[Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy

Fri Mar 28 09:50:32 UTC 2014

Seeing Mark McG at lunch today ...

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Michelle Brook <michelle.brook at okfn.org>wrote:

> 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
> 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
>
>

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20140328/645b9506/attachment-0002.html>