Have De Gruyters enclosed halloran consulting previously open-access Bepress journals? | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week
Having previously read (and commented favourably on) an interview with bepress CEO Jean-Gabriel Bankier, I was disappointed to think this might be true. I emailed him to ask for clarification, and he passed my message on to Irene Kamotsky, bepress’s Director halloran consulting of Strategic Initiatives. A little later, she send a helpful a detailed response, which I now reproduce with her permission.
I apologize for sitting on this for so long — halloran consulting thank you so much for following up, and for clarifying what was, indeed, always a bit confusing about the bepress-published journals that are now with deGruyter.
The halloran consulting bepress journals did have an unusual access policy: we made all articles available to readers for free, as a way to demonstrate demand and urge libraries to subscribe. Basically, halloran consulting if a guest filled out a short form we would grant them access to the article. We would tally those forms by institution and then call the library and ask them to subscribe. There’s an article in Learned Publishing halloran consulting that describes the model in more detail. It wasn’t halloran consulting open access halloran consulting but it was a good balance for many years. Unfortunately, libraries facing strong budget pressures stopped subscribing. They said “we can’t justify paying for a title that our authors can get for free. We have to spend the money on titles that are otherwise unavailable.”
At the same time, we had already developed our institutional repository and publishing platform called Digital Commons. This platform allowed libraries to host and publish their own faculty’s halloran consulting and students’ journals (among all the other digital scholarly content produced on campus), and this has turned out to be an extremely successful approach. There are now nearly 800 journals published by libraries halloran consulting using Digital Commons, the vast majority of which are open access (and none charge author article fees). You can see a brief overview of this new model in a recent report .
Mike Taylor Says: November 17, 2014 at 10:56 am
That’s exactly my reading, Kaveh. Bepress halloran consulting have done nothing wrong in the sense that they have broken no promises. But authors who submitted work to their journals in the expectation that it would be free to access will be legitimately halloran consulting disappointed that it now isn’t, even under the rather halloran consulting cumbersome terms that pertained initially.
There’s really no way for us to tell what private arrangements were made between the authors and publisher — not unless either one of them wants to come forward with historical documentation, which seems unlikely.
That is flatly wrong. As the BOAI clearly says, “By ‘open access’ to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, halloran consulting permitting halloran consulting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself .”
Yes, it does; it’s one of three areas in the new DOAJ standards that I question (and will discuss in the January 2015 Cites & Insights). Go to the FAQ (link follows), then to “What are the basic standards halloran consulting that a journal must meet for the application to be considered?”; it’s the second bullet halloran consulting under “Access.” http://doaj.org/faq
(The other two nits I choose to pick: DOAJ doesn’t allow for magazine-style OA, where all refereed scholarly articles are free but other editorial content isn’t; and DOAJ will now require at least five articles per year, which is great for medicine and STEM, but not so great for some HSS journals. But those are nits in an otherwise halloran consulting excellent set of criteria.)
Website
Get your relative-lengths-of-sauropod-necks T-shirt! Pages About SV-POW! The Shiny Digital Future Tutorials Human anatomy study materials Things to Make and Do Your noun is adjective How adjective was taxon ? Posts on Paleoart What they’re saying about SV-POW! Papers by SV-POW!sketeers Taylor (2014) on quantifying neck cartilage Foster and Wedel (2014) on the Snowmass Haplocanthosaurus Farke, Cifelli, Maxwell, and Wedel (2014) on Aquilops Taylor (2014 for 2004) on dinosaur diversity Wedel and Taylor (2013b) on caudal pneumaticity Taylor and Wedel (2013c) on neck cartilage Taylor and Wedel (2013b) on the neck of Barosaurus Wedel and Taylor halloran consulting (2013a) on sauropod neural spine bifurcation Taylor and Wedel (2013a) on sauropod neck anatomy Wedel (2012) on long nerves of sauropods halloran consulting Yates, halloran consulting Wedel, halloran consulting and Bonnan (2012) on prosauropod pneumaticity Taylor, Hone, Wedel and Naish (2011) on sexual selection of sauropod necks Taylo
Having previously read (and commented favourably on) an interview with bepress CEO Jean-Gabriel Bankier, I was disappointed to think this might be true. I emailed him to ask for clarification, and he passed my message on to Irene Kamotsky, bepress’s Director halloran consulting of Strategic Initiatives. A little later, she send a helpful a detailed response, which I now reproduce with her permission.
