- JoPP-Public - lists.ourproject.org

Re: [JoPP-Public] Future of Journal of Peer Production
by Angela Daly 01 Oct '17

01 Oct '17

Hello all, What about a call for a general issue? And/or a call for proposals for future special issue themes? Angela

1 0

Future of Journal of Peer Production
by Mathieu ONeil 30 Sep '17

30 Sep '17

Hi all I wrote to this list a few months ago about the fact that we had no releases planned beyond April 2018. There was no response. If we do not organise a CFP now there is no chance of releasing in the second half of 2018. It's probably too late already. But, we still need to look ahead, and decide what to do about this journal. To help focus discussion and responsibility below this message you will find: - a breakdown of the current editorial team [and the issues they edited or co-edited] - all JoPP issues with their editors I think we need to address the following questions: 1. Do we need to organise some form of archiving of the Journal of Peer Production? If yes, how and where? 2. Do we need to devise new ways to come up with new themes for issues (conferences, debates, co-productions...)? 3. If members of the editorial team who have not edited issues for several (?) years are not proposing new issues, should they be on the team? If no, do we need to get new people on the team? Who? 4. If no-one steps up to propose new themes for issues should we plan to pause, or end, the Journal of Peer Production? cheers, Mathieu PS. If anyone wants to propose something, I am open to discussion. I am interested in topics such as UBI and others outlined in this piece: http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-10-peer-production-and-work/now-the-… PPS. An immediate solution could be to issue a call for an "OPEN" issue of JoPP: any aspect of P2P. Using "varia" subs? Still needs editors... JoPP editorial team: Maxigas [5] Mathieu O’Neil [0,1,10 + maintainer] Johan Söderberg [2,9] Maurizio Teli [3] Sophie Toupin [8] Nathaniel Tkacz [5] has resigned but was not removed from list b/c inertia Sara Tocchetti Peter Troxler [5 + sysadmin] JoPP issues with issue eds: ISSUE 00 MASS PEER ACTIVISM. JULY 2011 Mathieu ISSUE 01 PRODUCTIVE NEGATION. JULY 2012 Mathieu ISSUE 02 BIO/HARDWARE HACKING. JULY 2012 Johan, Alessandro ISSUE 03 CRITICAL POWER OF FREE SOFTWARE. JULY 2013 Maurizio, Vincenzo ISSUE 04 VALUE AND CURRENCY. JANUARY 2014 Nate, Nicholas M, Francesca ISSUE 05 SHARED MACHINE SHOPS. JULY 2014 Maxigas, Peter ISSUE 06 DISRUPTION AND THE LAW. JANUARY 2015 Angela, Steve ISSUE 07 POLICIES FOR THE COMMONS. JULY 2015 George, Vasilis ISSUE 08 FEMINISM AND (UN)HACKING. JANUARY 2016 Sophie, Shaowen, Lilly ISSUE 09 ALTERNATIVE INTERNETS. SEPTEMBER 2016 Johan, Felix, Panos ISSUE 10 PEER PRODUCTION AND WORK. MAY 2017 Mathieu, Zack [unreleased:] ISSUE 11 CITY. OCT-NOV 2017. Panos, Penny, Nicholas ISSUE 12. INSTITUTIONALISATION OF SHOPS. APRIL-MAY 2018. Kat, Adrian <end>

3 2

Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production
by Mathieu ONeil 28 Sep '17

