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">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 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">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: +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 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 class="h5">
<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">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>