[Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy

Tue Mar 25 20:39:11 UTC 2014

Timothy, all,

You may be interested in the latest comment from Rachel Burley at Wiley:
http://quantumplations.org/2014/03/21/wiley-blackwell-licenses-clarity-needed/comment-page-1/#comment-129

*'It appears there was a problem with the information that we supplied to
PMC for this paper and a small number of others. We are working to address
the problem a matter of priority and apologize for the lack of clarity.'*

Michelle

On 25 March 2014 15:49, Timothy Vollmer <tvol at creativecommons.org> wrote:

> 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> *
>>
>
>

-- 

*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/20140325/1a125141/attachment-0002.html>