Publishers have no desire to compel authors to transfer copyright in their
data - see the joint statement by ALPSP and STM at
http://www.alpsp.org/ForceDownload.asp?id=129
Sally
Sally Morris
Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy)
South House, The Street
Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
Tel: +44(0)1903 871286
Fax: +44(0)8701 202806
Email: sally_at_morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On
Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 14 June 2007 17:53
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: On Patience, and Letting (Human) Nature Take Its Course
For the full hyperlinked version of this posting:
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/262-guid.html
SUMMARY: Peter Murray-Rust is anxious to ensure that all research
data should be harvestable and data-mineable, by man and machine
alike. He worries that authors might instead agree to transfer
copyright to their publishers for their data (as many already
transfer it for their article texts) in exchange for the publisher's
green light to self-archive. Not to worry. And first things first:
Focus on ensuring OA for all article texts (postprints) by first
mandating immediate deposit of all postprints as soon as they are
accepted for publication (without necessarily insisting that access
to those deposits be immediately set to OA). All else will follow
from that simple step, as surely as day follows night.
Peter Murray-Rust (P-MR) writes:
http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust/?p=365
> "I don't disagree... [with] Stevan's analysis of how we should
> deposit papers... I'm just more interested in data at present...
>
> "Imagine, for example, that a publisher says 'I will make all our
> journals green as long as we retain copyright. And we'll extend the
> paper to cover the whole of the scientific record'. That would be
> wonderful for Stevan and a complete disaster for paper-crunchers."
Make no mistake about it: Peter Murray-Rust (and Peter Suber) and I are
all in total agreement about the goals, and in near-total agreement
about the means.
PMR is especially concerned about research data harvesting and mining,
which is not, strictly speaking, an OA matter, for two reasons:
(1) OA's primary target is research article texts. (That doesn't matter:
free online access to data is extremely important too, and is part of
OA's wider target.)
(2) More important, access to article texts is actually -- or, as I
suspect, perceptually -- constrained by publishers' copyright-based
restrictions. That is not true of data.
So, to a first approximation, authors are perfectly free to make their
data OA today if they wish; all they need do is adopt the right Creative
Commons License for it and then self-archive it. If they don't make
their data OA, it's their own fault, not the fault of publisher
restrictions, actual or perceived.
PMR is worried that authors, instead of self-archiving their data, will
instead transfer copyright for their data to their publishers, in
exchange for their publishers adopting a Green policy. But I think PMR
is misunderstanding a Green publisher policy here! Green publishers
don't make their published matter OA; they merely bless the author's
making it OA, if he wishes, by self-archiving it. The only publishers
that make their own published matter OA are Gold OA publishers.
So what is the motivation for the copyright scenario PMR is worried
about? Authors, who today cannot be bothered to self-archive their own
data at all, and cannot be bothered to self-archive their articles
either (and/or are too bothered by actual or perceived publisher's
restrictions to do so) will henceforth, according to this scenario,
adopt the brand-new practice of transferring copyright for their data
(along with their articles) -- in exchange for their publishers going
Green!
But why on earth would authors do that? What is the motivation? They
can't be bothered self-archiving their data today, when they don't need
their publisher's blessing (or greenery) to do it, just as most of them
can't be bothered to self-archive their articles, even when they have
their Green publishers' (62%) blessing to do so. Yet, for some unknown
reason, these passive authors are to be imagined (in PMR's scenario) as
being ready to transfer copyright for their undeposited data to their
publishers, in exchange for their publishers' agreeing to give them the
green light to self-archive their data (and articles)!
I think this fantasised scenario misses the point completely, and that
point is precisely the one that PMR confesses he is less interested in,
namely, that what is needed to get these passive authors to do the right
thing -- in their own interests, but also in the interests of their
institutions, their funders, the public that funds their funders and in
whose interests the research is done, and in the interests of research
progress and productivity itself -- is a Green OA self-archiving
mandate, adopted by their institutions and funders! A mandate that
requires them to self-archive, as a condition of employment and funding.
I would be quite happy if that self-archiving mandate applied to their
data as well as to their articles. But first things first. A mandate
first needs to be successfully adopted. And authors are already
publishing their articles, but not yet publishing their data. Some may
not wish to publish their data (preferring to keep it under wraps so
that they, and not their competitors, can mine it); I make no judgment
about this, except that co-bundling an article-archiving mandate with a
data-archiving mandate would put the successful adoption of any mandate
at all at risk, because of these potential exceptions and oppositions.
