tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.comments2024-03-14T21:04:42.902-07:00The Imaginary Journal of Poetic EconomicsHeather Morrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comBlogger122125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-64074813815634893282018-07-06T05:48:49.777-07:002018-07-06T05:48:49.777-07:00Posting comment on behalf of Anthony Watkinson, CI...Posting comment on behalf of Anthony Watkinson, CIBER research anthony.watkinson@btinternet.com<br /><br />I notice you do not mention TRANSFER which was initiated by UKSG and is now with NISO. These protocols (?) were supposed to cover a number of existing problems but perhaps not the one you raise and in any case I would guess that many smaller OA publishers will not know of it (https://www.niso.org/standards-committees/transfer)<br /> <br />The other question, which may just be a hobby horse of mine, is connected with archiving and preservation. CLOCKSS is not concerned with emulation or migration for the longer term. OK most major publishers deposit with PORTICO (as well) and they are concerned with holding and keeping the digital form, probably in many cases the only form insofar as it is the digital equivalent of the print.<br /> <br />However many publishers of all sizes are beginning to embed video and make use of the affordances of the web in a number of ways. This is a different matter.<br /> <br />PORTICO cannot handled multimedia (yet).<br /> <br />This may interest you a bit: http://ciber-research.eu/download/20180201-British_Library-Emerging_Formats-Final_Report.pdf. We (CIBER Research) hope to get funding to develop this very small piece of workAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-1646386631811774402014-02-28T13:12:16.832-08:002014-02-28T13:12:16.832-08:00Thanks Heather for this post. It's important t...Thanks Heather for this post. It's important to note these increases as it's a reminder that just because a publisher is Open Access doesn't mean that we shouldn't be wary of price increases similar to those of traditional publishers. I just want to make a clarification on the dataset the uOttawa library provided: It does not contain the amounts paid out through the Author Fund, rather it includes the amounts asked for by applicants and checked against the fees posted on the publishers website. <br />Jeanette Hatherillnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-34949748289726644502014-01-13T09:35:33.284-08:002014-01-13T09:35:33.284-08:00Thank you, Heather :)Thank you, Heather :)Miguel Navashttp://accesoabierto.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-3513026286017945152014-01-10T08:05:29.789-08:002014-01-10T08:05:29.789-08:00Oops, it's 365,000, not 265,000. My apologies ...Oops, it's 365,000, not 265,000. My apologies for the error and thanks for letting me know, Miguel. I've noted the correction above.Heather Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-79507659228754048052014-01-10T03:00:30.584-08:002014-01-10T03:00:30.584-08:00Sorry but I think that there is a mistake in first...Sorry but I think that there is a mistake in first paragraph. It says "from 270 thousand OA publications in Narcis in 2011 to 265 thousand in 2013". Is 270 to 265 a growth?? Thanks!Miguel Navashttps://twitter.com/miguelnavasfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-26736911255529233342013-10-06T13:42:22.454-07:002013-10-06T13:42:22.454-07:00L'anglais suit ~
bonjour Eric,
À mon avis, ...L'anglais suit ~<br /><br /><br />bonjour Eric,<br /><br />À mon avis, oui, les lettrés devraient arrêter de soumettre des articles aux éditeurs avec de hautes marges bénéficiaires. Nous devrions aussi exiger que des bibliothèques universitaires annulent des abonnements aux "big deals" et divisent les économies entre l'assistance pour les nouvelles approches de publier, par exemple soutiens pour les journaux locales ou "institutional repository peer-review overlay" et des fonds pour soutenir des salaires universitaires.<br /><br />hi Eric, <br /><br />In my opinion, yes, scholars should stop submitting peer reviewed articles to publishers with high profit margins. We should also demand that university libraries cancel subscriptions to the big deals, and divide the savings between support for new forms of publishing (local journal hosting and support services, peer-review overlay on repositories) and redirecting funds to support academic salaries. Heather Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-10197891366594591502013-10-06T04:02:48.596-07:002013-10-06T04:02:48.596-07:00so, should we stop peer review article submitted t...so, should we stop peer review article submitted to high profit margins publishers?everdhttp://rumor.hypotheses.