[Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy

Mon Mar 24 22:18:53 UTC 2014

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

*(c) 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> (c) 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20140324/f2da0616/attachment-0002.html>