[Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy

Sun Mar 23 01:55:33 UTC 2014

Just noticed that
http://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pmc&id=PMC3785148
states "The publisher of this article does not allow downloading of the
full text in XML form."
Not sure where to put that, so just pasting it in here.
d.

--
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 Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Michelle Brook <michelle.brook at okfn.org>wrote:

> It's the bubble effect.., we are surrounded by people who do care about
> open access a lot. So we forget others don't think about it so much.
>
> This is why we need to be much better at going out,  and talking to
> others, with a clear message about why it's important.
>
> M
>
> On 22 Mar 2014, at 11:06, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> 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.
>
> Historians of the Open Access movement should take into account the
> negative effects of:
> * non-reusable Green OA as a quick and cheap solution
> * the academic clamour for CC-NC as "protecting rights". I reckon CC-NC
> will cost us tens of billions in opportunity costs
>
> Glyn Moody (or someone commenting on his blog) said the outside world was
> contually amazed by how backward the academic practice was. I agree.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Michelle Brook <michelle.brook at okfn.org>wrote:
>
>> As a community, those passionate about open access need to be far far
>> better at getting the message out when publishers get  these license
>> statements incorrect...
>>
>> M
>>
>>
>> On 22 Mar 2014, at 10:22, Daniel Mietchen <daniel.mietchen at googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I'll be at JATS-Con on April 1-2 to talk about inconsistencies in the XML
>> as a barrier to reusing OA materials:
>> http://jats.nlm.nih.gov/jats-con/2013/schedule2013a.html#1-330 .
>> Licensing is the main topic there, but MIME types or keywords are also
>> frequently signaled inconsistently.
>> The conference was originally scheduled to take place last October but
>> had to be canceled due to the government shutdown, and only those who could
>> not cancel their flights met. My talk there sits at
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Mietchen/Talks/JATS-Con_Impromptu_2013.
>> d.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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 Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Daniel Mietchen <
>> daniel.mietchen at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wiley is big in getting license statements wrong. I contacted them on
>>> this particular one and a few others before publishing
>>>
>>> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/November_2012/Contents/Open_Access_report, and no reaction apart from acknowledgement of receipt.
>>>
>>> More on license mismatches in
>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK159964/ .
>>>
>>> d.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> 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 Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Michelle Brook <
>>> michelle.brook at okfn.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Stuart :-D
>>>>
>>>> I wanted to get the WIley-Blackwell ones done, but got annoyed with the
>>>> repeated statement:
>>>>
>>>> 'Copyright © 2013 International Society for Neurochemistry' (this
>>>> obviously varies across journals), 'Re-use of this article is permitted in
>>>> accordance with the Creative Commons Deed, Attribution 2.5, which does not
>>>> permit commercial exploitation.'
>>>>
>>>> Is there something I'm misunderstanding about cc-by version 2.5?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 21 March 2014 08:51, Stuart Lawson <stuart.a.lawson at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm working my way through the PLOS journals on the spreadsheet, to
>>>>> get the straightforward ones done...
>>>>>
>>>>> Stuart
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 20 March 2014 17:02, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we have to do a crowdsourcing on the Wellcome spreadsheet.
>>>>>> (You'll see from my blog that some Elsevier papers are still behind
>>>>>> paywalls). I'd suggest we extract:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * number of copies (this is a problem as some copies are OA and some
>>>>>> are not. Generally we need at least (a) Pubmed and (b) the formal journal .
>>>>>> A third option might be Science Direct.
>>>>>> * for each copy analyse (a) HTML(PDF) - they are often different
>>>>>> * for each of those look for:
>>>>>>    "Open Access" or publisher equivalent (e.g. ACS "Author Choice")
>>>>>>    licence (if any)
>>>>>>    all-rights-reserved
>>>>>>    copyright
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we can later build crawlers and scrapers for this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:33 PM, ANDREW Theo <Theo.Andrew at ed.ac.uk>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  >Yes, and we have to fight this. Noticed that Wiley seems to have
>>>>>>> slipped back. And the problem is that they market CC-NC to academics as
>>>>>>> >being in authors' interests.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter is right.  Currently we have no data on what type of licences
>>>>>>> people are choosing. The Wellcome Trust ask for CC BY, but it is starting
>>>>>>> to look like many of the authors they fund are not choosing this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is very worrying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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> *
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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/20140323/f6137c0f/attachment-0002.html>