Elsevier Ethics?
August 8, 2012
Ah, pay to play. That’s the way to stimulate objective information, all right. A blog out of the Unilever Cambridge Centre for Molecular Information rails against such a move in the long-windedly titled post: "Elsevier Replies About Hybrid #openacess; I Am Appalled About their Practices. Breaking Licences and Having to Pay to Read ‘Open Access’."
As many of our readers know, scientific authors pay traditional publishers hefty "processing charges" to have their work made available to readers for free ("open access"). An outdated and, some say, unfair system, this way of doing business is at least transparent and well understood. Now, Elsevier’s Division of Universal Access has come up with the "hybrid open access."
Blogger Peter Murray-Rust, wondering exactly what sort of creature this hybrid could be, asked the Division’s director for clarification. Among his discoveries: obfuscation is alive and well. Also, Elsevier is clearly refusing commercial re-use and distribution of these works, violating, according to Murray-Rust, the authors’ Creative Commons CC-BY license. (There is some debate in the blog’s comments section about whether this is indeed a legal violation; clearly it is a moral one.)
Murray-Rust reproduces the director’s answers and comments on each—well worth checking out. He concludes with this analysis:
"Elsevier’s appalling practice speaks for itself. There are only the following explanations:
- Elsevier break licences knowingly and deliberately charge for ‘open access’. (Readers will remember that Elsevier also created fake journals).
- Elsevier are incompetent or uninterested in running Open Access properly.
"I predict that Universal Access will plead ‘this was an isolated mistake; forgive us and we’ll correct it’. Rubbish. It is not acceptable to charge people for things they have no right to charge for. It is unacceptable to break licences. Whatever the motives it shows that at best they don’t care. It’s morally the same as ‘sorry I knocked you down because my brakes didn’t work.’"
Elsevier certainly got this blogger’s hackles up, and for good reason. Creative Commons licenses exist to benefit society, and it is more than a little irritating for a publisher to play fast and loose with the rules.
Cynthia Murrell, August 9, 2012
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
The Future of Libraries
August 8, 2012
The Republic perceives the inevitable winds and encourages us to adjust our sails in “The Bookless Library.” No matter how much some of us would like to believe otherwise, the traditional library with its stacks upon stacks of wood pulp tomes is on its way out. In a lengthy article that is worth a read, journalist David A. Bell suggests we proactively manage the shift in a way that will best benefit society.
This paragraph was particularly poignant to me:
“Specialized scholars will always have reasons to consult the original paper copies of books. Marginalia, watermarks, paper quality, binding, and many other features of the physical book that digitization cannot always capture offer valuable clues about how the books were produced, circulated, and read, how they created meaning. But this sort of research . . . involves a small number of readers. Far more readers, of course, appreciate physical books for their aesthetic qualities: the feel of the paper, the crisp look of print on the page, the elegant binding, the pleasant heft of the volume in the hand, the sense of history embedded in a venerable edition that has gone through many owners. But this sort of pleasure, real and meaningful as it is, is harder to justify financially, as resources grow increasingly scarce.”
Sigh. Yes, it will only get harder for libraries to justify buying and housing physical books when the electronic versions are widely available. But, as Bell notes, libraries are more than shelves of books. They are, as he puts it, “grand temples of learning,” and without them, much study, communication, and inspiration will fall by the wayside. What, then, should we do?
Bell’s advice hinges on revisiting the original purposes of the library: public outreach and public instruction, both of which were, at the time, best met by providing access to the printed word. Libraries, he says, should adjust by expanding on efforts many are already making, like hosting seminars, book clubs, art and film exhibits, and study centers. That way, even as their stacks dwindle, libraries can remain relevant and continue to serve their communities.
Cynthia Murrell, August 8, 2012
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
A Periodical for Linguists?
August 8, 2012
What would a linguistics magazine look like? Back in 2007, Language Log’s Mark Liberman created a spoof cover of the hypothetical “Linguistics Today,” which he reproduces in his recent post, “Linguistics: the Magazine.” He shares two other parody covers for magazines that might be aimed at language nerds, Mignon Fogarty’s “Grammarian” and Jon McWhorter’s “Werd.” Lots of fun, but Liberman isn’t entirely kidding. He proposes:
“Jokes, parodies, and illustrations aside, I really do think that this is a good idea. A semi-ironic supermarket-magazine approach might work — especially for cover stories — but the most plausible core market, I think, would be more a upscale and intellectual one. In addition to those cover stories about the juicier aspects of interpersonal communication, there could be sections dealing with language variation and change, speech and language technology, literary analysis, political language, usage advice, language and gender, linguistic history, advertising language, forensic linguistics, scrabble, whatever . . .”
The write up mentions that the online publication option would probably be “easiest, cheapest, and sanest.” I, for one, would subscribe to such a publication, online or in print. Our burning questions: What system will be detailed in the Road&Track-style exploded diagram? And, more importantly, who will be the person featured in the foldout?
