[GOAL] GOAL Digest, Vol 67, Issue 13

Wed Jun 21 09:51:19 BST 2017

Dear All,
The discussion on embargos is totally useless, we just have to follow the Max Planck initiative as already supported by 86 institutions: https://oa2020.org/mission/ , and that is at least partly in practise by the offsetting / OA deals.
Best Falk

Von: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] Im Auftrag von Hersh, Gemma (ELS-CAM)
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2017 09:59
An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal at eprints.org>
Betreff: Re: [GOAL] GOAL Digest, Vol 67, Issue 13

Hi Danny

This issue has been written about extensively and there have also been studies on this issue.  I believe I may have previously consolidated and emailed to you all of the available evidence I am aware of, but I would be happy to do so (again) if helpful.

Here is a selection for others that may be interested:

Studies

  *   In 2016, The Royal Historical Society in Response to the Stern Review of the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) estimates that true download half-life of a history article is at least 12 years. Read more<http://royalhistsoc.org/response-stern-review-ref/>
  *   In 2014 Phil Davis published a study commissioned by the Association of American Publishers (Overview<http://www.publishers.org/usagestudy/>, Full Study<http://www.publishers.org/_attachments/docs/journalusagehalflife.pdf>) which demonstrates that journal article usage varies widely within and across disciplines, and that only 3% of of journals have half-lives of 12 months or less.  Health sciences articles have the shortest median half-life of the journals analyzed, but still more than 50% of health science journals have usage half-lives longer than 24 months. In fields with the longest usage half-lives, including mathematics and the humanities, more than 50% of the journals have usage half-lives longer than 48 months.

Articles

  *   Scholarly Kitchen article<http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/12/18/getting-open-access-embargoes-right-rational-policy-must-be-evidence-based/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScholarlyKitchen+%28The+Scholarly+Kitchen%29>, Getting Open Access Embargoes Right: Rational Policy Must Be Evidence-Based
  *   Scholarly Kitchen article, What is the Lifespan of a Research Article<http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/12/18/what-is-the-lifespan-of-a-research-article/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScholarlyKitchen+%28The+Scholarly+Kitchen%29>?
  *   In 2014 the British Academy published a Study on Open Access in the Humanities and Social Sciences (http://www.britac.ac.uk/openaccess/) - shows that article half-lives are likely longer than previously suggested. A 1:2 ratio for embargo period lengths is concluded to be appropriate, but the dividing point should not be STEM:HSS, rather given the actual usage patterns of articles, it should be Medicine (1): HSS, Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry and Life Sciences (2). Suggested embargo lengths are 12 months (Biomedicine) and 24 months (all other fields).

Evidence of harm

  *   Journal of Clinical Investigation - went open access with a 0 month embargo in 1996 and lost c. 40% of institutional subscriptions. It blighted the economics of the journal which was forced to return to the subscription model in 2009: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/02/26/end-of-free-access/
  *   The Annals of Mathematics experiment in green open access was a sobering lesson: libraries cancelled 34% of the subscriptions between 2003 and 2008 when the journal was freely available online. The Annals is one of the very best journals in mathematics and one of the cheapest journals; and so it came as a surprise to many that some of the best- funded libraries in the US had decided to save on the subscription rather than support the experiment in widening access. A mathematics workshop suggested research community support for a 5 year embargo period in this field given that arXiv is also available. See http://www.msri.org/attachments/workshops/587/MSRIfinalreport.pdf
  *   American Journal of Pathology lengthened its embargo period and began working with a commercial publisher because of the negative impact on subscriptions of a 6 month embargo.
  *   Genetics has increased its embargo period from 3, then to 6, then to 12 months because of a negative impact on subscriptions. They have needed to balance a 12 month embargo with the addition of an author payment in order to make this embargo length work - even though they publish in the life sciences.

Evidence for the potential effect of embargoes on cancellations

  *   In 2012, was a simple one-question survey by ALPSP: "If the (majority of) content of research journals was freely available within 6 months of publication, would you continue to subscribe?" The results "indicate that only 56% of those subscribing to journals in the STM field would definitely continue to subscribe. In AHSS, this drops to just 35%. " More information is available on the ALPSP site and in embedded links here<http://www.alpsp.org/ebusiness/AboutALPSP/ALPSPStatements/Statementdetails.aspx?ID=407>. This result builds on earlier, more nuanced studies undertaken for ALPSP in 2009 and 2006 and by PRC in 2006.

