[open-linguistics] Draft codex for academic publishing

Fri Sep 28 14:04:54 UTC 2018

Hi Christian,

I think CEUR-WS sent a mail around asking about the future licensing method
of papers published in their volumes.

As many of us have published on CEUR-WS, we should strongly encourage them
to adopt a CC-BY license for publications in line with existing open access
principles, e.g., Budapest Open Access Initiative
<https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/>.

I don't see the point in this group putting together another charter on
open access to publications as there are still many available.

I would recommend all on this mailing list who received this email from
Manfred Jeusfeld to respond and recommend that they adopt CC-BY.

Regards,
John

On 28 September 2018 at 12:57, Christian Chiarcos <christian.chiarcos at web.de
> wrote:

> Dear Sebastian, dear all,
>
> very nice initiative, and I 'm sympathetic with it, but can you be a
> little bit more specific? Do you suggest to design a letter of support for
> CEUR, or to go beyond that and develop a charta for authors to sign, or
> rules of best practice to be followed by editors and conference organizers.
> The latter two seem similar but in fact they are not:
>
> - A charta to be signed by (potential) authors means that either all rules
> should be set to SHOULD rather than MUST -- because authors have limited
> influence on the publication form chosen by organizers and editors. So, if
> an author doesn't want to be self-contradictive, none of these rules should
> prevent him/her from future publishing at the preferred venues of his/her
> target community. Signing your rule 2 as currently stated means, for
> example, that an author should no longer to publish at LREC (CC-BY-NC) --
> ACL would be ok, though, but it doesn't provide a publication channel for
> language resources.
>
> - Rule of best practice for editors and conference organizers can be much
> stricter, and they can work like a Certification Mark (think of Fairtrade),
> with a nice logo as a visual sign of their high standards, but then we need
> some kind of organization to check those conditions. We can indeed act as
> (or form) such an organization -- and automatize these checks --, but we
> need somebody committing him/herself to the task.
>
> I think it might work either way. But I also think these rules need a
> deeper discussion.
>
> I think we need to differentiate between papers and monographs. I don't
> see a good and prominent publication channel for monographs outside the
> publishing industry. Correct my if I'm wrong, but institution-level
> publication (traditionally referred to as "grey literature") is neither
> equally recognized nor does it help gaining visibility. For example, I
> cannot recall to have seen any book review for such in-house publications
> anywhere, ever.
>
> With respect to CC-BY vs. CC0, the function of CC-BY is not so much to
> make sure people cite you (which they should anyway), but to control how
> they do. It doesn't help your citation score if people point to the URL
> where they got the document from. This is particularly important for
> publishing datasets, because CC-BY 3.0 (or before) allows the author of the
> data set to point to a specific publication to be used (this is the
> "title", dropped in CC-BY 4.0).
>
> With respect to ND, this does not pertain to normal scientific use, e.g.,
> quotes and indirect quotes, because (at least  in German law) that is one
> of the exceptions of copyright (so, this cannot be restricted nor permitted
> by *any* license). However, writing a grammar and then having someone
> (maybe unqualified, in your eyes) to re-write your grammar and publish
> under your both names (perfectly in line with CC-BY) is certainly something
> I can imagine a linguist would like to prevent. So, ND may have a point
> also in our area. It should not be a preferred option, of course.
>
>
> Another area where a charta or rules of best practice would help is to
> bring some structure into the somewhat messy area of green open access,
> i.e., publication via self-archiving or designated websites for draft
> papers (which basically entails NC, cf. https://www.publisso.de/en/adv
> ice/publishing-advice-faqs/difference-between-gold-and-green-open-access/).
> When we did the LDL-2012 book, we published with Springer. At this time,
> this was helpful to establish a reference publication for the area, but
> also, the Springer contract explicitly allowed us/the authors to do
> self-archiving (of drafts, not the finals, of course). So, we used this
> exception to create a website with green OA `shadow proceedings'. It lacked
> a number of chapters which were specifically written for the book by the
> editors, but it contained the drafts of all accepted submissions. I still
> think that this was a good compromise, also between availability and
> sustainability, because the LDL-2012 website hasn't been reactivated after
> a server crash, whereas the book is still available. (And this is one of
> the great risks associated with community-based, free open access
> publishing -- unless it involves a funding model or a long-term commitment
> of some kind of independently funded organization [such as a library], it
> tends to depend on selected individuals and their positions and if this
> position changes or technical difficulties arise, suddenly everything
> disappears. Think of The Language Archive/DoBeS at MPI Nijmegen and its
> transition between its original and any possible future home -- at least it
> used to be for several years. I am wondering about the sustainability of
> CEUR, and maybe, their request comes out of exactly this problem.)
>
> But green access is `messy' in the sense that different publishers define
> it differently. Elsevier, for example, puts embargo periods of different
> duration on their green OA papers. In the area of NLP, where pre-prints are
> becoming almost more important than actual publications, this is an
