You are here

planet code4lib

Subscribe to planet code4lib feed
Planet Code4Lib - http://planet.code4lib.org
Updated: 3 hours 44 min ago

Code4Lib Journal: Editorial Introduction: Changes on the Editorial Board

Wed, 2015-07-15 14:39
The publication of the 29th issue of the journal brings with it several changes to the editorial board.

Code4Lib Journal: Implementing a Bento-Style Search in LibGuides v2

Wed, 2015-07-15 14:39
The National University of Singapore Libraries converted their LibGuides v2 instance into a research portal and incorporated a “bento box” search interface—that is, an interface where results from multiple systems or categories are compartmentalized by system or category, like a Japanese “bento”-style lunch box—on a trial basis. Our experience shows that building and maintaining a bento box search in LibGuides requires fewer resources than a fully homegrown solution would require. This makes it an attractive platform for building a bento-style search both for libraries who have limited technical resources and libraries who might want to experiment with this kind of search before fully committing. This paper shares the design, implementation and some early usage patterns of our bento search.

Code4Lib Journal: Implementing a Bento-Style Search in LibGuides v2

Wed, 2015-07-15 14:39
The National University of Singapore Libraries converted their LibGuides v2 instance into a research portal and incorporated a “bento box” search interface—that is, an interface where results from multiple systems or categories are compartmentalized by system or category, like a Japanese “bento”-style lunch box—on a trial basis. Our experience shows that building and maintaining a bento box search in LibGuides requires fewer resources than a fully homegrown solution would require. This makes it an attractive platform for building a bento-style search both for libraries who have limited technical resources and libraries who might want to experiment with this kind of search before fully committing. This paper shares the design, implementation and some early usage patterns of our bento search.

Code4Lib Journal: Building a Better Book in the Browser (Using Semantic Web technologies and HTML5)

Wed, 2015-07-15 14:39
The library as place and service continues to be shaped by the legacy of the book. The book itself has evolved in recent years, with various technologies vying to become the next dominant book form. In this article, we discuss the design and development of our prototype software from Montana State University (MSU) Library for presenting books inside of web browsers. The article outlines the contextual background and technological potential for publishing traditional book content through the web using open standards. Our prototype demonstrates the application of HTML5, structured data with RDFa and Schema.org markup, linked data components using JSON-LD, and an API-driven data model. We examine how this open web model impacts discovery, reading analytics, eBook production, and machine-readability for libraries considering how to unite software development and publishing.

Code4Lib Journal: Building a Better Book in the Browser (Using Semantic Web technologies and HTML5)

Wed, 2015-07-15 14:39
The library as place and service continues to be shaped by the legacy of the book. The book itself has evolved in recent years, with various technologies vying to become the next dominant book form. In this article, we discuss the design and development of our prototype software from Montana State University (MSU) Library for presenting books inside of web browsers. The article outlines the contextual background and technological potential for publishing traditional book content through the web using open standards. Our prototype demonstrates the application of HTML5, structured data with RDFa and Schema.org markup, linked data components using JSON-LD, and an API-driven data model. We examine how this open web model impacts discovery, reading analytics, eBook production, and machine-readability for libraries considering how to unite software development and publishing.

Code4Lib Journal: 3D Adaptive Virtual Exhibit for the University of Denver Digital Collections

Wed, 2015-07-15 14:39
While the gaming industry has taken the world by storm with its three-dimensional (3D) user interfaces, current digital collection exhibits presented by museums, historical societies, and libraries are still limited to a two-dimensional (2D) interface display. Why can’t digital collections take advantage of this 3D interface advancement? The prototype discussed in this paper presents to the visitor a 3D virtual exhibit containing a set of digital objects from the University of Denver Libraries’ digital image collections, giving visitors an immersive experience when viewing the collections. In particular, the interface is adaptive to the visitor’s browsing behaviors and alters the selection and display of the objects throughout the exhibit to encourage serendipitous discovery. Social media features were also integrated to allow visitors to share items of interest and to create a sense of virtual community.

Code4Lib Journal: 3D Adaptive Virtual Exhibit for the University of Denver Digital Collections

Wed, 2015-07-15 14:39
While the gaming industry has taken the world by storm with its three-dimensional (3D) user interfaces, current digital collection exhibits presented by museums, historical societies, and libraries are still limited to a two-dimensional (2D) interface display. Why can’t digital collections take advantage of this 3D interface advancement? The prototype discussed in this paper presents to the visitor a 3D virtual exhibit containing a set of digital objects from the University of Denver Libraries’ digital image collections, giving visitors an immersive experience when viewing the collections. In particular, the interface is adaptive to the visitor’s browsing behaviors and alters the selection and display of the objects throughout the exhibit to encourage serendipitous discovery. Social media features were also integrated to allow visitors to share items of interest and to create a sense of virtual community.

