBC where one 
> researcher was given permission for one project. She is not allowed to 
> publish the full research openly so it's of no use to me.
> 
> So I reiterate:
> * a public statement that I can mine Elsevier journals in any amount for 
> whatever purpose and in whatever form.
> * that I can publish the factual information extracted without restriction.
> 
> I have no details of the negotiations you are transacting with my library - I 
> am a scientist not a contract negotiator. I have made my wishes very clear to 
> the library.
> 
> P.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 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: 11 May 2012 23:47
> 
> 
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Richard Poynder  
> wrote:
> 
> Many thanks to Alicia Wise for starting a new conversation thread.
> 
>  
> 
> Let’s recall that Alicia’s question was, “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?”
> 
> 
> Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from me. The 
> publishers show withdraw contractual restrictions on content-mining. That's 
> all they need to do.
> 
> My university has paid Elsevier for subscription to the content in Elsevier 
> journals. I believe I have the right to mine the content. Elsevier has 
> written a contract which forbids me to use this in any way other than reading 
> with human eyeballs - I cannot crawl it, index it, extract content for 
> whatever purpose. I have spent THREE years trying to deal with Elsevier and 
> get a straight answer. 
> 
> See 
> http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/11/27/textmining-my-years-negotiating-with-elsevier/
> 
> The most recent "discussions" ended with Alicia Wise suggesting that she and 
> Cambridge librarians discuss my proposed research and see if they could agree 
> to my carrying it out. I let the list decide whether this is a constructive 
> offer or a delaying tactic. It certainly does not scale if all researchers 
> have to get the permission of their librarians and every publisher before 
> they can mine the content in the literature. And why should a publisher 
> decide what research I may or may not do?
> 
> All of this is blogged on http://blogs.cam.ac.uk/pmr
> 
> Yes - I asked 6 toll-access publishers for permission to mine their content 
> before I submitted my opinion to the Hargreaves enquiry.  Of the 6 publishers 
> (which we in the process of summarising - this is hard because of the 
> wooliness of the language) the approximate answers were:
> 1 possibly
> 4 mumble (e.g. "let's discuss it with your librarians")
> 1 no (good old ACS pulls no punches - I'd rather have a straight "no" than 
> "mumble")
>  
> In no other market would vendors be allowed to get away with such awful 
> customer service. A straight question deserves a straight answer, but not in 
> scholarly publishing.
> 
> Just in case anyone doesn't understand content mining, the technology is 
> straightforward. The only reason it's not done is because Universities are 
> afraid of publishers. I estimate that tens of billions of dollars worth of 
> value is lost through being forbidden to mine the scholarly literature.
> 
> If Alicia Wise can say "yes" to me unreservedly, I'll be happy.
> 
> P.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informati

[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-12 Thread Richard Poynder 
sk her permission whether I can reproduce her letter publicly. She 
does not believe I should be wasting my research time negotiation with 
indivdiual publishers and she sets out one publisher (not Elsevier) as 
having made their terms clear. So the first thing is for you to say 
something in plain language which says what I can do.


I do not regard this as a negotiation. I believe I have rights and 
will - with otherrs such as RichardP be putting out those rights 
shortly. If libraries wish to agree on a more limited use I shall be 
unhappy with them.


Perhaps it would be helpful for me to clarify the important role
that I believe the Cambridge library has to play.  This role is
not to vet your research to see if you can carry it out, but to
ensure that the language necessary to enable this to happen is
included in their various agreements with publishers.


And to take out the restrictions that you have added.

 This is the way that libraries have been able to create the
existing information environment on campus where you, and your
colleagues, can access e-journals from home or your office or out
in the field.  All the agreements/arrangements/technology that the
library has put in place to create this environment, and to ensure
that it is easy to access and use, are generally invisible to
researchers - even those who use this information environment on a
daily basis.


And we pay enormous amounts for it. My grant income is paying 
Elsevier, including you. IMO it is one fo the most inefficient uses of 
public money.


This is the sort of environment/experience needed for researchers
who wish to text mine as well.  As an early adopter -- indeed a
pioneer in text mining -- you are forging a trail.  Librarians
will help to maintain that trail so that many, many others can
follow easily in your footsteps.


Let me be  clear. This discussion is wasting my time - I could be 
doing research. If I have to do this with every publisher it will 
destroy this research.


If I leave it to my librarians, then they may well agree to the awful 
and restrictive deal that Elsevier forced on Heather Piwowar at UBC 
where one researcher was given permission for one project. She is not 
allowed to publish the full research openly so it's of no use to me.


So I reiterate:
* a public statement that I can mine Elsevier journals in any amount 
for whatever purpose and in whatever form.
* that I can publish the factual information extracted without 
restriction.


I have no details of the negotiations you are transacting with my 
library - I am a scientist not a contract negotiator. I have made my 
wishes very clear to the library.


P.

