[Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy

Tue Mar 25 13:08:43 UTC 2014

How interesting; the article on the site doesn't have any CC license at
all.

Thanks for pointing that out Timothy! I'd be really interested in hearing
if anyone has any insight here.

M

On 24 March 2014 22:18, Timothy Vollmer <tvol at creativecommons.org> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>

-- 

*Michelle Brook*

*Science and Open Access*

* | @MLBrook <https://twitter.com/MLBrook>*

*The Open Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/>Empowering through Open
Knowledgehttp://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>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20140325/7e905445/attachment-0002.html>