[Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy
Peter Murray Rust
peter.murray.rust at googlemail.com
Fri Mar 28 10:17:27 UTC 2014
Yes I wrote in similar vein to Julian huppert saying elsevier should be investigated
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Mar 2014, at 09:41, Rupert Gatti <rupert.gatti at openbookpublishers.com> wrote:
> I have just placed the following comment of Peter Murray Rust's blog - but just wanted to repeat it here for others to consider also:
>
> "May I highlight yet another problem, extending beyond the serious issue you have highlighted of some apc articles sitting behind paywalls. I think there is another serious question for Elsevier to answer concerning the licencing of re-use for the articles they have published.
>
> The ‘OA product’ being sold by Elsevier to academic authors is an OA publication under an author selected CC licence. There are two components to this product: a. that the article is ‘free to read’ and b. that the article can be re-used according to the CC licence selected (and paid for) by the author. Part (b), the re-use licence, is an important issue for Open Access – and funder mandates clearly stipulate that ‘free to read’ is NOT sufficient (they could, after all, have mandated just ‘free to read’ – but they didn’t).
>
> You have identified significant problems with their delivery of the first “free to read” component of their product. The Wellcome data reveals that there is a near universal problem with the ‘reuse’ component.
>
> Thanks to your and Mike Taylor’s efforts, Elsevier has been aware that there were severe problems with the re-use component of the product they were providing (and selling) for over two years. Specifically that the licence statements on some articles was incorrect – claiming ‘all rights reserved’ and, secondly, that there was no way for a reader to determine the CC licence or re-use rights associated with these published papers. What the Wellcome data shows is that these problems exist almost universally – in fact there hasn’t yet been identified a single paper published by Elsevier on the Wellcome list which does NOT have this problem.
>
> So it appears that, for the past two years Elsevier has actively marketed and sold millions of dollars of this ‘OA product’ to thousands of academic authors (and not just Wellcome funded authors) in the full knowledge that there was a serious problem with their product and that they were not actually able to supply the ‘OA product’ being advertised and purchased.
>
> Might that be an additional issue to add to the list of concerns when people communicate with MPs, funders, trading standards etc. ?"
>
> Rupert
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 8:37 AM, 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> © 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 © 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
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
>
>
> --
> Dr Rupert Gatti
> Director
> Open Book Publishers
> tel: +44 1223 339929
> skype: jrupertjg
>
> www.openbookpublishers.com
> See our latest catalogue at https://www.openbookpublishers.com/shopimages/LatestCatalogue.pdf
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140328/7657cabf/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the open-access
mailing list