[open-bibliography] Inviting community engagement on building a bibliographic roadmap

Sat Jan 19 17:09:38 UTC 2013

Oh gosh, that site is so old. If the information there works for you, great.
But I haven't updated it in over 5 years. I do know that McGraw-Hill is
still quite good about providing their ONIX records, and I remain on their
mailing list because I've been too lazy to remove myself. It would be great
if someone took upon themselves to create a directory of such record feeds,
but I'm afraid that person can no longer be me.
Roy

On 1/19/13 1/19/13 € 7:51 AM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle at kcoyle.net> wrote:

> List of publishers (not complete) who make their bib records available
> for free downloading:
> 
> http://roytennant.com/proto/onix/
> 
> On 1/19/13 12:52 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Krichel <krichel at openlib.org
>> <mailto:krichel at openlib.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>        Peter Murray-Rust writes
>> 
>>> I actually suspect that publishers do not want open bibdata.
>> 
>>        So do I. As long as the biggest one, Elsevier, runs a business of
>>        selling metadata through Scopus, why would they give that data away?
>>        Actually they do give some to RePEc but I am told we are the only
>>        ones they give any of their metadata to and it does not contain
>>        abstracts. This data still has commercial value.  Case in point: the
>>        CEO of a company in the scholarly communications field confided to
>>        me that his company spends a lot of money for metadata from a
>>        medium-sized society publisher.
>> 
>> Yes - bibliographicdata is money. smaller publishers sell it to the
>> aggregators, the aggregators resell it a a huge markup and devlop a
>> monopoly.
>> 
>>> They want Google to index it for them.
>> 
>>        I am not so sure about this. I suspect the publishers would rather
>>        have their own engines, but they don't have a technology anywhere
>>        near Google's, so I think it's more of a case of "if you can't
>>        beat them, join them".
>> 
>> 
>> Imagine if 100 (and possibly 1000) publishers all had their search
>> engines? It would be almost as useless as institutional repositories.
>> No, they want a one-stop shop. Maybe Elsevier would like that role, but
>> not - say - the  Chemical Society of Japan. I *can* see the value of
>> domain-specific repositories - if they add value beyond GoogleText. e.g.
>> searching for data and equations.
>> 
>> 
>>> If Elsevier tell you they are happy to give PeterMR their bib data
>>> for his own unrestricted use I'd be amazed.
>> 
>>        So would I!
>> 
>>> Scholars create bibliographies in scholarly publication and if these
>>> "belong" to closed publishers they claim the copyright on them.
>> 
>>        Absolutely!
>> 
>>> Some of us are trying, with little/no funding, to scrape the
>>> public web and to build shared resources. But it is often a long
>>     slog to
>>> create such bottom-up data.  And maybe this is something that
>>     libraries
>>> could put some effort into.
>> 
>>        They don't have the resources. They spend all their resource on
>>        toll-gated publishers. Thus they are outsourcing themselves to
>>        death.
>> 
>> 
>> They don't have the courage. The are the managers of huge amounts of
>> money but they have no control. They're scared of academics, they're
>> scared of publishers. I think you're right - libraries will be replaced
>> by outsourcing and that - unless we can take control - will be *awful*.
>> 
>> 
>>        Cheers,
>> 
>> 
>> yes, we have to be cheerful.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Peter Murray-Rust
>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>> University of Cambridge
>> CB2 1EW, UK
>> +44-1223-763069
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-bibliography mailing list
>> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-bibliography
>> 