28 Sep '17

Hi all So far so good. cheers, Mathieu ________________________________ From: Rhonda Marker <rmarker(a)rutgers.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 22:50 To: Mathieu ONeil Subject: RE: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production Thank you so much. The website is very clear – and welcoming to both readers and authors. I have completed my review and sent the application to the next level. All best to you, Rhonda Rhonda J. Marker Director of Shared User Services Rutgers University Libraries Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey p: 848-932-5923 rmarker(a)rutgers.edu<mailto:[email protected]> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7635-816X From: Mathieu ONeil [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 6:26 AM To: Rhonda Marker <rmarker(a)rutgers.edu> Subject: Re: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production Dear Rhonda Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. The required information has now been included on the JoPP website. Please refer to: http://peerproduction.net/about/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpeerproduct…> for information about open access, copyright and licensing. Also refer to: http://peerproduction.net/about/submissions/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpeerproduct…> for information regarding author charges. I hope this information satisfies your requirements and look forward to hearing from you regarding JoPP being included in the DOAJ. Kind regards Mathieu ________________________________ From: Rhonda Marker <rmarker(a)rutgers.edu<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 3:03 To: Mathieu ONeil Cc: Rhonda Marker Subject: RE: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production Dear Mathieu, Have you made any progress on updating the Journal of Peer Production website to provide the information that DOAJ requires for inclusion in the directory? Please let me know by September 27 if you will be able to make these changes, or if you would like to withdraw your journal for inclusion in DOAJ. Sincerely, Rhonda Rhonda J. Marker Director of Shared User Services Rutgers University Libraries Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey p: 848-932-5923 rmarker(a)rutgers.edu<mailto:[email protected]> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7635-816X From: Mathieu ONeil [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 6:46 PM To: Rhonda Marker <rmarker(a)rutgers.edu<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production Dear Rhonda Thanks for your email, I am pleased that the application to DOAJ is being processed. I will consult with the rest of the team and figure out how best to address the issues you raise. Kind regards Mathieu ________________________________ From: Rhonda Marker <rmarker(a)rutgers.edu<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 8:24 To: Mathieu ONeil Cc: Rhonda Marker Subject: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production Dear Dr. O’Neil, I am one of the volunteer Associate Editors at Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). I am currently processing your application for Journal of Peer Production to be included in DOAJ. Your application states that you do not have article processing charges (APCs) or article submission charges. However, the link you gave where this information can be found does not mention APCs or submission charges. In order to be included in DOAJ, you must explicitly state that you do not have such charges. One of the requirements for entry into DOAJ is that your journal website must include an open access statement. The link provided on the application, http://peerproduction.net/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpeerproduct…>, does not have a statement. I would like to suggest that you take a look at some of the journals that are currently in DOAJ. Film Criticism has a brief, clear statement about open access that also describes how readers can use the content: http://www.filmcriticismjournal.org/about.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.filmcri…> Using such a statement would also fulfill another requirements for inclusion in DOAJ: stating your license or use terms for the reader. Film Criticism - About<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.filmcri…> www.filmcriticismjournal.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.filmcri…> Film Criticism is a peer-reviewed, online publication whose aim is to bring together scholarship in the field of cinema and media studies in order to present the ... The Journal of Peer Production<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpeerproduct…> peerproduction.net Welcome to the Journal of Peer Production. The Journal of Peer Production seeks high-quality contributions from researchers and practitioners of peer production. Your application also stated that the author does not hold the copyright without restrictions, and does not retain publishing rights without restrictions. However, I could not find any information about the copyright transfer requirement, or an indication of the rights holder for a published paper. This signals a lack of transparency in the authoring and publishing process. If you send me a link where this information can be found, I can update your DOAJ application. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Rhonda Marker Rhonda J. Marker Director of Shared User Services Rutgers University Libraries Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey p: 848-932-5923 rmarker(a)rutgers.edu<mailto:[email protected]> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7635-816X<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Forcid.org%2…>

1 0

Changes to website for DOAJ
by Mathieu ONeil 28 Sep '17

28 Sep '17

Hi all I've made the discussed changes to the Mission statement and Submissions page on the editing site. Hopefully they will appear soon and I can notify DOAJ. If not I will let you know. cheers mathieu

1 0

Translation
by Mathieu ONeil 28 Sep '17

28 Sep '17

Hi all Someone translated our #10 manifesto into [?] Finnish. http://kapitaali.com/nyt-yhteisvauraus/ [http://kapitaali.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/hippies.jpg]<http://kapitaali.com/nyt-yhteisvauraus/> Nyt, Yhteisvauraus | Kapitaali.com - Pääoma ja Uusi Talous<http://kapitaali.com/nyt-yhteisvauraus/> kapitaali.com Journal of Peer Productionin päästessä kymmenenteen numeroonsa, on aika tarkastella mitä pyrittiin saamaan aikaan, mitä saatiin aikaan ja mitä tulisi tehdä ... Can someone with Norse skills please tell if this is the case and whether the translation is OK, in which case we can add it to our translations page. They put a nice illustration at least. :-) cheers Mathieu

1 0

Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production
by Mathieu ONeil 11 Sep '17

