The announcement is a few days old, but I missed it (and it doesn't seem to have turned up on the lists yet), so:
http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-journal-content
"On September 6, 2011, we announced that we are making journal content in JSTOR published prior to 1923 in the United States and prior to 1870 elsewhere freely available to anyone, anywhere in the world. This “Early Journal Content” includes discourse and scholarship in the arts and humanities, economics and politics, and in mathematics and other sciences. It includes nearly 500,000 articles from more than 200 journals. This represents 6% of the content on JSTOR."
http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-journal-content-f...
Access is through the normal JSTOR interface (which can, if you wish, be tweaked to only display open content). It's not currently all available, but is being rolled out in chunks.
Will this be accessible to individuals without access to a subscribed institution? I've lost my access to JSTOR ever since I graduated in May.
Bob
On 9/9/2011 2:20 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
The announcement is a few days old, but I missed it (and it doesn't seem to have turned up on the lists yet), so:
http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-journal-content
"On September 6, 2011, we announced that we are making journal content in JSTOR published prior to 1923 in the United States and prior to 1870 elsewhere freely available to anyone, anywhere in the world. This “Early Journal Content” includes discourse and scholarship in the arts and humanities, economics and politics, and in mathematics and other sciences. It includes nearly 500,000 articles from more than 200 journals. This represents 6% of the content on JSTOR."
http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-journal-content-f...
Access is through the normal JSTOR interface (which can, if you wish, be tweaked to only display open content). It's not currently all available, but is being rolled out in chunks.
On 10 September 2011 16:14, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikipedian@gmail.com wrote:
Will this be accessible to individuals without access to a subscribed institution? I've lost my access to JSTOR ever since I graduated in May.
I just tried it and could read stuff from 1835 without a login.
- d.
On 10 September 2011 16:14, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikipedian@gmail.com wrote:
Will this be accessible to individuals without access to a subscribed institution? I've lost my access to JSTOR ever since I graduated in May.
That is indeed the plan, it seems. Post-1870/1922 material will still be unavailable unless you're at an institution with a subscription to that specific content, though.
I'm not sure if this applies to content in the general "journal" collections only, or if it also covers things like the 19th Century Pamphlets Collection - I suppose the way to find out is to test!
http://www.jstor.org/stable/60100683 is an 1828 pamphlet defending medical dissection from the Pamphlets Collection. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25497782 is an 1868 paper on Ogham from the Ireland Collection. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25665642 is an 1868 paper on Hegelianism from one of the general collections.
If you can read all three without a login or without being on a network belonging to a member, it's worked :-)
The second two links work for guest users; the first requires institutional subscription. Looks like pamphlets must not be included for whatever reason.
Bob
On 9/10/2011 12:48 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 10 September 2011 16:14, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikipedian@gmail.com wrote:
Will this be accessible to individuals without access to a subscribed institution? I've lost my access to JSTOR ever since I graduated in May.
That is indeed the plan, it seems. Post-1870/1922 material will still be unavailable unless you're at an institution with a subscription to that specific content, though.
I'm not sure if this applies to content in the general "journal" collections only, or if it also covers things like the 19th Century Pamphlets Collection - I suppose the way to find out is to test!
http://www.jstor.org/stable/60100683 is an 1828 pamphlet defending medical dissection from the Pamphlets Collection. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25497782 is an 1868 paper on Ogham from the Ireland Collection. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25665642 is an 1868 paper on Hegelianism from one of the general collections.
If you can read all three without a login or without being on a network belonging to a member, it's worked :-)
According to their announcement not all material has been released yet. It will be available in stages.
I was able to access an article in Science from May, 1910 which was quite useful. It is footnote 2 in the article, San Luis Valley
Fred
The second two links work for guest users; the first requires institutional subscription. Looks like pamphlets must not be included for whatever reason.
Bob
On 9/10/2011 12:48 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 10 September 2011 16:14, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikipedian@gmail.com wrote:
Will this be accessible to individuals without access to a subscribed institution? I've lost my access to JSTOR ever since I graduated in May.
That is indeed the plan, it seems. Post-1870/1922 material will still be unavailable unless you're at an institution with a subscription to that specific content, though.