Code4Lib Journal: Making User Rights Clear: Adding e-resource License Information in Library Systems

Wed, 2015-07-15 14:39
Libraries sign a wide variety of licensing agreements that specify terms of both access and use of a publisher’s electronic collections. Adding easily accessible licensing information to collections helps ensure that library users comply with these agreements. This article will describe the addition of licensing permissions to resource displays using Mondo [1] by Queen’s University and Scholars Portal (a service of the Ontario Council of University Libraries) [2] . We will give a brief introduction to Mondo and explain how we improved Mondo to add the license permissions to different library systems. The systems we used are an ILS (Voyager), an OpenURL Link Resolver (360 Link), and a Discovery System (Summon). However, libraries can use Mondo to add the license permissions to other library systems which allow user configurations.

Code4Lib Journal: Making User Rights Clear: Adding e-resource License Information in Library Systems

Wed, 2015-07-15 14:39
Libraries sign a wide variety of licensing agreements that specify terms of both access and use of a publisher’s electronic collections. Adding easily accessible licensing information to collections helps ensure that library users comply with these agreements. This article will describe the addition of licensing permissions to resource displays using Mondo [1] by Queen’s University and Scholars Portal (a service of the Ontario Council of University Libraries) [2] . We will give a brief introduction to Mondo and explain how we improved Mondo to add the license permissions to different library systems. The systems we used are an ILS (Voyager), an OpenURL Link Resolver (360 Link), and a Discovery System (Summon). However, libraries can use Mondo to add the license permissions to other library systems which allow user configurations.

Code4Lib Journal: Exploring Information Security and Shared Encrypted Spaces in Libraries

Wed, 2015-07-15 14:39
Libraries are sensitive to the need to protect patron data, but may not take measures to protect the data of the library. However, in an increasingly collaborative online environment, the protection of data is a concern that merits attention. As a follow-up to a new patron privacy policy, the Oakland University William Beaumont Medical Library evaluated information security tools for use in day-to-day operations in an attempt to identify ways to protect private information in communication and shared storage, as well as a means to manage passwords in a collaborative team environment. This article provides an overview of encryption measures, outlines the Medical Library’s evaluation of encryption tools, and reflects on the benefits and challenges in their adoption and use.

Code4Lib Journal: Exploring Information Security and Shared Encrypted Spaces in Libraries

Wed, 2015-07-15 14:39
Libraries are sensitive to the need to protect patron data, but may not take measures to protect the data of the library. However, in an increasingly collaborative online environment, the protection of data is a concern that merits attention. As a follow-up to a new patron privacy policy, the Oakland University William Beaumont Medical Library evaluated information security tools for use in day-to-day operations in an attempt to identify ways to protect private information in communication and shared storage, as well as a means to manage passwords in a collaborative team environment. This article provides an overview of encryption measures, outlines the Medical Library’s evaluation of encryption tools, and reflects on the benefits and challenges in their adoption and use.

Code4Lib Journal: A Novel Open Source Approach to Monitor EZproxy Users’ Activities

Wed, 2015-07-15 14:39
This article describes using Elasticsearch/Logstash/Kibana (ELK) to monitor and visualize EZproxy logs in real time.

Code4Lib Journal: A Novel Open Source Approach to Monitor EZproxy Users’ Activities

Wed, 2015-07-15 14:39
This article describes using Elasticsearch/Logstash/Kibana (ELK) to monitor and visualize EZproxy logs in real time.

Code4Lib Journal: Improving Access to Archival Collections with Automated Entity Extraction

Wed, 2015-07-15 14:39
The complexity and diversity of archival resources make constructing rich metadata records time consuming and expensive, which in turn limits access to these valuable materials. However, significant automation of the metadata creation process would dramatically reduce the cost of providing access points, improve access to individual resources, and establish connections between resources that would otherwise remain unknown. Using a case study at Oregon Health & Science University as a lens to examine the conceptual and technical challenges associated with automated extraction of access points, we discuss using publically accessible API’s to extract entities (i.e. people, places, concepts, etc.) from digital and digitized objects. We describe why Linked Open Data is not well suited for a use case such as ours. We conclude with recommendations about how this method can be used in archives as well as for other library applications.

