[Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy

[ANDREW Theo]

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/  |  @okfn<http://twitter.com/OKFN>  |  OKF on Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork>  |  Blog<http://blog.okfn.org/>  |  Newsletter<http://okfn.org/about/newsletter>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20140324/c1bf2cba/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20140324/c1bf2cba/attachment-0002.ksh>