[GOAL] Re: Europe PubMed as a home for all RCUK research outputs?

Tue Oct 9 17:38:38 BST 2012

Alternatively it might be an incentive to join ALPSP: membership for
an individual is very little more than the cost of the report, and
there are other benefits, including other publications and a monthly
newsletter about what is happening in academic publishing (disclosure:
I am the newsletter editor).
Pippa

*****
Pippa Smart
Research Communication and Publishing Consultant
PSP Consulting
3 Park Lane, Appleton, Oxon OX13 5JT, UK
Tel: +44 7775 627688 or +44 1865 864255
email: pippa.smart at gmail.com
Web: www.pspconsulting.org
****
Editor of the ALPSP-Alert, Reviews editor of Learned Publishing
****

On 9 October 2012 17:23, Sally Morris <sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't see why ALPSP's ability to recoup the cost of  this research should
> be undermined by open distribution of pirate copies - shame on you!
> However, I did summarise their findings, and combine them with other data,
> in a paper for the Publishing Research Consortium
> (http://www.publishingresearch.net/author_rights.htm)
>
> Sally
>
>
> Sally Morris
> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
> Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
> Email:  sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf
> Of Ross Mounce
> Sent: 09 October 2012 16:59
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Europe PubMed as a home for all RCUK research outputs?
>
> Thank you Sally.
>
> These are exactly the kind of evidence-based contributions we should be
> striving for in our discussions, in my opinion.
>
> I found Cox & Cox 2008 here:
> http://test.alpsp.org/ngen_public/article.asp?id=200&did=47&aid=24781&st=&oaid=-1
>
> but regrettably it is only available for 'free' to ALPSP Members.
>
> It would seem that I would have to pay £250/$480/€330 as a non-member to
> read this report!  If anyone could furnish me with a PDF copy I'd be much
> obliged.
>
> Best,
>
> Ross
>
> On 9 October 2012 16:39, Sally Morris <sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>
>> On one point - publishers' insistence on (c) transfer - there certainly
>> are facts available.  The most recent study of which I am aware is Cox &
>> Cox, Scholarly Publishing Practice 3 (2008).  They surveyed 400 publishers
>> including most leading journal publishers, and received 203 usable
>> responses.  According to further analysis by Laura Cox, 181 of these
>> publishers represented 753,037 articles (74.7% of ISI's world total for that
>> year).
>>
>> In their 2008 study, they found just over 50% of publishers asking for
>> copyright transfer in the first instance (this had declined steadily from
>> over 80% in 2003 and over 60% in 2005);  of these, a further 20% would
>> provide a 'licence to publish' as an alternative if requested by the author.
>> At the same time, the number offering a licence in the first instance had
>> grown to around 20% by 2008.  So that's nearly 90%, by my reckoning, who
>> either don't ask for (c) in the first place, or will provide a licence
>> instead on request.
>>
>> They also found that over 40% (by number of articles) made the finally
>> published version open to text mining.  In addition, 80% or more allowed
>> self-archiving to a personal or departmental website, 60% to an
>> institutional website and over 40% to a subject repository (though authors
>> often don't know that they are allowed to do this).  In most cases this
>> applied to the submitted and/or accepted version; self-archiving of the
>> final published version was much less likely to be permitted (though it
>> appears to be what authors really want).
>>
>> I understand ALPSP are currently repeating the study, so we may soon know
>> if these trends have continued - I'd be amazed if they have not.
>>
>> Sally
>>
>>
>> Sally Morris
>> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
>> Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
>> Email:  sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf
>> Of Ross Mounce
>> Sent: 09 October 2012 15:51
>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
>> Cc: JISC-REPOSITORIES at jiscmail.ac.uk
>> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Europe PubMed as a home for all RCUK research outputs?
>>
>> Dear Stevan,
>>
>> I'm disappointed that you continue to make wild assertions without backing
>> them up with good evidence. I, like many readers of this list (perhaps?)
>> suggest you're not doing your credibility any favours here...