Code4Lib Journal: Improving Access to Archival Collections with Automated Entity Extraction

Wed, 2015-07-15 14:39
The complexity and diversity of archival resources make constructing rich metadata records time consuming and expensive, which in turn limits access to these valuable materials. However, significant automation of the metadata creation process would dramatically reduce the cost of providing access points, improve access to individual resources, and establish connections between resources that would otherwise remain unknown. Using a case study at Oregon Health & Science University as a lens to examine the conceptual and technical challenges associated with automated extraction of access points, we discuss using publically accessible API’s to extract entities (i.e. people, places, concepts, etc.) from digital and digitized objects. We describe why Linked Open Data is not well suited for a use case such as ours. We conclude with recommendations about how this method can be used in archives as well as for other library applications.

Code4Lib Journal: ­The Geospatial Metadata Manager’s Toolbox: Three Techniques for Maintaining Records

Wed, 2015-07-15 14:39
Managing geospatial metadata records requires a range of techniques. At the University of Idaho Library, we have tens of thousands of records which need to be maintained as well as the addition of new records which need to be normalized and added to the collections. We show a graphical user interface (GUI) tool that was developed to make simple modifications, a simple XSLT that operates on complex metadata, and a Python script with enables parallel processing to make maintenance tasks more efficient. Throughout, we compare these techniques and discuss when they may be useful.

Code4Lib Journal: Barriers to Initiation of Open Source Software Projects in Libraries

Wed, 2015-07-15 14:39
Libraries share a number of core values with the Open Source Software (OSS) movement, suggesting there should be a natural tendency toward library participation in OSS projects. However Dale Askey’s 2008 Code4Lib column entitled “We Love Open Source Software. No, You Can’t Have Our Code,” claims that while libraries are strong proponents of OSS, they are unlikely to actually contribute to OSS projects. He identifies, but does not empirically substantiate, six barriers that he believes contribute to this apparent inconsistency. In this study we empirically investigate not only Askey’s central claim but also the six barriers he proposes. In contrast to Askey’s assertion, we find that initiation of and contribution to OSS projects are, in fact, common practices in libraries. However, we also find that these practices are far from ubiquitous; as Askey suggests, many libraries do have opportunities to initiate OSS projects, but choose not to do so. Further, we find support for only four of Askey’s six OSS barriers. Thus, our results confirm many, but not all, of Askey’s assertions.

Library of Congress: The Signal: Keeping Up With the Joneses: The New Recommended Formats Statement

Wed, 2015-07-15 14:04

The following post is by Ted Westervelt, head of acquisitions and cataloging for U.S. Serials in the Arts, Humanities & Sciences section at the Library of Congress.

Issuing the Recommended Format Specifications

When the Recommended Format Specifications were issued last summer, the Library of Congress was making an attempt to come to grips with the challenges of building a comprehensive collection when the formats in which that content are being created are broad and getting broader. The charge of the Library is to acquire content both broadly and deeply, regardless of geography, subject or format. But it is not enough to merely collect this content. The Library must also manage and preserve that content, so that our patrons may have access to it, both those who use the Library’s collection today and those who will use it in decades and centuries to come.

EBook between paper books by user Maximilian Schönherr via Wikimedia Commons

This charge makes the issue of the formats exceptionally important. This has been true with physical formats, but it becomes even more challenging when the world of digital creation is included. And there is no denying that a major part of any well-rounded and comprehensive collection consists of digital materials. Yet the great advantage of digital content – its flexibility in terms of how it can be created and distributed – is also a potential weakness, as that flexibility can require more resources to ensure that it is preserved and remains accessible.

Therefore, the Library some years back began working on identifying the characteristics of creative works, both physical and digital, which encourage preservation and long-term access. Using an array of staff within the Library who are experts in the business of acquisitions, who understand the needs of our patrons and the technologies of creative works, the Library was able to develop the Recommended Format Specifications.

Goals of the Recommended Formats

The fundamental goal of the Recommended Format Specifications document (PDF) was to provide guidance, both for staff in the Library and for our external stakeholders who share our interest in preservation and long-term access of creative works. For Library staff, the Recommended Formats provide them with lists of characteristics that can help them make an informed decision when it comes to acquiring content for the collection. An acquisitions specialist can determine whether potential acquisitions might need more or fewer resources on the part of the Library to ensure that they remain accessible to patrons as the years go on. Likewise, whether it is a creator, publisher, producer, vendor or archiving institution, the Recommended Formats offer them some informed advice on what they should be using or looking for when creating, managing, distributing or saving creative works. It is not the final word, but the Recommended Formats do provide an educated analysis of the technical aspects of creative works.

