[TOS] tos Digest, Vol 32, Issue 3

[STEPHEN JACOBS]

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 3, 2011, at 8:01 AM, "tos-request at teachingopensource.org" <tos-request at teachingopensource.org> wrote:

> Send tos mailing list submissions to
>    tos at teachingopensource.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    http://lists.teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    tos-request at teachingopensource.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>    tos-owner at teachingopensource.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of tos digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: Quick update on "make scholarly copyright suck less"
>      project (Don Davis)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 07:11:34 -0500
> From: Don Davis <dondavis at reglue.org>
> Cc: tos at teachingopensource.org
> Subject: Re: [TOS] Quick update on "make scholarly copyright suck
>    less"    project
> Message-ID: <4E8854F6.9030301 at reglue.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
> 
> This is very in keeping with the 9-29 Princeton Open Access Publishing
> article: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2011/09/29/28869/
> 
> 
> On 09/30/2011 10:36 AM, Mel Chua wrote:
>> On 09/30/2011 11:21 AM, Don Davis wrote:
>>> Having to assign copyright to someone else recently felt like a sort
>>> awkward uncomfortable rite of passage in the academic world.
>> 
>> But it *doesn't* have to be a rite of passage. I mean, yeah, the
>> situation sucks and we *do* have to deal with it now, but just "putting
>> up with it" or quietly avoiding the medium of peer-reviewed journals
>> entirely won't make it change. I'd like to make things so that someday
>> my own PhD students won't have to go through that at all. (It may be a
>> very far-off someday. That's okay. We have time.)
>> 
>>> What's a list of the better 'open' journals?
>> 
>> So I've looked at this some, and sadly in our field the "good" journals
>> and the OA journals overlap in... zero places, as best as I can tell.
>> (Actually, I couldn't find any OA journals I would want to submit my
>> scholarly work to, but my subfield is engineering education so others
>> may have more pointers.)
>> 
>>> The copyright agreements often seem very overwhelming. (I'm thinking of
>>> ACM.)
>> 
>> ACM is actually pretty standard. IEEE is worse, they'll ask for
>> copyright assignment upon *submission* -- not even acceptance! One of
>> the other major publishers in my field, ASEE, has even weirder and
>> loopier and fuzzier copyright stuff... it *is* overwhelming. It also
>> seems like we tend to deal with the overwhelmingness by signing the
>> papers so we can move on with our lives/research instead of getting
>> mired in legal stuff which isn't interesting to us. So major props for
>> taking the time to look at this, Don -- and thank you.
>> 
>>> "You're not giving ACM the copyright to the dataset -- just the paper
>>> itself. Research hypotheses are, in general, second order ? that is,
>>> they're not simple descriptions of the data (i.e., sample size, gender
>>> distribution). On a public dataset, descriptions (first-order analyses)
>>> are assumed to be public, as well."
>> 
>>> It seems to me then (with my limited knowledge and limited copyright
>>> finesse), that making the dataset public before submission may be a way
>>> to guarantee(?) that you and others may continue to evaluate the data.
>> 
>> I think so! Seb Benthall sent me a link to a blogpost from one of his
>> colleagues from Berkeley on exactly this strategy, and then I think I
>> lost the link (or at least can't find it now). Seb, do you remember what
>> I'm talking about?
>> 
>> --Mel
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tos mailing list
> tos at teachingopensource.org
> http://lists.teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos
> 
> 
> End of tos Digest, Vol 32, Issue 3
> **********************************