[Open-access] Letter to publishers - URGENT

[Mike Taylor]

I don't understand what you mean by "data is not content".

-- Mike.



On 5 March 2012 09:36, cameronneylon.net <cn at cameronneylon.net> wrote:
> Agree this looks good and is a strong approach. You might also want to ask Rebecca Lawrence at F1000 and also Mark Hahnel at Figshare for "new" publishers.
>
> I don't know if this is useful but I threw this together in another context. It was intended as a quick draft "principles for research data mining"
>
> * Always link back to the version of record of the research output you have mined.
> * Include elements and snippets by reference, not by value. Restrict content replication to that reasonably allowed by Fair Use provisions or enabled by licences, and required for efficient services
> * Only redistribute content where copyright terms explicitly allow it
> * Deposit results in a public database or provide a public service API under appropriate terms for other researchers to use and benefit
> * Respect API service limits where posted and develop polite tooling with exponential back-off where appropriate
> * When providing a commercial service that depends on other's data or services, expect to pay a reasonable charge for service levels agreements and reasonable expenses
>
> In case its not clear this was focussed on content issues not on data, but something explicit could be added saying "data is not content". Perhaps the "include elements and snippets…" section needs a bit of work as well in this context
>
> Cheers
>
> Cameron
>
>
> On 5 Mar 2012, at 09:15, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:
>> That all looks good to me.  Only one nit to pick: the statement "facts
>> are not copyright" is an apples-to-elephants comparison.  We should
>> say something like "facts are not SUBJECT TO copyright".
>>
>> Good point
>>
>> No doubt many of the replies you receive will attempt to finesse the
>> issue by saying things that (they feel) fall short of an actual "no",
>> such as "we except that the amount should be limited".  We should not
>> ignore such detail, but clearly we mustn't allow it to blur the clear
>> picture that we want to present.  So my suggestion is that we present
>> the results of this survey as a list of YES and NO in bold; but then
>> include an annex with the detailed statements.
>>
>> Yes - we allow a box for publishers to add material if they wish but it is the YES/NO that counts
>>
>> Finally, I don't know which publishers you plan to contact, but please
>> be sure to include some YESses, such as PLoS, as well as the Elseviers
>> and Springers.  Otherwise if we end up with a document that is just
>> NO, NO, NO all the way down, we risk making it seem as though the
>> publishing industry has a united front supporting a reasonable
>> position, and we are unreasonable for wanting/expecting it to be
>> different.  Instead, we want to draw lines between the publishers that
>> co-operate and those that don't.
>>
>> Yes. I intend the following 10
>> PLoS, BMC, Science (contact needed), Nature, Wiley, Elsevier, Springer, STM Publishers assoc, Roy Soc Chem, Am Chem Soc.
>>
>> The latter two are representative of "pure society" publishers.
>>
>> -- Mike.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter Murray-Rust
>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>> University of Cambridge
>> CB2 1EW, UK
>> +44-1223-763069
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-access mailing list
>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access