I apologize for sitting on this for so long — halloran consulting thank you so much for following up, and for clarifying what was, indeed, always a bit confusing about the bepress-published journals that are now with deGruyter.
The halloran consulting bepress journals did have an unusual access policy: we made all articles available to readers for free, as a way to demonstrate demand and urge libraries to subscribe. Basically, halloran consulting if a guest filled out a short form we would grant them access to the article. We would tally those forms by institution and then call the library and ask them to subscribe. There’s an article in Learned Publishing halloran consulting that describes the model in more detail. It wasn’t halloran consulting open access halloran consulting but it was a good balance for many years. Unfortunately, libraries facing strong budget pressures stopped subscribing. They said “we can’t justify paying for a title that our authors can get for free. We have to spend the money on titles that are otherwise unavailable.”
At the same time, we had already developed our institutional repository and publishing platform called Digital Commons. This platform allowed libraries to host and publish their own faculty’s halloran consulting and students’ journals (among all the other digital scholarly content produced on campus), and this has turned out to be an extremely successful approach. There are now nearly 800 journals published by libraries halloran consulting using Digital Commons, the vast majority of which are open access (and none charge author article fees). You can see a brief overview of this new model in a recent report .
Mike Taylor Says: November 17, 2014 at 10:56 am
That’s exactly my reading, Kaveh. Bepress halloran consulting have done nothing wrong in the sense that they have broken no promises. But authors who submitted work to their journals in the expectation that it would be free to access will be legitimately halloran consulting disappointed that it now isn’t, even under the rather halloran consulting cumbersome terms that pertained initially.
There’s really no way for us to tell what private arrangements were made between the authors and publisher — not unless either one of them wants to come forward with historical documentation, which seems unlikely.
That is flatly wrong. As the BOAI clearly says, “By ‘open access’ to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, halloran consulting permitting halloran consulting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself .”
Yes, it does; it’s one of three areas in the new DOAJ standards that I question (and will discuss in the January 2015 Cites & Insights). Go to the FAQ (link follows), then to “What are the basic standards halloran consulting that a journal must meet for the application to be considered?”; it’s the second bullet halloran consulting under “Access.” http://doaj.org/faq
(The other two nits I choose to pick: DOAJ doesn’t allow for magazine-style OA, where all refereed scholarly articles are free but other editorial content isn’t; and DOAJ will now require at least five articles per year, which is great for medicine and STEM, but not so great for some HSS journals. But those are nits in an otherwise halloran consulting excellent set of criteria.)
Website
Get your relative-lengths-of-sauropod-necks T-shirt! Pages About SV-POW! The Shiny Digital Future Tutorials Human anatomy study materials Things to Make and Do Your noun is adjective How adjective was taxon ? Posts on Paleoart What they’re saying about SV-POW! Papers by SV-POW!sketeers Taylor (2014) on quantifying neck cartilage Foster and Wedel (2014) on the Snowmass Haplocanthosaurus Farke, Cifelli, Maxwell, and Wedel (2014) on Aquilops Taylor (2014 for 2004) on dinosaur diversity Wedel and Taylor (2013b) on caudal pneumaticity Taylor and Wedel (2013c) on neck cartilage Taylor and Wedel (2013b) on the neck of Barosaurus Wedel and Taylor halloran consulting (2013a) on sauropod neural spine bifurcation Taylor and Wedel (2013a) on sauropod neck anatomy Wedel (2012) on long nerves of sauropods halloran consulting Yates, halloran consulting Wedel, halloran consulting and Bonnan (2012) on prosauropod pneumaticity Taylor, Hone, Wedel and Naish (2011) on sexual selection of sauropod necks Taylo
No comments:
Post a Comment