[Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy

Tue Mar 25 15:49:45 UTC 2014

Hi Michelle:
I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the Wiley online library is the version
of record, so I wonder how the poorly described CC license statement got
added when it was deposited in PMC. Of course, if the article is indeed
"all rights reserved" then Wiley shouldn't have it in their "open access"
category. But that's an argument I don't care to fight about now.
tvol

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 6:08 AM, Michelle Brook <michelle.brook at okfn.org>wrote:

> 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
> 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> *
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20140325/d09a3ca8/attachment-0002.html>