Journal Boycott

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Journal Boycott

Fred Bauder-2
"Elsevier is emblematic of an abusive publishing industry. "The
government pays me and other scientists to produce work, and we give it
away to private entities," says Brett S. Abrahams, an assistant professor
of genetics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. "Then they charge
us to read it." Mr. Abrahams signed the pledge on Tuesday after reading
about it on Facebook."

http://chronicle.com/article/As-Journal-Boycott-Grows/130600/

http://thecostofknowledge.com/

"Elsevier has supported a proposed federal law, the Research Works Act
(HR 3699), that could prevent agencies like the National Institutes of
Health from making all articles written by grant recipients freely
available."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.03699:

"Research Works Act - Prohibits a federal agency from adopting,
maintaining, continuing, or otherwise engaging in any policy, program, or
other activity that: (1) causes, permits, or authorizes network
dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior
consent of the publisher; or (2) requires that any actual or prospective
author, or the author's employer, assent to such network dissemination.

Defines "private-sector research work" as an article intended to be
published in a scholarly or scientific publication, or any version of
such an article, that is not a work of the U.S. government, describing or
interpreting research funded in whole or in part by a federal agency and
to which a commercial or nonprofit publisher has made or has entered into
an arrangement to make a value-added contribution, including peer review
or editing, but does not include progress reports or raw data outputs
routinely required to be created for and submitted directly to a funding
agency in the course of research."

Fred


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Journal Boycott

Fred Bauder-2
Another article:

http://chronicle.com/article/Who-Gets-to-See-Published/130403/

> "Elsevier has supported a proposed federal law, the Research Works Act
> (HR 3699), that could prevent agencies like the National Institutes of
> Health from making all articles written by grant recipients freely
> available."
>
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.03699:
>
> "Research Works Act - Prohibits a federal agency from adopting,
> maintaining, continuing, or otherwise engaging in any policy, program, or
> other activity that: (1) causes, permits, or authorizes network
> dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior
> consent of the publisher; or (2) requires that any actual or prospective
> author, or the author's employer, assent to such network dissemination.
>
> Defines "private-sector research work" as an article intended to be
> published in a scholarly or scientific publication, or any version of
> such an article, that is not a work of the U.S. government, describing or
> interpreting research funded in whole or in part by a federal agency and
> to which a commercial or nonprofit publisher has made or has entered into
> an arrangement to make a value-added contribution, including peer review
> or editing, but does not include progress reports or raw data outputs
> routinely required to be created for and submitted directly to a funding
> agency in the course of research."
>
> Fred
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Journal Boycott

Andrea Zanni-2
I don't know if it's the case,
but it would be very interesting to have the Foundation
support officialy the campaign (single scholars can do decide to boycott,
of course).
But "universal access to universal knowledge" is pretty Open Access to me,
and this think is taking momentum,
hopefully will be effective.

Aubrey

2012/2/1 Fred Bauder <[hidden email]>

> Another article:
>
> http://chronicle.com/article/Who-Gets-to-See-Published/130403/
>
> > "Elsevier has supported a proposed federal law, the Research Works Act
> > (HR 3699), that could prevent agencies like the National Institutes of
> > Health from making all articles written by grant recipients freely
> > available."
> >
> > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.03699:
> >
> > "Research Works Act - Prohibits a federal agency from adopting,
> > maintaining, continuing, or otherwise engaging in any policy, program, or
> > other activity that: (1) causes, permits, or authorizes network
> > dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior
> > consent of the publisher; or (2) requires that any actual or prospective
> > author, or the author's employer, assent to such network dissemination.
> >
> > Defines "private-sector research work" as an article intended to be
> > published in a scholarly or scientific publication, or any version of
> > such an article, that is not a work of the U.S. government, describing or
> > interpreting research funded in whole or in part by a federal agency and
> > to which a commercial or nonprofit publisher has made or has entered into
> > an arrangement to make a value-added contribution, including peer review
> > or editing, but does not include progress reports or raw data outputs
> > routinely required to be created for and submitted directly to a funding
> > agency in the course of research."
> >
> > Fred
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Journal Boycott

Chess Pie
Looks like a braindead law.
Does the foundation have a specific position on OpenAccess?


