[Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy

Mon Mar 24 16:35:40 UTC 2014

Hi Theo, all,

I have taken the spreadsheet data and stuck it through the usual processes
I have been using to analyse and visualise stuff for my phd. I can update
this as the spreadsheet becomes more complete.

Attached is a preliminary screenshot, which does not have useful stuff like
explanations, but I am working on adding more. What you can immediately
tell is that Hybrid OA (the orange bubble in the middle) has a
significantly larger "ecosystem" around it. All the tiny blue dots are the
articles listed in the spreadsheet, and the grey-ish dots they cluster
around are the publishers of those articles.

The orange dot at the top is the Pure OA. The large cluster to the left of
that is PLOS, and the ones above are BioMed Central - so you can see all
PLOS ones are Pure OA, whereas the BioMed ones are a mix of Pure OA and
something else.

The four clusters in the middle, between Pure and Hybrid, are OUP, Elsevier
Cell Press, NPG, and BMJ. Then around the Hybrid bubble we find Wiley,
Elsevier, Springer, etc.

If you want to explore further and try different combinations such as
journals and licence types, try using the visual interface here:

http://phd.cottagelabs.com/wellcome

I am working to improve the UI there, and it is still just an unstable
prototype, so don't try to rely on it for anything serious at the moment.
However you can use the search suggestion dropdowns to quickly see
duplicate IDs, find the top journal title, the top publisher, etc, and
filter the vis by them.

Theo - I would like to follow up with you re. this and other phd stuff. I
will email you separately.

Mark

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:10 PM, 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/20140324/563a608b/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: wellcome.png
Type: image/png
Size: 121483 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20140324/563a608b/attachment-0002.png>