Paul Peters is announced as President of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers
Association http://oaspa.org/announcing-new-president-of-oaspa/
Claire Redhead
Membership & Communications Manager
Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, OASPA
www.oaspa.org__
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:12 AM, Andy Powell wrote:
> Supposing this Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate leads to a
> situation where we achieve 100% immediate deposit of the final
> peer-reviewed draft of journal articles to an institutional repository but
> where we also see a ‘publish
Thanks to Steven Harnad for giving us his enthusiastic view on the
HEFCE prooposd policy for REF and OA. Among my concerns that he
doesn't address, however, is one that will be shared by many/all in
the Humanities (almost always the Cinderella at the OA ball): What
about books?
Though sci
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Andy Powell wrote:
> Stevan,
>
> Thanks for the response – that makes sense.
>
> ** **
>
> I retain some concerns about our ability to manage expectations and
> deliver a usable overall solution during the transition period (i.e. while
> repositories are f
Dear Larry,
I agree with you.
HEFCE/REF should not not make OA mandatory for books/monographs.
Even deposit need not be mandatory: Merely urged, wherever possible. (I
doubt that there would be many objections to Dark Deposit.)
Insisting on book deposit would, again, be needless over-reaching, a
Indeed, Stevan Harnad lays out principles which are sound.
Larry Hurtado also raises an important point. While accepting (sometimes
grudgingly, I admit) that one should go for the low-hanging fruits first, or at
least that perfection should never be used to block the good, I nevertheless
believ
The Wellcome Trust's Robert Kiley, a long-time open access advocate, raised a
common rationale for a default CC-BY license in a comment on Richard Poynder's
interview of Mike Rossner. These are my comments.
A scholarly CC-BY is not compatible with the Wikipedia conception of
attribution, whic
A problem with CC-BY: permitting downstream use with no strings attached is the
toll access model
The Creative Commons - Attribution (CC-BY) only license grants blanket
permission rights for commercial use to any third party downstream. Proponents
of CC-BY argue that this will open up the possi
On 2013-03-13, at 12:08 PM, Hans Pfeiffenberger wrote:
Am 13.03.13 18:00, schrieb Heather Morrison:
> Here we see two interpretations: a CC-BY license places an obligation for
> "full and proper attribution" versus a CC-License for data and text mining
> results "would be mostly pointless".
Yo
Surely this is a red herring. Open access is about making the papers freely
available, not about making any services that can be built on top of them
freely (or 'cheaply', however we want to define 'cheaply') available. If
somebody can make a lot of money mining the literature and identifying
On 2013-03-14, at 12:09 PM, David Prosser wrote:
Surely this is a red herring. Open access is about making the papers freely
available, not about making any services that can be built on top of them
freely (or 'cheaply', however we want to define 'cheaply') available. If
somebody can make a l
On 2013-03-14, at 1:13 AM, Nick Thieberger wrote:
> But what if the article is in an OA journal that would like to have the hit
> count for
> downloads from its site? Is there scope for the mandate to cover only non-OA
> journal articles perhaps?
That would be an exceedingly bad solution, for
I have a different problem to Heather with the default to CC-BY. I'm not
concerned about these claims about mis-representation. The point of the BY in
CC-BY is that attribution is given to the original creator of a piece, but
also that it is made clear what has been changed (the easy way is to
On 2013-03-14, at 6:00 PM, Arthur Sale wrote:
> Unfortunately Stevan, Nick was asking you about the Australian Research
> Council’s policy.
Thanks, Arthur, for pointing out that I had mistaken an ACT policy query for a
HEFCE/REF policy query
(since it was on the HEFCE/REF thread).
Some que
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Leslie Carr wrote:
There have already been joint publisher/repository initiatives such as
> PIRUS/COUNTER that deal with this situation. See
> http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/pals3/pirus.aspx
>
> "The aim of this project is to develop COUNTER-compliant u
This is one of the most ludicrous arguments I have ever heard. I requires
mental gymnastics of an absurd kind to equate a system in which people use
copyright to heavily restrict content to a system in which works are freely
available in perpetuity. If people can build services built on top of the
Steven,
Our example is of a small OA journal, now in its seventh year. We have
pioneered publishing primary language material to accompany linguistic
articles and locate all our collection in a DSpace repository with handles.
Our funding is scraped together and covers student GAships for copy-edit
This has got to be among the most specious arguments against
less-restrictive open access that I've ever heard. If I take free tires
from a landfill and turn them into sandals and sell them, is that a bad
thing? Doesn't prevent anyone else from taking the tires and making their
own sandals. If
18 matches
Mail list logo