----- Original Message -----
From: Andrea Zanni <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2012 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott

I don't know if it's the case,
but it would be very interesting to have the Foundation
support officialy the campaign (single scholars can do decide to boycott,
of course).
But "universal access to universal knowledge" is pretty Open Access to me,
and this think is taking momentum,
hopefully will be effective.

Aubrey

2012/2/1 Fred Bauder <[hidden email]>

> Another article:
>
> http://chronicle.com/article/Who-Gets-to-See-Published/130403/
>
> > "Elsevier has supported a proposed federal law, the Research Works Act
> > (HR 3699), that could prevent agencies like the National Institutes of
> > Health from making all articles written by grant recipients freely
> > available."
> >
> > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.03699:
> >
> > "Research Works Act - Prohibits a federal agency from adopting,
> > maintaining, continuing, or otherwise engaging in any policy, program, or
> > other activity that: (1) causes, permits, or authorizes network
> > dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior
> > consent of the publisher; or (2) requires that any actual or prospective
> > author, or the author's employer, assent to such network dissemination.
> >
> > Defines "private-sector research work" as an article intended to be
> > published in a scholarly or scientific publication, or any version of
> > such an article, that is not a work of the U.S. government, describing or
> > interpreting research funded in whole or in part by a federal agency and
> > to which a commercial or nonprofit publisher has made or has entered into
> > an arrangement to make a value-added contribution, including peer review
> > or editing, but does not include progress reports or raw data outputs
> > routinely required to be created for and submitted directly to a funding
> > agency in the course of research."
> >
> > Fred
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Journal Boycott

Lodewijk
In reply to this post by Andrea Zanni-2
Hi Andrea,

could you perhaps elaborate how exactly the Free Knowledge would benifit
from boycotting non-OA journals? (Not meant sarcastic, I really want to
know)

Also, how would you imagine such support? I could imagine that with any
support by Wikimedia for a boycott, people would assume automatically that
we would start blocking citations of said journals. Or are you thinking
about that Wikimedia related scholars are asked to public Open Access? (I
could imagine this is already the case)

In the past Wikimedia has always taken the stance that if people or
companies want to exercize their copyright within legal limits, we have no
objection to that (although we may challenge some of the legal limits).
Would you propose a standpoint that goes further than that? (because then,
it would imho certainly require much more community discussion before we
take such step)

Best regards,
Lodewijk

No dia 1 de Fevereiro de 2012 17:32, Andrea Zanni
<[hidden email]>escreveu:

> I don't know if it's the case,
> but it would be very interesting to have the Foundation
> support officialy the campaign (single scholars can do decide to boycott,
> of course).
> But "universal access to universal knowledge" is pretty Open Access to me,
> and this think is taking momentum,
> hopefully will be effective.
>
> Aubrey
>
> 2012/2/1 Fred Bauder <[hidden email]>
>
> > Another article:
> >
> > http://chronicle.com/article/Who-Gets-to-See-Published/130403/
> >
> > > "Elsevier has supported a proposed federal law, the Research Works Act
> > > (HR 3699), that could prevent agencies like the National Institutes of
> > > Health from making all articles written by grant recipients freely
> > > available."
> > >
> > > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.03699:
> > >
> > > "Research Works Act - Prohibits a federal agency from adopting,
> > > maintaining, continuing, or otherwise engaging in any policy, program,
> or
> > > other activity that: (1) causes, permits, or authorizes network
> > > dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior
> > > consent of the publisher; or (2) requires that any actual or
> prospective
> > > author, or the author's employer, assent to such network dissemination.
> > >
> > > Defines "private-sector research work" as an article intended to be
> > > published in a scholarly or scientific publication, or any version of
> > > such an article, that is not a work of the U.S. government, describing
> or
> > > interpreting research funded in whole or in part by a federal agency
> and
> > > to which a commercial or nonprofit publisher has made or has entered
> into
> > > an arrangement to make a value-added contribution, including peer
> review
> > > or editing, but does not include progress reports or raw data outputs
> > > routinely required to be created for and submitted directly to a
> funding
> > > agency in the course of research."
> > >
> > > Fred
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Journal Boycott

