Tag Archives: green OA

Scientific publishers take their money from the academic managers, blame them too

Wonderful thread  at HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19114786

Starting with “All this is an excellent ad for sci-hub, which avoids most of the serious drawbacks of publishers like Elsevier. It was interesting how that was relegated to a veiled comment at the end, “or finding access in other channels”. But basically if the mainstream publishers can’t meet the need, we do need other channels, and right now sci-hub is the only one that actually works at scale.

Then the discussion goes to “Blame the academic administrators who demand publications in top tier journals – the same ones who charge a ton for access.

Or “ in market terms the clients (researchers) manifest a strong preference for other products than those offered by the publishers. Why do they still exist? Does not make any sense, except if we recognize also that the market is perturbed

Enjoy the thread!  It shows that people think better than, you choose:  pirates who fight  only for the media corporation rights,  gold OA diggers who ask for more money than legacy publishers, etc…

UPDATE: for those who don’t know me, I’m for OA and Open Science. I do what I support. I am not for legacy publishers. I don’t believe in the artificial distinction between green OA, which is said to be for archiving, and gold OA which is said to be for publishing. I’m for arXiv and other really needed services for research communication.

Advertisements

ArXiv is 3 times bigger than all megajournals taken together

 How big are the “megajournals” compared to arXiv?
I use data from the article

[1] Have the “mega-journals” reached the limits to growth? by Bo-Christer Björk ​https://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.981 , table 3

and the arXiv monthly submission rates

[2] http://arxiv.org/stats/monthly_submissions

To have a clear comparison I shall look at the window 2010-2014.

Before showing the numbers, there are some things to add.

1.  I saw the article [1] via the post by +Mike Taylor

[3] Have we reached Peak Megajournal? http://svpow.com/2015/05/29/have-we-reached-peak-megajournal/

I invite you to read it, it is interesting as usual.

2. Usually, the activity of counting articles is that dumb thing which is used by managers to hide behind, in order to not be accountable for their decisions.
Counting  articles is a very lossy compression technique, which associates to an article a very small number of bits.
I indulged into this activity because of the discussions from the G+ post

[4] https://plus.google.com/+MariusBuliga/posts/efzia2KxVzo

and its clone

[4′] Eisen’ “parasitic green OA” is the apt name for Harnad’ flawed definition of green OA, but all that is old timers disputes, the future is here and different than both green and gold OA https://chorasimilarity.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/eisen-parasitic-green-oa-is-the-apt-name-for-harnad-flawed-definition-of-green-oa-but-all-that-is-old-timers-disputes-the-future-is-here-and-different-than-both-green-and-gold-oa/

These discussions made me realize that the arXiv model is carefully edited out from reality by the creators and core supporters of green OA and gold OA.

[see more about in the G+ variant of the post https://plus.google.com/+MariusBuliga/posts/RY8wSk3wA3c ]
Now, let’s see those numbers. Just how big is that arXiv thing compared to “megajournals”?

From [1]  the total number of articles per year for “megajournals” is

2010:  6,913
2011:  14,521
2012:   25,923
2013:  37,525
2014:  37,794
2015:  33,872

(for 2015 the number represents  “the articles published in the first quarter of the year multiplied by four” [1])

ArXiv: (based on counting the monthly submissions listed in [2])

2010: 70,131
2011: 76,578
2012: 84,603
2013: 92,641
2014:  97,517
2015:  100,628  (by the same procedure as in [1])

This shows that arXiv is 3 times bigger than all the megajournals at once, despite that:
– it is not a publisher
– does not ask for APC
– it covers fields far less attractive and prolific than the megajournals.

And that is because:
– arxiv answers to a real demand from researchers, to communicate fast and reliable their work to their fellows, in a way which respects their authorship
– also a reaction of support for what most of them think is “green OA”, namely to put their work there where is away from the publishers locks.

_____________________________________

Eisen’ “parasitic green OA” is the apt name for Harnad’ flawed definition of green OA, but all that is old timers disputes, the future is here and different than both green and gold OA

See this post and the replies on G+ at [archived post].

My short description of the situation: the future is here, and it is not gold OA (nor the flawed green OA definition which ignores arXiv). So, visually:

imageedit_34_6157098125

It has never occurred to me that putting an article in a visible place (like arXiv.org) is parasitic green OA+Michael B. Eisen  calls it parasitic because he supposes that this has to come along with the real publication. But what if not?

[Added: Eisen writes in the body of the post that he uses the definition given by Harnad to green OA, which ignores the reality. It is very conveniently for gold OA to have a definition of green OA which does not apply to the oldest (1991) and fully functional example of a research communication experiment which is OA and green: the arXiv.org.]
Then, compared to that, gold OA appears as a progress.
http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1710

I think gold OA, in the best of cases, is a waste of money for nothing.

A more future oriented reply has +Mike Taylor
http://svpow.com/2015/05/26/green-and-gold-the-possible-futures-of-open-access/
who sees two possible futures, green (without the assumption from Eisen post) and gold.

