I am always concerned when I see the word “community” even when someone like Toby uses it. He uses it carefully I am sure. Others seem to use it as a description of EU based organisations entirely in the hands of professional OA people, eurocrats, and librarians working to create open science without any participation of publishers (such as university presses), never mind researchers. Compare OPERAS and SCOSS and IOI with the people involved in KU (http://www.knowledgeunlatched.org/about-us/). Maybe they have taken their eye off the ball but they are certainly not apostles of commercialisation.
Anthony
From: <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 09:55:53 +0000
KU spotted what they think is a gap in the market and are launching a product to fill it. If they are right, and if they can provide sustainable value, they will succeed. If not, they will fail. As Open Book Publishers says, KU is perfectly within their rights to aggregate OA books into this product. After all, that is what a CC-BY licence allows (and one could argue is designed to do: encourage other parties to build on and add value to the content). Where it gets a murky is the way KU has announced their service. In saying they are “working with” OA book publishers an impression is created that they are working in partnership with them all (which, to be clear, they are not claiming), when they are not. Of course, the reaction from OBP and others in the OA books community has made it clear that KU has overstepped the mark and I’m sure many potential KU customers will have taken note (not least that alternatives exist).
The central point, to my mind, is that KU, a for-profit entity, has rubbed up against those in the OA movement who are community-spirited. I don’t see anything here that is ‘serious’, just two cultures bumping up against one another. The row will have no impact on the market for or development of OA books. KU have had their fingers tinged by the reaction to their announcement and I’m sure their reputation will have taken a hit. Time will tell if the reaction has kiboshed this particular product.
There are two lessons here.
1. If you put your content out using CC-BY, it can be re-cycled and re-packaged; it might be bundled into services you do not like by entities that you do not like. It might be bundled into products that are low quality (something that once happened to a CC-BY title I published). The bottom line: when using CC-BY you lose control of your content and your reputation may be at risk. Caveat operante.
2. If you are clumsy in how you re-bundle CC-BY content, don’t be surprised when you get shouted at. Caveat metentis.
(Latin, which is probably wrong, courtesy of Google translate . . . Operante = producer; metentis = harvester)
Toby Green
Public Affairs and Communications Directorate
OECD
+33 (0)610114989
On 9 Jun 2019, at 19:25, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Danny Kingsley <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2019 10:33:39 +1000
Coming late to this. It appears to be quite a serious situation. Open Book Publishers are quite clear in that blog that they consider some of the behaviour of Knowledge Unlatched to be poor.
Do others have opinions on Open Research Library?
Danny
Dr Danny Kingsley
Scholarly Communication Consultant
17 Eureka St
Kelvin Grove QLD 4059
e: [log in to unmask]
m: +61 (0)480 115 937
t:@dannykay68
o: 0000-0002-3636-5939
On 22 May 2019, at 11:36, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 21:05:41 -0400
Of possible interest:
"On 16 May 2019, Knowledge Unlatched announced the beta launch of a new hosting platform for Open Access books, the Open Research Library (ORL). Our books are a prominent part of this nascent project, both on the website and in the marketing associated with the launch, and this, together with Knowledge Unlatched’s claim that they are ‘working with publishers and libraries worldwide’, might give the impression that we are actively participating in and endorsing the platform. However this is not the case: we were not informed or consulted about this project at any stage; we were not told that our books would feature on this platform; and we do not support ORL. In fact we have grave concerns about its approach and business model, and those of Knowledge Unlatched (KU), which we will set out here."