> absolute no-go. On the other hand, in certain areas of linguistics, e.g.,
> when we talk about grammars or dictionaries, waiting for a year or two
> doesn't make much of a difference. Harrassowitz follows this policy, and
> they do a lot of historical and low-resource languages. AFAIK, de Gruyter
> is much more restrictive. For scientific papers, I think it would be nice
> to express a preference of CC-BY over Green OA without embargo period over
> OA with embargo over Gold OA (which tends to be unaffordable) and to
> communicate this to conference organizers and editors of collected volumes.
> Some funding organizations do. The German federal ministry of education and
> science (BMBF) accepts a one-year embargo for Open Access publications.
> However, we might want to formulate our own principles.
>
> Just my 2ct. I'm curious what others think.
>
> Best,
> Christian
>
> Am .09.2018, 11:24 Uhr, schrieb Bettina Klimek <
> klimek at informatik.uni-leipzig.de>:
>
>
>>   Hello everyone,
>>
>>   I am forwarding this message on behalf of Sebastian Hellmann to
>>      you.
>>
>>
>>   Regards,
>>
>>
>>   Bettina
>>
>>   ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>>   Hi all,
>>
>>
>>   http://ceur-ws.org/     was recently reaching out to strengthen their
>> legal position,
>>      asking for feedback.
>>
>>   We live in an area of web-publishing. In fact, the role of
>>      publishers is definitely in question. However. there is no clear
>>      idea how to do it.  From my perspective, the publisher function of
>>      persisting papers can be achieved by libraries/universities. The
>>      function of distribution and visibility of papers by better and
>>      free/open metadata.
>>
>>   If these two functions are substituted - to the best of my
>>      knowledge -  it seems that a simple codex can be derived with four
>>      rules:
>>
>>
>>   1. papers MUST be published royalty-free without compensation
>>      (open access for everyone)
>>
>>
>>   2. Copyright stays with the authors. Authors MAY choose to give
>>      up some of their rights and license under CC-BY, as the sole
>>      option.
>>
>>
>>   3. SA, NC, ND are strongly discouraged as they stir false
>>      expectations and are conflicting with unwritten academic rules
>>
>>
>>   4.  metadata, i.e. bibliographic data like bibtex SHOULD be CC-0
>>
>>
>>   Some explanations:
>>
>>
>>   1. is a no-brainer, papers are published to be read. Payment is a
>>      serious barrier of knowledge transfer
>>
>>
>>   2.  this works with transparent web publishing platforms like
>> http://ceur-ws.org/
>>      . So it is an idealisation and might not always work *yet*.
>>
>>   3. in detail:
>>
>>
>>   - BY, the only viable option matching expectation on reality,
>>      however an unnecessary one. In science, you are obliged to cite
>>      otherwise it is plagiarism, which is serious. So the good
>>      scientific practice implies BY without explicit license. On the
>>      other hand, science is liberal, so you can copy and modify
>>      basically anything and use it as long as you cite it. This is
>>      often anchored in national academic law.
>>
>>   - ND propagates false expectation, since you can still derive. In
>>      fact, science is meant to derive and build upon previous work.
>>      What good is a license if you can't enforce it.
>>
>>
>>   - NC most of the times the valuable part are the ideas described
>>      in the paper. They are described (hopefully ;) in a way so that
>>      they are reproducible. A license is not a patent, so basically
>>      anybody can still exploit your ideas. https://xkcd.com/     NC
>> makes sense for XKCD, meaning you can't print T-Shirts with it
>>      and sell it. With papers you can read it and use the information
>>      to commercialise, just the exact text is licensed
>>
>>
>>   - SA In my opinion SA has the purpose that you can track the
>>      modifcations by others and if something good comes up you can
>>      reintegrate it as is. I am not sure, if this has a place in
>>      academic publishing. I can't imagine a scenario, where scientist X
>>      publishes under SA and then enforces that scientist Y using and
>>      citing his work properly is obligated to also publish under SA.
>>
>>   4. might be changed from SHOULD to MUST clearly we would all
>>      benefit from this.
>>
>>    This is the current state in my head as it makes sense to me and I
>>    see great potential in it. However, we need to discuss, refine and
>>    consolidate it as a community.
>>      --
>>    All the best,
>>
>>    Sebastian Hellmann
>>
>>       Director of Knowledge Integration and Linked Data
>>      Technologies (KILT) Competence Center
>>
>>      at the Institute for Applied Informatics (InfAI) at Leipzig
>>      University
>>
>>      Executive Director of the DBpedia Association
>>
>>      Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://nlp2rdf.org,
>> http://linguistics.okfn.org,
>>      https://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt
>>
>>      Homepage: http://aksw.org/SebastianHellmann
>>
>>      Research Group: http://aksw.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Prof. Dr. Christian Chiarcos
> Applied Computational Linguistics
> Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität Frankfurt a. M.
> 60054 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
>
> office: Robert-Mayer-Str. 10, #401b
> mail: chiarcos at informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
> web: http://acoli.cs.uni-frankfurt.de
> tel: +49-(0)69-798-22463
> fax: +49-(0)69-798-28931
> _______________________________________________
> open-linguistics mailing list
> open-linguistics at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-linguistics
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-linguistics
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-linguistics/attachments/20180928/525be7c0/attachment-0002.html>