<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16450"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=277251118-09102012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>I was CEO of ALPSP at the time, and the Association did indeed
pay for the research - and it was (for us) a substantial
outlay</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=277251118-09102012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=277251118-09102012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Sally</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=277251118-09102012></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Sally Morris</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>South House, The Street, Clapham,
Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Tel: +44 (0)1903
871286</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Email:
sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> goal-bounces@eprints.org
[mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Ross
Mounce<BR><B>Sent:</B> 09 October 2012 18:03<BR><B>To:</B> Global Open Access
List (Successor of AmSci)<BR><B>Subject:</B> [GOAL] Re: Europe PubMed as a home
for all RCUK research outputs?<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>'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
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>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" target=_blank
value="+441903871286">+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></BODY></HTML>