11 Sep '17

Hi all Ping from DOAJ. With a deadline this time. So, having just gone through the list archive, seems a majority wanted CC0, but could live with CC-BY-SA. As should be abundantly clear by now, I don't particularly mind either way. My only concern is that (a) we don't cause problems down the track and (b) we comply with their guidelines re legal transfer. Specifically, how does CC0 work with: Your application also stated that the author does not hold the copyright without restrictions, and does not retain publishing rights without restrictions. However, I could not find any information about the copyright transfer requirement, or an indication of the rights holder for a published paper. This signals a lack of transparency in the authoring and publishing process. If you send me a link where this information can be found, I can update your DOAJ application. Questions 1. So, what about author rights? Does anything else need to be specified? Or is CC0 a problem in this regard? 2. If its OK, how exactly do we phrase it? "All the contents of JoPP are in the Public Domain (CC0) that is to say free of copyright restrictions around the world. See https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ for more information on this license." 3. If its OK, Creative Commons have a mechanism to embed CC0 info in our site (I think). Do/can we do this? See: "CC0 Waiver These fields are optional, but will be embedded in the HTML generated for your work. This allows users of your work to determine how to contact you or where to go for more information about the work. The information is embedded in a software readable format. This allows search engines to index additional information about your work. More information on Creative Commons metadata is available if you want to find out more." https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/waiver cheers Mathieu ________________________________ From: Rhonda Marker <rmarker(a)rutgers.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 3:03 To: Mathieu ONeil Cc: Rhonda Marker Subject: RE: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production Dear Mathieu, Have you made any progress on updating the Journal of Peer Production website to provide the information that DOAJ requires for inclusion in the directory? Please let me know by September 27 if you will be able to make these changes, or if you would like to withdraw your journal for inclusion in DOAJ. Sincerely, Rhonda Rhonda J. Marker Director of Shared User Services Rutgers University Libraries Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey p: 848-932-5923 rmarker(a)rutgers.edu<mailto:[email protected]> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7635-816X From: Mathieu ONeil [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 6:46 PM To: Rhonda Marker <rmarker(a)rutgers.edu> Subject: Re: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production Dear Rhonda Thanks for your email, I am pleased that the application to DOAJ is being processed. I will consult with the rest of the team and figure out how best to address the issues you raise. Kind regards Mathieu ________________________________ From: Rhonda Marker <rmarker(a)rutgers.edu<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 8:24 To: Mathieu ONeil Cc: Rhonda Marker Subject: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production Dear Dr. O’Neil, I am one of the volunteer Associate Editors at Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). I am currently processing your application for Journal of Peer Production to be included in DOAJ. Your application states that you do not have article processing charges (APCs) or article submission charges. However, the link you gave where this information can be found does not mention APCs or submission charges. In order to be included in DOAJ, you must explicitly state that you do not have such charges. One of the requirements for entry into DOAJ is that your journal website must include an open access statement. The link provided on the application, http://peerproduction.net/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpeerproduct…>, does not have a statement. I would like to suggest that you take a look at some of the journals that are currently in DOAJ. Film Criticism has a brief, clear statement about open access that also describes how readers can use the content: http://www.filmcriticismjournal.org/about.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.filmcri…> Using such a statement would also fulfill another requirements for inclusion in DOAJ: stating your license or use terms for the reader. Film Criticism - About<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.filmcri…> www.filmcriticismjournal.org<http://www.filmcriticismjournal.org> Film Criticism is a peer-reviewed, online publication whose aim is to bring together scholarship in the field of cinema and media studies in order to present the ... The Journal of Peer Production<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpeerproduct…> peerproduction.net Welcome to the Journal of Peer Production. The Journal of Peer Production seeks high-quality contributions from researchers and practitioners of peer production. Your application also stated that the author does not hold the copyright without restrictions, and does not retain publishing rights without restrictions. However, I could not find any information about the copyright transfer requirement, or an indication of the rights holder for a published paper. This signals a lack of transparency in the authoring and publishing process. If you send me a link where this information can be found, I can update your DOAJ application. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Rhonda Marker Rhonda J. Marker Director of Shared User Services Rutgers University Libraries Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey p: 848-932-5923 rmarker(a)rutgers.edu<mailto:[email protected]> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7635-816X<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Forcid.org%2…>

6 17

CfP: A Moment of Post-Truth - What are the implications for STS
by Johan Söderberg 08 Sep '17

