Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:29, 13 November 2012

JSTOR v HighBeam

A question: to what extent would having access to JSTOR make HighBeam access unnecessary, and vice versa? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Different databases generally specialize in different areas. JSTOR is particularly good with back-issues of many academic journals. At a quick glance HighBeam seems to have a lot of academic journals, but primarily just the last few years. JSTOR often goes back a few decades. JSTOR doesn't have the newspaper coverage that HighBeam has. Unfortunately, no database has everything. GabrielF (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Free JSTOR content

Since most of the requests for JSTOR access say they now have "no access", I'm not sure everyone is aware that some of their material is available free to the general public through Early Journal Content and the new Register & Read Beta. http://about.jstor.org/news-events/news/register-read-expanding-access-jstor Of course it would be great if a deal could be worked out for more! Cataobh (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in many fields research has advanced so much that the early journals content is of limited use. Certainly anything published prior to 1923 is of extremely limited use in terms of Mesoamerican research -generally only good for a historical overview of ideas in the 19th to early 20th century. Most theories dating from that time are long dead. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If someone needs access to paywalled JSTOR (or other companies such as Elsevier) journal articles, please contact me as I have access through my university's large e-journal collection. Maybe we should have simple request board to facilitate between those who have access to resource (like me) and those who wish to access them for educational purposes (including Misplaced Pages). OhanaUnited 03:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a resource request/exchange board at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. First Light (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple of other possibilities for individual free or cheap access. A few public libraries have it. But also an increasing number of academic libraries are adding alumni to their license, so probably a benefit of alumni association membership. List on the JSTOR site http://about.jstor.org/individuals Cataobh (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the library is also a possibility, especially in the US and Canada. In addition to the public domain content, it does look like the Register & Read program allows for access to more recent material from about 75 journals. Since JSTOR got back to us with the answer that they don't have room for an institutional account of any kind for us (meaning we'd be like a library or university), we're going to have to explore other options. In the meantime, I think the R&R thing is worth giving a spin. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steven, could you say a bit more about the Foundation's negotiations with JSTOR, i.e. when did they say no, is it definitive, and what was their reasoning? SlimVirgin 18:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure. The basic gist is that we have looked at two options: the first was simply contacting JSTOR through their normal sales channels about whether we could acquire any kind of institutional account for a certain number of editors (this would ideally be funded through a grant to us). Their answer to that was that the R&R program was the best they could offer, because they do not provide institutional accounts at this time for "unaffiliated scholars". Basically, we are too unorthodox to fit into their model for a run-of-the-mill institutional account. The alternate option is going directly to a grant-giving organization to fund individual accounts for editors, which would be given out via the process we've started to work up here. That's still a possibility, but nothing has been finalized yet. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Did they say why the Foundation can't have an account the way any public library would? The cost of such a subscription would presumably be based on how many members that library had. While we don't have members, we do have categories of editors (e.g. editors who have written at least one FA, which would be however many are listed here, plus equivalents from other-language Wikipedias).

Limiting access in that way would massively reduce the numbers, in case JSTOR's fear is that a Wikimedia subscription would be like giving access to the whole world. Extending access to anyone who has written one GA would not increase the numbers much, not compared to most public libraries. SlimVirgin 19:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No, their reason was simply that they don't give such institutional accounts to "membership organizations" because of licensing restrictions. In other words, it may not be in their control actually, and is dependent on negotiation with journals. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting. I wonder how they handle public libraries, because they would seem to be membership organizations. So what's the next step, do you think (if there is one), in trying to get this for Wikipedians? SlimVirgin 01:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

So it looks like according to JSTOR, we have two options:

1. People sign up for the Register & Read program and see how it goes, reporting back in short order about whether it actually does provide any free materials beyond what's in the public domain. From the video they have introducing it, it looks like they give you free read-only access to quite a bit, they just prevent you from downloading a PDF unless you pay.
2. We try and figure out a budget for grants to purchase access to individual journals or papers. Asaf is our guy on that front.

It's unfortunate JSTOR is so antiquated in its access and licensing policies, but as Josh and others have pointed out, the likelihood your library can give you free access to JSTOR and a lot more is high. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Steven. Would you have any objection if I were to follow up with JSTOR? The reason I ask is that, just before you and Raul posted your initiative, I had been planning to write to them to ask if they would give us a price to allow access for all Wikipedians with at least one FA (and non-English equivalent).

My thinking was that they might categorize us as a public library or non-profit research institute. If they said yes in theory, and gave us a price (I would have had to come up with the number of eligible accounts, which would have been the tricky part), I was going to put together a small group of Wikipedians to approach the Foundation for a grant to finance this. There was mention of such an approach on one of the mailing lists about a year ago, and so it seemed worth pursuing. SlimVirgin 17:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for Steven, but I think it's a very good idea. If you do go ahead with it, would you please CC me on the email? Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Both are good ideas. If JSTOR can here from more voices besides Foundation staff, they might understand the situation better. I would suggest keep Raul in the loop too though. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I definitely will. It would be good to know something about the proposals so far, so that I don't go over old ground, or step on toes. But if you and Steven can point me in the right direction (who to speak to, or who not to speak to), that would be helpful. My feeling is that it's worth trying, even if it comes to nothing, because JSTOR access for people wanting to produce FAs would be such a huge benefit -- both for quality of articles and editor morale. SlimVirgin 18:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Australia

The bulk of the Australian population is covered by the following institutions which have access to JSTOR:

• State Library of New South Wales
• State Library of Queensland
• State Library of South Australia
• State Library of Victoria - after joining the library for free online a library card is mailed to your Victorian address, and you then have access to JSTOR online from anywhere, 24/7 for a couple of years. Can be done in person for quicker access.