In issuing the Recommended Formats, the Library knew that it was not drawing a line under the matter and could leave it there. The business of preservation and long-term access is one beyond the scope of a single institution to manage on its own, especially with the proliferation of digital content in various formats. This is an effort that can only be accomplished by collaboration and cooperation among all the parties that have an interest in ensuring that content lasts and remains accessible. And that common interest extends to anyone or any institution that is involved with creative works, from the person who creates a work, to the publisher or producer who makes it ready for distribution to the vendor who sells it to the individual or institution who wants to keep it. Everyone has a vested interest in ensuring that these works last.

skydivers by user tpsdave via pixabay

Moreover, there can be no disputing that fact that how works are created and the technical characteristics they have are changing all the time. To create a list of the technical characteristics in 2014 and then expect that to remain solid and unchanging would be folly. So, from the start, the Library has been actively committed to getting feedback from those other stakeholders so that it can identify the aspects that need improvement as part of an annual cycle of revisions to the Recommended Formats. By addressing them on a yearly basis, and by actively soliciting the input of others, we increase the likelihood that the Recommended Formats will remain accurate and useful, not merely for the Library but for any other stakeholder who cares about preservation and long-term access.

Updating the Recommended Formats

Almost as soon as the Recommended Formats were issued in June 2014, the Library has been communicating them to others and has made it as clear as possible that their feedback is actively encouraged so that we can make the Recommended Formats the best they can be. And we are very glad to say that we have received a lot of very positive and constructive feedback from across the range of stakeholders.

We were very pleased at the responses from some of the national libraries, such as the National Library of New Zealand, which is going to refer questions on preferred formats to this document, and the British Library, who found the Recommended Formats useful in developing their own guidance for legal deposit submissions. And we are happy that the positive feedback extended beyond the library world, ranging from experts in photography to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

We were just as pleased at the receipt of constructive advice on how the Recommended Formats could be improved. Some of this feedback was very specific. There were some very beneficial revisions to the file formats for Still Images as a result of both internal consultation and feedback from experts in the field. Likewise, the generally supportive response from the RIAA included suggestions on changes to the metadata for Audio Works that we have included.

Screenshot of the new Recommended Formats Statement Still Image Works.

But the best feedback we received is reflected in the layout and presentation. This starts with the new name, the Recommended Formats Statement, which we hope will make it clearer that this document is not technical specifications but a broader guide for a larger pool of users. And we are very pleased to present the statement in a new, tabular layout, suggested by our colleagues at the National Agricultural Library, which we think makes the content clearer and far more accessible. Between that and highlighting the metadata by arranging it in lists, we feel this is a document that, now that we know others are interested in it, will be all the more useful for them and for us.

Welcoming Feedback

But please let us know! This is the 2015-2016 version of the Recommended Formats Statement (PDF), which means that, now that it is done, we are ready to start hearing about what we should do to make next year’s version even more useful, whether that it is in change to the content or improvements to the layout. This is an ongoing process and one in which we actively seek the feedback and participation or our colleagues from throughout the lifecycle of creative works. We hope that together, we can use the Recommended Formats Statement as a good first step to enable us all to enjoy creative works which will last so that future generations can enjoy them tomorrow as much as we do today.

David Rosenthal: Be Careful What You Wish For

Wed, 2015-07-15 11:45
Richard Poynder has a depressing analysis of the state of Open Access entitled HEFCE, Elsevier, the “copy request” button, and the future of open access and Bjoern Brembs has a related analysis entitled What happens to publishers that don’t maximize their profit?. They contrast vividly with the Director Zhang's vision for China's National Science Library., and Rolf Schimmer's description of the Max Planck Institute's plans. I expressed doubt that Schimmer's plan would prevent Elsevier ending up with all the money. Follow me below the fold to see how much less optimistic Brembs and Poynder are than I was.