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 <mailto:a.w...@elsevier.com> I

*Twitter: @wisealic*

*From:*goal-boun...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org
<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>] *On Behalf Of *Peter Murray-Rust
*Sent:* 11 May 2012 23:47


*To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
*Subject:* [GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Richard Poynder
mailto:ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk>>
wrote:

Many thanks to Alicia Wise for starting a new conversation thread.

Let's recall that Alicia's question was, "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?"


Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from
me. The publishers show withdraw contractual restrictions on
content-mining. That's all they need to do.

My university has paid Elsevier for subscription to the content in
Elsevier journals. I believe I have the right to mine the content.
Elsevier has written a contract which forbids me to use this in
any way other than reading with human eyeballs - I cannot crawl
it, index it, extract content for whatever purpose. I have spent
THREE years trying to deal with Elsevier and get a straight answer.

See

http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/11/27/textmining-my-years-negotiating-with-elsevier/

The most recent "discussions" ended with Alicia Wise suggesting
that she and Cambridge librarians discuss my proposed research and
see if they could agree to my carrying it out. I let the list
decide whether this is a constructive offer or a delaying tactic.
It certainly does not scale if all researchers have to get the
permission of their librarians and every publisher before they can

[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-12 Thread Peter Murray-Rust 
ch openly so it's of no use to me.

So I reiterate:
* a public statement that I can mine Elsevier journals in any amount for
whatever purpose and in whatever form.
* that I can publish the factual information extracted without restriction.

I have no details of the negotiations you are transacting with my library -
I am a scientist not a contract negotiator. I have made my wishes very
clear to the library.

P.


>
> ** **
>
> 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.comi
> 
>
> *Twitter: @wisealic*
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Peter Murray-Rust
> *Sent:* 11 May 2012 23:47
>
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Richard Poynder <
> ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Many thanks to Alicia Wise for starting a new conversation thread. 
>
>  
>
> Let’s recall that Alicia’s question was, “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?”
>
>
> Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from me. The
> publishers show withdraw contractual restrictions on content-mining. That's
> all they need to do.
>
> My university has paid Elsevier for subscription to the content in
> Elsevier journals. I believe I have the right to mine the content. Elsevier
> has written a contract which forbids me to use this in any way other than
> reading with human eyeballs - I cannot crawl it, index it, extract content
> for whatever purpose. I have spent THREE years trying to deal with Elsevier
> and get a straight answer.
>
> See
> http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/11/27/textmining-my-years-negotiating-with-elsevier/
>
> The most recent "discussions" ended with Alicia Wise suggesting that she
> and Cambridge librarians discuss my proposed research and see if they could
> agree to my carrying it out. I let the list decide whether this is a
> constructive offer or a delaying tactic. It certainly does not scale if all
> researchers have to get the permission of their librarians and every
> publisher before they can mine the content in the literature. And why
> should a publisher decide what research I may or may not do?
>
> All of this is blogged on http://blogs.cam.ac.uk/pmr
>
> Yes - I asked 6 toll-access publishers for permission to mine their
> content before I submitted my opinion to the Hargreaves enquiry.  Of the 6
> publishers (which we in the process of summarising - this is hard because
> of the wooliness of the language) the approximate answers were:
> 1 possibly
> 4 mumble (e.g. "let's discuss it with your librarians")
> 1 no (good old ACS pulls no punches - I'd rather have a straight "no" than
> "mumble")
>
> In no other market would vendors be allowed to get away with such awful
> customer service. A straight question deserves a straight answer, but not
> in scholarly publishing.
>
> Just in case anyone doesn't understand content mining, the technology is
> straightforward. The only reason it's not done is because Universities are
> afraid of publishers. I estimate that tens of billions of dollars worth of
> value is lost through being forbidden to mine the scholarly literature.
>
> If Alicia Wise can say "yes" to me unreservedly, I'll be happy.
>
> P.
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
>
> Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, 
> Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 
> (England and Wales).
>
>
>
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>


-- 
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: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-12 Thread Reckling, Falk, Dr. 
Alicia,



Just a simple question: under what conditions Elsevier would be willing to 
change the business modell from subscriptions to OA?



All the best,

Falk





Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org]" im Auftrag von "Wise, 
Alicia (ELS-OXF) [a.w...@elsevier.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 11. Mai 2012 11:19
An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Betreff: [GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

Hi all,

I’m glad we’re now moving our conversation on in new directions, and I’ld like 
to suggest one which I hope will be productive.  The discussion on this list 
often seems to me be based on the assumption that scholarly publishers are a 
wholly negative force in the open access world, and a community to be 
avoided/undermined/mistrusted at all costs.  This feels unwarranted to me – and 
perhaps other publishers on this list who are not so audacious as to stick 
their heads over the parapet.  So, knowing that positive messages are powerful 
ways to influence:  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?

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 
CHARLES OPPENHEIM
Sent: 11 May 2012 09:27
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] UK Defamation Bill and OA

This has just been published - see 
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0005/13005.pdf.  
Clause 6 gives special protection against defamation actions to peer reviewed 
scholarly articles (the first time peer review has figured in a piece of 
legislation??). This is something that scholarly publishers will no doubt pick 
up on as an argument against unrefereed green OA.