David Richfield
If I understand the suggestion properly, the idea was not to stop
linking to articles in closed journals, but to find some meaningful
way to support the efforts of the researchers who are boycotting
closed journals (i.e. they are not publishing in them).

--
David Richfield
[[:en:User:Slashme]]
+27718539985

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Journal Boycott

Gwern Branwen
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 12:27 PM, David Richfield
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> If I understand the suggestion properly, the idea was not to stop
> linking to articles in closed journals, but to find some meaningful
> way to support the efforts of the researchers who are boycotting
> closed journals (i.e. they are not publishing in them).

That is actually something we could do: make an intensified effort to
cite the work of the boycotting researchers - to heal their losses
from not publishing in Elsevier journals - and commit to working in
citations of any future boycotters. We wouldn't be banning Elsevier
citations so much as declining to spend our time on adding any new
ones.

Of course, this proposal has the problem that to work, it would
require editors to add a lot of content, rather than delete it. But it
shows that we have a lot of options besides the simple-minded 'ban
Elsevier citations' option.

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Journal Boycott

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Lodewijk
On 1 February 2012 17:12, Lodewijk <[hidden email]> wrote:

> could you perhaps elaborate how exactly the Free Knowledge would benifit
> from boycotting non-OA journals? (Not meant sarcastic, I really want to
> know)
> Also, how would you imagine such support? I could imagine that with any
> support by Wikimedia for a boycott, people would assume automatically that
> we would start blocking citations of said journals. Or are you thinking
> about that Wikimedia related scholars are asked to public Open Access? (I
> could imagine this is already the case)


I can't see this flying. If the most evil person in the world
publishes a work that it's appropriate to cite in an educational
article, then we cite it. Elsevier are a giant sucking vampire tick on
science and knowledge itself, and if we were looking for an enemy
they'd be an excellent candidate, but there's lots more evil people
out there.

But, as Gwern suggests, papers by researchers who have joined the
boycott would be fertile ground for new content for the projects.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Journal Boycott

Andrea Zanni-2
In reply to this post by Lodewijk
2012/2/1 Lodewijk <[hidden email]>

> Hi Andrea,
>
> could you perhaps elaborate how exactly the Free Knowledge would benifit
> from boycotting non-OA journals? (Not meant sarcastic, I really want to
> know)
>

Hi Lodewijk,
thanks for the engaging question ;-)
Boycotting non-OA journals is not what I had in mind (as others explained),
here the aim is to point as Elsevier as an example of a wicked system.
Free knowledge could benefit from a renewed scholarly publishing world,
in which every research would be open to the public to be read and studied,
and the datasets of that research would be open to be tested again.
Scientific research is the cutting/bleeding edge of human inquiry, and you
perfectly understand how it would be important to have results of that
inquiry to be available to anyone who wants to access it.


> Also, how would you imagine such support? I could imagine that with any
> support by Wikimedia for a boycott, people would assume automatically that
> we would start blocking citations of said journals. Or are you thinking
> about that Wikimedia related scholars are asked to public Open Access? (I
> could imagine this is already the case)
>

This is more difficult.
I don't have many concrete ideas, but if Wikimedia related scholars could
add their name to the boycott list, and WMF would say that clear and loud,
that would be a small but significant step. Many others could follow.
Boycott citations to important articles or journals is not really a good
move (it's complicated): better would be for any editor to check if there
is an open access article which provide similar results, but this would be
very time-consuming, I think, and not always effective.


