'Pirate copies'... now there's an interesting topic for the list.<div><br></div><div>I am a member of several social networking sites used by academics e.g. Facebook, Twitter, FriendFeed etc... and more traditional academic mailing lists (GOAL itself is one!) like TAXACOM (Taxonomy), DML (Dinosaur Mailing List), VRTPALEO (Vertebrate Palaeontology) and more.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Such "PDF requests" for research material are a <i>daily occurrence</i>. I assume everyone on these sites and lists knows that it is technically copyright infringement if they supply a PDF to various requesters, but it seems to me that no researcher actually cares one bit about this. (my opinion/observation)</div>
<div><br></div><div>More importantly, the very ubiquity of these acts, the fact that very senior respected researchers in my field also do this, and that it's an everyday occurrence lead me to believe this practice is completely accepted by researchers (if not by subscription publishers) as just part and parcel of normal research in a 'serials crisis world' where no research library has access to everything.</div>
<div><br></div><div>So, I'm sorry but I fail to feel shamed. Requests for unrestricted access to information are completely normal in my community.</div><div><br>Point-taken though that this particular study is unlikely to have been publicly funded by taxpayers, and so it's a slightly different case to 'normal' publicly funded research works. </div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Ross</div><div><br></div><div>PS Thanks for the suggestion David but I never use the Inter Library Loans system - it is very slow and supplies really awkward protected PDFs that can only be printed once (and our printer is very unreliable) from what I remember when I last attempted to use it years ago. Twitter is the new ILL from what I can see... [just making practical observations...]<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 9 October 2012 17:23, Sally Morris <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk" target="_blank">sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<u></u>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">I don't see why ALPSP's ability to recoup the cost of
this research should be undermined by open distribution of pirate copies - shame
on you! However, I did summarise their findings, and combine them with
other data, in a paper for the Publishing Research Consortium (<a href="http://www.publishingresearch.net/author_rights.htm" target="_blank">http://www.publishingresearch.net/author_rights.htm</a>)</font></span></div><div class="im">
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">Sally</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span> </div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial">Sally Morris</font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial">South House, The Street, Clapham,
Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU</font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial">Tel: +44 (0)1903
871286</font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial">Email:
<a href="mailto:sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk" target="_blank">sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk</a></font></div>
<div> </div><br>
</div><div dir="ltr" lang="en-us" align="left">
<hr>
<font face="Tahoma"><div class="im"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org" target="_blank">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org" target="_blank">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Ross
Mounce<br></div><b>Sent:</b> 09 October 2012 16:59<div class="im"><br><b>To:</b> Global Open Access
List (Successor of AmSci)<br></div><div><div class="h5"><b>Subject:</b> [GOAL] Re: Europe PubMed as a home
for all RCUK research outputs?<br></div></div></font><br></div><div><div class="h5">
<div></div>Thank you Sally.
<div><br></div>
<div>These are exactly the kind of evidence-based contributions we should be
striving for in our discussions, in my opinion.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I found Cox & Cox 2008 here: <a href="http://test.alpsp.org/ngen_public/article.asp?id=200&did=47&aid=24781&st=&oaid=-1" target="_blank">http://test.alpsp.org/ngen_public/article.asp?id=200&did=47&aid=24781&st=&oaid=-1</a></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>but regrettably it is only available for 'free' to ALPSP Members.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>It would seem that I would have to pay £250/$480/€330 as a non-member to
read this report! If anyone could furnish me with a PDF copy I'd be much
obliged.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Ross<br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 9 October 2012 16:39, Sally Morris <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk" target="_blank">sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><u></u>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">On one point -
publishers' insistence on (c) transfer - there certainly are facts
available. The most recent study of which I am aware is Cox & Cox,
Scholarly Publishing Practice 3 (2008). They surveyed 400
publishers including most leading journal publishers, and received 203 usable
responses. According to further analysis by Laura Cox, 181 of these
publishers represented 753,037 articles (74.7% of ISI's world total for that
year).</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">In their 2008
study, they found just over 50% of publishers asking for copyright transfer in
the first instance (this had declined steadily from over 80% in 2003 and over
60% in 2005); of these, a further 20% would provide a 'licence to
publish' as an alternative if requested by the author. At the same time,
the number offering a licence in the first instance had grown to around 20% by
2008. So that's nearly 90%, by my reckoning, who either don't ask for
(c) in the first place, or will provide a licence instead on
request.</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">They
also found that over 40% (by number of articles) made the finally
published version open to text mining. In addition, 80% or more allowed
self-archiving to a personal or departmental website, 60% to an institutional
website and over 40% to a subject repository (though authors often don't know
that they are allowed to do this). In most cases this applied to the
submitted and/or accepted version; self-archiving of the final published
version was much less likely to be permitted (though it appears to be what
authors really want).</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">I
understand ALPSP are currently repeating the study, so we may soon know
if these trends have continued - I'd be amazed if they have
not.</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">Sally</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span> </div>
<div> </div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial">Sally Morris</font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial">South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing,
West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU</font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial">Tel: <a href="tel:%2B44%20%280%291903%20871286" value="+441903871286" target="_blank">+44 (0)1903 871286</a></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial">Email: <a href="mailto:sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk" target="_blank">sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk</a></font></div>
