[Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy

Thu Mar 27 13:39:34 UTC 2014

I've started going through all the Elsevier articles on the spreadsheet to
check them individually on the publisher's website for Creative Commons
licenses. Of the first 25 items I checked, only 4 had identifiable CC
licenses (3 CC-BY, 1 CC-BY-NC-SA). I think most of them were published
before Wellcome's CC mandate though, so in order to measure the exact scale
of their fraud do you think we need to add a Date column to the
spreadsheet? It would mean yet more work, unless someone knows a way to
automatically collect date metadata based on DOI/PMCID.

Stuart

On 26 March 2014 08:37, Michelle Brook <michelle.brook at okfn.org> wrote:

> Very possibly - these things do happen.
>
> Michelle
>
>
> On 25 March 2014 20:42, 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 <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> *
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> *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> *
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140327/1c8a61f6/attachment-0002.html>