[Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy

Sat Mar 29 14:24:01 UTC 2014

Hi everyone, I updated the visualisation with data from the spreadsheet as
of yesterday, and it is showing much better coverage now. The hybrid group
is about 3 times the size of the pure group.

http://phd.cottagelabs.com/wellcome

Mark

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Peter Murray Rust <
peter.murray.rust at googlemail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *(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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140329/56cb16c1/attachment-0002.html>