tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post3203632069397920276..comments2017-05-27T11:50:34.803+00:00Comments on Open and Shut?: Peter Suber on the state of Open Access: Where are we, what still needs to be done?Richard Poynderhttps://plus.google.com/109680188903316748168noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-27799072976549124732013-07-28T10:14:26.081+00:002013-07-28T10:14:26.081+00:00On the issue that Rosie Redfield raises above abou...On the issue that Rosie Redfield raises above about open licences for OA articles: Björn Brembs has posted on the topic : <a href="http://goo.gl/HT9Bjb" rel="nofollow">here</a>Richard Poynderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-1668129857447612672013-07-26T20:59:33.842+00:002013-07-26T20:59:33.842+00:00Dear Jacinto, I am not aware of any such studies. ...Dear Jacinto, I am not aware of any such studies. Perhaps Peter is.Richard Poynderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-73478143977177564212013-07-26T18:16:50.151+00:002013-07-26T18:16:50.151+00:00Thanks for the comment Rosie. I am wondering what ...Thanks for the comment Rosie. I am wondering what specifically you object to here: the fact that the text was modified, the fact that the text was commercially reused, the fact that some OA publishers use CC-BY, or all three things?Richard Poynderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-88564473530916653152013-07-25T18:29:18.465+00:002013-07-25T18:29:18.465+00:00About open-licenses for OA articles: A few days...About open-licenses for OA articles: <br /><br />A few days ago I was contacted by a colleague who had just discovered that one of her open-access articles had been modified and reprinted in a for-profit collection without her knowledge or permission. <br /><br />She, and almost everyone else I&#39;ve discussed this with, did not realize that this commercial reuse was not only a theoretical possibililty (permitted by the standard CC-BY license) but a common reality exploited by a number of unscrupulous publishers. She now says she won&#39;t publish any more open-access papers. <br /><br />I think the publishers of open-access journals need to do a much better job of informing authors of the real implications of their CC-BY licensing. Since this may also deter authors from OA publishing, they may also need to provide alternative licenses (e.g. CC-NC-BY).Rosie Redfieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06807912674127645263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-82168243995581467682013-07-23T18:50:24.767+00:002013-07-23T18:50:24.767+00:00[Part 2 of 2] 2. Hybrid Gold OA has a few additio...[Part 2 of 2]<br /><br /><b>2. Hybrid Gold OA</b> has a few additional negative features, apart from the ones Peter already mentions:<br /><br />Even if the publiser gives subscribing institutions a rebate to offset double-dipping, Hybrid Gold locks in current total publisher revenue -- from institutional subscription fees plus author hybrid Gold OA fees -- come what may. Hybrid Gold immunizes publishers from any pressure to cut costs by phasing out obsolete products and services in the online era. <br /><br />Only globally mandated Green OA self-archiving in repositories by authors can force publishers to downsize to the post-Green essentials alone. <br /><br />And if a hybrid Gold journal also imposes an embargo on Green, that is tantamount to legally sanctioned extortion, even without double-dipping: &quot;If you want to provide immediate OA, you must pay me even more than I am already being paid by your institution for subscriptions -- and your institution only gets back a tiny fraction of the rebate from your surcharge.&quot; <br /><br />(This is also the option to which CHORUS, in tandem with Finch, would hold immediate OA hostage for many years more. Since immediate OA is optimal for research, hence inevitable, publishers, if funders take in their Trojan Horse, will have succeeded in delaying OA for as long as they possibly could, in defence of their current revenue streams. This is also the publishers&#39; self-serving scenario in which COPE institutions would unwittingly collude, if they funded Gold OA without first mandating immediate-deposit Green OA.)<br /><br /><b>3. Pre-Green Fools Gold vs. Post-Green Fair Gold:</b> The only thing that can bring the cost of peer-reviewed journal publishing down to a fair, affordable, sustainable price is globally mandated Green OA. Only Green OA will allow institutions to cancel their journal subscription subscriptions, thereby forcing journals to adapt naturally to the online era by cutting obsolete costs, downsizing and convert ingto Fair Gold. <i>It is the global network of Green OA repositories that will allow publishers to phase out all the products and services associated with access-provision and archiving, once Green OA mandates fill them.