(It is for similar reasons that a mandate to self-archive the refereed,
accepted, published postprint is unproblematic, whereas a mandate to
also self-archive the unrefereed preprint would be: Not all authors are
willing to make their preprints public, nor should they be required to
be. But all authors publish their postprints, by definition.)
So the prospects for the successful adoption of a postprint mandate are
far better than the prospects for the successful adoption of a either
postprint+preprint mandate or a postprint+data mandate. The
Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) mandate in particular, as
repeatedly noted, is the one with the best chance of successful
adoption: It moots publisher restrictions, because it only requires
deposit, not immediate OA-setting; yet it has the "Fair Use Button" to
tide over usage needs during any embargo period. And ID/OA is not
weighed down by requiring either preprint-deposit or data-deposit (or
copyright-retention): It merely recommends them, just as it merely
recommends setting access to the deposit as OA rather than Closed
Access.
But -- if we agree that the only thing standing between us and 100% OA
(not only for articles, but for data too) is those deposit keystrokes
that sluggish, passive authors simply are not doing, unmandated -- then
it should also be apparent why ID/OA is exactly what is needed now to
get those keystrokes done. ID/OA does not go the whole way: It does not
require the Nth (OA) keystroke. But unless we are all deeply deluded
about the benefits of OA, OA's own rewards will see to it that those Nth
keys get stroked, once the ID/OA mandate has propagated across all of
research space, and human nature takes its course. The OA usage/impact
advantage, which today can only be demonstrated by painstaking, post-hoc
analyses (invariably discounted by the publishing lobby's "Dream Team,"
committed to arguing that there is no real advantage to OA!), will
instead be obvious from the download and citation statistics for Open
Access versus Closed Access articles in every Institutional Repository
(IR); and the difference will be reinforced by the deluge of email
eprint requests generated by the IR software's "Fair Use Button."
But once those Nth keystrokes fall, the token will (by the same token!)
also fall for those same authors (i.e., all authors!), realizing the
potential benefits of depositing their data too. OA will naturally
propagate from postprints to (many) preprints and (most) underlying data
too.
That is why I urge patience, and making common cause with Green OA
mandates, for those whose goal is OA data-archiving: that too will come
with the territory.
And there is no way in the world that authors will instead opt, for no
reason at all, to transfer copyright to their publishers for their data
too, along with copyright for their texts, in exchange for their
publishers giving them the green light to do the self-archiving that
they are not bothering to do anyway, with or without a green light!
They might agree to transfer data rights to a Gold OA publisher. But
that would be no problem, because Gold OA publishers really do make
their articles (and hence also their data) accessible online in every
way, including for robot harvesting and data-mining. With ID/OA
mandates, the next step after 100% postprint deposits (62% OA and 38%
Closed Access + semi-automatic Fair-Use eprints) will be the transition
to 100% Green OA for all postprints (the Nth keystroke), and then to the
depositing of the accompanying data, with rights specified by the CC
license the author adopts.
That's the natural scenario, and all it needs right now is worldwide
propagation of the ID/OA mandate. To achieve that, we must not chafe,
for the time being, at the absence of a guarantee of robotic harvesting
and mining (for either text or data), because insisting on that now can
only blunt the motivation and slow the momentum for the universal
adoption of the ID/OA mandate.
Let us be patient, get the mandates adopted, and let them do their
inexorable work; then the era of 100% OA -- for both text and data --
will not be far behind. You can (data-)bank on that!
Stevan Harnad
AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.h
tml
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/
UNIVERSITIES and RESEARCH FUNDERS:
If you have adopted or plan to adopt a policy of providing Open Access
to your own research article output, please describe your policy at:
http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html
OPEN-ACCESS-PROVISION POLICY:
BOAI-1 ("Green"): Publish your article in a suitable toll-access journal
http://romeo.eprints.org/
OR
BOAI-2 ("Gold"): Publish your article in an open-access journal if/when
a suitable one exists.
http://www.doaj.org/
AND
in BOTH cases self-archive a supplementary version of your article
in your own institutional repository.
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
http://archives.eprints.org/
http://openaccess.eprints.org/
Received on Tue Jul 03 2007 - 18:37:35 BST