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-60964955966879743722013-10-02T13:18:28.604-07:002013-10-02T13:18:28.604-07:00Hi Heather. Good project. Once you start, I hope y...Hi Heather. Good project. Once you start, I hope you'll add it to the OAD list of research in progress [ http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Research_in_progress ]. That will alert others that the project is under way and, if you like, help recruit partners.Peter Suberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09215193195989071335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-36668879244103604382013-09-25T10:31:00.580-07:002013-09-25T10:31:00.580-07:00Eric, this makes sense when you think about the in...Eric, this makes sense when you think about the individual CC licensed work that you have downloaded. What I am trying to point out is that if a publisher has published a CC licensed work and you didn't download it, the publisher can remove the CC licensed work. Picture Springer doing this with all of BioMedCentral and successfully lobbying to have PubMedCentral (which has made copies) taken down to understand the potential for re-enclosure. This is one of the reasons why open access archives (ideally multiple copies in multiple archives) is essential for a sustainable open access future, and why OA policy should always be for green or archives not publishing.Heather Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-80233607011199060062013-09-25T06:37:10.183-07:002013-09-25T06:37:10.183-07:00Note that all CC licenses are irrevocable. That me...Note that all CC licenses are irrevocable. That means that if you download a CC licensed article, you are free to redistribute it, for example by depositing it in an archive. This is meant to address your concern about "re-enclosure"; though as I've written, <a href="http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2011/10/clawback-of-lessigs-remix.html" rel="nofollow">it's a real concern</a>.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04483241450401134977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-23113151817327489222013-08-19T08:38:04.989-07:002013-08-19T08:38:04.989-07:00I should clarify that this survey was very narrowl...I should clarify that this survey was very narrowly focused. It did not seek to find out authors' opinions of CC-BY licensing or of open access, but only of one particular form of reuse of CC-BY papers.<br /><br />Subsequent Twitter discussion has also clarified my understanding of the legality of this specific reuse, and I'll be doing another post on this in the next day or so.Rosie Redfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06807912674127645263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-77279234923540958142013-06-13T13:21:31.353-07:002013-06-13T13:21:31.353-07:00Note my update June 13 re: PLoS serving on the com...Note my update June 13 re: PLoS serving on the committee defining the criteria is a conflict of interest.Heather Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-31300453080297534112013-06-13T13:15:04.175-07:002013-06-13T13:15:04.175-07:00PLoS and I'm assuming BMC include such materia...PLoS and I'm assuming BMC include such materials as charts in image format that are not machine readable (thanks to Peter Murray-Rust for drawing my attention to this). This being the case, they wouldn't meet the criteria "Full text, metadata, and citations of articles can be crawled and accessed with permission (Machine Readability Level 4)". <br /><br />Now that I look at this phrase again, it could be confusing - does "with permission" mean the journal has the option of permitting or no? Heather Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-182192443236701422013-06-13T12:56:01.251-07:002013-06-13T12:56:01.251-07:00Heather
I don't understand the comment above ...Heather<br /><br />I don't understand the comment above where you suggest that PLOS and BMC do not allow re-use. Robert Kileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15226492072759388084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-64348401030634402972013-05-22T22:40:33.510-07:002013-05-22T22:40:33.510-07:00Dear Anonymous AND twitter handle-anonymous: to re...Dear Anonymous AND twitter handle-anonymous: to repeat what is stated above, this is a scholarly blog and anonymous comments are not posted. Please state your name, affiliation and disclose any connection / conflict of interest. For example, if you are defending Access Copyright, are you a current or past member of the Access Copyright Board, working for Access Copyright, receiving payouts etc.? Similarly, if you are defending the practices of traditional subscription-based publishers, you need to state clearly who you are and your involvement with any publishers. Heather Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-57275904753930675022013-05-22T22:29:34.094-07:002013-05-22T22:29:34.094-07:00Alex, many works contain material that have differ...Alex, many works contain material that have different license terms. This has been the case with print. When you include material that is under someone else's copyright, you have to license that part in the original terms.