<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Stevan Harnad <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk" target="_blank">harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div>** Cross-Posted **</div><div><br></div><br></div><div>For Peter Murray-Rust's crusade for journal article text-mining rights,</div><div>apart from reiterating my full agreement that these are highly important</div>
<div>and highly desirable and even urgent in certain fields, I would like</div><div>to note that -- as PM-R has stated -- neither gratis OA nor libre OA</div><div>is necessary for the kinds of text-mining rights he is seeking. They</div>
<div>can be had via a special licensing agreement from the publisher.</div><div><br></div><div>There is no ambiguity there: The text-mining rights can be granted</div><div>even if the articles themselves are not made openly accessible,</div>
<div>free for all. </div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div>Well of course they can. Nature will charge UCSC the special price of 85,000 USD for a single institution. I have no doubt that a somewhat larger sum per institution could even buy the ACS's involvement.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div></div><div>And, as Richard Poynder has just pointed out, publishers are</div>
<div>quite aware of (perhaps even relieved with) this option, with </div><div>Elsevier lately launching an experiment in it:</div></div></blockquote><div><br>Well of course they are. If libraries and universities are happy to do special one-to-one deals with publishers they are in command of a new market. We handed them the copyright of our articles. We are in danger of repeating this for content-mining<br>
<br>We sometimes forget that we created the content and that we have a very deep set of rights in it. I believe absolute. Others believe that giving away our material to publishers is an acceptable the price for impact-branded journals and peer-review. <br>
<br>The point of the discussion IMO is that we are (or should be) fighting for our rights. Green OA gives us no rights other than to read. No re-use for lecture notes, no re-use for anything in the electronic era. <br><br>
And there is no guarantee that Green OA will not be taken away at some stage. Where are the signed contracts constraining the publishers? There is no negotiating body for the universities or authors. My simple understanding is that Green OA (a concession from the publishers) is given only as long as the repositories are negligibly populated and almost impossible to use effectively. Suppose they got to 100% full - with a proper search systems - and the publishers lost business. They'd find a way to limit depositions - if one were necessary. HINARI switched off Bangladesh when they thought it would impact their business - they can and probably will do the same with Green. <br>
<br></div><br clear="all"></div><br>-- <br>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader in Molecular Informatics<br>Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br>University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br>+44-1223-763069<br>