Cynthia Murrell, August 8, 2012
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
eBook Royalty Tangle
August 5, 2012
It all hinges on the calculation of net receipts. We learn that the ebook phenomenon seems to have prompted some creative accounting in techdirt’s “Harlequin Authors Sue Publisher Over Creative Royalty Calculations.” The class-action lawsuit against Harlequin alleges that the publisher created a legal entity in Switzerland specifically to manipulate the math, reducing the amount the company paid ebook authors from the negotiated 50 percent of the cover price to three or four percent. Writer Zachary Knight observes:
“There was once a time where such a tactic would not have reached the point of a lawsuit. There was a time when publishers actually had a strangle hold on publishing and could force any terms they could conceivably get away with. However, with the introduction and proliferation of self publishing, that stranglehold is weakening. As authors are looking at the deals they are getting from publishers vs. the deals self published authors are getting from the likes of Amazon and even Apple, they are beginning to lash out.”
Yes, many changes have followed the transition of all sorts of media to the Internet. Companies that can responsibly navigate the change and, I submit, act rather than react will stand the best chance of success. There’s no turning back now.
Cynthia Murrell, August 5, 2012
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Public Domain Ebooks Now Harder to Find at Amazon
August 5, 2012
Would Amazon hide free content? Nah, never. . . except that TechDirt reports, “Amazon Hides Classic Free Public Domain Ebooks.” It seems that Amazon recently changed its site so that these free ebooks are now much harder to locate. The article cites a blogger’s account:
“The explanation, by Morris Rosenthal, is a bit confusing, but apparently Amazon reassigned ASINs (identification numbers) for most of the public domain classics that were available on the site. In doing so, all of the historical sales info, reviews, comments, etc., were lost. That means that the works, no matter how popular, get pushed way down in searches and in ‘related’ items. It also means tons of links are now dead. . . .
“Rosenthal doesn’t think there’s anything nefarious going on here — just a sign of a company that doesn’t much care about these public domain works.”
Oh, well that’s a relief. Rosenthal may be willing to give Amazon the benefit of the doubt, but it is worth noting that the change could result in users being directed to fee-based versions of an author’s work over public-domain ones. I somehow doubt Amazon would be sorry to see that happen.
So, what’s a lover of classic works to do? Well, you could use that magnificent Amazon search engine to locate them. Just a thought.
Cynthia Murrell, August 5, 2012
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
A Different Take on Google and Its Cost Problem
August 3, 2012
How much pressure are the Googlers feeling? You can get details about the looming financial crunch in the Honk’s feature “Google’s Revenue+Cost Problem.” The ArnoldIT analysis is not available in any of ArnoldIT’s Web logs. To get this analysis, you need to sign up to receive the opt—in, limited distribution personal newsletter from Stephen E Arnold. To get your copy each Tuesday, write thehonk@yandex.com. The information in the newsletter represents the personal views of Stephen E Arnold, and it is intended to provide a view of important subjects not available in his lectures, for-fee articles, and public writings.
Donald C. Anderson, August 3, 2012
Sponsored by Augmentext
News Corp., Paywalls, and Online Economics
August 1, 2012
Most businesses are simple. Buy low. Sell high. When I worked at Booz, Allen & Hamilton in the pre-azure chip days, a joke was popular. I jotted down its particulars and it resonated with me when I read “The Daily Lays Off a Third of Its Staff.” The Daily was one of those digital innovations which would pump much needed revenue into a real journalistic operation owned by the News Corp. I know should have a more open mind, but when I hear “News Corp.”, I associate the firm with allegedly inappropriate methods of information collection. I will work on becoming more open minded and understanding. Really, I promise situationally right this instant.
A happy quack to Image source: Tainted Pen at http://taintedpen.blogspot.com/2011/04/how-to-form-breadline.html
And the joke:
A graduate of an Ivy League MBA who worked as a manager at a financial services firm walked out of her building in Midtown. Waiting to cross Lexington, a chauffeur driven Rolls Royce pulled up. The window slid down. A voice said, “Remember me? We were in MBA school together.” The Ivy Leaguer said, “Yes, but you quit during the first semester. Nice car. What are you doing now?” The limo’s occupant said, “I buy those little paper cocktail umbrellas for one cent each in Shanghai and I sell them to bars worldwide for 10 cents each. That 10 percent mark up produces a lot of dough.” The window slid up and the limo took off.
Yep, pretty good income but not so good math. When something works, apologies and Excel speed skating don’t make much difference in my opinion.
The News Corp. story of the staff cutbacks at the News Corp.’s The Daily is an example of a company unable to generate income. Good math or bad, when a good idea produces lots of revenue, the exact math does not matter too much. When a business cannot generate revenue, then I watch cutbacks, fancy dancing, and ostrich-like maneuvers. Like my beloved boxer Tess. If she turns her head and cannot see me, she thinks I cannot see her.
