[Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy

Tue Mar 25 20:42:44 UTC 2014

Great, thanks for that information. Maybe it was just an error.
t

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Michelle Brook <michelle.brook at okfn.org>wrote:

> 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
> 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/20140325/7d1e8b8f/attachment-0002.html>