[Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy

Tue Mar 25 21:42:21 UTC 2014

I just posted a comment there (waiting for moderation):

"
Thanks, Rachel, for chiming in here and working on the problem. Further
cases are collected in
https://github.com/erlehmann/open-access-media-importer/issues/52 and
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/November_2012/Contents/Open_Access_report#Metadata_at_PubMed_Central.
I had flagged these to Wiley in November 2012 and was asked for
further
explanation, which I provided. I haven’t heard back from them since.

A more comprehensive account of problems with the XML that Wiley and others
deliver to PMC is given in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK159964/ .
Apart from licensing, it also touches upon issues with MIME types and
keywords. I will give a talk about this at JATS-Con next week (cf.
http://jats.nlm.nih.gov/jats-con/2013/schedule2013a.html#1-330 ).

"
http://quantumplations.org/2014/03/21/wiley-blackwell-licenses-clarity-needed/comment-page-1/#comment-130

--
http://www.naturkundemuseum-berlin.de/en/institution/mitarbeiter/mietchen-daniel/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Mietchen/Publications
http://okfn.org
http://wikimedia.org

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Timothy Vollmer
<tvol at creativecommons.org>wrote:

> Great, thanks for that information. Maybe it was just an error.
> t
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Michelle Brook <michelle.brook at okfn.org>wrote:
>
>> Timothy, all,
>>
>> You may be interested in the latest comment from Rachel Burley at Wiley:
>> http://quantumplations.org/2014/03/21/wiley-blackwell-licenses-clarity-needed/comment-page-1/#comment-129
>>
>> *'It appears there was a problem with the information that we supplied to
>> PMC for this paper and a small number of others. We are working to address
>> the problem a matter of priority and apologize for the lack of clarity.'*
>>
>>
>> Michelle
>>
>>
>> On 25 March 2014 15:49, Timothy Vollmer <tvol at creativecommons.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Michelle:
>>> I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the Wiley online library is the
>>> version of record, so I wonder how the poorly described CC license
>>> statement got added when it was deposited in PMC. Of course, if the article
>>> is indeed "all rights reserved" then Wiley shouldn't have it in their "open
>>> access" category. But that's an argument I don't care to fight about now.
>>> tvol
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 6:08 AM, Michelle Brook <michelle.brook at okfn.org
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> How interesting; the article on the site doesn't have any CC license at
>>>> all.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for pointing that out Timothy! I'd be really interested in
>>>> hearing if anyone has any insight here.
>>>>
>>>> M
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 24 March 2014 22:18, Timothy Vollmer <tvol at creativecommons.org>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have a question getting back to Michelle's original observation
>>>>> about the representation of the CC license. It looks like on Wiley's site
>>>>> the article doesn't have the confusing CC license statement:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/zph.12000/abstract
>>>>>
>>>>> *© 2012 Blackwell Verlag GmbH*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  But on the NCBI site the same article contains that statement:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3600532/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> *Copyright <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/copyright.html> ©
>>>>>> 2012 Blackwell Verlag GmbH Re-use of this article is permitted in
>>>>>> accordance with the Creative Commons Deed, Attribution 2.5, which does not
>>>>>> permit commercial exploitation.*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone know how/why that statement got pulled into the PMC site?
>>>>>
>>>>> timothy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 9:10 AM, ANDREW Theo <Theo.Andrew at ed.ac.uk>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>  Thanks for this initial analysis Michelle – it’s good stuff. I’m
>>>>>> working on adding licence information and having just gone through a
>>>>>> handful I’m concerned by the amount of articles that are just not made open
>>>>>> by the publishers despite an APC being paid. Quite often the authors have
>>>>>> sidestepped the publishers and deposited their article in EuroPubMed
>>>>>> Central directly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whether it’s unintended (i.e. a ‘system problem’ which is Elsevier’s
>>>>>> excuse for selling CC BY content) or not, unless publishers are pulled up
>>>>>> on this they will carry on this kind of behaviour unchecked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Theo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* open-access [mailto:open-access-bounces at lists.okfn.org] *On
>>>>>> Behalf Of *Michelle Brook
>>>>>> *Sent:* 24 March 2014 10:58
>>>>>> *To:* Peter Murray Rust
>>>>>> *Cc:* Mike Taylor; Bjoern Brembs; open-access at lists.okfn.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey all - pulled together some initial analysis on hybrid and pure
>>>>>> journals here:
>>>>>> http://access.okfn.org/2014/03/24/scale-hybrid-journals-publishing/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll continue playing around with this data set over the next few
>>>>>> days & explore bits and pieces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The sheer amount of hybrid journal publication is scary/concerning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michelle
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24 March 2014 10:33, Peter Murray Rust <
>>>>>> peter.murray.rust at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes mike that's right
>>>>>> You have expected to be able to convince elsevier et al to act in our
>>>>>> interests . Fundamentally impossible. Part of problem is money spent on
>>>>>> marketing and lobbying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24 Mar 2014, at 09:53, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > There is a very fundamental point underlying Bjorn's position here,