<br /><br />This will even be true with CC-BY works included in other CC-BY works. When the work is produced by a third party, the attribution will ALWAYS be different, and when the work of the third party was produced under a slightly different CC-BY license (different version, different country), it is the terms of the original CC-BY that prevail.Heather Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-53966227987691910422013-05-01T20:15:36.097-07:002013-05-01T20:15:36.097-07:00You state that an author using the CC-BY-NC-SA lic...You state that an author using the CC-BY-NC-SA license can use "material with a different restrictive CC license, such as CC-BY-NoDerivatives (CC-BY-ND), as long as the material with the different license is marked with the appropriate CC license." <br /><br />However, your assertion is incorrect or at least misleading with respect to collaboration and derivatives rather than just isolated compilations. No CC BY-NC-SA adaptation can be relicensed CC BY-ND nor reverse nor some combined license. SA and ND are strictly incompatible within the same work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-60627025498151059312013-04-06T13:12:41.220-07:002013-04-06T13:12:41.220-07:00I guess we're going to see a lot of this in co...I guess we're going to see a lot of this in coming years, if experience with big tobacco ("Doubt is our product") and climate change denialists is anything to go by. Dishonest surveys conducted by industry shills are a standard tactice, as the corporate players try to sow confusion and misinformation. There is a lot of money at stake, and if previous experience is anything to go by, it will get very dirty and dishonest before things start to improve. <br />Having just read Proctor and Schiebinger's Agnotology (the study of ignorance, particularly socially constructed ignorance) and Goldacre's Bad Pharma in rapid succession, I am in cynical mood indeed. Nevertheless I'd highly recommend both books for students of these tactics.<br />Be in no doubt: as we write there are well-resourced marketing departments in legacy publishing houses whose only mission is to subvert open access for as long as they can get away with it. They are fighting for their livelihoods, and calling them out each time will doubtless be exhausting and tediously repetitive.Douglas Carnall, @juliuzbeezerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13563159368217318352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-16377264889590907772013-04-06T11:18:47.525-07:002013-04-06T11:18:47.525-07:00hi Mehmet, I noted the student executive before po...hi Mehmet, I noted the student executive before posting my comments above. The About page makes it very clear that this is an industry organization which has chosen a model of student leadership.<br /><br />Do you have any substantive comments on the survey? Whose idea was it? Who designed it? Was it funded - by whom? What about research ethics clearance?<br /><br />On OBR per se, I would be very interested in hearing how academic freedom is assured. Is OBR funding any studies critiquing the industry, for example?Heather Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-482600924178022172013-04-06T03:09:26.432-07:002013-04-06T03:09:26.432-07:00Wow, this is incredible. Smokes and mirrors indeed...Wow, this is incredible. Smokes and mirrors indeed... clearly an industry organisation. How very dare they.<br /><br />Wait a second, this organisation has an Executive Committee. May be worth taking a look at these faceless execs shamelessly posing as students?<br /><br />http://www.oxbridgebiotech.com/about-obr/executive-committee/<br /><br />Daniel Perez, CEO - "dual-doctorate at Lincoln College, Oxford and The Scripps Research Institute in California (DPhil, PhD)"<br /><br />Gabriel Mecklenburg, COO - "3rd year PhD candidate at Imperial College London"<br /><br />Mehmet Fidanboylu, CMO - "completing a PhD in neuropharmacology at King's College London"<br /><br />Leah Cannon, Co-Editor in Chief - "recently started her first post-doctoral position at the Sanford Burnham Medical Research Institute"<br /><br />WAIT! A POST-DOC!? SCANDAL!<br /><br />It would seem that these students could teach you a thing or two about doing some basic "research" before trolling.<br /><br />Well that's all pretty disappointing, perhaps someone can point you in the direction some other conspiracies to blog about - I hear the tin-foil hat brigade are looking for more recruits.