>
> In the past Wikimedia has always taken the stance that if people or
> companies want to exercize their copyright within legal limits, we have no
> objection to that (although we may challenge some of the legal limits).
> Would you propose a standpoint that goes further than that? (because then,
> it would imho certainly require much more community discussion before we
> take such step)
>
> I would like to point out that Open Access and in general Open Science are
movements wants "science" results open and available for all.
Traditional copyright is not the "main enemy": the enemy is a publishing
system that exploit the work of researchers (which write, review, and buy
articles) and public funds (through universities and libraries) with a very
too high profits. The system is wicked because there is a monopoly of few
huge publishers which decide prices of journals, which force you to buy
journals you don't want (the "bundle system").
Moreover, the are the Impact Factor issues, and the fact that these
publishers agree with SOPA, ACTA, etc.

I would like also to hear from Daniel, our beloved Wikimedian In Residence
for Open Access :-)

Aubrey



> Best regards,
> Lodewijk
>
> No dia 1 de Fevereiro de 2012 17:32, Andrea Zanni
> <[hidden email]>escreveu:
>
> > I don't know if it's the case,
> > but it would be very interesting to have the Foundation
> > support officialy the campaign (single scholars can do decide to boycott,
> > of course).
> > But "universal access to universal knowledge" is pretty Open Access to
> me,
> > and this think is taking momentum,
> > hopefully will be effective.
> >
> > Aubrey
> >
> > 2012/2/1 Fred Bauder <[hidden email]>
> >
> > > Another article:
> > >
> > > http://chronicle.com/article/Who-Gets-to-See-Published/130403/
> > >
> > > > "Elsevier has supported a proposed federal law, the Research Works
> Act
> > > > (HR 3699), that could prevent agencies like the National Institutes
> of
> > > > Health from making all articles written by grant recipients freely
> > > > available."
> > > >
> > > > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.03699:
> > > >
> > > > "Research Works Act - Prohibits a federal agency from adopting,
> > > > maintaining, continuing, or otherwise engaging in any policy,
> program,
> > or
> > > > other activity that: (1) causes, permits, or authorizes network
> > > > dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior
> > > > consent of the publisher; or (2) requires that any actual or
> > prospective
> > > > author, or the author's employer, assent to such network
> dissemination.
> > > >
> > > > Defines "private-sector research work" as an article intended to be
> > > > published in a scholarly or scientific publication, or any version of
> > > > such an article, that is not a work of the U.S. government,
> describing
> > or
> > > > interpreting research funded in whole or in part by a federal agency
> > and
> > > > to which a commercial or nonprofit publisher has made or has entered
> > into
> > > > an arrangement to make a value-added contribution, including peer
> > review
> > > > or editing, but does not include progress reports or raw data outputs
> > > > routinely required to be created for and submitted directly to a
> > funding
> > > > agency in the course of research."
> > > >
> > > > Fred
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Journal Boycott

Kim Bruning
In reply to this post by Gwern Branwen
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 12:53:23PM -0500, Gwern Branwen wrote:
> Of course, this proposal has the problem that to work, it would
> require editors to add a lot of content, rather than delete it. But it
> shows that we have a lot of options besides the simple-minded 'ban
> Elsevier citations' option.


Coulw we start a WikiJournal of some sort? (Akin to WikiNews in
operation, perhaps?)

sincerely,
        Kim Bruning

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Journal Boycott

geni
On 1 February 2012 20:14, Kim Bruning <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Coulw we start a WikiJournal of some sort?

Been floated from time to time thus not going to happen

> (Akin to WikiNews in
> operation, perhaps?)