>>>>>> > which I feel that I am only now seeing clearly. For anyone else
>>>>>> who's
>>>>>> > been as slow as I have, here it is.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > In the exchange of scholarly information there are, fundamentally,
>>>>>> two
>>>>>> > parties: producers and consumers. Both of these have the same goal:
>>>>>> > for research to be available as universally as possible. For
>>>>>> > historical reasons a third party is involved in the process --
>>>>>> > publishers -- and they do not have the same goal. I'm not blaming
>>>>>> them
>>>>>> > for that: it's not a moral failing, it's just a fact that they want
>>>>>> > different things from what the writers and readers of scholarly
>>>>>> > literature want.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > That's why publishers so often do things that we hate: the
>>>>>> > fundamentally do not want what we want. It's that simple.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -- Mike.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On 24 March 2014 09:13, Bjoern Brembs <b.brembs at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >> On Saturday, March 22, 2014, 12:06:01 PM, you wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>> We clearly underestimate how backwards the Open Access
>>>>>> >>> community is compared to Wikipedia, the F/LOSS movement
>>>>>> >>> and Open government. Publishers can drive holes through
>>>>>> >>> legislation and there are only a few of us to protect the
>>>>>> >>> commons. I am disappointed that University libraries
>>>>>> >>> aren't more active and knowledgeable.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> I share your disappointment, but what other options do we have? I
>>>>>> think Richard Poynder hit it the nail on the head in many ways:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> http://poynder.blogspot.de/2014/03/the-state-of-open-access.html
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> If we keep working with publishers, we get what we deserve. Just
>>>>>> this morning again, I read about yet another publisher turning their backs
>>>>>> on scientists:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> http://retractionwatch.com/2014/03/21/controversial-paper-linking-conspiracy-ideation-to-climate-change-skepticism-formally-retracted/
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Nothing to do with licenses, but still outrageous.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> If we keep treating publishers as viable options for our
>>>>>> intellectual output, this is what we have to deal with.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> So if libraries don't do what we'd expect them to do, maybe it's
>>>>>> time for us to demand the infrastructure we need for our texts, software
>>>>>> and data?
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> We should demand subscription cancellations to free up funds for
>>>>>> infrastructure development, such that we can wean ourselves from the
>>>>>> dependence of corporate publishers with orthogonal interests from ours.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Let's help our libraries help us, instead of wearing them thin,
>>>>>> torn between the demands of their faculty and those of the publishers.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Before we can demand anything from libraries, we need to provide
>>>>>> them with the wherewithal to actually deliver. Support subscription cuts
>>>>>> now!
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Bjoern
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> --
>>>>>> >> Björn Brembs
>>>>>> >> ---------------------------------------------
>>>>>> >> http://brembs.net
>>>>>> >> Neurogenetics
>>>>>> >> Universität Regensburg
>>>>>> >> Germany
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >> open-access mailing list
>>>>>> >> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>>>>>> >> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>>>>>> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> open-access mailing list
>>>>>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>>>>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michelle Brook
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Science and Open Access
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  | *@MLBrook <https://twitter.com/MLBrook>*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The* Open Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/>*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Empowering through Open Knowledge*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *http://okfn.org/ <http://okfn.org/>*  | * @okfn
>>>>>> <http://twitter.com/OKFN>*  | * OKF on Facebook
>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork>*  |*  Blog
>>>>>> <http://blog.okfn.org/>*  |*  Newsletter
>>>>>> <http://okfn.org/about/newsletter>*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>>>>>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> open-access mailing list
>>>>>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>>>>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> *Michelle Brook *
>>>>
>>>> *Science and Open Access *
>>>>
>>>> * | @MLBrook <https://twitter.com/MLBrook> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * The Open Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/> Empowering through
>>>> Open Knowledge http://okfn.org/ <http://okfn.org/>  |  @okfn
>>>> <http://twitter.com/OKFN>  |  OKF on Facebook
>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork>  |  Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>  |
>>>>  Newsletter <http://okfn.org/about/newsletter> *
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Michelle Brook *
>>
>> *Science and Open Access *
>>
>> * | @MLBrook <https://twitter.com/MLBrook> *
>>
>>
>>
>> * The Open Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/> Empowering through
>> Open Knowledge http://okfn.org/ <http://okfn.org/>  |  @okfn
>> <http://twitter.com/OKFN>  |  OKF on Facebook
>> <https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork>  |  Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>  |
>>  Newsletter <http://okfn.org/about/newsletter> *
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20140325/59780978/attachment-0001.html>