I'm not sure if this applies to content in the general "journal" collections only, or if it also covers things like the 19th Century Pamphlets Collection - I suppose the way to find out is to test!
http://www.jstor.org/stable/60100683 is an 1828 pamphlet defending medical dissection from the Pamphlets Collection. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25497782 is an 1868 paper on Ogham from the Ireland Collection. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25665642 is an 1868 paper on Hegelianism from one of the general collections.
If you can read all three without a login or without being on a network belonging to a member, it's worked :-)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Regardless of how long it will take them, this is exciting news! Thanks for sharing, Andrew!
Bob
On 9/10/2011 2:53 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
According to their announcement not all material has been released yet. It will be available in stages.
I was able to access an article in Science from May, 1910 which was quite useful. It is footnote 2 in the article, San Luis Valley
Fred
The second two links work for guest users; the first requires institutional subscription. Looks like pamphlets must not be included for whatever reason.
Bob
On 9/10/2011 12:48 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 10 September 2011 16:14, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikipedian@gmail.com wrote:
Will this be accessible to individuals without access to a subscribed institution? I've lost my access to JSTOR ever since I graduated in May.
That is indeed the plan, it seems. Post-1870/1922 material will still be unavailable unless you're at an institution with a subscription to that specific content, though.
I'm not sure if this applies to content in the general "journal" collections only, or if it also covers things like the 19th Century Pamphlets Collection - I suppose the way to find out is to test!
http://www.jstor.org/stable/60100683 is an 1828 pamphlet defending medical dissection from the Pamphlets Collection. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25497782 is an 1868 paper on Ogham from the Ireland Collection. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25665642 is an 1868 paper on Hegelianism from one of the general collections.
If you can read all three without a login or without being on a network belonging to a member, it's worked :-)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I read the FAQ and noticed this:
"Making the Early Journal Content freely available is something we have planned to do for some time. It is not a direct reaction to the Swartz and Maxwell situation, but recent events did have an impact on our planning."
Anyone know what that is about?
Carcharoth
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
The announcement is a few days old, but I missed it (and it doesn't seem to have turned up on the lists yet), so:
http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-journal-content
"On September 6, 2011, we announced that we are making journal content in JSTOR published prior to 1923 in the United States and prior to 1870 elsewhere freely available to anyone, anywhere in the world. This “Early Journal Content” includes discourse and scholarship in the arts and humanities, economics and politics, and in mathematics and other sciences. It includes nearly 500,000 articles from more than 200 journals. This represents 6% of the content on JSTOR."
http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-journal-content-f...
Access is through the normal JSTOR interface (which can, if you wish, be tweaked to only display open content). It's not currently all available, but is being rolled out in chunks.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I read the FAQ and noticed this:
"Making the Early Journal Content freely available is something we have planned to do for some time. It is not a direct reaction to the Swartz and Maxwell situation, but recent events did have an impact on our planning."
Anyone know what that is about?
Carcharoth
Swartz:
http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N30/swartz.html
Maxwell is ours, see
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/wiki/Wikisource:WikiProject_Royal...
I corresponded personally with Jstor, but could not get anyone at the Wikimedia foundation to discuss material in the public domain with them. They seem to have gone ahead and made a commitment to make material that is in the public domain available. I haven't tried to make of copy of anything yet; however, they have terms of service conditions which seem to allow only access, not reuse.
Fred
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I read the FAQ and noticed this:
"Making the Early Journal Content freely available is something we have planned to do for some time. It is not a direct reaction to the Swartz and Maxwell situation, but recent events did have an impact on our planning."
Anyone know what that is about?
Swartz:
Thanks. I thought I recognised the name. I know that name primarily from the "Who Writes Wikipedia" article. As for this story and escapade, well, you just couldn't make it up, could you? Reads like a spy thriller, but with doses of reality such as getting caught.
Maxwell is ours, see
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/wiki/Wikisource:WikiProject_Royal...
I don't see the connection with Maxwell.