>>
>> A grating example:
>>
>>> Moreover, most fields don't need CC-BY (and certainly not as urgently as
>>> they need access).
>>
>>
>> [citation needed!!!]
>>
>> Who (aside from you) says that most fields "don't need CC-BY"?
>> You're the only person I know saying this.
>>
>> *I* argue that we clearly would benefit greatly from CC-BY research as
>> this explicitly enables content mining approaches such as textmining that
>> may otherwise be impeded by less open licences.
>>
>> It has been estimated that over 50 million academic articles have been
>> published (Jinha, 2010) and the volume of publications is increasing rapidly
>> year on year. The only rational way we’ll be able to make full use of all
>> this research both NOW and in the future, is if we are allowed to use
>> machines to help us make sense of this vast and growing literature. I should
>> add that it's not just scientific fields that would benefit from these
>> approaches. Humanities research could greatly benefit too from techniques
>> such as sentiment analysis of in-text citations across thousands of papers
>> and other such analyses as applied to a whole variety of hypotheses to be
>> tested. These techniques (and CC-BY) aren't a Panacea but they would have
>> some strong benefits for a wide variety of research, if only people in those
>> fields a) knew how to use those techniques and b) were allowed to use the
>> techniques. (see McDonald & Kelly, 2012 JISC report on 'The Value and
>> Benefits of Text Mining' for more detail)
>>
>> For an example of the kind of papers we *could* write if we actually used
>> all the literature in this manner see Kell (2009) and its impressive
>> reference list making use of 2469 previously published papers. CC-BY enables
>> this kind of scope and ambition without the need for commercially provided
>> information retrieval systems that are often of dubious data quality.
>>
>>
>>> Repositories cannot attach CC-BY licenses because most publishers still
>>> insist on copyright transfer. (Global Green OA will put an end to this, but
>>> not if it waits for CC-BY first.)
>>
>>
>> I agree with the first half of the sentence BUT the second half your
>> assertion:  "most publishers still insist on copyright transfer" - where's
>> the evidence for this? I want hard numbers. If there are ~25 or ~28 thousand
>> active peer-reviewed journals (figures regularly touted, I won't vouch for
>> their accuracy it'll do) and vastly fewer publishers of these, data can be
>> sought to test this claim. For now I'm very unconvinced. I know of many many
>> publishers that allow the author to retain copyright. It is unclear to me
>> what the predominate system is with respect to this contra your assertion.
>>
>>
>> Finally:
>>
>>>
>>> Green mandates don't exclude Gold: they simply allow but do not require
>>> Gold, nor paying for Gold.
>>
>>
>> Likewise RCUK policy as I understand it does not exclude Green, nor paying
>> for the associated costs of Green OA like institutional repositories, staff,
>> repo development and maintenance costs. Gold is preferred but Green is
>> allowed. Glad we've made that clear...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jinha, A. E. 2010. Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of
>> scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing 23:258-263.
>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20100308
>>
>> Kell, D. 2009. Iron behaving badly: inappropriate iron chelation as a
>> major contributor to the aetiology of vascular and other progressive
>> inflammatory and degenerative diseases. BMC Medical Genomics 2:2+.
>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1755-8794-2-2
>>
>> McDonald, D & Kelly, U 2012. The Value and Benefits of Text Mining. JISC
>> Report
>> http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2012/value-and-benefits-of-text-mining.aspx
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
>> Ross Mounce
>> PhD Student & Panton Fellow
>> Fossils, Phylogeny and Macroevolution Research Group
>> University of Bath, 4 South Building, Lab 1.07
>> http://about.me/rossmounce
>> -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GOAL mailing list
>> GOAL at eprints.org
>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
> Ross Mounce
> PhD Student & Open Knowledge Foundation Panton Fellow
> Fossils, Phylogeny and Macroevolution Research Group
> University of Bath, 4 South Building, Lab 1.07
> http://about.me/rossmounce
> -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>