[Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy

Tue Mar 25 22:21:27 UTC 2014

Good question, Mike, but the underlying problem is deeper - reuse has been
neglected on much of the OA discussions we have had so far, not only in
terms of legal aspects (licensing, embargoes etc.) but also in terms of
technical aspects.

It is not difficult to find problems in the XML that OA publishers -
including PLOS, BMC, Hindawi, Frontiers and basically anyone else that I
have looked at - deliver to PMC (details in the paper linked in my previous
comment).

PMC do a lot to clean that up, but their focus (and that of JATS) has
always been on getting content into the repository, not out of it, and
these kinds of problems are way more apparent when you actually try reusing
the materials systematically, as our bot at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Open_Access_Media_Importer_Bot
does.

So I think that more emphasis should be placed on reusability when
discussing, designing, building and maintaining research infrastructure.

d.

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:

> 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
> >>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20140325/0ba22c00/attachment-0002.html>