I corresponded personally with Jstor, but could not get anyone at the Wikimedia foundation to discuss material in the public domain with them. They seem to have gone ahead and made a commitment to make material that is in the public domain available. I haven't tried to make of copy of anything yet; however, they have terms of service conditions which seem to allow only access, not reuse.
I thought there was something in that FAQ on redistribution. Maybe have another look?
Carcharoth
On 11 September 2011 22:05, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Maxwell is ours, see https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/wiki/Wikisource:WikiProject_Royal...
I don't see the connection with Maxwell.
Greg put the lot up on BitTorrent and wrote an eloquent message which more or less says "Come on if you think you're hard enough."
- d.
On 11 September 2011 22:07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Greg put the lot up on BitTorrent and wrote an eloquent message which more or less says "Come on if you think you're hard enough."
(To be precisely, the pre-1923 stuff that is unambiguously public domain in the US.)
- d.
On 11/09/2011 22:08, David Gerard wrote:
On 11 September 2011 22:07, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Greg put the lot up on BitTorrent and wrote an eloquent message which more or less says "Come on if you think you're hard enough."
(To be precisely, the pre-1923 stuff that is unambiguously public domain in the US.)
Given the dominant place JSTOR occupies in the sphere of "reliable sources", we are singularly fortunate (on a strategic view) that their response has been eirenic.
Charles
On 12 September 2011 10:50, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Given the dominant place JSTOR occupies in the sphere of "reliable sources", we are singularly fortunate (on a strategic view) that their response has been eirenic.
I would have been surprised if they had doubled down - they would pretty obviously have been onto a loser in doing so, and the academic publishing infrastructure in general is pretty on-the-nose at present.[1]
If they don't try to sneak in onerous terms of use, it might be worth WMF saying nice things about the move.
- d.
[1] e.g. in mainstream print newspapers: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/academic-publishers-murd...
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 1:56 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/academic-publishers-murd...
That's an interesting article (not read the other ones yet). I actually got a job offer from an academic publisher around 11 years ago (just before Wikipedia started). I sometimes wonder what might have happened if I'd taken that job instead of the one I took instead. I'd probably have a different outlook on this whole debate. Though having done some editing I am sympathetic to the fact that publishing companies need to make some money to pay those that work for them (probably through a delayed release after a few years), but clearly not that much. Having said that, I'm sure I read that a few years ago there was a big contraction in the journals publishing industry, or am I imagining that? The whole "digitise a back-catalogue or archive and make money out of it" thing is not that uncommon, actually. Museums and libraries and archives sometimes try and do that as well (with varying degrees of success). Libraries are another matter again. It depends whether you are after current issues or older issues. The former is harder with budget cuts, but the latter (older issues) can usually be ordered up from somewhere. Online access is more convenient, but not always necessary. Maybe one day people will be surprised that books were ever offline and not availble online 24/7 from the moment of publication.
Carcharoth
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 08:40, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 1:56 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/academic-publishers-murd...
That's an interesting article (not read the other ones yet). Carcharoth
Is this something the Wikipedia Foundation could become involved in -- the creation of a free global archive of academic papers?
I started an article yesterday on a political controversy in Kenya in 1929 about female circumcision -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision_controversy_%281929%E2%80%9...
I was relying in part on a paper from 1976 on jstor, for which they were asking $34. http://www.jstor.org/pss/1594780
So the article remains a stub for now. :)
But really, this is extortionate, and it's in no-one else's interests, because the chances of someone paying $34 for an old article on such an obscure issue are slim to vanishing, so the only consequence of the high price is that no one gets to see it.
Sarah
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
But really, this is extortionate, and it's in no-one else's interests, because the chances of someone paying $34 for an old article on such an obscure issue are slim to vanishing, so the only consequence of the high price is that no one gets to see it.
I was under the impression that universities and such organisation have institutional subscriptions where their members can access the articles, but not at a per-article rate but some other negotiated rate, or flat rate. I'm sure there are details on the JSTOR website. So people probably are reading the article in question, but not at the per-article rate.
Carcharoth
On 13 September 2011 11:27, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
But really, this is extortionate, and it's in no-one else's interests, because the chances of someone paying $34 for an old article on such an obscure issue are slim to vanishing, so the only consequence of the high price is that no one gets to see it.