<br /><br />- Mehmet Fidanboylu, PhD STUDENT & CMO at OBRAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14109170831285002466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-33049538761773335832013-04-04T08:11:32.159-07:002013-04-04T08:11:32.159-07:00If you would like to comment on this post please i...If you would like to comment on this post please identity yourself and state your affiliatiion if relevant. Heather Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-18660451490353138382013-04-04T08:07:48.874-07:002013-04-04T08:07:48.874-07:00Even setting aside peer-reviewed articles per se, ...Even setting aside peer-reviewed articles per se, many works in repositories consist of other kinds of scholarly works that were not previously published or disseminated much at all - grey literature, theses, and more, and increasingly research data. This is an area of OA growth very much concentrated in repositories rather than OA publishing. Heather Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-2739054481074597952013-04-04T08:01:26.016-07:002013-04-04T08:01:26.016-07:00Good point, I agree. The BASE number is a surrogat...Good point, I agree. The BASE number is a surrogate for OA growth in repositories. This is covered in my description of method (link from the main series post, also an appendix in my dissertation.<br /><br />However I argue that the sheer size of the increase strongly suggests strong OA peer reviewed article growth. With 9 million documents added last year, if OA scholarly works were 1% of this that would still be close to a hundred thousand items. Heather Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-63142718607278007032013-04-04T01:58:57.074-07:002013-04-04T01:58:57.074-07:00It seems to me that some of the numbers you have c...It seems to me that some of the numbers you have collected would require much closer scrutiny.<br /><br />Just one example: I agree that BASE is a great resource, but the number you have (9 million new records between March 2012 and March 2013) is more indicative of the growth of BASE itself and the number of sources it is harvesting than of a dramatic growth in the number open access publications in general.<br /><br />Much of the "new" content indexed by BASE is actually not new at all - if you refine your search by the year of publication in the BASE interface, you currently come up with following numbers for this period:<br /><br />2012: 1.832.162 documents<br />2013: 286.072 documents<br /><br />In addition, you should take into account that many of the records harvested by BASE are describing content that is not open access. Either the harvested record contains only metadata of a publication or the access to the full-text content is restricted.<br /> <br />This, of course, is due to the frustrating limitations of the current repository metadata and OAI-PMH protocol. There is no reliable way to tell which records are connected to full-text or open access items.<br /><br />Also, if you concentrate strictly on scholarly open access publishing, you should note that both BASE and the sources it is harvesting contain many kinds of non-scholarly materials. Unfortunately the most common document types at BASE are "text" and "unknown", which is not very informative. <br /><br />What I'm trying to say (I guess) is that you should be very careful in comparing different numbers gathered from multiple sources.Jyrki Ilvahttp://blogs.helsinki.fi/digikirjasto/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-45454525128466973682013-03-19T11:13:22.358-07:002013-03-19T11:13:22.358-07:00Has informa.plc - the multi-national diverse for-p...Has informa.plc - the multi-national diverse for-profit company behind the scholar-friendly-sounding brands Taylor & Francis and Routledge - become a gatekeeper to conducting social sciences and humanities research? This survey is a case in point. Informa has ready access to a network of tens of thousands of scholars around the world. They control access to this network. This is not complete control, as there would be other ways of conducting this research, but they do have control over a vast network of scholars in the humanities and social sciences. <br /><br />Would informa permit scholars in the humanities and social sciences to conduct research using this network? If so, who decides who gets to do research? If the answer is informa, then (as I suspect is the case) we scholars have handed over control of a major network of our communities to be controlled by corporate interests. <br /><br />Clarification from informa would be welcome. Note that the company has every right to conduct research, and it is a benefit to all if they do so with the purposes of improving their products. This piece of research, however, looks like it is intended to inform public policy as well. If research to inform public policy is controlled by the corporate sector, that's a major erosion of democracy. This is an important point - freedom for scholarship isn't just about open access.Heather Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.com