<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 class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<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 class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><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 class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">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">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">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">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>