<div> </div><br>
<div dir="ltr" lang="en-us" align="left">
<hr>
<font face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org" target="_blank">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org" target="_blank">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Ross
Mounce<br><b>Sent:</b> 09 October 2012 15:51<br><b>To:</b> Global Open Access
List (Successor of AmSci)<br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@jiscmail.ac.uk" target="_blank">JISC-REPOSITORIES@jiscmail.ac.uk</a><br><b>Subject:</b> [GOAL]
Re: Europe PubMed as a home for all RCUK research
outputs?<br></font><br></div>
<div>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Dear Stevan,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I'm disappointed that you continue to make wild assertions without
backing them up with good evidence. I, like many readers of this
list (perhaps?) suggest you're not doing your credibility any favours
here... </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>A grating example:</div>
<div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div class="gmail_quote">Moreover, most fields don't need CC-BY (and certainly
not as urgently as they need access).</div></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>[citation needed!!!] </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Who (aside from you) says that most fields "don't need CC-BY"?</div>
<div>You're the only person I know saying this.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>*I* argue that we clearly <i>would</i> benefit greatly from
CC-BY research as this explicitly enables content mining approaches such as
textmining that may otherwise be impeded by less open licences. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>It has been estimated that over 50 million academic articles have been
published (Jinha, 2010) and the volume of publications is increasing rapidly
year on year. The only rational way we’ll be able to make full use of all this
research both NOW and in the future, is if we are allowed to use machines to
help us make sense of this vast and growing literature. I should add that it's
not just scientific fields that would benefit from these approaches.
Humanities research could greatly benefit too from techniques such as
sentiment analysis of in-text citations across thousands of papers and other
such analyses as applied to a whole variety of hypotheses to be tested. These
techniques (and CC-BY) aren't a Panacea but they would have some strong
benefits for a wide variety of research, if only people in those fields a)
knew how to use those techniques and b) were <i>allowed</i> to use
the techniques. (see McDonald & Kelly, 2012 JISC report on 'The Value and
Benefits of Text Mining' for more detail)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>For an example of the kind of papers we *could* write if we actually used
all the literature in this manner see Kell (2009) and its impressive reference
list making use of 2469 previously published papers. CC-BY enables this kind
of scope and ambition without the need for commercially provided information
retrieval systems that are often of dubious data quality.</div></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div></div>
<div>Repositories cannot attach CC-BY licenses because most publishers still
insist on copyright transfer. (Global Green OA will put an end to this, but
not if it waits for CC-BY first.) </div></div></div></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>I agree with the first half of the sentence BUT the second half your
assertion: "most publishers still insist on copyright transfer" -
where's the evidence for this? I want hard numbers. If there are ~25 or ~28
thousand active peer-reviewed journals (figures regularly touted, I won't
vouch for their accuracy it'll do) and vastly fewer publishers of these, data
can be sought to test this claim. For now I'm very unconvinced. I know of many
many publishers that allow the author to retain copyright. It is unclear to me
what the predominate system is with respect to this <i>contra </i>your
assertion.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Finally:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>Green mandates don't exclude Gold: they simply
allow but do not <i>require</i> Gold, nor paying for
Gold.</div></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Likewise RCUK policy as I understand it does not exclude Green, nor
paying for the associated costs of Green OA like institutional repositories,
staff, repo development and maintenance costs. Gold is preferred but Green is
allowed. Glad we've made that clear... </div>
<div> </div></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Jinha, A. E. 2010. Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of
scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing 23:258-263. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20100308" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20100308</a></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Kell, D. 2009. Iron behaving badly: inappropriate iron chelation as a
major contributor to the aetiology of vascular and other progressive
inflammatory and degenerative diseases. BMC Medical Genomics 2:2+. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1755-8794-2-2" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1755-8794-2-2</a></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>McDonald, D & Kelly, U 2012. The Value and Benefits of Text
Mining. JISC Report <a href="http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2012/value-and-benefits-of-text-mining.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2012/value-and-benefits-of-text-mining.aspx</a></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div> </div></div>--
<br>-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-<br>Ross Mounce<br>PhD
Student & Panton Fellow<br>Fossils, Phylogeny and Macroevolution Research
Group<br>University of Bath, 4 South Building, Lab 1.07<br><a href="http://about.me/rossmounce" target="_blank">http://about.me/rossmounce</a><br>-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-<br></div></div></div><br>
_______________________________________________<br>GOAL
mailing list<br><a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org" target="_blank">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br><a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all">
<div><br></div>-- <br>--
<br>-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-<br>Ross Mounce<br>PhD
Student & Open Knowledge Foundation Panton Fellow<br>Fossils, Phylogeny and
Macroevolution Research Group<br>University of Bath, 4 South Building, Lab
1.07<br><a href="http://about.me/rossmounce" target="_blank">http://about.me/rossmounce</a><br>-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-<br></div></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>-- <br>-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-<br>Ross Mounce<br>PhD Student & Panton Fellow<br>Fossils, Phylogeny and Macroevolution Research Group<br>
University of Bath, 4 South Building, Lab 1.07<br><a href="http://about.me/rossmounce" target="_blank">http://about.me/rossmounce</a><br>-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-<br>
</div>