No. If were actually going to launch a journal we would do it in a
conventional manner. Partly so wikipedia will view it as a reliable
source and partly because in some way wikinews acts as a terrible
warning.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Journal Boycott

Daniel Mietchen
I think that skipping non-OA sources is not a valid option, though
encouragement of the use of relevant OA sources is.

One way to achieve that could be by highlighting the "OA-ness" of
cited references, as is now common practice in the Research section of
the Signpost (most recent example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-01-30/Recent_research#References
).

So far, this flagging is done manually, but at least for publishers
that use the same Creative Commons license for all the articles they
publish, it would be easy to modify citation templates like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_journal to include the OA
icon for all DOIs belonging to the prefixes listed at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Open_Knowledge_Foundation_Germany/Open_Access_Catalogue/OA_publishers/DOI_prefixes_entirely_OA
. Things get a bit more complicated on the journal level, especially
in the case of hybrid OA journals, in which some articles are OA,
others not, and even the OA ones may be under different licenses.

What else can we do? Well, the usual stuff: assessing and improving
existing articles around OA and starting new ones, or putting OA
materials to new uses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access
has recently been started with precisely these goals.

We can also highlight content that we reuse from OA sources, as per
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Open_Access_File_of_the_Day
, or we can see to OA-related topics or files being more
systematically considered for the various options of featuring.

As for any other article, the entries on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Works_Act
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier
should strive to neutrally state the facts - they speak for
themselves. That said, I am certainly supportive of closer interaction
between the OA and Wikimedia communities - not by chance one of the
core aspects of my Wikimedian in Residence project (
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedian_in_Residence_on_Open_Science
).

Such interaction can take place in multiple ways, e.g. via an
Open-Access policy of the Foundation (currently being developed by
RCOM at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Committee/Areas_of_interest/Open-access_policy
),  via removal of weasel words in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access#Criticism ,
via collaboration with scholarly journals (e.g. as per
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/January_2012/Contents/Open_Access_report#Topic_Pages_at_PLoS_Computational_Biology
),
via translation of OA-related articles (cf.
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/January_2012/Contents/Tool_testing_report#Documentation_of_DYKs_and_other_temporarily_featured_content
), or by mutually showcasing OA an wiki matters at wiki and OA events
(e.g. as per
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-01-30/Recent_research#Briefly
or
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedian_in_Residence_on_Open_Science/Events
) .

With regards to boycotting Elsevier, I do not think that would easily
fall within the mission of the Foundation (or even individual
chapters), but of course, individual Wikimedians are free to join.

I haven't joined the anti-Elsevier pledge and have no intention to do
so anytime soon, for two main reasons:
- Elsevier is neither the only nor the fiercest opponent of Open
Access, just the biggest one
- I have already signed a (rather moderate) Open Access pledge last year (cf.
http://www.openaccesspledge.com/?page_id=2 ) and a more strict one
last month (cf. http://www.researchwithoutwalls.org/451 ). In both
cases, it applies to all non-OA publishing rather than just one
publisher, and in the latter case, I specifically mention
compatibility with reuse on Wikipedia as a criterion for me to get
involved.

Stressing the reuse aspects of OA is an area that I can well imagine
being championed by the Wikimedia community or by the Foundation: Much
of Gold OA is reusable on Wikipedia (e.g. all PLoS or Hindawi journals
but not Nature Communications or Scientific Reports, nor Living
Reviews or Scholarpedia), some of Green OA (e.g. all of Nature
Precedings, some of arXive, though not visibly so) and basically
nothing of traditionally published materials (exceptions being the odd
human genome paper released directly into the Public Domain).

It is thus not surprinsing to see that a ranking of publishers by
number of pages on Wikimedia Commons that mention one of their DOIs
sees several OA publishers ahead of Elsevier and other large non-OA
publishers (cf. http://toolserver.org/~dartar/cite-o-meter/?commons=1
; prototype; loads slowly and is not entirely up to date). I am
involved in work on a tool that automatically uploads to Commons audio
and video files from suitably licensed OA articles (cf.
http://wir.okfn.org/2012/01/18/project-introduction-open-access-media-importer-for-wikimedia-commons/
).