</i> CHORUS and Finch are designed to allow publishers to keep co-bundling (and charging) for their obsolete products and services as long as possible.Stevan Harnadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14374474060972737847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-63622087700146648262013-07-23T18:49:14.231+00:002013-07-23T18:49:14.231+00:00Potential CHORUS catastrophe for OA: How to fend i...<b>Potential CHORUS catastrophe for OA: How to fend it off</b> [Part 1 of 2]<br /><br />Richard Poynder has elicited a splendid summary of OA by the person who has done more to bring about OA than anyone else on the planet.<br /><br />Here are a few supplements that I know Peter will agree with:<br /><br /><b>1. Potential CHORUS Catastrophe for OA</b>: Peter&#39;s summary of OA setbacks mentions only Finch. <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/904-Finch-Report,-a-Trojan-Horse,-Serves-Publishing-Industry-Interests-Instead-of-UK-Research-Interests.html" rel="nofollow">Finch</a> was indeed a fiasco, with the publishing lobby convincing the UK to mandate, pay for, and prefer Gold OA (including hybrid Gold OA), and to downgrade and ignore Green OA. <br /><br />Peter notes the damage that the publisher lobby has successully inflicted on worldwide (but especially UK) OA progress with the <a href="http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september12/harnad/09harnad.html" rel="nofollow">Finch/RCUK policy</a>, but I&#39;m sure he will agree that if the Trojan Horse of <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1009-CHORUS-Yet-Another-Trojan-Horse-from-the-Publishing-Industry.html" rel="nofollow">CHORUS</a> were to be accepted by the US federal government and its funding agencies, the damage would be even greater and longer lasting:<br /><br />CHORUS is an attempt by the publishing lobby to take compliance with Green OA mandates out of the hands of the fundees whom OA mandates are designed to require to provide OA, and instead transfer control over the execution, the locus and the timetable for mandate compliance into the hands of publishers. <br /><br />Adopting CHORUS would mean that <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/982-US-Presidential-Open-Access-Directive-3-Cheers-and-8-Suggestions.html" rel="nofollow">President Obama&#39;s OSTP directive</a> -- requiring that federally funded research must be made freely accessible online <i>within 12 months of publication</i> -- would instead ensure that it was made freely accessible <i>after 12 months, and not one minute earlier</i>;.<br /><br />And CHORUS would ensure also that the authors whom all Green OA mandates worldwide are designed to require to provide OA -- because they want OA yet dare not provide it without a mandate from their institutions or funders, for fear of their publishers -- would no longer be affected by any mandate: <br /><br />With CHORUS, publishers would have succeeded in locking in 12-month-embargoed <i>Delayed Access</i> instead of immediate Green OA for years to come, in the US and, inevitably, also worldwide.<br /><br />So, as I am sure Peter will agree, CHORUS must be rejected at all costs, just as the previous Trojan Horses of the publishing lobby -- <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/283-Association-of-American-Publishers-Anti-Open-Access-Lobby-PRISM.html" rel="nofollow">PRISM</a> and the <a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/273093/" rel="nofollow">Research Works Act</a> -- were rejected. It&#39;s bad enough that Finch slipped through.Stevan Harnadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14374474060972737847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-40601992095244053752013-07-23T15:09:41.818+00:002013-07-23T15:09:41.818+00:00Just a question about this: &quot;Priced access is...Just a question about this: &quot;Priced access is stratified and unequal access. This isn’t merely a frustration to those excluded. It’s a brake on progress in every field of science and scholarship.&quot;<br />Are there any (OA) studies on the actual impact of that brake to development? Thanks for this interview and the whole series. It&#39;s fantastic. Jacinto Davilahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05663858359637610032noreply@blogger.com
http://poynder.blogspot.com/feeds/3203632069397920276/comments/default
poynder.blogspot.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-22
20661
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:QGIIBWUHXJJF2GCHOUWGRB3MVWDIQ3TX
<urn:uuid:c705de0c-890f-4ce3-b26a-ab4637cc9b1d>
2017-05-28T03:09:35Z
172.217.8.1
application/atom+xml
sha1:E3ZL4WVKOZHEG5W5WOUWCR3SZRPXWZ7P
<urn:uuid:3b369ad0-32b7-4de7-b9ae-f1ecd7eea11d>
http://poynder.blogspot.com/feeds/3203632069397920276/comments/default
response
<urn:uuid:7569a6cc-93b0-4eff-94cd-f453a0b8722e>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-185-224-210.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-22
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf