[open-science] text-mining licence exemplar

anthony at beckhome.info anthony at beckhome.info
Wed Jun 6 14:33:54 UTC 2012

I appreciate this. However, two issues are at play:
1. a collection has potentially greater resonance with the community
2. 'open' is 'new' for the archaeological domain. So there is the
opportunity to get a message through to a mainstream audience (albeit a
pay-walled mainstream audience) and a lack of opportunity for alternative
publication mechanisms. Preaching to the choir does not change anything!

Most authors from the UK will follow the green Open Access model as
mandated by the UK Research Councils, so the text etc. will be available.

For these reasons I will go with this journal (subject to peer-review
etc.) as IMHO the benefits outweigh the costs. However, this has been an
interesting decision to make. Which is why I am interested in the response
from T&F.

>From a pragmatic basis - I will point the editor to this thread and see
what he makes of it all ;-)



> If they won't do this, then you should give very serious consideration
> to pulling your article and submitting it elsewhere. However much they
> call this issue "open archaeology", if it snaps shut in six months
> then it's not open, and by giving them your work on those terms you
> would be lending credibility to their abuse of "open". I do appreciate
> that withdrawing and resubmitting is a royal pain; but in the long run
> it's probably the best thing for your paper: it will get read and
> cited more.
> -- Mike.
> On 6 June 2012 14:40,  <anthony at beckhome.info> wrote:
>> Not my call, but I can ask the theme editor.
>> Thanks
>> A
>>> Can you shame them at least into doing the opposite? NON-open for six
>>> months, then release under CC BY after that embargo elapses?
>>> -- Mike.
>>> On 6 June 2012 14:15,  <anthony at beckhome.info> wrote:
>>>> The irony of this situation is not lost on any of us. Amazingly T&F
>>>> can
>>>> not be shamed into doing the 'right thing'. However, in this instance
>>>> the
>>>> need for the message for the community is as important as the
>>>> principles......
>>>> Thanks
>>>> A
>>>>> On 6 June 2012 14:07,  <anthony at beckhome.info> wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks Mike and Ross,
>>>>>> Unfortunately Taylor and Francis are not going to go for any form of
>>>>>> CC
>>>>>> licence.
>>>>>> The texts in this issues will be made available for 6 months and
>>>>>> then
>>>>>> revert to T&Fs normal terms and conditions. What I want to do is to
>>>>>> allow
>>>>>> text mining of the papers for at least that 6 month period and
>>>>>> potentially
>>>>>> in perpetuity. Hence, I want/need some clause that specifically
>>>>>> allows
>>>>>> text mining.
>>>>> That is not any part of an "open archaeology" theme.
>>>>> If you want an "open for text-mining for six months, then paywalled"
>>>>> licence, you'll have to write one yourself, for the very good reason
>>>>> that no-one else has done anything that silly.
>>>>> Sorry if that reply is unhelpful, but it's the truth. Criticism aimed
>>>>> not at you, of course, but at T&F.
>>>>> -- Mike.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> open-science mailing list
>>>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-science mailing list
>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science

More information about the open-science mailing list