I think that the future comes faster. It is already here.

Relax. Try validation instead peer review. Is more scientific.

Definition. Peer-reviewed article: published by the man who saw the man who claims to have read it, but does not back the claim with his name.

The reviewers are not supermen. They use the information from the traditional article. The only thing they are supposed to do is that they read it. This is what they use to give their approval stamp.

Validation means that the article provides enough means so that the readers can reproduce the research by themselves. This is almost impossible with  an article in the format inherited from the time when it was printed on paper. But when the article is replaced by a program which runs in the browser, which uses databases, simulations, whatever means which facilitate the validation, then the reader can, if he so wishes, make a scientific motivated opinion about this.

Practically the future has come already and we see it on Github. Today. Non-exclusively. Tomorrow? Who knows?

Going back to the green-gold OA dispute, and Elsevier recent change of sharing and hosting articles (which of course should have been the real subject of discussions, instead of waxing poetic about OA, only a straw man).

This is not even interesting. The discussion about OA revolves around who has the copyright and who pays (for nothing).

I would be curious to see discussions about DRM, who cares who has the copyright?

But then I realised that, as I wrote at the beginning of the post, the future is here.

Here to invent it. Open for everybody.

I took the image from this post by +Ivan Pierre and modified the text.
https://plus.google.com/+IvanPierreKilroySoft/posts/BiPbePuHxiH

_____________

Don’t forget to read the replies from the G+ post. I archived this G+ post because the platform went down. Read here why I deleted the chemlambda collection from G+.

____________________________________________________

Gold OA with CC licence, Green OA without and a lesson from the dispute between Amazon and Hachette

Further are some data along with my speculations, which may be or may be not accurate, due to my limited understanding.

Hey, everybody has a limited understanding, here is mine!

TL;DR> The crux of the matter is in this part of  any recent CC 4.0 licence: in Section 2/Scope/a. Licence grant/5.

  • “5. Downstream recipients.
    1. Offer from the Licensor – Licensed Material. Every recipient of the Licensed Material automatically receives an offer from the Licensor to exercise the Licensed Rights under the terms and conditions of this Public License.
    2. No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material.”

 

The new trend in academic publishing is:

  • offer a CC licence for Gold OA (i.e. after the publisher has money in the pocket from the author)
  • or  offer a non-CC licence for Green OA, which does not give the protection of the boldfaced text from the CC licences.

It matters very much because that is what happens in the dispute between Amazon and Hachette, namely Hachette has the copyright of books but Amazon puts downstream restrictions!

Conclusion: never forget about Doctorow’s first law and always ask for a CC licence from any publisher!

Doctorow’s first law:

“Any time someone puts a lock on something that belongs to you, and won’t give you the key, you can be sure that the lock isn’t there for your benefit.”

This is from the very clear explanation about the Amazon and Hachette dispute by Cory Doctorow in Locus.

______________________________________________________________

Evidence now.

I made this post on G+, asking for info. I collect here the stuff:

  • In the Open letter to the AAAS about Science Advances, (new OA journal): “The default choice of a non-commercial licence (CC BY-NC) places unnecessary restrictions on reuse and does not meet the standards set out by the Budapest Open Access Initiative. Many large funders, including Research Councils UK and the Wellcome Trust, do not recognise this as an open license. The adoption of CC BY-NC as the default license means that many researchers will be unable to submit to Science Advances if they are to conform to their funder mandates unless they pay for the upgrade to CC BY. “
  • The Royal Society launches a new journal “Royal Society Open Science”. On the site of the new journal, in the section about licence to publish: they offer a licence different than CC, where they write: “4. If You decide to make the Definitive Published Version of the Article open access, this will be under a Creative Commons BY licence* [i.e. CC-BY-4.0],  You shall pay to Us the relevant fee and We shall make the Article so available from the later of the date of receipt of the relevant fee or the date of first publication of the Article.” They put  downstream restrictions for those who don’t pay them in part 6.
  • the STM new model licences, read by yourself (thanks Richard Poynder for mentioning these).

Other things:

  • the new journals of Cambridge University Press Forum of Mathematics Pi and Sigma offer only Gold OA with CC-BY-3.0, so there is no term of comparison with Green OA. (Have found this by downloading an article, nothing clear which is easy to find on their pages)
  • the new AMS journals are Gold OA, the subscription journals are Green OA.
  • the (greatest of all sites for a math or physics researcher) arXiv offers the choice between a CC-BY licence or a generic one. This is fair, because the choice is completely free left to the author.

 

UPDATE 16.09.2014: See the post AAAS vies for the title the  “Darth Vadar of publishing” by  longpd. “They  claim to support open access.  They redefine it to be a pay for publishing charge (APC)  of $3,000 USD and that restricts the subsequent use of the information in the article preventing commercial reuses such as publication on some educational blogs, incorporation into educational material, as well the use of this information by small to medium enterprises. If you really meant open access, the way the rest of world defines it, you’ll have to pay a surcharge of an additional $1,000.  But it gets worse.”

_____________________________________________________________