[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

[Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)]

Hi Peter,

 

Thanks for this.  I've communicated that we are happy in principle for
you to mine our content, and there are only some practical issues to
resolve.  We have successfully concluded the technical discussion, and I
believe you, your colleagues, and my technical colleagues are all happy
with the proposed technical mechanism.  Next, I'ld like to double-check
that I have correctly understood what you and your colleagues will do
and who will have access to which content/extracts.  Finally, we have an
existing agreement with the U of Cambridge library and we need to ensure
there is some language in that agreement - or a side letter - to enable
content-mining.  We aren't far off at all - and I suspect we could
resolve this in 1, possibly 2, quick conversations.  If you prefer not
to interact with the Cambridge librarians, I can do this separately.

 

Perhaps it would be helpful for me to clarify the important role that I
believe the Cambridge library has to play.  This role is not to vet your
research to see if you can carry it out, but to ensure that the language
necessary to enable this to happen is included in their various
agreements with publishers.  This is the way that libraries have been
able to create the existing information environment on campus where you,
and your colleagues, can access e-journals from home or your office or
out in the field.  All the agreements/arrangements/technology that the
library has put in place to create this environment, and to ensure that
it is easy to access and use, are generally invisible to researchers -
even those who use this information environment on a daily basis.  

 

This is the sort of environment/experience needed for researchers who
wish to text mine as well.  As an early adopter - indeed a pioneer in
text mining - you are forging a trail.  Librarians will help to maintain
that trail so that many, many others can follow easily in your
footsteps.

 

With kind wishes, 

 

Alicia

 

Dr Alicia Wise

Director of Universal Access

Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB

P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.wise at elsevier.com
I 

Twitter: @wisealic

 

 

From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On
Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust
Sent: 11 May 2012 23:47
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

 

 

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Richard Poynder
<ricky at richardpoynder.co.uk> wrote:

Many thanks to Alicia Wise for starting a new conversation thread. 

 

Let's recall that Alicia's question was, "what positive things are
established scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions
for open access and future scholarly communications that should be
encouraged, celebrated, recognized?"


Alicia Wise already knows my reply - she has had enough email from me.
The publishers show withdraw contractual restrictions on content-mining.
That's all they need to do.

My university has paid Elsevier for subscription to the content in
Elsevier journals. I believe I have the right to mine the content.
Elsevier has written a contract which forbids me to use this in any way
other than reading with human eyeballs - I cannot crawl it, index it,
extract content for whatever purpose. I have spent THREE years trying to
deal with Elsevier and get a straight answer. 

See
http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/11/27/textmining-my-years-negotiating
-with-elsevier/

The most recent "discussions" ended with Alicia Wise suggesting that she
and Cambridge librarians discuss my proposed research and see if they
could agree to my carrying it out. I let the list decide whether this is
a constructive offer or a delaying tactic. It certainly does not scale
if all researchers have to get the permission of their librarians and
every publisher before they can mine the content in the literature. And
why should a publisher decide what research I may or may not do?

All of this is blogged on http://blogs.cam.ac.uk/pmr

Yes - I asked 6 toll-access publishers for permission to mine their
content before I submitted my opinion to the Hargreaves enquiry.  Of the
6 publishers (which we in the process of summarising - this is hard
because of the wooliness of the language) the approximate answers were:
1 possibly
4 mumble (e.g. "let's discuss it with your librarians")
1 no (good old ACS pulls no punches - I'd rather have a straight "no"
than "mumble")
 
In no other market would vendors be allowed to get away with such awful
customer service. A straight question deserves a straight answer, but
not in scholarly publishing.

Just in case anyone doesn't understand content mining, the technology is
straightforward. The only reason it's not done is because Universities
are afraid of publishers. I estimate that tens of billions of dollars
worth of value is lost through being forbidden to mine the scholarly
literature.

If Alicia Wise can say "yes" to me unreservedly, I'll be happy.

P.









-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069


Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120512/d74f1b8c/attachment-0001.html