Here’s the passage I noted in the “real” journalists write up about his employer company engaged in “real” journalism:
News Corp. officials have publicly defended The Daily, which News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch thought would serve as a template for newspapers’ transition to the tablet era. Murdoch’s team worked closely with Apple and its late CEO Steve Jobs to produce a publication initially tailored for the iPad. But while Daily executives say they now have more than 100,000 paying subscribers for its iOS and Android editions, the paper hasn’t been able to live up to Murdoch’s expectations, and the money-losing publication has been under scrutiny since launch.
XML Specialist Explains Google Book Settlement to Publishers
July 10, 2012
Advertising Profits recently reported on the results of a March webinar poll by the enterprise software company MarkLogic in the article “Mark Logic Delivers Educational Webinar on Google’s Settlement with the Publishing Industry.”
According to the article, attendees of the webinar (with record setting registrations) learned practical ways that organizations can exploit the landmark settlement between Google and book publishers as an extraordinary business opportunity in online publishing.
When highlighting the results from the webinar poll, the article states:
“When asked if their company’s content was in the appropriate format for Google Book Search to ingest/index, 68 percent of respondents said no or not sure. As for how the audience views Google Book Search, 51 percent of respondents saw it as an opportunity for their business and six percent deemed it a threat. 35 percent stated that Google Book Search was both and just eight percent replied neither.”
In addition to the webinar, MarkLogic has made resources available for continued education on the Google Book Search settlement on the company’s Web site.
The is certainly an interesting marketing angle to use XML professonals to explain the intricacies of the Google settlement with publishers.
Jasmine Ashton, July 10, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Two Traditional Publishers Still Trying to Make Online Pay Off
July 2, 2012
I found it interesting that the Chicago Tribune is undergoing another online redesign. My father, who is now 91, wanted to use the online version of the Chicago Tribune. The Web site was essentially impossible for him on both his desktop computer and his iPad. Since the hard copy of the paper was no longer available in Peoria, Illinois, he gave up. The Tribune is now trying to do a combination of free and pay wall in an effort to generate revenue, buzz, and engagement. For the story, navigate to “Redesigned Chicago Tribune Web Site to Wall Off Some Content.” Please, keep in mind that the story can be blocked from public access at any time, so you will have to become creative to locate the story. Here’s the passage which caught my eye:
Registration soon will be required to access premium features such as columnists, reviews, in-depth and investigative reporting and new content from outside news sources, the newspaper announced Tuesday. All content, including premium content behind the new registration wall, will be free. Visitors who choose not to register will still have unlimited access to basic content, which includes breaking news, photos and videos.
I can get local news from services such as Topix.com. Although not perfect, my father can click an icon and see information.
To add spice to the new service, the Chicago Tribune will be adding additional content. The new approach seems to be working. “Tribune Digital Signups Exceed Wildest Dreams” asserts:
Chicago Tribune executives are ecstatic over initial reaction to their digital membership program, the first step toward instituting a partial pay wall for online content. As of early Sunday, more than 22,000 readers had registered as digital members since the redesigned website launched at 6pm Thursday. [June 28, 2012]. The news item reported:
At some point in the future, those who’ve registered will have the option to pay for premium content, including material from the Tribune, the Economist and Forbes. Details of the pay wall plan will be determined by feedback from users…
The challenge will be to generate enough money to pay for the digital effort, offset losses in traditional advertising, and make up the shortfall from the fixed and variable costs which are dragging down traditional newspapers. Will the Chicago Tribune hit its financial goals? I hope so. I also hope that the company gets enough money to invest in the interface. My 91 year old father is not getting any younger but to win him back as a subscriber, the Tribune has to deliver a service which is usable.
PeerJ. The Latest Open Access Online Scientific Publisher
June 20, 2012
More challenges for the traditional database world: Technology Review reveals that “Open Access Online Publishing Trend Continues in Academia.” In the traditionally “pay to play” world of scientific journals, the new PeerJ chooses a route less traveled. So far.
While not technically free, the cost of membership is slim compared to the traditional setup. Reporter Conor Myhrvold writes:
“The pass comes in the form of a journal membership, so you can access others’ articles. The most basic plan, for one article a year, is $99 if you pay before you’re published. The article still undergoes peer review before it can be accepted. Members also have to commit to doing at least one peer review per year (which could be an informal comment on an already published paper.) The first 12 authors of an article need to be members, yet this means that the price of publishing just one article—$1,548 for 12 authors if membership is done after submission—is substantially cheaper than the several thousand dollars it would cost under a conventional open-access publishing model”
PeerJ is not the first to challenge customary conventions of scientific publishing. A controversy has been taking place over the last few years because the profit margins of academic journals can be almost 40 percent. If they are doing so outlandishly well, couldn’t they drop the authors’ fees and get their money from readers like other publishing sectors? Large journal publishers like Elsevier say no; are they fighting a losing battle?
Cynthia Murrell, June 20, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