I was under the impression that universities and such organisation have institutional subscriptions where their members can access the articles, but not at a per-article rate but some other negotiated rate, or flat rate. I'm sure there are details on the JSTOR website. So people probably are reading the article in question, but not at the per-article rate.
Institutional access is at a flat rate, or rather a bundled flat rate. ($3000 for all content in these collections, another $2000 for those ones, etc). In this particular example, the article is in the "Arts & Sciences III" collection of ~150 journals, which would cost a US public university from $1,300 to $10,000 per year, depending on size, as an ongoing expense. This is not to say that institutions don't sometimes pay for individual articles - I know of some which do, basically treating JSTOR as an expensive but fast on-demand ILL service - but that most access is via their subscribed collections.
Discounting these users, Sarah's suggestion that it's never likely to get used is pretty likely. JSTOR don't make very clear numbers on "pay-per-view" articles available, but their published accounts do confirm that they don't make very much money from it. We have specific usage figures for one year only, which suggest that less than *0.005%* of available articles got purchased in that period - and that those were mostly at the cheapest end of the spectrum (averaging ~$6).
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 06:40, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Discounting these users, Sarah's suggestion that it's never likely to get used is pretty likely. JSTOR don't make very clear numbers on "pay-per-view" articles available, but their published accounts do confirm that they don't make very much money from it. We have specific usage figures for one year only, which suggest that less than *0.005%* of available articles got purchased in that period - and that those were mostly at the cheapest end of the spectrum (averaging ~$6).
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
I've never understood how academic publishers view these issues. I have friends who had their PhDs published by their university presses -- at universities financed by taxpayers -- and the prices seemed self-defeating -- £70 sterling for a relatively short book on a minority issue. The publishers' argument is that it's a short print run, so the price per unit has to be high, but the reason they can only print a small number is they've determined in advance that no one can afford to buy it.
So it turns into almost vanity publishing, where the only people who buy the books are extended family and friends, and the occasional library if you're lucky. In the meantime, the rest of the world is effectively locked out of this knowledge. It's an odd mindset for educators to have.
Sarah
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 06:40, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Discounting these users, Sarah's suggestion that it's never likely to get used is pretty likely. JSTOR don't make very clear numbers on "pay-per-view" articles available, but their published accounts do confirm that they don't make very much money from it. We have specific usage figures for one year only, which suggest that less than *0.005%* of available articles got purchased in that period - and that those were mostly at the cheapest end of the spectrum (averaging ~$6).
I've never understood how academic publishers view these issues. I have friends who had their PhDs published by their university presses -- at universities financed by taxpayers -- and the prices seemed self-defeating -- £70 sterling for a relatively short book on a minority issue. The publishers' argument is that it's a short print run, so the price per unit has to be high, but the reason they can only print a small number is they've determined in advance that no one can afford to buy it.
So it turns into almost vanity publishing, where the only people who buy the books are extended family and friends, and the occasional library if you're lucky. In the meantime, the rest of the world is effectively locked out of this knowledge. It's an odd mindset for educators to have.
I have bought expensive academic books in the past, but never actual published PhD theses. I would expect someone to rewrite, extend and expand on their PhD thesis to make it suitable for a wider readership before publishing it and expecting people to buy it. Many of the books I've bought that have been expensive academic ones state that they are based on, or are an extension of the author(s) PhD work or other thesis work. I was also under the impression that PhD theses are printed and bound to go into a library, not really for sale, so I'm not sure what point is being made here. A PhD thesis and a book are different things.
Carcharoth
On 13/09/2011 16:25, Carcharoth wrote:
I have bought expensive academic books in the past, but never actual published PhD theses. I would expect someone to rewrite, extend and expand on their PhD thesis to make it suitable for a wider readership before publishing it and expecting people to buy it.
In the UK PhD theses, as submitted, are theoretically free to download from EThOS (Electronic Theses Online Service) of the British Museum - as I discovered really not very long ago. But I'd like to know more. If the PhD is not already digitised, or from an institution that pays for that to happen, you may have to pay. Anyone know more?
