[Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy

Tue Mar 25 21:45:02 UTC 2014

Meanwhile, I'm left wondering ...

How the hell did it become OUR job to do unpaid quality control for
the giant legacy publishers?

-- Mike.

On 25 March 2014 21:42, Daniel Mietchen <daniel.mietchen at googlemail.com> wrote:
> I just posted a comment there (waiting for moderation):
>
> "
> Thanks, Rachel, for chiming in here and working on the problem. Further
> cases are collected in
> https://github.com/erlehmann/open-access-media-importer/issues/52 and
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/November_2012/Contents/Open_Access_report#Metadata_at_PubMed_Central
> . I had flagged these to Wiley in November 2012 and was asked for further
> explanation, which I provided. I haven't heard back from them since.
>
> A more comprehensive account of problems with the XML that Wiley and others
> deliver to PMC is given in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK159964/ .
> Apart from licensing, it also touches upon issues with MIME types and
> keywords. I will give a talk about this at JATS-Con next week (cf.
> http://jats.nlm.nih.gov/jats-con/2013/schedule2013a.html#1-330 ).
>
> "
>
> http://quantumplations.org/2014/03/21/wiley-blackwell-licenses-clarity-needed/comment-page-1/#comment-130
>
>
> --
> http://www.naturkundemuseum-berlin.de/en/institution/mitarbeiter/mietchen-daniel/
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Mietchen/Publications
> http://okfn.org
> http://wikimedia.org
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Timothy Vollmer <tvol at creativecommons.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> 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 (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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Open Knowledge Foundation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Empowering through Open Knowledge
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://okfn.org/  |  @okfn  |  OKF on Facebook  |  Blog  |
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> The Open Knowledge Foundation
>>>>>
>>>>> Empowering through Open Knowledge
>>>>>
>>>>> http://okfn.org/  |  @okfn  |  OKF on Facebook  |  Blog  |  Newsletter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Michelle Brook
>>>
>>> Science and Open Access
>>>
>>>  | @MLBrook
>>>
>>> The Open Knowledge Foundation
>>>
>>> Empowering through Open Knowledge
>>>
>>> http://okfn.org/  |  @okfn  |  OKF on Facebook  |  Blog  |  Newsletter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>