Charles

Professor Charles Oppenheim




Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, 
Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales).



___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-12 Thread Peter Murray-Rust 
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Arthur Sale  wrote:

> Peter
>
> ** **
>
> To what extent does “fair-use” over-ride the publisher wishes?
>

In
http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/blog/fair-use/lessig-fair-use-and-open-video-allianceLessig
reiterates "fair use if the right to call a lawyer". EVERYTHING
depends on the law. The law of the land trumps everything.

If I am arrested in a police station I have rights. I know them by heart -
I have been there so many times. "You have the right to remain silent". The
law and case law gives me that right.

In scholpub there are two laws:
* the law of the land. It differs by jurisdiction. There is no "fair use"
in UK. In other jurisdictions it may depend on case law or it may depend on
getting a judicial review. In scholpub there is no case law because no
University would dare to challenge the publishers - it is left to
individuals (I do not expect my University to help me in this regard)
* the law of the publishers. The publishers have set their own arbitrary
law through their contracts. You may NOT do x,y,z. There is no reason why
universities have to agree to these contracts but they universally and
comprehensively give in to the publishers. They even agree to secrecy on
these negotiations so we don't even know what they have given into.

Hargreaves has said that these contracts are unacceptable and they should
be removed. The IPO(UK) and other organs are in the process of reviewing
submissions to Hargreaves and will come up with legal instruments (not
necessarily acts of Parliament) which will (I hope) forbid restrictive
contracts.

Alicia Wise asks how she can help. Elsevier set these restrictions -
Elsevier can remove them today if they wished.

If she is true to form there will be lots of apparently helpful words that
"we want to help" but no absolute permission. Read what she writes
carefully to see if she has actually given any substance or it's only
"let's start a discussion". Discussions have wasted three year of my
research and made no progress.


> It seems to me that the Australian copyright act is quite clear about
> using copyright material for criticism, legal purposes, extracting data,
> etc, but I am not an expert in UK law. 
>
> ** **
>
> Lawyers could have a good argument too about whether copyright acts say
> anything about eyeballing whatsoever. Is automatic text speaking (for blind
> persons) not permitted, or reading aloud by others? Can the speech program
> not index the material so one can find something one heard earlier?
>

The great thing about being a l;awyer is that people like me have to pay
lots of money to find out what I can and cannot do. The Universities should
do this.

P.

> 
>
> ** **
>
> This whole mess depends on totally obsolete copyright legislation.
>
> ** **
>
> And on publishers who are unwilling to change their business model. The
real problem for Open Access is the publishers, isn't it.

-- 
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: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-12 Thread Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) 
Hi Peter,

 

Thanks for this.  I've communicated that we are happy in principle for
you to mine our content, and there are only some practical issues to
resolve.  We have successfully concluded the technical discussion, and I
believe you, your colleagues, and my technical colleagues are all happy
with the proposed technical mechanism.  Next, I'ld like to double-check
that I have correctly understood what you and your colleagues will do
and who will have access to which content/extracts.  Finally, we have an
existing agreement with the U of Cambridge library and we need to ensure
there is some language in that agreement - or a side letter - to enable
content-mining.  We aren't far off at all - and I suspect we could
resolve this in 1, possibly 2, quick conversations.  If you prefer not
to interact with the Cambridge librarians, I can do this separately.

 

Perhaps it would be helpful for me to clarify the important role that I
believe the Cambridge library has to play.  This role is not to vet your
research to see if you can carry it out, but to ensure that the language
necessary to enable this to happen is included in their various
agreements with publishers.  This is the way that libraries have been
able to create the existing information environment on campus where you,
and your colleagues, can access e-journals from home or your office or
out in the field.  All the agreements/arrangements/technology that the
library has put in place to create this environment, and to ensure that
it is easy to access and use, are generally invisible to researchers -
even those who use this information environment on a daily basis.  

 

This is the sort of environment/experience needed for researchers who
wish to text mine as well.  As an early adopter - indeed a pioneer in
text mining - you are forging a trail.  Librarians will help to maintain
that trail so that many, many others can follow easily in your
footsteps.

 

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: 11 May 2012 23:47
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

 

 

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Richard Poynder
 wrote:

Many thanks to Alicia Wise for starting a new conversation thread. 

 

Let's recall that Alicia's question was, "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?"


Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from me.
The publishers show withdraw contractual restrictions on content-mining.
That's all they need to do.

My university has paid Elsevier for subscription to the content in
Elsevier journals. I believe I have the right to mine the content.
Elsevier has written a contract which forbids me to use this in any way
other than reading with human eyeballs - I cannot crawl it, index it,
extract content for whatever purpose. I have spent THREE years trying to
deal with Elsevier and get a straight answer. 

