[GOAL] Results of OA article data collection from OASPA members

Mon Jul 8 22:01:53 BST 2019

Scopus does not only index Elsevier journals
https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/11274/supporthub/scopus/
"Over 24,000 titles, including 4,200 Open Access journals from more than
5,000 international publishers."

So the CC BY licence is irrelevant - the ability for Elsevier to index will
depend on the agreement between the 5000 publishers and Elsevier. I expect
these are confidential and how much is paid. I assume that other indexers
could set up similar deals - and this would allow competition at a price.

The main problem with non-CC BY "open access" in Elsevier journals (e.g. CC
NC ) is that forbids anyone else re-use the content, but because Elsevier
has a contract with the authors they have a monopoly on re-use (often tens
of thousands of dollars in reprints). That's the absolute downside of CC NC
ND.

P.

On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 9:18 PM Heather Morrison <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>
wrote:

> Thank you Christian.
>
> Following are some points of agreement and relevant research, and
> follow-up questions.
>
> I think we agree that re-directing funding from subscriptions / purchase
> to fund production (shift economics from demand to supply side) is key to
> OA transition - I made this point with a broad brush global analysis
> illustrating the potential to do so with considerable cost savings for
> libraries / institutions in First Monday in 2013:
> https://firstmonday.org/article/view/4370/3685
>
> Houghton et al. conducted an economic analysis of the potential transition
> for the UK using 3 models (gold, green, transformative system building peer
> review on archives) and found the transformative approach the most
> cost-effective by far. This work used to be open access, but today
> this funded study now appears to be limited to access in specific reading
> rooms:
> J. Houghton, B. Rasmussen, P. Sheehan, C. Oppenheim, A. Morris, C.
> Creaser, H. Greenwood, M. Summers, and A. Gourlay, 2009a. “Economics
> implications of alternative scholarly publishing models: Exploring the
> costs and benefit” (27 January), at
> http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2009/economicpublishingmodelsfinalreport.aspx,
> accessed 7 February 2010.
>
> To get back to your points on Elsevier, some questions:
>
>
>    1.  You are assuming global and permanent cancellation by academic and
>    research libraries to all Elsevier journal subscriptions. Correct?
>    2. What about Science Direct? It integrates journal subscriptions, but
>    it is a search service. Do you assume global and permanent cancellation of
>    Science Direct as search service too?
>    3. What about Scopus? This service is used in rankings as well as for
>    searching - customers include universities for institutional ranking
>    purposes and third party ranking services. If the idea of global and
>    permanent cancellations to subscriptions is a success, but Elsevier
>    proprietary content is a key market advantage for this type of product,
>    this might eliminate the transformative potential hoped for from global and
>    permanent subscription cancellations.
>    4. What about Elsevier published content to date? If Elsevier no
>    longer distributes such content, what will happen with this content and
>    access to it?
>
>
> As a reminder, almost all Elsevier journals allow author self-archiving:
> http://sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php
>
>
> best,
>
> Heather Morrison
> ------------------------------
> *From:* goal-bounces at eprints.org <goal-bounces at eprints.org> on behalf of
> Christian Gutknecht <christian.gutknecht at bluewin.ch>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 8, 2019 3:25:05 PM
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] Results of OA article data collection from OASPA
> members
>
> *Attention : courriel externe | external email*
> Well, I propose the following:
>
> 1. Academic Institutions should eventually stop paying for subscriptions
> (like Germany, UC etc)
> 2. Then the free money should be use to fund pure OA (through APCs,
> memberships, or any other well working OA business models out there)
> 3. Funders and Institutions should then refine and tackle the issues of
> Gold OA, like the cost transparency of publishing services, requirements
> for metadata, formats, workflows, archiving, tdm, licences (like CC-BY
> requirement as defined in Berlin and Budapest).
>
> The subscription model, and hence the exclusiveness of Elsevier’s content
> only exists because academic institutions and especially libraries let
> Elsevier have this power by keep subscribing and ignoring alternatives.
>
> Best regards
> Christian
>