OA publishers - namely PLoS - have been pushing the idea of openly
tracking the reuse of scholarly materials (cf.
http://article-level-metrics.plos.org/ ), and on-wiki reuse is one of
the components of interest currently being worked on (cf.
http://total-impact.org/collection/MqAnvI ).


Daniel

--
http://www.google.com/profiles/daniel.mietchen



On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:30 AM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 1 February 2012 20:14, Kim Bruning <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Coulw we start a WikiJournal of some sort?
>
> Been floated from time to time thus not going to happen
>
>> (Akin to WikiNews in
>> operation, perhaps?)
>
> No. If were actually going to launch a journal we would do it in a
> conventional manner. Partly so wikipedia will view it as a reliable
> source and partly because in some way wikinews acts as a terrible
> warning.
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Journal Boycott

Liam Wyatt
On 2 February 2012 00:31, Daniel Mietchen <[hidden email]>wrote:

> I think that skipping non-OA sources is not a valid option, though
> encouragement of the use of relevant OA sources is.
>
> One way to achieve that could be by highlighting the "OA-ness" of
> cited references, as is now common practice in the Research section of
> the Signpost (most recent example:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-01-30/Recent_research#References
> ).
>
> So far, this flagging is done manually, but at least for publishers
> that use the same Creative Commons license for all the articles they
> publish, it would be easy to modify citation templates like
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_journal to include the OA
> icon for all DOIs belonging to the prefixes listed at
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Open_Knowledge_Foundation_Germany/Open_Access_Catalogue/OA_publishers/DOI_prefixes_entirely_OA
> . Things get a bit more complicated on the journal level, especially
> in the case of hybrid OA journals, in which some articles are OA,
> others not, and even the OA ones may be under different licenses.
>
> <snip>

>
> Daniel
>

THIS!

I agree with what was said before that it would be technically (and
intellectually) difficulty to boycott links to particular sources from
Wikipedias. I think it would be fantastic if we could *promote* Open Access
sources in our references - see Daniel's link to the Signpost (above) for a
good example. If we could overcome some technical difficulties (Daniel
describes some above). This would be a positive action to support OA rather
than a punitive action against other less open (but still legal) publishers
of Reliable Sources. It would also help promote the idea of OA sources in
the general public.
Ideally this could be done automatically by compiling a list of "OA
compliant" sources and automatically adding in the OA icon to a footnote
whenever the relevant citation code is called.

-Liam

Peace, love & metadata
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Journal Boycott

John Mark Vandenberg
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Liam Wyatt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2 February 2012 00:31, Daniel Mietchen <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> I think that skipping non-OA sources is not a valid option, though
>> encouragement of the use of relevant OA sources is.
>>
>> One way to achieve that could be by highlighting the "OA-ness" of
>> cited references, as is now common practice in the Research section of
>> the Signpost (most recent example:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-01-30/Recent_research#References
>> ).
>>
>> So far, this flagging is done manually, but at least for publishers
>> that use the same Creative Commons license for all the articles they
>> publish, it would be easy to modify citation templates like
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_journal to include the OA
>> icon for all DOIs belonging to the prefixes listed at
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Open_Knowledge_Foundation_Germany/Open_Access_Catalogue/OA_publishers/DOI_prefixes_entirely_OA
>> . Things get a bit more complicated on the journal level, especially
>> in the case of hybrid OA journals, in which some articles are OA,
>> others not, and even the OA ones may be under different licenses.
>>
>> <snip>
>
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>
> THIS!
>
> I agree with what was said before that it would be technically (and
> intellectually) difficulty to boycott links to particular sources from
> Wikipedias. I think it would be fantastic if we could *promote* Open Access
> sources in our references - see Daniel's link to the Signpost (above) for a
> good example. If we could overcome some technical difficulties (Daniel
> describes some above). This would be a positive action to support OA rather
> than a punitive action against other less open (but still legal) publishers
> of Reliable Sources. It would also help promote the idea of OA sources in
> the general public.
> Ideally this could be done automatically by compiling a list of "OA
> compliant" sources and automatically adding in the OA icon to a footnote
> whenever the relevant citation code is called.

