[GOAL] Re: GOAL Digest, Vol 48, Issue 27
Danny Kingsley
dak45 at cam.ac.uk
Fri Nov 27 08:16:44 GMT 2015
Hi all,
Thanks for engaging. Geraldine, as a former science journalist I am well aware of the press release and embargo situation with journal articles. But also as a former science journalist and someone who now works in scholarship - the two worlds do not cross much. It seems that we are fighting off bogeymen on two fronts when it comes to green OA.
Bogeyman 1 - that allowing people to make a copy of work available in a repository means that subscriptions will fall.
I have pointed out the complete lack of evidence for this myth in 'Half Life is Half the Story' - https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=331 <https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=331>
Bogeyman 2 - that putting out metadata about an unpublished article will …. [insert some drastic consequence here]
The thing is, this is about public relations - the media side of the publishing game not the research side. It is about ensuring press releases and coverage of published research. I know there has been discussion that science stories are written without journalists reading the paper etc, but in my time at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation there would have been no point publishing an article based on something that indicates it ‘will’ be published at some stage. News needs a time hook - and given the delay between the research actually being done and the article written, through the peer review process and published, the hook is that is ‘was published today in Nature’ or whatever, not ‘was done some months/years ago and we understand will be published fairly soon in Nature and we haven’t actually seen the paper anyway’.
The real Bogeyman in this scenario is the publishers bullying the researchers by threatening to withdraw their papers.
Fed up - why are we tying ourselves in knots to comply with ever increasing and conflicting publisher rules?
The August 2015 "Monitoring the Transition to Open Access report" http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Full-report-FINAL-AS-PUBLISHED.pdf <http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Full-report-FINAL-AS-PUBLISHED.pdf> showed on page 38 that use of IRs is incredibly small compared to subject based repositories and other social sharing networks (see figure 9 on page 38 - look for the red strips below).
And yet IR managers spend huge amounts of time and man-hours ensuring we comply with every little rule the publishers decide to throw at us (often while not actually telling anyone these rules have changed). I suspect that part of the reason is that IRs are housed in Libraries and librarians tend to be 100% people. They like things to be properly done - cataloguing is a very precise science.
Yet another call for evidence
Is there a publisher out there that can articulate the problem with metadata being made available prior to publication in an Institutional Repository? And I mean an actual consequence, not some blown up invented theory of a problem that might happen in the future - possibly.
Danny
> On 26 Nov 2015, at 17:44, goal-request at eprints.org wrote:
>
> Send GOAL mailing list submissions to
> goal at eprints.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> goal-request at eprints.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> goal-owner at eprints.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of GOAL digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Instistence by researchers that we do not make metadata
> (Richard Poynder)
> 2. Re: Instistence by researchers that we do not make metadata
> (Stevan Harnad)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 17:04:25 -0000
> From: "Richard Poynder" <ricky at richardpoynder.co.uk>
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Instistence by researchers that we do not make
> metadata
> To: "'Global Open Access List \(Successor of AmSci\)'"
> <goal at eprints.org>
> Message-ID: <000201d1286c$8113c2f0$833b48d0$@richardpoynder.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> HEFCE maintains that this issue is addressed and resolved in their FAQ
> (5.1). See here: https://twitter.com/ersatzben/status/669920110849708032
>
>
>
> I wonder if others agree?
>
>
>
> Richard Poynder
>
>
>
>
>
> From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf
> Of Clement-Stoneham Geraldine
> Sent: 26 November 2015 13:21
> To: goal at eprints.org
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Instistence by researchers that we do not make metadata
>
>
>
> Danny,
>
>
>
> Some journals like to control the way information is being published about
> new papers, and therefore impose a strict press embargo period (another
> embargo, nothing to do with green OA embargo period). This sometime referred
> to as the "Ingelfinger rule"
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingelfinger_rule).
>
>
>
> All of this is well orchestrated, with a press pack made available so that
> coverage is reflecting accurately the research, and is advertised to authors
> as the added value offered by the publishers if they chose to submit their
> paper to them. This explains why you often see papers published in Nature,
> or Science, all making the headlines of daily press on the same day. The
> downside of course is that they do act as "gagging orders", which can make
> it tricky for researchers to talk about their research once the paper has
> been accepted, but not yet published (which can go for weeks/months).
>
>
>
> One of the issues with the HEFCE requirement to add article metadata to a
> repository at the acceptance stage, was that this could inadvertently breach
> such publishers' embargo by release some (even if not much) information
> about the paper ahead of time. I believe this is what your researcher is
> concerned about. I am not sure that at this stage there is a way around it,
> but it would deserve a wider conversation. Less traditional journals such as
> eLife have deliberately done away with such embargo, and indeed encourage
> authors to discuss their research as soon as they wish, which seems to be
> better aligned with "open science" principles.
