Hi all,

We access a large number of titles through Metapress (journals and e-books).  We have a monthly report running that checks all the links in our OPAC to ensure there aren't any broken links.  Metapress has informed us that they will block our access every month when this report runs as they do not differentiate between a link checker and systematic crawling/downloading.  According to them this is a policy change that they made just recently.

I wondered if anyone else has encountered this sort of situation and how you handled it.  We want to check our links but of course we can't deal with the loss of access to paid content as well!

Cheers,
Todd in Indianapolis
Todd M. Grooten | Cataloger, Infotrieve, Inc. | tgrooten@infotrieve.com

________________________________

From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum on behalf of Stevan Harnad
Sent: Wed 7/18/2012 11:36 PM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] RCUK & EC Did Not Follow Finch/Willets

On 2012-07-18, Anthony Watkinson on LIBLICENSE wrote:

	There were three publishers on the Finch committee (out of seventeen
	members)... [1]

	I do not know of any evidence that they had a special line to Finch
	herself or any special privileges. I do not know of any special
	influence that representative bodies for publishing might have had.
	Does Professor Harnad? [2]

	Some years ago Professor Harnad had a lot of influence on the
	conclusions of a Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee in the
	UK. Perhaps he expects the same special channel he had then [3]

[1]
There were more -- Learned Societies are publishers too -- but three
publishers would already be three too many in a committee on providing
open access to publicly funded research.

[2]
The recommendations of the Finch committee were identical to the
ones for which publishers have been lobbying aggressively for years
(ever since it has become evident that trying to lobby against OA itself
in the face of the mounting pressure for it from the research community is
futile and very ill-received by the research community).

The publisher lobbying has accordingly been for the following:
"Phase out Green OA and provide money to pay for Gold OA."

The Finch outcome was already pre-determined as a result of
publisher lobbying before the committee was even constituted:

Finch on Green: "The [Green OA] policies of neither research funders
nor universities themselves have yet had a major effect in ensuring that
researchers make their publications accessible in institutional repositories...
[so] the infrastructure of subject and institutional repositories should [instead]
be developed [to] play a valuable role complementary to formal publishing,
particularly in providing access to research data and to grey literature, and
in digital preservation [no mention of Green OA]..."

Finch on Gold: "Gold" open access, funded by article charges, should be
seen as "the main vehicle for the publication of research"... Public
funders should establish "more effective and flexible arrangements"
to pay [Gold OA] article charges... During the transition to [Gold] open
access, funding should be found to extend licences [subscriptions]
for non-open-access content to the whole UK higher education and
health sectors..."

But that's all moot now, as both RCUK and EC have ignored it,
instead re-affirming and strengthening their Green OA mandates
the day after Mr. Willets announced the adoption of the recommendations
of the Finch committee:

"[P]eer reviewed research papers which result from research that
is wholly or partially funded by the Research Councils... must be
published in journals... [either] offering a "pay to publish" option
[Gold OA] or allowing deposit in a subject or institutional
repository [Green OA] after a mandated maximum embargo
period... of no more than six months... except... AHRC and...
ESRC where the maximum... is 12 months..."
http://roarmap.eprints.org/671/

[3]
The 2004 recommendations of the Parliamentary Select
Committee on Science and Technology were based on
23 oral testimonials and 127 written testimonials. Mine was one
of the 127 written testimonials. If anything had influence on the
outcome, it was evidence and reasons.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39916.htm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39917.htm

The 2004 Select Committee recommendation had been this:

"This Report recommends that all UK higher education institutions
establish institutional repositories on which their published output
can be stored and from which it can be read, free of charge, online.
It also recommends that Research Councils and other Government
funders mandate their funded researchers to deposit a copy of all
of their articles in this way... [T]he Report [also] recommends that
the Research Councils each establish a fund to which their funded
researchers can apply should they wish to pay to publish..."
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm

At that time, despite the fact that the UK government (again under
pressure from the publishing lobby) decided to ignore the Select
Committee's recommendation to mandate Green OA, RCUK and
many UK universities adopted Green OA mandates anyway.

As a  result, the UK became the global leader in the transition to
Open Access.

If heeded, the Finch Committee recommendation to downgrade
repository use to the storage and preservation of data, theses and
unpublished work would have set back global OA by at least a decade.

Fortunately, the RCUK has again shown its sense and independence,
reaffirming and strengthening its Green OA mandate.

Let us hope UK's universities - not pleased that scarce research funds,
instead of being increased, are to be decreased to pay extra needlessly
for Gold OA - will likewise continue to opt instead for cost-free Green OA
by mandating it.

If so, the UK will again have earned and re-affirmed its leadership role
in the global transition to universal OA.

Stevan Harnad

	________________________________
	From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum@gmail.com>
	Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:32:45 -0400

	Irony of ironies, that it should now appear (to some who are not
	paying attention) as if the the RCUK & EC were following the
	recommendations of Finch/Willets when in point of fact they are
	pointedly rejecting them!

	RCUK and EC were already leading the world in providing and mandating Green OA.

	Finch/Willets, under the influence of the publisher lobby, have
	recommended abandoning cost-free Green OA and instead spending scarce
	research money on paying publishers extra for Gold OA.

	Both RCUK & EC immediately announced that, no, they would stay the
	course in which they were already leading -- mandatory Green OA. (They
	even shored it up, shortening the maximum allowable embargo period,
	again directly contrary to Finch/Willets!)

	What Finch/Willets have mandated is that £50,000,000.00 of the UK's
	scarce research budget is taken away annually from UK research and
	redirected instead to paying publishers for Gold OA.

	The UK government is free to squander its public funds as it sees fit.

	But as long as cost-free Green OA mandates remain in effect, that's
	just a waste of money, not of progress in the global growth in OA.

	(A lot of hard, unsung work had to be done to fend off the concerted
	efforts of the publisher lobby, so brilliantly successful in duping
	Finch/Willets, to dupe the RCUK and EC too. They failed. And they will
	fail with the US too. And the UK will maintain its leadership in the
	worldwide OA movement, despite Finch/Willets, not because of it.)

	Stevan Harnad

***********************************************
* You are subscribed to the SERIALST listserv (Serials in Libraries discussion forum)
* To post a message: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
* For additional information, see SERIALST Scope, Purpose and Usage Guidelines <http://www.uvm.edu/~bmaclenn/serialst.html> .
***********************************************

***********************************************
* You are subscribed to the SERIALST listserv (Serials in Libraries discussion forum)
* To unsubscribe, send an email to the server address: LISTSERV@LIST.UVM.EDU .
    Do NOT include a subject line. Type as an email message these two words: SIGNOFF SERIALST
* For additional information, see  the SERIALST Scope, Purpose and Usage Guidelines <http://www.uvm.edu/~bmaclenn/serialst.html>
***********************************************