Brembs starts with this graph, showing that the result of the negotiation between librarians and publishers has been price increases vastly outstripping inflation. This is not unexpected, the negotiation is not between equals:
Given this publisher track record, I think it is quite reasonable to remain somewhat skeptical that in the hypothetical future scenario of the librarian negotiating APCs with publishers, the publisher-librarian partnership will not again be lopsided in the publishers’ favor.We already see this, for example with APC double-dipping. Brembs continues:
So while the currently paid APCs per article (about US$3k) seem comparatively cheap (i.e., compared to currently US$5k for each subscription article), publishers would not be offering them, if that would entail a drop in their profit margins, which currently are on the order of 40%. As speculated before, a large component of current publisher revenue (of about US$10bn annually) appears to be spent on making sure nobody actually reads the articles we write (i.e., paywalls). This probably explains why the legacy subscription publishers today, despite receiving all their raw material for free and getting their quality control (peer-review) also done for free, still only post profit margins under 50%. Given that many non-profit open access organizations post actual publishing costs of under US$100, it is hard to imagine what else other than paywall infrastructure would cost that much, given that the main difference between these journals are the paywalls and not much else. By the way, precisely because the actual publishing process is so cheap, the majority of all open access journals do not even bother to charge any APCs at all. There is something beyond profits that makes subscription access so expensive and any OA scenario would make these costs disappear.But APCs don't merely cover costs and contribute to profits, they are also a signalling mechanism:
It is hence not surprising that also among open access journals, APCs correlate with their standing in the rankings and hence their selectivity. It is reasonable to assume that authors in the future scenario will do the same they are doing now: compete not for the most non-selective journals (i.e., the cheapest), but for the most selective ones (i.e., the most expensive). Why should that change, only because now everybody is free to read the articles? The new publishing model would even exacerbate this pernicious tendency, rather then mitigate it. After all, it is already (wrongly) perceived that the selective journals publish the best science. If APCs become predictors of selectivity because selectivity is expensive, nobody will want to publish in a journal without or with low APCs, as this will carry the stigma of not being able to get published in the expensive/selective journals.And for authors, who do not pay the APCs, high APCs are a feature not a bug:
Moreover, if libraries keep paying the APCs, the ones who so desperately want the Rolls Royce don’t even have to pay the bill. Doesn’t this mean that any publisher who does not shoot for at least US$5k in their average APCs (better more) fails to fulfill their fiduciary duty in not one but two ways: not only will they lose out on potential profit, due to their low APCs, they will also lose market share and prestige. Thus, in this new scenario, if anything, the incentives for price hikes across the board are even higher than what they are today. Isn’t this scenario a perfect storm for runaway hyperinflation?Poynder points out that the big beneficiaries of Open Access are the big publishers:
And to the chagrin of OA advocates, much of the revenue generated by APCs is currently being sucked up by traditional publishers like Elsevier and Wiley, especially through the use of hybrid OA.

In reviewing the figures for 2013-2014, for instance, Wellcome’s Robert Kiley reported that Elsevier and Wiley “represent some 40% of our total APC spend, and are responsible for 35% of all Trust-funded papers published under the APC model.” (74% of the papers concerned were published as hybrid OA).

The story is similar at RCUK. As the Times Higher noted in April: “Publishers Elsevier and Wiley have each received about £2 million in article processing charges from 55 institutions as a result of RCUK’s open access policy.” In total RCUK paid out £10m, which is in addition to the subscription fees universities are already paying.It is clear that hybrid open access, in which authors pay for their paper to eventually be made open access in a subscription journal, is the publisher's way of subverting the open access movement:
  • Hybrid is not gold open access, because the journal is not open access and nor is the paper for the initial period, the most valuable period to the publisher. Years ago, Highwire Press introduced the "moving wall', by which publishers of subscription journals made all papers open access after 6 or 12 months. Enabling this did not significantly impair the publishers' business. So there are no costs associated with the APC charge in a hybrid journal.
  • Hybrid is not green open access, in which open access comes from a self-archived version of the paper in an institutional repository or the author's web-site. Publishers insist that the author transfer copyright to them, and use their (alleged) ownership of the copyright to require that the paper not be open access for an embargo period.
  • Hybrid is a way to kill off institutional repositories. Since open access from the publisher after the embargo expires satisfies the funder's mandate, there is no incentive for authors to deposit their work in an institutional repository. And those public-spirited authors who take the trouble to deposit their work in their institution's repository are likely to find that it has been outsourced to, wait for it, Elsevier! The pernicious Judy Russell, Dean of Libraries at the University of Florida, is spearheading this surrender to the big publishers.
Imagine how easy readers will find it to obtain copies of papers from an author's Elsevier-run institutional repository rather than from the Elsevier journal in which they were published.