> Am 08.07.2019 um 17:38 schrieb Heather Morrison <
> Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>:
>
> hi Christian,
>
> Thank you for your contribution...
>
> Regarding your argument: "forcing Elsevier also to use CC-BY for their
> „own“ content would enable competition for analysis tools like Scopus", I
> have some questions. Let's start with:
>
> Are you and/or others proposing to force Elsevier to use CC-BY for their
> "own" content?** If so, how do you propose to do this and which of
> Elsevier's content?
>
> best,
>
> Heather Morrison
>
> ** Side note: this is problematic, but let's leave this for now.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* goal-bounces at eprints.org <goal-bounces at eprints.org> on behalf of
> Christian Gutknecht <christian.gutknecht at bluewin.ch>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 8, 2019 11:14 AM
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] Results of OA article data collection from OASPA
> members
>
> *Attention : courriel externe | external email*
> Hi Heather
>
> Sorry, I can’t follow you on that:
>
> Increase in monopoly power for Elsevier: anyone can use the CC licensed
> material to create a competitor to Scopus, however only Elsevier can use
> their copyrighted work. CC-BY reduces the likelihood of successful
> competition.
>
>
> The problem here is obviously not the CC-BY content, but the the non-open
> content of Elsevier. So forcing Elsevier also to use CC-BY for their „own“
> content would enable competition for analysis tools like Scopus.
>
> Best regards
>
> Christian
>
>
>
> Am 08.07.2019 um 15:39 schrieb Heather Morrison <
> Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>:
>
> In related news: Elsevier's toll access service Scopus now includes 5,393
> open access journals. This is helpful to illustrate and analyze some of the
> implications of blanket downstream commercial re-use (e.g. CC-BY):
>
> Extra profit for Elsevier: no need to pay CC-BY journals, and open
> licensing reduces their costs for clarifying permissions.
>
> Increase in monopoly power for Elsevier: anyone can use the CC licensed
> material to create a competitor to Scopus, however only Elsevier can use
> their copyrighted work. CC-BY reduces the likelihood of successful
> competition.
>
> Development of underdevelopment: authors from poor countries get the
> benefit of increased exposure with OA, but are locked out of the next
> generation of services built on this such as Scopus. CC-BY is not
> sufficient to achieve the vision of sharing the knowledge of the rich with
> the poor and the poor with the rich; this license facilitates one-way
> sharing of the poor with the rich, as it lacks a means of ensuring
> reciprocity. (CC-BY-SA does not ensure reciprocity either; it means use the
> same license for derivatives, not share like I have. A re-used OA article
> with CC-BY-SA can be re-used in a TA environment).
>
> I recommend against the use of licenses allowing blanket commercial re-use
> to authors, journals, OA advocates and policy-makers.
>
> best,
>
> Dr. Heather Morrison
> Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa
> Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa
> Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight
> Project
> sustainingknowledgecommons.org
> Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca
> https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706
> ------------------------------
> *From:* goal-bounces at eprints.org <goal-bounces at eprints.org> on behalf of
> Bernie Folan <bernie.folan at oaspa.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 8, 2019 7:01:54 AM
> *To:* Bernie Folan
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Results of OA article data collection from OASPA members
>
> *Attention : courriel externe | external email*
>
> ***With apologies for cross posting ***
>
> OASPA has published a new blog post summarising the results of a recent OA
> article data collection exercise carried out with input from OASPA members.
>
> You can find the post at
> https://oaspa.org/growth-continues-for-oaspa-member-oa-content/
>
> Some highlights:
>
>    - Total growth in output by OASPA members is 23%. This does include
>    some new contributors but on the whole, they were small numbers so don't
>    count much towards the total.
>    - Growth in CC BY articles published in fully OA journals is 18% so
>    this is slightly higher than it has done for the past 5 years.
>    - Over a quarter of a million CC BY articles were published by OASPA
>    members in fully OA journals last year.
>
> Do feel free to share within your networks.
>
> Best wishes,
> Bernie
>
>
> *Bernie Folan *Events and Communications Coordinator, OASPA
> bernie.folan at oaspa.org
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20190708/16007b35/attachment-0001.html 