On the assumption that the other libraries work like the Victorian one, most Australians ought to be fine, no need for help from the WMF. Josh Parris 04:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice delivery by User:MessageDeliveryBot

I recommend the use of User:MessageDeliveryBot for delivery of a notice about Misplaced Pages:Requests for JSTOR access to the talk page of each WikiProject listed at Category:Active WikiProjects.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Status update

I wanted to give everyone a status update. We're in talks with Jstor and they seem to be going well. Steven is taking point on that.

Hopefully we'll have something substantive to announce soon. Raul654 (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up: I'm talking with my contact at JSTOR tomorrow and will have an update soon. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey everyone, sorry for the wait. I just wanted to say that I have an agreement for 100 accounts sitting in front of me, which needs to be reviewed by legal here at the WMF. I am hoping we can get this set up before Wikimania. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That's brilliant news, Steven. Thanks for all the work you've put into it. SlimVirgin 18:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic news :) Raul654 (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Very good news - well done! Simon Burchell (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR for Oxford alumni

One year free trial apparently. Pass it on. Johnbod (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to expand on this, alumni access is available to 34 institutions (and potentially more coming) - full list. I hadn't realised there were so many! Andrew Gray (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on that list, Caltech isn't there yet but seems the sort of place that might be a future addition. I'll also poke at the Caltech alumni association to see if they're interested in following up. --joe decker 19:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Site licence

How on earth is a "site licence" supposed to work here? Rd232 00:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It will probably end up looking a lot like the HighBeam accounts did, with large numbers of users being issued credentials for limited time accounts. Raul654 (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Raul is correct. We're still working out the details, but the basic gist is that there will likely be a select number of accounts that get complete free access, just like if you were using your library or university account. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Rd232 19:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Helping other wikipedians for jstor papers

I often used to rely on an user who had jstor access, but then he became inactive. Luckily, I bumped into another user, who had access recently and was gracious to get the papers for me. IMO, after giving JSTOR access, we should some page where wikipedians who do not have request for specific papers (the requester can search jstor via google/jstor search and find specific ones) and members who have access can mail the paper to them. Whose who get free access through this process, should pledge to fulfil requests from others, if they get requests. Thoughts??? --Redtigerxyz 12:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that what we already have at the Resource Exchange? Simon Burchell (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I got JSTOR independently months ago. Just email me if you need something. Try to include a link to the article's JSTOR page or at least the JSTOR number. I need an email because we can't send attachments through the Misplaced Pages mail system. Do not feel that you are imposing or asking a favor, content contributors need resources and we all have to pitch in where needed. Pity about WMF dropping the ball for so long on this. TCO got the Foundation most of what they needed months ago. Those are months we're not getting back.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Status?

So, what's the status with this project? I've got many things on my "to do" list which will have to wait until this is sorted. Is it forthcoming, or should I try to find another way of accessing the articles I need? MeegsC (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Meegs. Sorry this is taking so long. We are going back and forth over the contract still. The reason there are so many particulars to iron out is that, even with free access, we have to negotiate issues of user privacy and data, which is something that the WMF takes very seriously. If you need access urgently, I would check out the resource exchange, but otherwise I expect to have this worked out this week and accounts ready the following week. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work you're putting into it, Steven. SlimVirgin 23:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. There is no such thing as an easy ride when negotiating contractual matters. - Sitush (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I am also curious to learn it. I have also some works ahead where JSTOR will be highly helpful. Any update? --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering if there is any update on the project. It has been a while since the last one (unless I am mistaken!) and it would be great if I could stop bothering our resource request colleagues...--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, no update since July. Is this thing dead in the water? Simon Burchell (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Almost. There was some back-and-forth about the contract, but we've finally got a version both legal teams agreed to. I am just working to get a signature on both ends, and we can start having JSTOR hand out accounts. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Great news—thanks for all the work (I imagine a fair amount) behind the scenes. First Light (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Good work indeed. Since the list has been open several months, how will you determine which editors are still active? I don't so much mean completely left Misplaced Pages, but some people sorta wander away gradually. It would seem a waste to hand out JSTOR access to those who aren't really shoveling in content at present. I say this, of course, out of utter self-interest, since I'm at a miserable 173 on the list, and I would let you cut off the pinky finger of my left hand to get back into JSTOR. Will editors have a certain amount of time to respond to the invitation to accept access? And if they decline, it gets passed on? Cynwolfe (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What JSTOR is going to do, based on my suggestion, is contact the first 100 people. If people don't respond in a reasonable amount of time, then we'll move down the list. If there is anyone truly not very active, my guess is that they won't have time to reply. We didn't set an edit count requirement up front when people first added themselves to the list, so it's not particularly fair to set one now. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That's great, thanks for the update and for all the hard work. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Excellent news! --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Request

Would someone please ping me if and when JSTOR is giving out more accounts? I had completely missed this and being the one who usually notifies the Italian community, I guess they missed it too. Thanks, --Elitre (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think one needs to add themselves to the waiting list.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this to me, but I am afraid I can't find such a list? --Elitre (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Just add yourself to the Signup .Please refer to point 3 in how to get access You will need to sign up here, with access given out in the order of signups. Please sign up even if the 100-person limit has been reached, so that overall interest can be measured and we can get a waitlist started. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)