[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

[Richard Poynder]

List members will doubtless correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me 
that the nub of this issue is that Peter Murray-Rust believes that when 
a research library pays a subscription for a scholarly journal (or a 
collection of journals) the subscription should give researchers at that 
institution the right both to read the content with their eyeballs, and 
to mine it with their machines -- and that this should be viewed as an 
automatic right.

Publishers appear to take the view that text mining is not an automatic 
right for subscribers. Consequently, some publishers believe that 
machine access needs to be separately negotiated, and on a case-by-case 
basis (preferably with the institutional library rather than individual 
researchers), while others simply will not contemplate allowing it (or 
will only allow it  on payment of an additional fee -- again, on a 
case-by-case basis).

Publishers' position, I must assume, rests partly on copyright claims, 
but mainly on what is written into the contract when the institutional 
library negotiates the subscription with the publisher.

There is also the question of what researchers can do with the the data 
once they have extracted it, which seems to me to be a more complex issue.

I wonder if any other publishers might like to comment on this?

On whether this is an OA issue, and so relevant to GOAL, I would suggest 
that it is partly an OA issue, and partly not an OA issue. One might 
argue that it is not an OA issue because it concerns access to 
subscription content, rather than OA content. On the other hand, one 
could argue that it is an OA issue, since both Stevan Harnad and Peter 
Murray-Rust are asking for access to subscription content. Where Stevan 
is asking for eyeball access to this material, Peter is asking for 
machine access.

I realise, of course, that Stevan is happy to have access to the version 
of a paper as it exists prior to publication (the pre-print), but, 
nevertheless, he is asking for access to papers that have been published 
in subscription journals.

Either way, since this issue is inextricably bound up with discussion of 
gratis vs. libre OA, I think it is relevant and appropriate to be 
discussed on GOAL. If others disagrees, please say so.

Richard Poynder
GOAL Moderator

On 12/05/2012 09:23, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> [Note that as this is a moderated list my replies may not appear 
> immediately - this may give the impression that I am ignoring mails 
> when I am not].
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) 
> <A.Wise at elsevier.com <mailto:A.Wise at elsevier.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Peter,
>
>     Thanks for this.  I've communicated that we are happy in principle
>     for you to mine our content,
>
>
> Good - that is agreed.
>
>     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.
>
>
> I don' think this is true at all. Rather than allowing us to mine the 
> actual journal articles in siti you have pointed us at some zip files. 
> We have no idea how comprehensive these are or how up to date. We 
> understand publication of articles, we do not understand your zip files.
>
> Getting content from the published journal articles is trivial and is 
> the same mechanism for all publishers. Fine the DOI, download it. 
> Getting articles from 100 publishers through 100 different arcane 
> mechanisms is a nightmare. If you want to make life easy for us, let 
> us use the articles.
>
>     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.
>
>
> I will extract factual data and I shall publish them Openly to the 
> whole world. For your interest my first research is likely to be in 
> the phylogenetic trees of arthropods - whcih impacts on trillions of 
> dollars (sic) of human welfare. Polination allone is 150 billion 
> dollars. I shall not publish discursize text unless it is required. I 
> shall not publish the "publishers PDF". But I shall publish anything 
> that represents facts, in botha critical and uncritical manner.
>
> And in the area below - just one project, I expect to use 10,000 
> articles per year. So , in principle, I intend to mine millions per year.
>
> I shall take silence as assent that this is agreed.
>
>     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.
>
>
> The librarian has indicated that it is important that I be allowed to 
> text-mine and believes that publishers should set out terms. I will 
> ask her permission whether I can reproduce her letter publicly. She 
> does not believe I should be wasting my research time negotiation with 
> indivdiual publishers and she sets out one publisher (not Elsevier) as 
> having made their terms clear. So the first thing is for you to say 
> something in plain language which says what I can do.
>
> I do not regard this as a negotiation. I believe I have rights and 
> will - with otherrs such as RichardP be putting out those rights 
> shortly. If libraries wish to agree on a more limited use I shall be 
> unhappy with them.
>
>     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.
>
>
> And to take out the restrictions that you have added.
>
>      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.
>
>
> And we pay enormous amounts for it. My grant income is paying 
> Elsevier, including you. IMO it is one fo the most inefficient uses of 
> public money.
>
>     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.
>
>
> Let me be  clear. This discussion is wasting my time - I could be 
> doing research. If I have to do this with every publisher it will 
> destroy this research.
>
> If I leave it to my librarians, then they may well agree to the awful 
> and restrictive deal that Elsevier forced on Heather Piwowar at UBC 
> where one researcher was given permission for one project. She is not 
> allowed to publish the full research openly so it's of no use to me.
>
> So I reiterate:
> * a public statement that I can mine Elsevier journals in any amount 
> for whatever purpose and in whatever form.
> * that I can publish the factual information extracted without 
> restriction.
>
> I have no details of the negotiations you are transacting with my 
> library - I am a scientist not a contract negotiator. I have made my 
> wishes very clear to the library.
>
> P.
>
>     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 <tel:%2B44%20%280%291865%20843317>I M: +44
>     (0) 7823 536 826 <tel:%2B44%20%280%29%207823%20536%20826> I E:
>     a.wise at elsevier.com <mailto:a.wise at elsevier.com> I
>
>     *Twitter: @wisealic*
>
>     *From:*goal-bounces at eprints.org <mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org>
>     [mailto: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 <mailto: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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120512/9cc72253/attachment-0001.html