Charles
I have bought expensive academic books in the past, but never actual published PhD theses. I would expect someone to rewrite, extend and expand on their PhD thesis to make it suitable for a wider readership before publishing it and expecting people to buy it. Many of the books I've bought that have been expensive academic ones state that they are based on, or are an extension of the author(s) PhD work or other thesis work. I was also under the impression that PhD theses are printed and bound to go into a library, not really for sale, so I'm not sure what point is being made here. A PhD thesis and a book are different things.
Carcharoth
I've registered for this service and am downloading a thesis:
Queen Victoria : the monarch and the media 1837-1867
I have agreed to terms and conditions which provide that my copy is only for personal or educational use. The PDF download, 50megs, is free, but I could have had a hardbound copy for 30 pounds.
Fred
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I've registered for this service and am downloading a thesis:
Queen Victoria : the monarch and the media 1837-1867
I have agreed to terms and conditions which provide that my copy is only for personal or educational use. The PDF download, 50megs, is free, but I could have had a hardbound copy for 30 pounds.
Is that print-on-demand?
Talking of Queen Victoria, I've just finished reading:
Darby, Elizabeth; Smith, Nicola (1983). The Cult of the Prince Consort. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-03015-0
A nice book, replete with footnotes detailing the sources used. Despite the Yale University Press imprint, it is not really academic. More a survey of the various memorial schemes and so on. I picked it up for less than £1 at a second-hand book stall.
Carcharoth
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I've registered for this service and am downloading a thesis:
Queen Victoria : the monarch and the media 1837-1867
I have agreed to terms and conditions which provide that my copy is only for personal or educational use. The PDF download, 50megs, is free, but I could have had a hardbound copy for 30 pounds.
Is that print-on-demand?
Yes, it would have to be, loose-leaf and softbound options were also available.
It is possible to copy the text from the PDF file and work with it on your own computer.
Fred
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 09:25, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I've never understood how academic publishers view these issues. I have friends who had their PhDs published by their university presses -- at universities financed by taxpayers -- and the prices seemed self-defeating -- £70 sterling for a relatively short book on a minority issue. The publishers' argument is that it's a short print run, so the price per unit has to be high, but the reason they can only print a small number is they've determined in advance that no one can afford to buy it.
So it turns into almost vanity publishing, where the only people who buy the books are extended family and friends, and the occasional library if you're lucky. In the meantime, the rest of the world is effectively locked out of this knowledge. It's an odd mindset for educators to have.
I have bought expensive academic books in the past, but never actual published PhD theses. I would expect someone to rewrite, extend and expand on their PhD thesis to make it suitable for a wider readership before publishing it and expecting people to buy it. Many of the books I've bought that have been expensive academic ones state that they are based on, or are an extension of the author(s) PhD work or other thesis work. I was also under the impression that PhD theses are printed and bound to go into a library, not really for sale, so I'm not sure what point is being made here. A PhD thesis and a book are different things.
Hi, sorry, I meant they had turned the PhD thesis into a book, not that they simply published the thesis itself.
Sarah
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:07 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 September 2011 22:05, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Maxwell is ours, see https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/wiki/Wikisource:WikiProject_Royal...
I don't see the connection with Maxwell.
Greg put the lot up on BitTorrent and wrote an eloquent message which more or less says "Come on if you think you're hard enough."
Ah, I thought it might have been a reference to Greg, but I did harbour a slight hope that the shade of James Clerk Maxwell might have been involved as well. Do you have a link to any news articles where JSTOR and Maxwell are mentioned, as opposed to just Swartz?
Carcharoth
On 12 September 2011 00:18, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Ah, I thought it might have been a reference to Greg, but I did harbour a slight hope that the shade of James Clerk Maxwell might have been involved as well. Do you have a link to any news articles where JSTOR and Maxwell are mentioned, as opposed to just Swartz?
Googling "jstor maxwell" produces the obvious results :-)
News coverage:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/user-posts-thousands-of-jstor-files-o... http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/swartz-supporter-dumps-18592... http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110721/11122615195/aaron-swartz-indictmen... http://gigaom.com/2011/07/21/pirate-bay-jstor/
- d.