Poynder analyses at length the attempt to fix the problem of hybrid journals and their embargo periods via the "copy request" button, and concludes that it doesn't work because authors don't respond to requests. More important, the legality of the button is unclear, so university lawyers won't agree to its implementation. Again, since Elsevier is likely to be running the repository, the button won't be implemented even if the University's lawyers agree.

Poynder and Brembs both argue that APCs are a major contributor to the problems of open access. Poynder writes:
in pioneering use of article-processing charges PLOS (along with fellow OA publisher BioMed Central) created the enabling environment that has allowed subscription publishers to appropriate gold open access. As such, we can expect the current oligopoly to continue to dominate scholarly publishing, and in an undesirable way.As I see it, the fundamental problem is not APCs as such, it is what the APCs buy. Submitting an article to a subscription journal was an understandable transaction. The author gave the publisher something of value that they (arguably) owned, namely the copyright on their work, and received in lieu of money the valuable service of having their work published. But paying an APC to a hybrid journal is not an understandable transaction. The author gives the publisher the copyright on their work, and the author's institution gives the publisher money to cover the costs of publication. The publisher gets both the copyright and the money. This is not equitable.

Transfer of copyright to the publisher is the problem. The transfer is not necessary for publication; all the publisher needs is a non-exclusive license to publish. Suppose copyright transfer when an APC was paid transferred copyright to the payer, the author's institution. Publishers could choose what they wanted from papers subject to an open access mandate:
  • They could have the copyright, and use it to enforce an embargo.
  • Or they could have the money and be unable to enforce an embargo.
Libraries could acquiesce in an embargo for content they had not paid to have published, or enforce immediate open access for content whose copyright they unquestionably owned. This would not require any action from the publisher. Authors have to ask their library to pay the APC. Libraries would simply make the form for doing so transfer copyright to the institution in those cases, such as papers by staff, where they didn't already own it as a work for hire. Then the library would pay the APC, retain copyright, and deposit the paper in their institutional repository as open access.

Publishers might (and do) argue that their systems are incapable of publishing material whose copyright they don't own. This cannot be true. If it were, they would be unable to publish any work by employees of the US Federal government. Work by officers and employees of the government as part of their official duties is "a work of the United States government" and, as such, is not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law. So, inside the US there is no copyright to transfer, and outside the US the copyright is owned by the US government, not by the employee. It is easy to find papers that apparently violate this, such as James Hansen et al's Global Temperature Change. It carries the statement "© 2006 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA" and states Hansen's affiliation as "National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies".

The HighWire Press "moving wall" experience shows that what hybrid publishers are offering, open access after an embargo, costs them little or nothing. Paying them both with the APC and the copyright for something that costs them very little is unjustifiable, and explains why hybrid publication is so popular with publishers. Equally, the experience shows that the delay from an embargo removes most of the value of eventual open access, so paying for publication with the copyright is adequate.

Brembs graph supports my skepticism that librarians are capable of doing anything that might annoy the big publishers. So an alternative, more radical suggestion is for research funders to make clear in their research grants that papers reporting the result of their funding are works for hire and that the copyright in them thus belongs to the research funders and not to the authors or their institutions. This is hardly innovative, I recently agreed just such a provision in respect of work at Stanford funded by a major foundation.

Postscript.

You may have noticed that I write that publishers "allegedly" own the copyright of the papers. They certainly claim that they own the copyright, but is this claim factually correct? Not in at least one personal example that still rankles. This screen-grab shows ACM claiming to own the copyright on the version of Keeping bits safe: how hard can it be? that appeared in CACM in November 2010.

Contrast this with the statement on the same paper as it earlier appeared in ACM Queue. ACM's claim to own the copyright in this case is false; I never signed a copyright transfer. It is more than four years since I notified them of this problem and was promised it would be fixed, but it still isn't. I wonder what would happen if I sent ACM a DMCA takedown for the CACM version?

I'm not the only person who believes that the publisher's claims to own the copyright on the papers they publish is shaky. Cory Doctorow has argued, as I do, that in many cases the person signing the transfer does not in fact own the copyright, so the transfer they signed is not valid. I am staff at Stanford, so anything I write on Stanford's time is a work for hire. But I was only half-time, and I wrote Keeping bits safe: how hard can it be? on my own time. So ACM Queue's statement is correct, and CACM's is false.

Pages