[Open-access] [GOAL] Re: Permissions attaching to pre-publication material

Fri Feb 17 11:57:23 UTC 2012

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) <
A.Wise at elsevier.com> wrote:

> Hi Peter,****
>
> **
>
Thanks Alicia,
It's a valuable and useful development to have a formal contact in a
publisher that is able to speak authoritatively and responds. As you
yourself note Elsevier have not had a professionally organised procedure to
respond to reasonable constructive requests. (The only way I got any answer
was through a personal contact with an Elsevier).

I shan't tax the GOAL list with more mails but you may wish to note note
that many of the reader community finds it impossible to have any
meaningful formal contact with publishers. It would be a service if
publishers recognized the existence of readers as distinct from customers
(who are normally purchasing officers or librarians).

**
>
> For a description of what the Universal Access team does at Elsevier,
> please could I direct you to a recent interview with Richard Poyndor at
> http://poynder.blogspot.com/2012/02/elseviers-alicia-wise-on-rwa-west-wing.html
> .
>

I have already read this in depth.

> I can indeed help with content mining policy queries, and can get you
> pointed in the right direction for other queries.  I’ve picked up that you
> are a bit (!!) cross with us about text mining,
>

That's accurate. I offered a constructive opportunity two years ago which
could have significantly benefitted Elsevier as well as the Open world and
Elsevier has probably destroyed that opportunity.

and would be very happy to arrange a call for you and our relevant people.
> It appears that in the past we have connected you with the app marketplace
> team rather than the text mining teams.
>

I have no idea what the app marketplace team is but it sounds as if it
wasn't a good decision.

> Please email me directly at a.wise at elsevier.com if you would like for me
> to set this up?  Thanks.
>

I am always prepared to talk with anyone, if there is seen to be the chance
of a productive outcome. At present my concerns are:
* I believe that I have certain fundamental rights to carry out text-,
data- and image-mining and that Elsevier contracts and practice deny me
them.
* I have been invited by the UK's Intellectual Property Office to submit a
response to the Hargreaves review as to why IP restrictions on textmining
shoul be removed and I shall be doing this in the context of the Open
Knowledge Foundation - through the newly formed open-access list (which is
copied in to this mail).

It is useful if all discussions take place Openly as then (a) a wide range
of people can take part and (b) there is a clear permanent record. Anyone
working for Elsevier or any other organization is welcome to join the list
and take part in our activities. We have no secret procedures and will be
working to create a response to Hargreaves.

Whatever the politics and legality of Open Access are, the actual practice
of it is very poorly labelled and supported by modern informatics. This
list is discussing the "Author Manuscript" but there is no standard
labelling, no licences, no statement of who is the copyright holder. Given
that the law allows copyright holders to pursue infringers the actual
practice of Open Access supported by publishers (Green and Hybrid) needs
serious improvement.

The rest of this may be of continuing interest to GOAL

Regarding the manuscript - you asked whether the language you cite
> originated with Elsevier.  We have various agreements with NIH, so either
> the lawyers for NIH or the lawyers for Elsevier came up with this
> language.  This footnote looks like a standard bit of text that may appear
> on all the manuscripts we deposit in PMC on behalf of authors – I would
> need to check.  The intention of such a footnote would be to signal to the
> reader that they are looking at something other than the final version of
> the article.
>

So - for the record - the "unedited author manuscript" may contain material
inserted by Elsevier (presumably without the explicit involvement of the
author). It is a pity that possessive pronouns are used in an ambiguous or
misleading sense. As an author I would be upset if such a phrase was
inserted in a parer I had authored, but at present that is unlikely giving
that I am currently unlikely to contribute to Elsevier journals.

> ****
>
> ** **
>
> With kind wishes,****
>
> **
>

We will spell out on the OKFN open-access list the areas that would lead to
a potentially constructive discussion and possibly continue on it and on
skype.

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20120217/9fb60935/attachment.html>