See
http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/11/27/textmining-my-years-negotiating
-with-elsevier/

The most recent "discussions" ended with Alicia Wise suggesting that she
and Cambridge librarians discuss my proposed research and see if they
could agree to my carrying it out. I let the list decide whether this is
a constructive offer or a delaying tactic. It certainly does not scale
if all researchers have to get the permission of their librarians and
every publisher before they can mine the content in the literature. And
why should a publisher decide what research I may or may not do?

All of this is blogged on http://blogs.cam.ac.uk/pmr

Yes - I asked 6 toll-access publishers for permission to mine their
content before I submitted my opinion to the Hargreaves enquiry.  Of the
6 publishers (which we in the process of summarising - this is hard
because of the wooliness of the language) the approximate answers were:
1 possibly
4 mumble (e.g. "let's discuss it with your librarians")
1 no (good old ACS pulls no punches - I'd rather have a straight "no"
than "mumble")
 
In no other market would vendors be allowed to get away with such awful
customer service. A straight question deserves a straight answer, but
not in scholarly publishing.

Just in case anyone doesn't understand content mining, the technology is
straightforward. The only reason it's not done is because Universities
are afraid of publishers. I estimate that tens of billions of dollars
worth of value is lost through being forbidden t

[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-11 Thread Peter Murray-Rust 


On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Richard Poynder 
wrote:

  Many thanks to Alicia Wise for starting a new conversation thread.

   

  Let’s recall that Alicia’s question was, “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?”


Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from me. The
publishers show withdraw contractual restrictions on content-mining. That's all
they need to do.

My university has paid Elsevier for subscription to the content in Elsevier
journals. I believe I have the right to mine the content. Elsevier has written a
contract which forbids me to use this in any way other than reading with human
eyeballs - I cannot crawl it, index it, extract content for whatever purpose. I
have spent THREE years trying to deal with Elsevier and get a straight answer.

Seehttp://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/11/27/textmining-my-years-negotiating-with-e
lsevier/

The most recent "discussions" ended with Alicia Wise suggesting that she and
Cambridge librarians discuss my proposed research and see if they could agree to
my carrying it out. I let the list decide whether this is a constructive offer
or a delaying tactic. It certainly does not scale if all researchers have to get
the permission of their librarians and every publisher before they can mine the
content in the literature. And why should a publisher decide what research I may
or may not do?

All of this is blogged on http://blogs.cam.ac.uk/pmr

Yes - I asked 6 toll-access publishers for permission to mine their content
before I submitted my opinion to the Hargreaves enquiry.  Of the 6 publishers
(which we in the process of summarising - this is hard because of the wooliness
of the language) the approximate answers were:
1 possibly
4 mumble (e.g. "let's discuss it with your librarians")
1 no (good old ACS pulls no punches - I'd rather have a straight "no" than
"mumble")
 
In no other market would vendors be allowed to get away with such awful customer
service. A straight question deserves a straight answer, but not in scholarly
publishing.

Just in case anyone doesn't understand content mining, the technology is
straightforward. The only reason it's not done is because Universities are
afraid of publishers. I estimate that tens of billions of dollars worth of value
is lost through being forbidden to mine the scholarly literature.

If Alicia Wise can say "yes" to me unreservedly, I'll be happy.

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: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-11 Thread Arthur Sale 
Peter

 

To what extent does "fair-use" over-ride the publisher wishes? It seems to
me that the Australian copyright act is quite clear about using copyright
material for criticism, legal purposes, extracting data, etc, but I am not
an expert in UK law. 

 

Lawyers could have a good argument too about whether copyright acts say
anything about eyeballing whatsoever. Is automatic text speaking (for blind
persons) not permitted, or reading aloud by others? Can the speech program
not index the material so one can find something one heard earlier?

 

This whole mess depends on totally obsolete copyright legislation.

 

Arthur Sale

Tasmania, Australia

 

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf
Of Peter Murray-Rust
Sent: Saturday, 12 May 2012 8:47 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

 

 

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Richard Poynder
 wrote:

Many thanks to Alicia Wise for starting a new conversation thread. 

 

Let's recall that Alicia's question was, "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?"


Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from me. The
publishers show withdraw contractual restrictions on content-mining. That's
all they need to do.

My university has paid Elsevier for subscription to the content in Elsevier
journals. I believe I have the right to mine the content. Elsevier has
written a contract which forbids me to use this in any way other than
reading with human eyeballs - I cannot crawl it, index it, extract content
for whatever purpose. I have spent THREE years trying to deal with Elsevier
and get a straight answer. 

See
http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/11/27/textmining-my-years-negotiating-wit
h-elsevier/

The most recent "discussions" ended with Alicia Wise suggesting that she and
Cambridge librarians discuss my proposed research and see if they could
agree to my carrying it out. I let the list decide whether this is a
constructive offer or a delaying tactic. It certainly does not scale if all
researchers have to get the permission of their librarians and every
publisher before they can mine the content in the literature. And why should
a publisher decide what research I may or may not do?

