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

Tue Oct 9 17:52:50 BST 2012

Or you could ask your friendly local librarian if it is available on inter-library loan - there are at least two copies of the print version in UK libraries, plus there should be a copy in the BL.

David

On 9 Oct 2012, at 17:38, Pippa Smart wrote:

> 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
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal