[GOAL] GOAL Digest, Vol 67, Issue 13

Dirk Pieper dirk.pieper at uni-bielefeld.de
Wed Jun 21 13:09:36 BST 2017


Dear all,

I totally agree with Falk. In my instution we couldn´t afford more than 
64 out of about 2,500 Elsevier journal titels in the end. The 
cancellation last year has no impact in our university, because since 
many years we as a library were not able to fulfill our task to provide 
academic content under the conditions of the subscription system anyway. 
Therefore we support OA2020 and therefore I´m looking forward to spend 
the Elsevier money that we save this year e.g. for open access 
publications in real open access journals. If Elsevier doesn´t want to 
change the business model for journals it is ok for us, there are enough 
alternatives to support the publication output of our university.

Best,

Dirk



Am 21.06.2017 um 10:51 schrieb Reckling, Falk:
>
> 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| 
> <http://help.sciencedirect.com/flare/sdhelp_Left.htm#CSHID=password.htm%7C>
>
> >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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

-- 
-----------------------------
Dirk Pieper
Deputy Director Bielefeld UL

www.ub.uni-bielefeld.de
www.base-search-net
------------------------------


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20170621/e5cdb145/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the GOAL mailing list