Kind regards

Gemma

-----Original Message-----
From: goal-bounces at eprints.org<mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org> [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf Of Dr D.A. Kingsley
Sent: 20 June 2017 21:18
To: goal at eprints.org<mailto:goal at eprints.org>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] GOAL Digest, Vol 67, Issue 13

*** External email: use caution ***

Gemma,

Please provide evidence for your statement "an embargo period is needed to enable the subscription model to continue to operate, in the absence of a separate business model² other than it sounds like it *probably* should be true.

We all thought cough medicine should work until someone tested it.

Danny

Dr Danny Kingsley

Head, Office of Scholarly Communication

Cambridge University LibraryWest Road, CB3 9DR

e: dak45 at cam.ac.uk<mailto:dak45 at cam.ac.uk>

p: 01223 747 437

m: 07711 500 564

t: @dannykay68

w: www.osc.cam.ac.uk<http://www.osc.cam.ac.uk>

b: https://unlocking research.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk

o: orcid.org/0000-0002-3636-5939

On 20/06/17 07:27, "goal-bounces at eprints.org on behalf of goal-request at eprints.org<mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20goal-request at eprints.org>" <goal-bounces at eprints.org on behalf of goal-request at eprints.org<mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20goal-request at eprints.org>> wrote:

>Send GOAL mailing list submissions to

>       goal at eprints.org<mailto: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<mailto:goal-request at eprints.org>

>

>You can reach the person managing the list at

>       goal-owner at eprints.org<mailto: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: Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

>      (Hersh, Gemma (ELS-CAM))

>

>

>----------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>Message: 1

>Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 06:17:46 +0000

>From: "Hersh, Gemma (ELS-CAM)" <g.hersh at elsevier.com<mailto:g.hersh at elsevier.com>>

>Subject: Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

>To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal at eprints.org<mailto:goal at eprints.org>>

>Message-ID:

>

><CY4PR08MB2838541601FBD60EECB655FE8FC50 at CY4PR08MB2838.namprd08.prod.out

>lo

>ok.com>

>

>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

>

>Dear Richard

>

>Elsevier's hosting

>policy<https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/hosting>

>explains how platforms can host Elsevier content. This includes

>enabling institutional repositories to share their employee's or

>student's accepted manuscripts publicly after an embargo period, but not beforehand.

>

>The challenge with the proposal below is that it wouldn?t really work

>very well for very long; an embargo period is needed to enable the

>subscription model to continue to operate, in the absence of a separate

>business model.

>

>Best wishes

>

>Gemma

>

>Gemma Hersh

>VP, Policy and Communications

>Elsevier I 125 London Wall I London I EC2Y 5AS

>M: +44 (0) 7855 258 957 I E:

>g.hersh at elsevier.com<mailto:g.hersh at elsevier.com<mailto:g.hersh at elsevier.com%3cmailto:g.hersh at elsevier.com>>

>Twitter: @gemmahersh

>

>

>

>

>From: goal-bounces at eprints.org<mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org> [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On

>Behalf Of Richard Poynder

>Sent: 18 June 2017 14:30

>To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal at eprints.org<mailto:goal at eprints.org>>

>Subject: Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND

>

>

>*** External email: use caution ***

>

>

>On a related topic, this poster might be of interest to list members:

>

>Exploiting Elsevier?s Creative Commons License Requirement to Subvert

>Embargo

>

>"In the last round of author sharing policy revisions, Elsevier created

>a labyrinthine title-by-title embargo structure requiring embargoes

>from

>12-48 months for author sharing via institutional repository (IR),

>while permitting immediate sharing via author's personal website or

>blog. At the same time, all pre-publication versions are to bear a

>Creative Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND) license.

>

>"At the time this policy was announced, it was rightly criticized by

>many in the scholarly communication community as overly complicated and

>unnecessary. However, this CC licensing requirement creates an avenue

>for subverting the embargo in the IR to achieve quicker open

>distribution of the author's accepted manuscript.

>

>"In short, authors may post an appropriately licensed copy on their

>personal site, at which point we may deposit without embargo in the IR,

>not through the license granted in the publication agreement, but

>through the CC license on the author's version, which the sharing

>policy mandates. This poster will outline this issue, our

>experimentation with application, and engage viewers in questions

>regarding its potential risks, benefits, and workflows."

