From: Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 11:58:45 +0400
Hi All
Jeffrey, as Jan has pointed out, the copyright symbol applies to the
website design. It appears as the the standard footer in the website,
even on pages that do not contain articles.
Another give away is the date - it doesn't make any sense to have
copyright 2013 for an article that appeared in 2011.
As you have demonstrated, however, it is possible that those
unfamiliar with online publishing might infer otherwise, so I have
contacted the publishers, and have asked them to make it a lot more
obvious. Given the time of year, it might take a little time before
the changes come into effect.
In cases like this, it probably would have been better to contact the
publishers directly, and avoid the "middle-man," which leads to
delays, but I was happy to pass your information on to the publishers.
Regards
Ken
------
Dr. Ken Masters
Asst. Professor: Medical Informatics
Medical Education Unit
College of Medicine & Health Sciences
Sultan Qaboos University
Sultanate of Oman
E-i-C: The Internet Journal of Medical Education
____/\\/********\\/\\____
On 24 December 2013 03:37, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 09:58:07 +0100
>
> Jeffrey,
>
> Open Access is a quality of an article, not necessarilly a journal or
> publisher (though if all articles in a given journal or published by a
> given publisher are open, then they can of course colloquially be
> called 'open access' entities —
> http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm)
> In the case of Ken's journal, it seems the © statement applies to the
> design of the site itself, and not the articles.(@ Ken, could you
> confirm?)
> Ken's journal does lack enough clarity about the OA status of the
> papers, and I would advise him to state very clearly under what
> licence the articles are published, as for now it seems they are just
> free to readers ('gratis', in Harnad terms) and not open access as
> defined under the BOAI definition (they could be, but it's not
> explicit).
>
> Claiming © for the site design can perfectly coexist with
> BOAI-compliant open access to articles, as long as the latter is made
> explicit and clear.
>
> Jan Velterop
>
>
> On 22 Dec 2013, at 23:27, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: "Beall, Jeffrey" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:01:17 -0700
>
> Ken:
>
> I have a comment about the journal you edit, the Internet Journal of
> Medical Education. [http://ispub.com/IJME ]
>
> At the bottom of every page of every article in your journal, there is
> a copyright statement, like this: "© 2013 Internet Scientific
> Publications, LLC. All rights reserved."
>
> Now, the BOAI definition of open-access states, "By 'open access' to
> this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet,
> permitting 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."
>
> Therefore, your journal, because it has a strong copyright statement
> on every page, does not meet the definition of OA and in ten years,
> unless it changes its policies, will still not be an OA journal by
> definition.
>
> Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor
> Scholarly Initiatives Librarian
> Auraria Library
> University of Colorado Denver
> Denver, Colo. 80204 USA
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 08:21:43 +0400
>
> Hi All
>
> As the Gregorian calendar prepares to flip over to 2014, I'd like to
> get the opinions of the people on this list regarding open access in
> the next decade.
>
> In 10 years, or less, when online open access academic journal
> articles vastly outnumber toll-access academic journal articles, what
> do you think will be the excuses of those who fought so strongly
> against it?
>
> I'm sure there will be many who will say things like "We always knew
> it was the way of the future; we were simply concerned about quality
> ," but I know that others will be far more creative than that.
>
> So, it would be interesting to gather some predicted excuses now, and
> see how many of them are used in the next decades.
>
> On the other hand, if you think this prediction about open cccess is
> baloney, feel free to rip into it.
>
> Regards
>
> Ken
>
> ------
>
> Dr. Ken Masters
> Asst. Professor: Medical Informatics
> Medical Education Unit
> College of Medicine & Health Sciences
> Sultan Qaboos University
> Sultanate of Oman
> E-i-C: The Internet Journal of Medical Education ____/\\/********\\/\\____
>
|
