[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers
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
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 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 Laurent Romary INRIA HUB-IDSL laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[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.  Letâs recall that Aliciaâs question was, âwhat positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized?â 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
Peter  To what extent does âfair-useâ 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 ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk wrote: Many thanks to Alicia Wise for starting a new conversation thread.  Letâs recall that Aliciaâs question was, âwhat positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized?â 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
Hi Peter,  Thanks for this. Iâve 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, Iâld 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 â or a side letter - to enable content-mining. We arenât far off at all â 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 â indeed a pioneer in text mining â 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 ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk wrote: Many thanks to Alicia Wise for starting a new conversation thread.  Letâs recall that Aliciaâs question was, âwhat positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized?â 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
[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers
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, Iâm glad weâre now moving our conversation on in new directions, and Iâld 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 â 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
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 ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk wrote: Many thanks to Alicia Wise for starting a new conversation thread.  Letâs recall that Aliciaâs question was, âwhat positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized?â 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
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
[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers
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 and Wales). ATT1..txt ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org
[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers
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 CientÃfico 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,  Iâm glad weâre now moving our conversation on in new directions, and Iâld 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 â 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 CientÃfico 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