>
>
>
> You'll find more details for the journal you named here
>
>
>
> http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/embargo.html
>
> http://www.nejm.org/page/author-center/embargo
>
> http://www.cell.com/cell/authors#prepub
>
>
>
> and eLife's policy
>
> http://elifesciences.org/elife-news/authors-the-media-and-elife
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Geraldine
>
>
>
>
>
> Geraldine Clement-Stoneham
>
> Knowledge and Information Manager
>
> Medical Research Council
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 207 395 2272
>
> Mobile: +44 79 00 136 319
>
> geraldine.clement-stoneham at headoffice.mrc.ac.uk
> <mailto:geraldine.clement-stoneham at headoffice.mrc.ac.uk>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This email may have a protective marking, for an explanation please see
> http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/Informationandstandards/Documentmarking/index.htm
>
> We use an electronic filing system. Please send electronic versions of
> documents, unless paper is specifically requested.
> _____________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20151126/183fb19b/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 12:21:44 -0500
> From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com>
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Instistence by researchers that we do not make
> metadata
> To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal at eprints.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAE7iXOj_2S8KBUUv6CEijg9U+gmMfo62kRdWBoNBt81whgndMw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 1. HEFCE requires immediate deposit (not immediate OA). so it is not in
> conflict with *Nature's* & *Science's* PR practices. (N has a 6-month
> embargo
> <http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php?jtitle=nature&issn=0028-0836&zetocpub=Nature+Publishing+Group&romeopub=Nature+Publishing+Group&fIDnum=|&mode=simple&la=en&version=&source=journal&sourceid=4008>
> on OA; S has none
> <http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php?jtitle=science&issn=0036-8075&zetocpub=American+Association+for+the+Advancement+of+Science&romeopub=American+Association+for+the+Advancement+of+Science&fIDnum=|&mode=simple&la=en&version=&source=journal&sourceid=11114>
> .)
>
> 2. In any case, the 3-month grace-period would have been plenty of time for
> N & S to do their PR even if the HEFCE rule had been immediate OA (which it
> is not).
>
> 3. This "Ingelfinger Rule <http://cogprints.org/1703/>" (designed to
> enhance paid circulation, not to enhance access) is a rule better honored
> in the breach: Very, very little good scholarship or science is done via PR
> rather than substance, especially in the online era.
>
> SH
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Clement-Stoneham Geraldine <
> GERALDINE.CLEMENT-STONEHAM at headoffice.mrc.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Danny,
>>
>>
>>
>> Some journals like to control the way information is being published about
>> new papers, and therefore impose a strict press embargo period (another
>> embargo, nothing to do with green OA embargo period). This sometime
>> referred to as the ?Ingelfinger rule? (
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingelfinger_rule).
>>
>>
>>
>> All of this is well orchestrated, with a press pack made available so that
>> coverage is reflecting accurately the research, and is advertised to
>> authors as the added value offered by the publishers if they chose to
>> submit their paper to them. This explains why you often see papers
>> published in Nature, or Science, all making the headlines of daily press on
>> the same day. The downside of course is that they do act as ?gagging
>> orders?, which can make it tricky for researchers to talk about their
>> research once the paper has been accepted, but not yet published (which can
>> go for weeks/months).
>>
>>
>>
>> One of the issues with the HEFCE requirement to add article metadata to a
>> repository at the acceptance stage, was that this could inadvertently
>> breach such publishers? embargo by release some (even if not much)
>> information about the paper ahead of time. I believe this is what your
>> researcher is concerned about. I am not sure that at this stage there is a
>> way around it, but it would deserve a wider conversation. Less traditional
>> journals such as eLife have deliberately done away with such embargo, and
>> indeed encourage authors to discuss their research as soon as they wish,
>> which seems to be better aligned with ?open science? principles.
>>
>>
>>
>> You?ll find more details for the journal you named here
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/embargo.html
>>
>> http://www.nejm.org/page/author-center/embargo
>>
>> http://www.cell.com/cell/authors#prepub
>>
>>
>>
>> and eLife?s policy
>>
>> http://elifesciences.org/elife-news/authors-the-media-and-elife
>>
>>
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Geraldine
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Geraldine Clement-Stoneham*
>>
>> Knowledge and Information Manager
>>
>> Medical Research Council
>>
>> Tel: +44 (0) 207 395 2272
>>
>> Mobile: +44 79 00 136 319
>>
>> geraldine.clement-stoneham at headoffice.mrc.ac.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This email may have a protective marking, for an explanation please see
>> http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/Informationandstandards/Documentmarking/index.htm
>>
>> We use an electronic filing system. Please send electronic versions of
>> documents, unless paper is specifically requested.
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GOAL mailing list
>> GOAL at eprints.org
>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>>
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20151126/9756d0c5/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
> End of GOAL Digest, Vol 48, Issue 27
> ************************************
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head of Scholarly Communications
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: dak45 at cam.ac.uk
T: @dannykay68
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20151127/4f2107ad/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen Shot 2015-11-27 at 08.01.55.png
Type: image/png
Size: 76685 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20151127/4f2107ad/attachment-0001.png
More information about the GOAL
mailing list