[Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy

Mon Mar 24 12:14:00 UTC 2014

massive kudos to Michelle for setting this cleaning and analysis in action.
My first law of datasets is

- all datasets need cleaning

Personally I'm not too worried about the SK article - no more than
expected. It's useful to highlight dubious publishers - this is a positive
value to Wellcome who can then set in place mechanisms to counter it.

Thanks Rupert for your comment. The SK has been known to exercise editorial
control on comments ...

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Michelle Brook <michelle.brook at okfn.org>wrote:

> Quickly I'd say he's using dollars rather than pounds (original data set
> released in pounds, so seems odd to make the transition, given that we
> don't know when the individual fees were paid, so can't know overall
> conversion rates).
>
> I've also merged Elsevier and Elsevier Cell Press costs (which were
> originally separate, currently remain separate in the crowd-sourced Google
> Doc - but made this clear in my table)
>
> Wiley-Blackwell & PLOS figures seem roughly correct through a currency
> converter. I'll check percentage figures a bit later.
>
> M
>
>
> On 24 March 2014 11:38, Rupert Gatti <rupert.gatti at openbookpublishers.com>wrote:
>
>> For of those of you with the stomach for Kent Anderson and the Scholarly
>> Kitchen blog (warning for the uninititiated - it takes some self-control!)
>> - he has just blogged about the data set:
>>
>>
>> http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2014/03/21/wellcome-money-in-this-example-of-open-access-funding-the-matthew-effect-dominates/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScholarlyKitchen+%28The+Scholarly+Kitchen%29
>>
>> For info: I have just posted the following comment - but it remains 'in
>> moderation'
>>
>> "Kent, I think you have identified the wrong rogue publisher to
>> highlight. What I find far more concerning than $10k possibly
>> misappropriated by a fly-by-night publisher is that Elsevier has accepted
>> $1.65 million in payment but not delivered on their side of the deal by
>> actually publishing the works in an Open Access format.
>> As people like Mike Taylor and Peter Murray-Rust (eg <
>> https://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/>) have highlighted repeatedly - for at
>> least two years now - many of the works Elsevier have been paid to publish
>> OA remain behind paywalls, and the majority of articles on the Wellcome
>> list published by Elsevier are doen so with the statement "Copyright
>> Elsevier. All rights reserved" - no mention the work is Open Access, no
>> mention of which CC licence it is published under, nothing.They have had
>> years to sort this out and, as these figures show, have received a lot of
>> funding through this route - but still they haven't bothered. Should the
>> Wellcome Trust (and other funders) now sue them for breach of contract do
>> you think?"
>>
>> Interestingly - his numbers differ from yours Michelle?? (any thoughts
>> why that may be?)
>>
>> Rupert
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Michelle Brook <michelle.brook at okfn.org
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> 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> *
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr Rupert Gatti
>> Director
>> Open Book Publishers
>> tel: +44 1223 339929
>> skype: jrupertjg
>>
>> www.openbookpublishers.com
>> See our latest catalogue at
>> https://www.openbookpublishers.com/shopimages/LatestCatalogue.pdf
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *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> *
>

-- 
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/20140324/2c423b80/attachment-0002.html>