All of this is blogged on http://blogs.cam.ac.uk/pmr

Yes - I asked 6 toll-access publishers for permission to mine their content
before I submitted my opinion to the Hargreaves enquiry.  Of the 6
publishers (which we in the process of summarising - this is hard because of
the wooliness of the language) the approximate answers were:
1 possibly
4 mumble (e.g. "let's discuss it with your librarians")
1 no (good old ACS pulls no punches - I'd rather have a straight "no" than
"mumble")
 
In no other market would vendors be allowed to get away with such awful
customer service. A straight question deserves a straight answer, but not in
scholarly publishing.

Just in case anyone doesn't understand content mining, the technology is
straightforward. The only reason it's not done is because Universities are
afraid of publishers. I estimate that tens of billions of dollars worth of
value is lost through being forbidden to mine the scholarly literature.

If Alicia Wise can say "yes" to me unreservedly, I'll be happy.

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: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-11 Thread Peter Murray-Rust 
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Richard Poynder  wrote:

> Many thanks to Alicia Wise for starting a new conversation thread. 
>
> ** **
>
> Let’s recall that Alicia’s question was, “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?”
>

Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from me. The
publishers show withdraw contractual restrictions on content-mining. That's
all they need to do.

My university has paid Elsevier for subscription to the content in Elsevier
journals. I believe I have the right to mine the content. Elsevier has
written a contract which forbids me to use this in any way other than
reading with human eyeballs - I cannot crawl it, index it, extract content
for whatever purpose. I have spent THREE years trying to deal with Elsevier
and get a straight answer.

See
http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/11/27/textmining-my-years-negotiating-with-elsevier/

The most recent "discussions" ended with Alicia Wise suggesting that she
and Cambridge librarians discuss my proposed research and see if they could
agree to my carrying it out. I let the list decide whether this is a
constructive offer or a delaying tactic. It certainly does not scale if all
researchers have to get the permission of their librarians and every
publisher before they can mine the content in the literature. And why
should a publisher decide what research I may or may not do?

All of this is blogged on http://blogs.cam.ac.uk/pmr

Yes - I asked 6 toll-access publishers for permission to mine their content
before I submitted my opinion to the Hargreaves enquiry.  Of the 6
publishers (which we in the process of summarising - this is hard because
of the wooliness of the language) the approximate answers were:
1 possibly
4 mumble (e.g. "let's discuss it with your librarians")
1 no (good old ACS pulls no punches - I'd rather have a straight "no" than
"mumble")

In no other market would vendors be allowed to get away with such awful
customer service. A straight question deserves a straight answer, but not
in scholarly publishing.

Just in case anyone doesn't understand content mining, the technology is
straightforward. The only reason it's not done is because Universities are
afraid of publishers. I estimate that tens of billions of dollars worth of
value is lost through being forbidden to mine the scholarly literature.

If Alicia Wise can say "yes" to me unreservedly, I'll be happy.

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: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-11 Thread Reme Melero 
Good morning!

Thinking positively, 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. External link 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!

Reme

Reme Melero
Científico Titular CSIC
IATA
Avda Agustin Escardino 7, 46980 Paterna, Valencia
Tel 963900022 ext 3121
www.accesoabierto.net



El 11/05/2012 11:19, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) escribió:

  Hi all,

   

  I’m glad we’re now moving our conversation on in new directions, and
  I’ld like to suggest one which I hope will be productive.  The
  discussion on this list often seems to me be based on the assumption
  that scholarly publishers are a wholly negative force in the open
  access world, and a community to be avoided/undermined/mistrusted at
  all costs.  This feels unwarranted to me – and perhaps other
  publishers on this list who are not so audacious as to stick their
  heads over the parapet.  So, knowing that positive messages are
  powerful ways to influence:  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?   

   

  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 CHARLES OPPENHEIM
  Sent: 11 May 2012 09:27
  To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
  Subject: [GOAL] UK Defamation Bill and OA

 

This has just been published 
-see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0005/13005.p
df.  Clause 6 gives special protection against defamation actions to peer
reviewed scholarly articles (the first time peer review has figured in a
piece of legislation??). This is something that scholarly publishers will
no doubt pick up on as an argument against unrefereed green OA.

 

Charles

Professor Charles Oppenheim

 

 

Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, O
xford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales).



___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal



-- 
Reme Melero
Científico Titular CSIC
IATA
Avda Agustin Escardino 7, 46980 Paterna, Valencia
Tel 963900022 ext 3121
www.accesoabierto.net




[ Part 1.2.2, Image/GIF (Name: "externalLink_3.gif") 85 bytes. ]
[ Unable to print this part. ]


[ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-11 Thread Jan Velterop 
Alicia,
Some publishers are often criticised, you're right, and I agree that they
shouldn't be for just being an established scholarly publisher. And I don't
think they are as often as you perhaps assume. It is the policies and business
models that are criticised rather than the publishers per se. And you may have
noticed that the scientific community is often criticised as well, for moaning
and then doing what is not consistent with what they are moaning about, to put
it crudely.

