[Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy

• Previous message: [Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy
• Next message: [Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

I wanted to talk to the Cottage Labs guys about this - because I would be
really keen to pull this out in someway, and figured they would be the best
placed to work out how to do this.

Thanks for catalysing that email from me ;-)

M




On 27 March 2014 13:39, Stuart Lawson <stuart.a.lawson at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>


-- 

*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/20140327/7c6161fd/attachment-0002.html>

• Previous message: [Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy
• Next message: [Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]