Who Pays for Open Access?; Library Journal, 3/3/16

John Parsons, Library Journal; Who Pays for Open Access? :

"The theory of Open Access (OA) predates the Internet, but the web has made it a full-fledged phenomenon for scientific and medical journals. Driven in large part by mandates from government and institutional funding entities, OA theoretically lowers the subscription cost barrier for peer-reviewed content. Academic libraries and their constituents—especially researchers—are the prime beneficiaries, but so also are general public libraries and “citizen scientists” who simply have Internet access.

Like a politician’s promise, however, the benefits of OA have to be paid for—typically through an Article Processing Charge (APC) charged to the author or, more commonly, the author’s employer. These can average between $2,000 and $3,000 per article, according to Anneliese Taylor, Assistant Director, Scholarly Communications and Collections, at the University of California, San Francisco Library. “These are increasingly a line item in research grant funding proposals,” she said, pointing out that funding entities are themselves often proponents of Open Access.

It should be noted that in a recent Library Journal interview Peter Suber, Director of Harvard’s Open Access Project, estimated that only about 50% of all open access articles are fee-based, so the APC model is by no means universal.

Taylor noted that funding levels for Open Access are gradually increasing, although many journals are adopting a hybrid approach. This makes some content available only to paid subscribers and other content open, using the Gold model: distributing through an OA publisher or aggregator...

Journals do not typically disclose their publishing cost structure, although some supplement APC revenue with traditional alternatives, including association membership fees and paid advertising."

A Science Journal Invokes ‘the Creator,’ and Science Pushes Back; Wired.com, 3/3/16

Madison Kotack, Wired.com; A Science Journal Invokes ‘the Creator,’ and Science Pushes Back:

"After a couple days of getting batted around in social media and comments sections, the journal retracted the whole paper. No editors from PLoS ONE responded to requests for comment.

Since PLoS ONE is open-source, it’s tempting to wonder if this kind of mistake calls into question the quality of all open-access scientific journals? PLoS ONE‘s website describes its editorial and peer-review practices, but also says that it can publish faster than old-school journals because it leaves out “subjective assessments of significance or scope to focus on technical, ethical and scientific rigor.”

Yet somehow Creationism got past peer review.

On the other hand, the old big-dog journals have their problems, too—plagiarism, errors, and so on. “I don’t think this will mean anything for open access journals, and it shouldn’t, because it happens at top journals, too,” says Jonathan Eisen, chair of PLoS Biology‘s advisory board and a big-time advocate for open-access (though unaffiliated with PLoS ONE)."

Hong Kong Government Drops Controversial Copyright Legislation; Variety, 3/3/16

Patrick Frater, Variety; Hong Kong Government Drops Controversial Copyright Legislation:

"The Hong Kong government announced on Friday that it had dropped its long-running attempt to introduce new copyright legislation.

Earlier this week the government said that if it could not get the draft law passed in the Legislative Council — Hong Kong’s mini parliament — that it would withdraw the bill...

Much of the local film and TV industry had expressed support for the copyright amendment bill, arguing that the territory’s legislation was years out of date and allows widespread piracy. Opponents of the bill argued that it endangered freedom of expression and creativity, especially online, that the bill poorly drafted and would be out of date the moment it became law."

Bitter Contract Dispute Extends to Who Owns Yosemite Names; New York Times, 3/1/16

Thomas Fuller, New York Times; Bitter Contract Dispute Extends to Who Owns Yosemite Names:

"Sarah Maxwell, an official at the trademark office, said the law barred trademarking national or state flags, but there was no explicit prohibition on the trademarking of other American icons.

She added that there was a section of the United States Trademark Act that bars a trademark that “falsely suggest a connection” with a “national symbol.”

Affection for Yosemite runs deep. Yosemite Valley was set aside by Abraham Lincoln, who in the midst of the Civil War was shown photographs of the area and signed the Yosemite Grant Act, which protected Yosemite “for public use, resort and recreation.” The Park Service says Lincoln’s decision was the first time the federal government acted to protect land, paving the way for the creation of the National Park system.

Rhonda Salisbury, the chief executive of Visit Yosemite Madera County, a nonprofit organization that promotes tourism in the area, said the trademarking of Yosemite was “a big deal” among those fond of the park.

“It’s very personal. It’s hurtful,” she said. “With the U.S. in an uproar in the political scene, the last thing we need is someone to hold our parks hostage.”"

IBM Sues Groupon Over Alleged Patent Infringement; Reuters via New York Times, 3/2/16

Reuters via New York Times; IBM Sues Groupon Over Alleged Patent Infringement:

"International Business Machines Corp filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against daily deals website operator Groupon Inc alleging infringement of its patents.

The complaint, filed at the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, accuses Groupon of building its business model using IBM's patents without authorization despite prior warnings."