>

>https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/24107

>

>?

>

>

>On 18 June 2017 at 12:24, Mittermaier, Bernhard

><b.mittermaier at fz-juelich.de<mailto:b.mittermaier at fz-juelich.de<mailto:b.mittermaier at fz-juelich.de%3cmailto:b.mittermaier at fz-juelich.de>>> wrote:

>Dear colleagues,

>

>on sharing in file-sharing networks, Creatice Commons explain:

>

>?Can I share CC-licensed material on file-sharing networks?

>Yes. All CC licenses allow redistribution of the unmodified material by

>any means, including distribution via file-sharing networks. Note that

>file-trading is expressly considered to be noncommercial for purposes

>of compliance with the NC licenses. Barter of NC-licensed material for

>other items of value is not permitted.?

>https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-share-cc-licensed-material-on-fi

>le-

>sharing-networks

>

>The ?Elsevier Sharing Rules? say

>?CC-BY-NC-ND licensed articles may be shared on non-commercial

>platforms only.?

>http://help.sciencedirect.com/flare/sdhelp_Left.htm#CSHID=password.htm|

>Sta

>rtTopic=Content%2Fsharing_pubs.htm|SkinName=svs_SD<http://help.scienced

>ire

>ct.com/flare/sdhelp_Left.htm#CSHID=password.htm%7CStartTopic=Content%2F

>sha

>ring_pubs.htm%7CSkinName=svs_SD>

>

>and again in the table at the bottom of that webpage: ?Public posting

>on commercial platforms (e.g.,

>www.researchgate.net<http://www.researchgate.net<http://www.researchgate.net%3chttp:/www.researchgate.net>>,

>www.academia.edu<http://www.academia.edu<http://www.academia.edu%3chttp:/www.academia.edu>>)? :not allowed

>

>I?ve been asking Alicia Wise, on what grounds why Elsevier takes that

>position. She replied:

>?Both ResearchGate & academia.edu<http://academia.edu> use content

>commercially to sell advertising & services around the content they

>disseminate? and ?Both ResearchGate &

>academia.edu<https://t.co/IQgdiiCF1s> are problems in Germany as they

>go beyond private use to make NC content publicly available?

>(https://twitter.com/wisealic/status/874284792275140609 and

>https://twitter.com/wisealic/status/874284916644696066 )

>

>My interpretation of the CC licence is that sharing of CC BY-NC-ND

>article by commercial platforms is OK as long as they don?t sell the

>articles (which they don?t do).

>But apart from that - what authors are doing is IMHO definitely not

>prohibited because they have no commercial gain whatsoever.

>

>What do you think?

>

>Kind regards

>Bernhard

>###########################################

>

>Dr. Bernhard Mittermaier

>Forschungszentrum J?lich GmbH

>Leiter der Zentralbibliothek / Head of the Central Library

>52425 J?lich

>Tel  ++49-2461-613013<tel:+49%202461%20613013>

>Fax ++49-2461-616103<tel:+49%202461%20616103>

>

>Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich

>Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498

>Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher

>Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Wolfgang Marquardt (Vorsitzender),

>Karsten Beneke (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt,

>Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt

>

>

>_______________________________________________

>GOAL mailing list

>GOAL at eprints.org<mailto:GOAL at eprints.org<mailto:GOAL at eprints.org%3cmailto:GOAL at eprints.org>>

>http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

>

>

>

>--

>Richard Poynder

>www.richardpoynder.co.uk<http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk<http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk%3chttp:/www.richardpoynder.co.uk>>

>

>________________________________

>

>Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane,

>Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084,

>Registered in England and Wales.

>-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

>scrubbed...

>URL:

>http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20170620/2915

>b45

>5/attachment.html

>

>------------------------------

>

>_______________________________________________

>GOAL mailing list

>GOAL at eprints.org<mailto:GOAL at eprints.org>

>http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

>

>

>End of GOAL Digest, Vol 67, Issue 13

>************************************

_______________________________________________

GOAL mailing list

GOAL at eprints.org<mailto:GOAL at eprints.org>

http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

________________________________

Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, Registered in England and Wales.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20170621/168132e8/attachment-0001.html 