I think that if a publisher, Elsevier, say, were to make all the journal
material available with delayed open access (CC-BY, fully re-usable and
mine-able) after a reasonable embargo period of a year (possibly 2 years in
certain slow-moving areas), that publisher might lose a few reprint sales, but
gain a fair amount of kudos as well. Of course it isn't the same as immediate
OA, but it would be an important step in the right direction. Would you consider
advising your corporate masters to do just that?

Anyway, there will be plenty of other steps in the right direction one can think
of, but this is the one that springs to mind immediately.

It really is the policies, not the publisher per se, though you will agree with
me that it is perhaps understandable that some specific policies are commonly
identified with specific publishers, and it is the publishers who make the
policies, of course.

Best,

Jan


On 11 May 2012, at 10:55, David Prosser wrote:

  Hi Alica
There are a number of good examples.

In gold OA we have the example of PLoS, BMC, Hindawi, and hundreds of
other publishers who are showing the OA gold is a sustainable model.

In hybrid, we have publishers such as Springer who a) make obvious papers
where the author has paid a publication fee to make the paper OA and b)
publish the OA papers as CC-BY rather than retaining restrictive copyright
licenses.  (On the flip side we have examples of publishers who have taken
payment under hybrid models and then have had to be chased to make the
papers freely available - those publishers really need to get their
processes in order).

In green, we have many, many good examples of clear and unrestrictive
policies that allow authors to self-archive.  Particularly un-welcome are
those publishers who put in place complex restrictions, or whose policies
place authors in conflict with funder or institutional mandates.

I think we have wonderful examples of a wide range of publishers who have
embraced open access (in both its forms) and I don't believe that many of
us feel that publishers are exclusively a negative force in open access.
 Of course, some specific publishers have tried to be a negative force -
those that hire expensive PR lobbyists and paint open access as 'junk
science' for example.  But thankfully such publishers are few and far
between.

Best wishes

David




On 11 May 2012, at 10:19, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote:

  Hi all,
 
I’m glad we’re now moving our conversation on in new directions, and
I’ld like to suggest one which I hope will be productive.  The
discussion on this list often seems to me be based on the assumption
that scholarly publishers are a wholly negative force in the open
access world, and a community to be avoided/undermined/mistrusted at
all costs.  This feels unwarranted to me – and perhaps other
publishers on this list who are not so audacious as to stick their
heads over the parapet.  So, knowing that positive messages are
powerful ways to influence:  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?   
 
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 CHARLES OPPENHEIM
Sent: 11 May 2012 09:27
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] UK Defamation Bill and OA
 
This has just been published 
-see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0005/13005.p
df.  Clause 6 gives special protection against defamation actions to
peer reviewed scholarly articles (the first time peer review has
figured in a piece of legislation??). This is something that
scholarly publishers will no doubt pick up on as an argument against
unrefereed green OA.
 

Charles

Professor Charles Oppenheim

 
 

Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, O
xford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales).




___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal





[ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]

___

[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-11 Thread David Prosser 
Hi Alica
There are a number of good examples.

In gold OA we have the example of PLoS, BMC, Hindawi, and hundreds of other
publishers who are showing the OA gold is a sustainable model.

In hybrid, we have publishers such as Springer who a) make obvious papers where
the author has paid a publication fee to make the paper OA and b) publish the OA
papers as CC-BY rather than retaining restrictive copyright licenses.  (On the
flip side we have examples of publishers who have taken payment under hybrid
models and then have had to be chased to make the papers freely available -
those publishers really need to get their processes in order).

In green, we have many, many good examples of clear and unrestrictive policies
that allow authors to self-archive.  Particularly un-welcome are those
publishers who put in place complex restrictions, or whose policies place
authors in conflict with funder or institutional mandates.

I think we have wonderful examples of a wide range of publishers who have
embraced open access (in both its forms) and I don't believe that many of us
feel that publishers are exclusively a negative force in open access.  Of
course, some specific publishers have tried to be a negative force - those that
hire expensive PR lobbyists and paint open access as 'junk science' for example.
 But thankfully such publishers are few and far between.

Best wishes

David




On 11 May 2012, at 10:19, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote:

  Hi all,
 
I’m glad we’re now moving our conversation on in new directions, and I’ld
like to suggest one which I hope will be productive.  The discussion on
this list often seems to me be based on the assumption that scholarly
publishers are a wholly negative force in the open access world, and a
community to be avoided/undermined/mistrusted at all costs.  This feels
unwarranted to me – and perhaps other publishers on this list who are not
so audacious as to stick their heads over the parapet.  So, knowing that
positive messages are powerful ways to influence:  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?   
 
