[GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory Group

Fri Sep 13 17:27:19 BST 2019

Peter (or others).

You refer to pharma companies paying tens of thousands of dollars to re-use open access works. Can you explain / provide examples? If works are free-to-read, even with All Rights Reserved copyright, pharma companies and their researchers can read and benefit from knowledge produced to date to further knowledge at no cost.

If pharma companies wish to use articles arising from research they have sponsored, they can specify retention of these specific rights in their contracts with researchers (bottom up similar to Harvard but slightly different terms).

By "voluntary payment", I mean that one can opt to pay 181 USD and use the figures, or not pay and not use the figures. The proposed tariff in Canada is meant to be compulsory.

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
[On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]
________________________________
From: goal-bounces at eprints.org <goal-bounces at eprints.org> on behalf of Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 11:26:58 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal at eprints.org>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory Group

Attention : courriel externe | external email

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 4:14 PM Heather Morrison <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca<mailto:Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>> wrote:

This may help to explain why universities are avoiding the license in spite of the risk of expensive litigation, and why I suggest that a voluntary $181 USD fee for re-use of 5 figures is, in comparison, a model of transparency and a bargain.

*** voluntary***???
This is no more voluntary than a paywall or subscription.

Copyright collectives are organizations that have a particular approach and culture. People in other countries may find their local collectives easier to work with.

Authors, publishers, and teachers do need to use works that are under copyright, sometimes in ways that go beyond fair use / fair dealing. Open licensing simplifies matters for some works, but not all works are, or ever will be, openly licensed. An organization like CCC makes it possible to find out who owns the rights and obtain permission. This saves time and sometimes makes to possible to re-use works when otherwise the use would be abandoned due to the complexity of finding copyright owners and negotiating use.

CCC are purely a rent-extractor whose only concern is maximising income for publishers. By making re-users pay for Open Access they are destroying the credibility of Open Access.
All those who argue for restricted re-use (NC, ND) must realise that this pours huge amounts of money into publishers which are contributing  nothing. An there is no logic in the world that says that pharma companies should pay tens of thousands to publishers for "open access" however much you feel they can pay. And this destroys so much re-use for teaching, new books, new research, etc..

It's about time that others take up this issue. There is no excuse for paying Elsevier or many other publishers for OpenAccess re-use.

best,

Heather Morrison
________________________________
From: goal-bounces at eprints.org<mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org> <goal-bounces at eprints.org<mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org>> on behalf of Heather Morrison <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca<mailto:Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>>
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 8:20:52 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal at eprints.org<mailto:goal at eprints.org>>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory Group

Thank you, the Cell example is helpful.

If you look up Cell on Sherpa Romeo you will see that authors can self-archive their preprint on noncommercial servers such as arXiv and bioRxiv at no cost and with no delay: https://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php?source=journal&sourceid=6580&la=en&fIDnum=|&mode=simple<https://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php?source=journal&sourceid=6580&la=en&fIDnum=%7C&mode=simple>

In brief: this is what I recommend to authors and funders.

Details:

Relyx (Elsevier's parent company) is a corporation with a mandate to return profit to shareholders. In the case of Cell, revenue and profit is derived from selling the journal through subscriptions and selling re-use rights. For-profit scholarly publishers by definition must make a profit.

181 USD for the use of 5 figures is a model of transparency and a bargain in comparison with legally obligatory non-transparent blanket licensing as Canada's copyright collectives are demanding for limited rights that might not cover this case.

If the figures are in an arXiv version and the downstream author cannot afford the 181 USD, they can cite the arXiv version at no cost. There is a small cost in inconvenience, but no loss of knowledge.

Elsevier appears to be interpreting NC as necessary to their downstream commercial re-use rights. This is a matter of interpretation. NC/ND with author copyright means authors retain these rights, not publishers.  CC licenses with no NC grant blanket commercial rights to anyone. Under CC-BY for example, anyone could charge whatever they like for the 5 figures. Whether they could do this through CCC per se depends on CCC policy and practice, not the license. With blanket downstream commercial rights, anyone can set up a for-pay image database.

My recommendation: authors of Cell articles should self-archive preprints for open access and take advantage of pre-submission peer review (a community practice in arXiv) in order to post a preprint that has been peer reviewed. For the future: further develop this model and eliminate the role of the for-profit publisher.

I do not recommend paying for Elsevier postprint OA under any license. Their use of NC and ND is problematic. but so is their use of CC-BY.

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<http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org>
Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca<mailto:Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>
https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706
[On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]
________________________________
From: goal-bounces at eprints.org<mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org> <goal-bounces at eprints.org<mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org>> on behalf of Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk<mailto:pm286 at cam.ac.uk>>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 5:02:15 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal at eprints.org<mailto:goal at eprints.org>>
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Call for applications - International Open Access Advisory Group

Attention : courriel externe | external email
Typical example,
Skimmed through Cell to the first CC - NC - ND article:

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.05.055

Copyright
© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc.
User License
Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/> |
How you can reuse<https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(19)30626-9#> [Information Icon]

Go to RightsLInk
Enter as academic author writing a book with CUP and requiring 5 figures.
CCC requires me to pay 181 USD to Elsevier / CCC
Try it yourself

It's irrelevant in practice who s the copyright owner , the total transparency is that Elsevier can extort rent for all CC -NC they pubish even if the author has copyright.
Transparency = daylight robbery

--
"I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same".

Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL at eprints.org<mailto:GOAL at eprints.org>
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

--
"I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same".

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/20190913/1da063d3/attachment-0001.html 