08 Sep '17

CfP: A Moment of Post-Truth - What are the Implications for STS? Special issue of Engaging Science, Technology and Society http://estsjournal.org/ Special Issue Editors: Johan Söderberg & Kean Birch Invited discussant: Linsey McGoey The surge of post-truth, alternative facts, and filter bubbles have turned the table on STS discussions about knowledge and truth. Interest in the production of knowledge has been flipped to an interest in the production of non-knowledge, i.e. ignorance. The case could be made that we always have lived in post-truth times. Still, recent political developments underline the gravity of the epistemological issues that previously were confined to academic seminar rooms. The need to be able to tell truthful statements apart from lies was not felt to be so urgent before the rise of populist and anti-rationalist movements and the election of their candidates into seats of office. The haunting question that needs to be addressed is: how can (if at all) the need for making such distinctions be accomplished with core STS tenets: the social construction of scientific facts, the under-determination of empirical data, the symmetrical treatment of true and false statements, and the equalization of lay expertise with expert expertise? What theoretical developments are prompted by the current political landscape? What philosophical traditions and theoretical resources are available to STS scholars for steering a path between the Scylla of technocracy and the Charybdis of populism? Contributors to the special issue of are invited to engage with these questions from a variety of different standpoints. We are looking for papers where theoretically challenging positions are developed through empirically grounded case studies. Linsey McGoey will give her reflection on the individual papers in a concluding section of this special issue of 4S Open Access journal Engaging Science, Technology and Society. Prospecting authors are requested to send a notification of interest + a preliminary title/abstract by 15 October 2017. Please send it to the special editors: johan [dot] soderberg [at] sts [dot] gu [dot] se and keanbirch [at] gmail [dot] com Preliminary publication date is scheduled for winter 2018/spring 2019

1 0

Re: [JoPP-Public] JoPP-Public Digest, Vol 63, Issue 17
by Andreas Wittel 22 Aug '17

22 Aug '17

I am not an expert on copyright, but feel strongly about some implications of what we are discussing. To outline briefly my politics: As a Marxist, I am all for open access, but find some of the free culture positions rather problematic, particularly those ones that are rooted in liberal theory (Stallman, Lessig, Benkler etc). One of these positions is the idea that academic should not only make available their work for free, but also make it available in a format does not respect authors rights in that it does not care about attribution. In a neoliberal climate that massively devalues academic labour it is not a wise strategy to devalue academic labour even further and to do so voluntarily. Therefore I do not support copyright politics, that contribute to new levels of proletaristion of academic labour. But this is not just about politics, it also about the future orientation of this journal. I would be very hesitant to publish in a journal that invites and encourages the use of my labour without appropriation. And I have a feeling I am not the only academic with such a view. So to go for PD, and for that matter for CC0 has imho the long-term effect that academics will stay away from JOPP and that the reputation of JOPP as a journal with high-quality academic rigour could seriously suffer. My preference would be CC-BY-SA best, Andreas On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 10:44 AM, <jopp-public-request(a)lists.ourproject.org> wrote: > Send JoPP-Public mailing list submissions to > jopp-public(a)lists.ourproject.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > jopp-public-request(a)lists.ourproject.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > jopp-public-owner(a)lists.ourproject.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of JoPP-Public digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer > Production (Stefan Meretz) > 2. Re: Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer > Production (Peter Troxler) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 11:21:34 +0200 > From: Stefan Meretz <stefan(a)meretz.de> > To: jopp-public(a)lists.ourproject.org > Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: > Journal of Peer Production > Message-ID: <9855a97c-0e27-f84a-664f-4ef72ee077ec(a)meretz.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > I completely agree with Stefano. I want to add an explanation to Mathieu: > > Am 19.08.2017 um 04:50 schrieb Mathieu ONeil: > > To sum up: one license (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 AU) does not allow commercial > > use or derivatives (better for authors?), the other (CC BY 4.0) does > > (better for the Cause?) > > If the purpose is to prevent commercial use and simultaneouly keep > freedom of sharing, then CC BY-SA, the most restrictive free cultural > license, is the best choice, NOT NC. Why? Share-alike means that the > commercial user itself has to use SA which conficts with keeping content > scarce to make money of it (especially when published offline). NC > explicitly prevents commercial use but at the same time sharing in a lot > of areas. And commercial use is a wide notion which applies to books as > well as to blogs with adds on it. > > Concluding, I would prefer CC0, since I find commercial use okay beause > it spreads content, and thats my aim. We live in capitalism, and thats > the way it goes. Second best is CC-BY. Third would be CC BY-SA. > Everything below that is neither useful nor acceptable - for me :-) > > Best, > Stefan > > -- > Start here: www.meretz.de > OpenPGP-ID: 0x1D4BB160 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 11:15:17 +0200 > From: Peter Troxler <trox(a)fabfolk.com> > To: "Journal of Peer Production's general and public list" > <jopp-public(a)lists.ourproject.org> > Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: > Journal of Peer Production > Message-ID: > <CAH-wfc1copB_0v4o5rhjSc47kPx6dMP+Y-fYQ_ > A5SUa_nruGFg(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi all > > chiming in from the "docle far niente" on the license issue > > I am also very strongly opposed to restrictive licences as CC-BY-NC-ND > which are in actual fact worse and more limiting than good old copyright. > I've been trying to send this message for a while, but for some reasons my > computer and my email account don't play nicely currently. So this might be > reiterating a few statements made already > > If we want to go CC, then CC-BY or CC-BY-SA are the most sensible options. > Wikipedia have chosen the CC-BY-SA license, where the SA element > essentially keeps content free and discourages commercial use (by > *removing* commercial protection). > > I do not concur with Angela that ND is needed for the integrity of the > work, as integrity is already protected by copyright (to which a CC license > is an addendum) > I do not concur with Angela that NC is needed so "no-one can make a profit > out of the articles" ... NC signals that we don't want that, but it does > not protect. Furthermore, NC would prevent us from coming up with some > scheme to rise money for server costs etc. (mind you: even fundraising is > regarded as commercial in the interpretation of NC!) > > A public domain dedication (PD) is much more radical. Going public domain > is more radical and could invite users to not attribute work -- whereas > attribution (being cited) is one of the main "currencies" in the academic > field. > Creative Commons have developed the CC0 "dedication" to mark that a work is > deliberately put into the public domain (most often used for open > government data), and the PD, a mark to "certify" that something is in de > public domain; see https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/. Angela is > right that the public domain situation is legally unclear. > > I would personally prefer the CC-BY-SA license for the reasons stated > above; second best is CC-BY > > Best / Peter > > Disclosure: I have worked for Creative Commons Netherlands in 2007-2009 and > I am a founding member of the Communia association ( > https://www.communia-association.org/) > > > On 19 August 2017 at 04:50, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil(a)anu.edu.au> > wrote: > > > Hi Zack, all > > > > > > OK, now I remember why I always try to stay out of license discussions.. > > :-) > > > > > > (FWIW: IMHO there is a big difference between massively multiple-authored > > WP and single or small-group authored research articles, but whatever.) > > > > > > To sum up: one license (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 AU) does not allow commercial use > > or derivatives (better for authors?), the other (CC BY 4.0) does (better > > for the Cause?) > > > > > > What do others think? > > > > > > cheers > > > > > > Mathieu > > > > > > ===================================================== > > > > KEY POINTS BELOW::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > > :::::::::::::: > > > > ===================================================== > > > > Angela argues for https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/au/ > > > > Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Australia (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 AU) > > > > You are free to: > > Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format > > The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the > > license terms. > > > > Under the following terms: > > Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the > > license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any > reasonable > > manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or > your > > use. > > Non-Commercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes. > > NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you > > may not distribute the modified material. > > No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or > > technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything > the > > license permits. > > > > > > Zack argues for https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ > > > > Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) > > > > You are free to: > > Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format > > Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, > > even commercially. > > This license is acceptable for Free Cultural Works. > > The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the > > license terms. > > > > Under the following terms: > > Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the > > license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any > reasonable > > manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or > your > > use. > > No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or > > technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything > the > > license permits. > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* JoPP-Public <jopp-public-bounces(a)lists.ourproject.org> on behalf > > of Stefano Zacchiroli <zack(a)pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> > > *Sent:* Saturday, August 19, 2017 11:33 > > *To:* jopp-public(a)lists.ourproject.org > > *Subject:* Re: [JoPP-Public] Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: > > Journal of Peer Production > > > > On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 12:56:19AM +0000, Mathieu ONeil wrote: > > > This may be a silly question but I wonder if there is a difference > > > between the moral rights (as Angela said) of the author of computer > > > code which is reused and those of the author of thoughts/words? > > > > Wikipedia --- words, not code --- license is CC-BY-SA. The whole Free > > Culture movement is not about code, even though it clearly got > > inspiration from it. > > > > Also, very high profile examples of open access journals that have > > adopted Free Culture licenses abound, e.g., > > > > - https://elifesciences.org/about/openness > > Openness | About | eLife <https://elifesciences.org/about/openness> > > elifesciences.org > > We believe that open access to research findings and associated data has > > the potential to revolutionise the scientific enterprise > > > > > > - https://www.plos.org/license > > License | PLOS <https://www.plos.org/license> > > www.plos.org > > Appropriate attribution can be provided by simply citing the original > > article (e.g., Huntingtin Interacting Proteins Are Genetic Modifiers of > > Neurodegeneration. > > > > > > - https://peerj.com/about/publications/ > > PeerJ - About - Our Publications <https://peerj.com/about/publications/> > > peerj.com > > PeerJ is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, scholarly journal, whilst PeerJ > > Preprints is a venue for rapid communication of results. > > > > > > > > having a bottom up journal that has "peer production" in its name do > > anything short of that would be very weird. > > > > Cheers. > > -- > > Stefano Zacchiroli . zack(a)upsilon.cc . upsilon.cc/zack . . o . . . o . o > > Computer Science Professor . CTO Software Heritage . . . . . o . . . o o > > Former Debian Project Leader & OSI Board Director . . . o o o . . . o . > > « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » > > > > _______________________________________________ > > JoPP-Public mailing list > > JoPP-Public(a)lists.ourproject.org > > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public > > > > _______________________________________________ > > JoPP-Public mailing list > > JoPP-Public(a)lists.ourproject.org > > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public > > > > >

4 3

Re: [JoPP-Public] Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production
by Steve Collins 19 Aug '17

19 Aug '17

Hi Yeah, that's it. I know that Shima is registered with DOAJ too and I assume that its text was acceptable so perhaps we can appropriate? Cheers Steve On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 at 5:44 pm, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil(a)anu.edu.au> wrote: > Hi Steve, all > > > For Shima they say the following (amongst many other things - some good > ideas we could use, if we wanted) - is this what you mean? > > > cheers > > > Mathieu > > > The journal is licenced under a Creative Commons > Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License > <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/>. Articles accepted > for publication in *Shima* may be posted in open access repositories > and/or on author’s personal research pages upon completion of the journal’s > proofing processes in the form supplied to the authors (and identified as > forthcoming). > > [...] > > Manuscripts which have been published as copyrighted material elsewhere > cannot be submitted. In addition, manuscripts under review by the journal > should not be resubmitted to copyrighted publications. However, by > submitting a manuscript, the author(s) retain the rights to the published > material > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* JoPP-Public <jopp-public-bounces(a)lists.ourproject.org> on behalf > of Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil(a)anu.edu.au> > *Sent:* Thursday, August 17, 2017 15:38 > *To:* Steve Collins > *Cc:* angela.daly(a)qut.edu.au; Journal list > > *Subject:* Re: [JoPP-Public] Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: > Journal of Peer Production > > > Hi Steve, all > > > In the black block at the bottom of every webpage it says on the right (in > grey so quite hard to read): > > > "Journal of Peer Production - ISSN: 2213-5316 > All the contents of this journal are in the public domain." > > cheers > Mathieu > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Steve Collins <stephen.collins(a)mq.edu.au> > *Sent:* Thursday, August 17, 2017 15:01 > > *To:* Mathieu ONeil > *Cc:* Journal list; angela.daly(a)qut.edu.au > *Subject:* Re: [JoPP-Public] Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: > Journal of Peer Production > Well, in my experience I've not heard of any uni enforcing its rights and > restricting authors (I'm sure it's happened to someone, somewhere though > :P). > > Sorry Mathieu, I'm, a little unclear on what you meant by 'now it just > says "all pubs in public domain"' - what says that? JoPP? > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil(a)anu.edu.au> > wrote: > >> Hi Steve, all >> >> >> We had a lot of discussion about (c) in the beginning and adopted I think >> CC-BY-SA ? but now it just says "all pubs in public domain". >> >> >> I guess we need to stay true to our free software roots somehow, so not >> sure about the uni/author nexus...? >> >> >> Others? >> >> cheers >> >> Mathieu >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Steve Collins <stephen.collins(a)mq.edu.au> >> *Sent:* Thursday, August 17, 2017 12:52 >> *To:* Mathieu ONeil >> *Cc:* Journal list; angela.daly(a)qut.edu.au >> *Subject:* Re: [JoPP-Public] Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: >> Journal of Peer Production >> >> Hi Mathieu >> >> What's JoPP's current arrangement with copyrights - is there a current >> arrangement? I'm guessing that authors don't agree to anything when they >> submit an article to JoPP. We'll need to implement something for the future >> - but also need to work on what to do with work that's already been >> published. To add complexity to the situation it's usual for universities >> to own the IP in academics' work. >> >> I spoke to a colleague who manages an online journal that is registered >> with DOAJ, and their (c) statement is quite brief but might provide a >> template? http://shimajournal.org/index.php >> Publication Details - Shima: The International Journal of ... >> <http://shimajournal.org/index.php> >> shimajournal.org >> Shima is a SCOPUS registered peer-refereed academic journal that is >> published twice a year in open access online form and has been registered >> with the Directory of ... >> >> >> >> cheers >> steve >> >> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil(a)anu.edu.au >> > wrote: >> >>> Hi all, again >>> >>> >>> To help move things along here are the two places on the journal site >>> where text could be amended. I realise some of you may be enjoying the *dolce >>> far niente* of the Northern summer, but, well... >>> >>> >>> I've made the required changes to the low-hanging fruit i.e. article >>> processing charges and open access [in bold] below. >>> >>> >>> However for this next requirement I am less certain; where exactly do we >>> stand on author copyright? Steve and Angela, I'm looking at you! 😊 >>> >>> "Your application also stated that the author does not hold the >>> copyright without restrictions, and does not retain publishing rights >>> without restrictions. However, I could not find any information about the >>> copyright transfer requirement, or an indication of the rights holder for a >>> published paper. This signals a lack of transparency in the authoring and >>> publishing process. If you send me a link where this information can be >>> found, I can update your DOAJ application." >>> >>> >>> >>> =-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-= >>> >>> <http://peerproduction.net/about/mission-statement/> >>> >>> >>> Mission Statement >>> The Journal of Peer Production (JoPP) seeks high-quality contributions >>> from researchers and practitioners of peer production. We understand peer >>> production as a mode of commons-based and oriented production in which >>> participation is voluntary and predicated on the self-selection of tasks. >>> Notable examples are the collaborative development of Free Software >>> projects and of the Wikipedia online encyclopedia. >>> Through the analysis of the forms, operations, and contradictions of >>> peer producing communities in contemporary capitalist society, the journal >>> aims to open up new perspectives on the implications of peer production for >>> social change. >>> Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: [etc] >>> >>> CHANGE TO => >>> >>> Mission Statement >>> The Journal of Peer Production (JoPP) seeks high-quality contributions >>> from researchers and practitioners of peer production. We understand peer >>> production as a mode of commons-based and oriented production in which >>> participation is voluntary and predicated on the self-selection of tasks. >>> Notable examples are the collaborative development of Free Software >>> projects and of the Wikipedia online encyclopedia. >>> Through the analysis of the forms, operations, and contradictions of >>> peer producing communities in contemporary capitalist society, the journal >>> aims to open up new perspectives on the implications of peer production for >>> social change. >>> *The Journal of Peer Production is an open access academic journal that >>> allows readers to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, and link >>> to the full texts of articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose >>> except where otherwise noted.* >>> Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: [etc] >>> >>> >>> =-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-= >>> >>> <http://peerproduction.net/about/submissions/> >>> >>> How to submit to the Journal of Peer Production >>> JoPP will be published twice a year. All scientific contributions will >>> be peer reviewed. >>> If you have a question about the suitability of your contribution to >>> JoPP, please contact the editorial team by posting to the (not publicly >>> archived) editorial team mailing list: jopp [dash] editorial [at] lists >>> [dot] ourproject [dot] org >>> Once papers have been accepted, it is the author’s responsibility to >>> format them in accordance with our specifications. >>> >>> CHANGE TO => >>> >>> How to submit to the Journal of Peer Production >>> *No article processing charges (APCs**) or article submission charges >>> are required to publish in JoPP.* >>> JoPP will be published twice a year. All scientific contributions will >>> be peer reviewed. >>> If you have a question about the suitability of your contribution to >>> JoPP, please contact the editorial team by posting to the (not publicly >>> archived) editorial team mailing list: jopp [dash] editorial [at] lists >>> [dot] ourproject [dot] org >>> Once papers have been accepted, it is the author’s responsibility to >>> format them in accordance with our specifications. >>> >>> >>> =-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-= >>> >>> cheers, >>> Mathieu >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* JoPP-Public <jopp-public-bounces(a)lists.ourproject.org> on >>> behalf of Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil(a)anu.edu.au> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 17, 2017 8:44 >>> *To:* Journal list >>> *Subject:* [JoPP-Public] Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal >>> of Peer Production >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi everyone >>> >>> Response from DOAJ FYI. I guess we need to be more explicit in our >>> language. Does anyone have thoughts on the below? >>> >>> cheers >>> >>> Mathieu >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* Rhonda Marker <rmarker(a)rutgers.edu> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 17, 2017 8:24 >>> *To:* Mathieu ONeil >>> *Cc:* Rhonda Marker >>> *Subject:* Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production >>> >>> >>> Dear Dr. O’Neil, >>> >>> >>> >>> I am one of the volunteer Associate Editors at Directory of Open Access >>> Journals (DOAJ). I am currently processing your application for Journal >>> of Peer Production to be included in DOAJ. >>> >>> >>> >>> Your application states that you do not have article processing charges ( >>> APCs) or article submission charges. However, the link you gave where >>> this information can be found does not mention APCs or submission >>> charges. In order to be included in DOAJ, you must explicitly state >>> that you do not have such charges. >>> >>> >>> >>> One of the requirements for entry into DOAJ is that your journal >>> website must include an open access statement. The link provided on the >>> application, http://peerproduction.net/, does not have a statement. I >>> would like to suggest that you take a look at some of the journals that are >>> currently in DOAJ. *Film Criticism* has a brief, clear statement about >>> open access that also describes how readers can use the content: >>> http://www.filmcriticismjournal.org/about.html Using such a statement >>> would also fulfill another requirements for inclusion in DOAJ: stating >>> your license or use terms for the reader. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Your application also stated that the author does not hold the copyright >>> without restrictions, and does not retain publishing rights without >>> restrictions. However, I could not find any information about the copyright >>> transfer requirement, or an indication of the rights holder for a published >>> paper. This signals a lack of transparency in the authoring and publishing >>> process. If you send me a link where this information can be found, I can >>> update your DOAJ application. >>> >>> >>> >>> I look forward to hearing from you soon. >>> >>> >>> >>> Rhonda Marker >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Rhonda J. Marker >>> >>> Director of Shared User Services >>> >>> Rutgers University Libraries >>> >>> Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey >>> >>> p: 848-932-5923 <(848)%20932-5923> >>> >>> rmarker(a)rutgers.edu >>> >>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7635-816X >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Dr Steve Collins* >> Senior Lecturer in Multimedia >> Department of Media, Music, Communication & Cultural Studies >> Macquarie University >> >> P: (02) 9850 2165 >> W: http://bit.ly/122QivW >> L: Y3A 191D >> > > > > -- > *Dr Steve Collins* > Senior Lecturer in Multimedia > Department of Media, Music, Communication & Cultural Studies > Macquarie University > > P: (02) 9850 2165 > W: http://bit.ly/122QivW > L: Y3A 191D > -- *Dr Steve Collins* Senior Lecturer in Multimedia Department of Media, Music, Communication & Cultural Studies Macquarie University P: (02) 9850 2165 W: http://bit.ly/122QivW L: Y3A 191D

6 15

Re: [JoPP-Public] Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production
by Steve Collins 17 Aug '17

17 Aug '17

I have no problem with going with a CC0 licence. On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Stefan Meretz <stefan(a)meretz.de> wrote: > No. Why not stay with PD? Explicitly done via > https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/ > > Or with any other free cultural work license: > https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/freeworks/ > > Best, > Stefan > > -- *Dr Steve Collins* Senior Lecturer in Multimedia Department of Media, Music, Communication & Cultural Studies Macquarie University P: (02) 9850 2165 W: http://bit.ly/122QivW L: Y3A 191D

1 0