We have lists of journal usage,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Popular1

and Wikipedia articles about journals often have OA information in the infobox.

e.g. our most cited journal, J. Biol. Chem., is 12 month delay OA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Biological_Chemistry

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Journal Boycott

MZMcBride-2
In reply to this post by Liam Wyatt
Liam Wyatt wrote:

> On 2 February 2012 00:31, Daniel Mietchen
> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> I think that skipping non-OA sources is not a valid option, though
>> encouragement of the use of relevant OA sources is.
>>
>> One way to achieve that could be by highlighting the "OA-ness" of
>> cited references, as is now common practice in the Research section of
>> the Signpost (most recent example:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-01-30/Recent_
>> research#References
>> ).
>>
>> So far, this flagging is done manually, but at least for publishers
>> that use the same Creative Commons license for all the articles they
>> publish, it would be easy to modify citation templates like
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_journal to include the OA
>> icon for all DOIs belonging to the prefixes listed at
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Open_Knowledge_Foundation_Germany
>> /Open_Access_Catalogue/OA_publishers/DOI_prefixes_entirely_OA
>> . Things get a bit more complicated on the journal level, especially
>> in the case of hybrid OA journals, in which some articles are OA,
>> others not, and even the OA ones may be under different licenses.
>>
>> <snip>
>
> THIS!
>
> I agree with what was said before that it would be technically (and
> intellectually) difficulty to boycott links to particular sources from
> Wikipedias. I think it would be fantastic if we could *promote* Open Access
> sources in our references - see Daniel's link to the Signpost (above) for a
> good example. If we could overcome some technical difficulties (Daniel
> describes some above). This would be a positive action to support OA rather
> than a punitive action against other less open (but still legal) publishers
> of Reliable Sources. It would also help promote the idea of OA sources in
> the general public.
> Ideally this could be done automatically by compiling a list of "OA
> compliant" sources and automatically adding in the OA icon to a footnote
> whenever the relevant citation code is called.

Feature requests go in Bugzilla: <https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/>. :-)

It's fairly easy to recognize URLs by protocol (MediaWiki already does it to
spot mailto: links and irc: links and add pretty icons). Comparing against a
list that's maintained in the MediaWiki namespace probably wouldn't be very
difficult. It'd go in an extension, I guess.

Extensions are nice for something like this because they can be deployed
across all Wikimedia wikis easily. It might even make sense to have a global
journals list at Meta-Wiki. Don't know how often these resources are cited
cross-language, though.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Journal Boycott

phoebe ayers-3
In reply to this post by Chess Pie
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Chess Pie <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Looks like a braindead law.
> Does the foundation have a specific position on OpenAccess?

The WMF as an entity doesn't have a specific position/policy, though
in general we are squarely in the camp of OA supporters; but as Daniel
noted the Research Committee is working on an OA policy for funded
research studies, which I'm quite pleased about:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Committee/Areas_of_interest/Open-access_policy

Maybe Daniel knows if there are any general position papers about how
OA in general benefits Wikimedia projects?

Re: the Elsevier journal boycott, I've been following this fairly
closely out of professional and personal interest -- it's not strictly
a protest in favor of OA, but rather a protest around several issues
related to how Elsevier handles and charges for journal content,
including supporting restrictions, like the research works act. It is
true that Elsevier is not especially worse than several other big
publishers, but they have a big name and a long history of unfriendly
moves to the library & academic community which make them perhaps an
easier target. What's interesting about the boycott is that a) it's
grown very quickly, with several thousand people signing in the past
couple weeks; and b) it's a lot of prominent researchers from a wide
variety of institutions. What gives this boycott power is not
institutional support but rather individual researchers and scholars,
who provide both the content and the labor in scientific publishing,
saying that they were not interested in working with Elsevier. If
enough people say that and follow through, Elsevier's entire business
model falls apart.

-- phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Journal Boycott

Kat Walsh-4
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:19 PM, phoebe ayers <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Chess Pie <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Looks like a braindead law.
>> Does the foundation have a specific position on OpenAccess?
>
> The WMF as an entity doesn't have a specific position/policy, though
> in general we are squarely in the camp of OA supporters; but as Daniel
> noted the Research Committee is working on an OA policy for funded
> research studies, which I'm quite pleased about:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Committee/Areas_of_interest/Open-access_policy
>

Actually we do have an official position--we are signatories to the
Berlin Declaration on Open Access:

http://oa.mpg.de/berlin-prozess/berliner-erklarung/

which states that its supporters believe in the importance of open
access and work to promote it (the full document is actually pretty
nice).

-Kat

--
Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Web: http://www.mindspillage.org Email: [hidden email], [hidden email]
(G)AIM, Freenode, gchat, identi.ca, twitter, various social sites: mindspillage

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Journal Boycott

phoebe ayers-3
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Kat Walsh <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:19 PM, phoebe ayers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Chess Pie <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Looks like a braindead law.
>>> Does the foundation have a specific position on OpenAccess?
>>
>> The WMF as an entity doesn't have a specific position/policy, though
>> in general we are squarely in the camp of OA supporters; but as Daniel
>> noted the Research Committee is working on an OA policy for funded
>> research studies, which I'm quite pleased about:
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Committee/Areas_of_interest/Open-access_policy
>>
>
> Actually we do have an official position--we are signatories to the
> Berlin Declaration on Open Access:
>
> http://oa.mpg.de/berlin-prozess/berliner-erklarung/
>
> which states that its supporters believe in the importance of open
> access and work to promote it (the full document is actually pretty
> nice).
>
> -Kat

Right! I forgot about that. Thanks, Kat.
-- phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Journal Boycott

Daniel Mietchen
In reply to this post by Liam Wyatt
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Liam Wyatt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 2 February 2012 00:31, Daniel Mietchen <[hidden email]>wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Open_Knowledge_Foundation_Germany/Open_Access_Catalogue/OA_publishers/DOI_prefixes_entirely_OA
>
> THIS!

I had a first shot at it but it doesn't work as expected, even though
basically identical templates run just fine at another MediaWiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:GLAM/Open_Knowledge_Foundation_Germany/Open_Access_Catalogue/OA_publishers/DOI_prefixes_entirely_OA&oldid=475025593#Tests
.

Any hints welcome.

Daniel

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Journal Boycott

John Mark Vandenberg
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Daniel Mietchen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Liam Wyatt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 2 February 2012 00:31, Daniel Mietchen <[hidden email]>wrote:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Open_Knowledge_Foundation_Germany/Open_Access_Catalogue/OA_publishers/DOI_prefixes_entirely_OA
>>
>> THIS!
>
> I had a first shot at it but it doesn't work as expected, even though
> basically identical templates run just fine at another MediaWiki:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:GLAM/Open_Knowledge_Foundation_Germany/Open_Access_Catalogue/OA_publishers/DOI_prefixes_entirely_OA&oldid=475025593#Tests
> .
>
> Any hints welcome.
>
> Daniel

The problem and potential solution are explained here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:OA-ness

However adding those icons everywhere is a big change, and it needs to
be discussed on the project, e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Citation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VPPRO

btw, the Open Knowledge Foundation Germany Open Access Catalogue
hosted on wikipedia seems to be replicating much of the work already
being done on the OAD wiki.

http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Main_Page

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12