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 CHARLES OPPENHEIM
Sent: 11 May 2012 09:27
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] UK Defamation Bill and OA
 
This has just been published 
-see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0005/13005.p
df.  Clause 6 gives special protection against defamation actions to peer
reviewed scholarly articles (the first time peer review has figured in a
piece of legislation??). This is something that scholarly publishers will
no doubt pick up on as an argument against unrefereed green OA.
 

Charles

Professor Charles Oppenheim

 
 

Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, O
xford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales).







[ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-11 Thread Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) 

Hi all,

 

I’m glad we’re now moving our conversation on in new directions, and I’ld 
like
to suggest one which I hope will be productive.  The discussion on this list
often seems to me be based on the assumption that scholarly publishers are a
wholly negative force in the open access world, and a community to be
avoided/undermined/mistrusted at all costs.  This feels unwarranted to me – 
and
perhaps other publishers on this list who are not so audacious as to stick their
heads over the parapet.  So, knowing that positive messages are powerful ways 
to
influence:  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?   

 

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
CHARLES OPPENHEIM
Sent: 11 May 2012 09:27
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] UK Defamation Bill and OA

 

This has just been published 
-see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0005/13005.p
df.  Clause 6 gives special protection against defamation actions to peer
reviewed scholarly articles (the first time peer review has figured in a piece
of legislation??). This is something that scholarly publishers will no doubt
pick up on as an argument against unrefereed green OA.

 

Charles

Professor Charles Oppenheim

 

 

Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, O
xford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales).



[ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-11 Thread Reme Melero 




Good morning!

Thinking positively, 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!

Reme

Reme Melero
Científico Titular CSIC
IATA
Avda Agustin Escardino 7, 46980 Paterna, Valencia
Tel 963900022 ext 3121
www.accesoabierto.net



El 11/05/2012 11:19, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) escribió:

  
  
  
  
  Hi
all,
   
  I’m
glad we’re now moving our conversation on in new directions, and I’ld
like to suggest one which I hope will be productive.  The discussion on
this list often seems to me be based on the assumption that scholarly
publishers are a wholly negative force in the open access world, and a
community to be avoided/undermined/mistrusted at all costs.  This feels
unwarranted to me – and perhaps other publishers on this list who are
not so audacious as to stick their heads over the parapet.  So, knowing
that positive messages are powerful ways to influence:  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?   
   
  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 CHARLES OPPENHEIM
  Sent: 11 May 2012 09:27
  To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
  Subject: [GOAL] UK Defamation Bill and OA
  
   
  

  

This has just been published -
see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0005/13005.pdf.
 Clause 6 gives special protection against defamation actions to peer
reviewed scholarly articles (the first time peer review has figured in
a piece of legislation??). This is something that scholarly publishers
will no doubt pick up on as an argument against unrefereed green OA.

 


Charles

Professor Charles Oppenheim

 



  

  
   
  
  Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales).




___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal




-- 
Reme Melero
Científico Titular CSIC
IATA
Avda Agustin Escardino 7, 46980 Paterna, Valencia
Tel 963900022 ext 3121
www.accesoabierto.net


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-11 Thread Jan Velterop 
Alicia,

Some publishers are often criticised, you're right, and I agree that they 
shouldn't be for just being an established scholarly publisher. And I don't 
think they are as often as you perhaps assume. It is the policies and business 
models that are criticised rather than the publishers per se. And you may have 
noticed that the scientific community is often criticised as well, for moaning 
and then doing what is not consistent with what they are moaning about, to put 
it crudely.

I think that if a publisher, Elsevier, say, were to make all the journal 
material available with delayed open access (CC-BY, fully re-usable and 
mine-able) after a reasonable embargo period of a year (possibly 2 years in 
certain slow-moving areas), that publisher might lose a few reprint sales, but 
gain a fair amount of kudos as well. Of course it isn't the same as immediate 
OA, but it would be an important step in the right direction. Would you 
consider advising your corporate masters to do just that?

Anyway, there will be plenty of other steps in the right direction one can 
think of, but this is the one that springs to mind immediately.

It really is the policies, not the publisher per se, though you will agree with 
me that it is perhaps understandable that some specific policies are commonly 
identified with specific publishers, and it is the publishers who make the 
policies, of course.

Best,

Jan


On 11 May 2012, at 10:55, David Prosser wrote:

> Hi Alica
> 
> There are a number of good examples.
> 
> In gold OA we have the example of PLoS, BMC, Hindawi, and hundreds of other 
> publishers who are showing the OA gold is a sustainable model.
> 
> In hybrid, we have publishers such as Springer who a) make obvious papers 
> where the author has paid a publication fee to make the paper OA and b) 
> publish the OA papers as CC-BY rather than retaining restrictive copyright 
> licenses.  (On the flip side we have examples of publishers who have taken 
> payment under hybrid models and then have had to be chased to make the papers 
> freely available - those publishers really need to get their processes in 
> order).
> 
> In green, we have many, many good examples of clear and unrestrictive 
> policies that allow authors to self-archive.  Particularly un-welcome are 
> those publishers who put in place complex restrictions, or whose policies 
> place authors in conflict with funder or institutional mandates.
> 
> I think we have wonderful examples of a wide range of publishers who have 
> embraced open access (in both its forms) and I don't believe that many of us 
> feel that publishers are exclusively a negative force in open access.  Of 
> course, some specific publishers have tried to be a negative force - those 
> that hire expensive PR lobbyists and paint open access as 'junk science' for 
> example.  But thankfully such publishers are few and far between.
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11 May 2012, at 10:19, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>>  
>> I’m glad we’re now moving our conversation on in new directions, and I’ld 
>> like to suggest one which I hope will be productive.  The discussion on this 
>> list often seems to me be based on the assumption that scholarly publishers 
>> are a wholly negative force in the open access world, and a community to be 
>> avoided/undermined/mistrusted at all costs.  This feels unwarranted to me – 
>> and perhaps other publishers on this list who are not so audacious as to 
>> stick their heads over the parapet.  So, knowing that positive messages are 
>> powerful ways to influence:  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?   
>>  
>> 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 CHARLES OPPENHEIM
>> Sent: 11 May 2012 09:27
>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
>> Subject: [GOAL] UK Defamation Bill and OA
>>  
>> This has just been published - see 
>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0005/13005.pdf.
>>   Clause 6 gives special protection against defamation actions to peer 
>> reviewed scholarly articles (the first time peer review has figured in a 
>> piece of legislation??). This is something that scholarly publishers will no 
>> doubt pick up on as an argument against unrefereed green OA.
>>  
>> Charles
>> 
>> Professor Charles Oppenheim
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, 
>> Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 
>> (England a

[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-11 Thread David Prosser 
Hi Alica

There are a number of good examples.

In gold OA we have the example of PLoS, BMC, Hindawi, and hundreds of other 
publishers who are showing the OA gold is a sustainable model.

In hybrid, we have publishers such as Springer who a) make obvious papers where 
the author has paid a publication fee to make the paper OA and b) publish the 
OA papers as CC-BY rather than retaining restrictive copyright licenses.  (On 
the flip side we have examples of publishers who have taken payment under 
hybrid models and then have had to be chased to make the papers freely 
available - those publishers really need to get their processes in order).

In green, we have many, many good examples of clear and unrestrictive policies 
that allow authors to self-archive.  Particularly un-welcome are those 
publishers who put in place complex restrictions, or whose policies place 
authors in conflict with funder or institutional mandates.

I think we have wonderful examples of a wide range of publishers who have 
embraced open access (in both its forms) and I don't believe that many of us 
feel that publishers are exclusively a negative force in open access.  Of 
course, some specific publishers have tried to be a negative force - those that 
hire expensive PR lobbyists and paint open access as 'junk science' for 
example.  But thankfully such publishers are few and far between.

Best wishes

David




On 11 May 2012, at 10:19, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote:

> Hi all,
>  
> I’m glad we’re now moving our conversation on in new directions, and I’ld 
> like to suggest one which I hope will be productive.  The discussion on this 
> list often seems to me be based on the assumption that scholarly publishers 
> are a wholly negative force in the open access world, and a community to be 
> avoided/undermined/mistrusted at all costs.  This feels unwarranted to me – 
> and perhaps other publishers on this list who are not so audacious as to 
> stick their heads over the parapet.  So, knowing that positive messages are 
> powerful ways to influence:  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?   
>  
> 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 
> CHARLES OPPENHEIM
> Sent: 11 May 2012 09:27
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] UK Defamation Bill and OA
>  
> This has just been published - see 
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0005/13005.pdf.
>   Clause 6 gives special protection against defamation actions to peer 
> reviewed scholarly articles (the first time peer review has figured in a 
> piece of legislation??). This is something that scholarly publishers will no 
> doubt pick up on as an argument against unrefereed green OA.
>  
> Charles
> 
> Professor Charles Oppenheim
> 
>  
>  
> Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, 
> Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 
> (England and Wales).
> 
> 

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

2012-05-11 Thread Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) 
Hi all,

 

I'm glad we're now moving our conversation on in new directions, and
I'ld like to suggest one which I hope will be productive.  The
discussion on this list often seems to me be based on the assumption
that scholarly publishers are a wholly negative force in the open access
world, and a community to be avoided/undermined/mistrusted at all costs.
This feels unwarranted to me - and perhaps other publishers on this list
who are not so audacious as to stick their heads over the parapet.  So,
knowing that positive messages are powerful ways to influence:  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?   

 

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 CHARLES OPPENHEIM
Sent: 11 May 2012 09:27
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] UK Defamation Bill and OA

 

This has just been published - see
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0005/1300
5.pdf.  Clause 6 gives special protection against defamation actions to
peer reviewed scholarly articles (the first time peer review has figured
in a piece of legislation??). This is something that scholarly
publishers will no doubt pick up on as an argument against unrefereed
green OA.

 

Charles

Professor Charles Oppenheim

 

 


Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, 
Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales).

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal