RESEARCH ARTICLE
Whose text, whose mining, and to whose benefit?
Christine L. Borgman
Director, Center for Knowledge Infrastructures, 加州大学, 天使们
关键词: 数据, 信息检索, 方法, 出版, 奖学金, 文本
开放访问
杂志
抽象的
引文: Borgman, C. L. (2020). Whose
文本, whose mining, and to whose
benefit? Quantitative Science Studies,
1(3), 993–1000. https://doi.org/10.1162/
qss_a_00053
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00053
通讯作者:
Christine L. Borgman
Christine.Borgman@ucla.edu
Handling Editors:
Loet Leydesdorff, Ismael Rafols,
and Staša Milojević
版权: © 2020 Christine L.
Borgman. Published under a Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 国际的
(抄送 4.0) 执照.
麻省理工学院出版社
Scholarly content has become more difficult to find as information retrieval has devolved from
bespoke systems that exploit disciplinary ontologies to keyword search on generic search
engines. In parallel, more scholarly content is available through open access mechanisms.
These trends have failed to converge in ways that would facilitate text data mining, both for
information retrieval and as a research method for the quantitative social sciences. Scholarly
content has become open to read without becoming open to mine, due both to constraints
by publishers and to lack of attention in scholarly communication. The quantity of available
text has grown faster than has the quality. Academic dossier systems are among the means to
acquire more quality data for mining. Universities, publishers, and private enterprise may be
able to mine these data for strategic purposes, 然而. On the positive front, changes in
copyright may allow more data mining. Privacy, intellectual freedom, and access to knowledge
are at stake. The next frontier of activism in open access scholarship is control over content for
mining as a means to democratize knowledge.
1. 数据, TEXT, AND MINING
Scholarship has become datafied as text, 图片, 声音, 视频, numerical observations, 和别的
forms of intellectual materials meld together as born-digital content. While extant cultural artifacts
such as older books, paper archives, and physical objects are unlikely to be replaced by digital
记录, the scholarly research about those materials will be published as digital objects, 无论
journal articles, 图书, “papers,” videos, data sets, or other entities.
Paradoxically, the proliferation of digital content has made scholarly information harder to
寻找. In the days of print publication, libraries cataloged books meticulously, providing multi-
ple points of entry to authors, titles, subjects, and other bibliographic elements. Variant forms
of author names were cross-referenced and clustered under a curated authority record. 在线的
catalogs, starting in the latter 1970s, offered Boolean search capabilities that exploited these
multiple indexes. Journal articles were described by indexing and abstracting services, 经常
providing extensive subject-analytic metadata drawn from discipline-specific thesauri. 这
我&A services, as they were known, offered elaborate search functions that exploited these
metadata and thesauri. User interfaces were cumbersome, but in the hands of experts, 这些
bibliographic databases could be mined with great scholarly sophistication (Borgman, 2000,
2007, 2015; Borgman, Moghdam, & Corbett, 1984).
Today’s search is dominated by keyword strings, flattening out the rich structure of earlier
digital library systems. Users type a few words into a search engine, leaving the combinatorics
to proprietary algorithms whose rules are known only to the companies that deploy them. 甚至
search engine providers may be hard pressed to explain precisely how any given set of results
我
D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d
F
r
哦
米
H
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
我
r
e
C
t
.
米
我
t
.
/
e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d
我
F
/
/
/
/
1
3
9
9
3
1
8
6
9
8
9
7
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
5
3
p
d
.
/
F
乙
y
G
你
e
s
t
t
哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3
Whose text, whose mining, and to whose benefit?
are retrieved, given the use of machine-learning techniques that adapt continuously to changes in
individual profiles, in auction algorithms that rank results by advertiser payment, and in proprietary
knowledge graphs.
As a result of these and other changes in information retrieval, many scholars are finding
that the best way to mine databases of text and other content with sufficient sophistication is to
write their own algorithms and scripts. Searching databases, web archives, and other digital
content is now known generically as text data mining (TDM), although the search may include
more than text (麦当劳 & 凯莉, 2014). When the content being searched is open, 这些
methods may be known as open content mining (Murray-Rust, Neylon, 等人。, 2010).
TDM requires as much technical sophistication on the part of researchers in the quantitative
social sciences as was required of librarians in earlier days of information retrieval. TDM is
gaining in popularity in the social sciences to model behavior and policy, in the sciences to
extract data from publications, and in the humanities to explore history, 文化, 语言学,
philology, 和更多. Data mining can regain many of the advantages of sophisticated ontol-
ogy-based tools of an earlier era by giving the searcher fine-grained and transparent control
over the search process, at scale.
Open access publishing is a parallel trend, where scholarly publications are available to
readers without charge. A growing proportion of new scholarly articles (and books to a lesser
extent) is publicly available immediately or within a few months of initial release. 原则,
open access publishing should make much more content available for TDM, which in turn,
would facilitate open content mining. 实际上, open access publishing does not appear to be
advancing the scale of TDM. The failure of these two trends to converge is the subject of
this article.
2. OPEN DATA, CLOSED DATA, AND MINABLE DATA
Researchers have sought technical access to proprietary databases of published materials since the
earliest days of online databases in the latter 1970s, yet publishers continue to write contracts with
university libraries based on assumptions of human readership. By the time of Google Books and
the associated author lawsuits, 大约 2005, we learned that publishers wished to restrict “non-
consumptive use” of scholarly content (Duguid, 2007; Leetaru, 2008; Nunberg, 2010).
Throughout this period, the move toward open access to journal articles accelerated, with arXiv
launching in 1991 (Ginsparg, 2011) and PubMed Central in 2000 (PMC Overview, 2018).
Numerous other discipline-specific preprint servers, institutional repositories, and commercial
services designed to distribute or redistribute open access versions of scholarly publications have
been launched since. Concurrently, open access to publications became mandatory or highly
recommended by many funding agencies and universities, in the United States and internationally
(Borgman, 2015; Boulton, Babini, 等人。, 2015; Enserink, 2016; Piwowar, Priem, 等人。, 2018;
Rabesandratana, 2019; Willinsky, 2018).
As a consequence of open science policies and practices, a growing amount of digital content
is available as open access for downloading, whether in open access journals, data archives,
institutional repositories, library catalogs, preprint servers (such as arXiv, SocArXiv, 和
bioRxiv), government databases, 社交媒体, web portals, public agencies, or elsewhere.
Open access to content does not necessarily mean that these data are minable, 然而. In many,
if not most cases, these user interfaces presume a human user who is capable of reading a web
页, searching for content, and selecting individual items for download. The number of records
that may be downloaded for local mining may also be limited. Robots may or may not be allowed
to search open access databases. Scholars and libraries are pressing for greater mining privileges of
Quantitative Science Studies
994
我
D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d
F
r
哦
米
H
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
我
r
e
C
t
.
米
我
t
.
/
e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d
我
F
/
/
/
/
1
3
9
9
3
1
8
6
9
8
9
7
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
5
3
p
d
.
/
F
乙
y
G
你
e
s
t
t
哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3
Whose text, whose mining, and to whose benefit?
journals, 图书, and other intellectual resources (Lammey, 2014; Senseney, Dickson, 等人。, 2018;
Van de Sompel, 2013; Van de Sompel, 罗森塔尔, & 纳尔逊, 2016; 威廉姆斯, 狐狸, 等人。, 2014).
2.1. Open to Read vs. Open to Mine
Open science, in policy and in concept, is intended to improve transparency, accountability, 和
access to knowledge by providing open access to publications, 数据, and software; stewarding
collections of scholarly resources for the long term; and making research data more findable,
accessible, 可互操作, and reusable (FAIR) (Borgman, 2015; Boulton et al., 2015; 欧洲的
Union Publications Office, 2018; Wilkinson, Dumontier, 等人。, 2016). While open science poli-
cies and practices have made great headway in increasing access to publications for reading and
to research data for downloading, making scholarly content available for data mining is rarely a
stated priority. 因此, the scholarly communication paradox: Open access to text for reading may
not yield open access to text for mining.
The scholarly communication paradox can be traced to the early days of the internet and
digital publishing. Activists’ goals for open access to scholarly materials were to democratize
access to knowledge and to limit the role of big publishers to control access to scholarly con-
tent via expensive contracts. Whereas open access proponents viewed digital publishing as a
liberating technology, commercial publishers saw economic efficiencies and new markets
(Borgman, 2007; Harnad, 1991, 1999, 2005; Suber, 2012; Willinsky, 2006).
Conflicts between democratization and publisher control intensified as open access to publi-
cations became the norm. To make articles available free of charge to readers, 商业的
publishers developed new business models that require authors to pay several thousand dollars
(or euros) to make a single article open access. Subscription charges to university libraries
continue, despite these author fees, which has led to new rounds of negotiation between
publishers and universities. Several large countries and university systems recently terminated
contracts with large publishers when talks broke down (Ellis, 2018; 权, 2017; UC and Elsevier,
2019; Yeager, 2018).
The cancellation of publisher contracts has received far more public attention than has the
quieter consolidation of infrastructure for scholarly communication. A small group of large
publishers are consolidating the industry by purchasing smaller publishers and by acquiring tech-
nology and content companies across the spectrum of academic services (Posada & 陈, 2018).
Of particular note is the purchase of open access preprint servers such as SSRN and Bepress by
commercial publishers, rebranding community resources as corporate content. Academic authors
who contributed papers to these repositories as community-based, not-for-profit enterprises are
not happy (Cookson, 2016; Ellis, 2019; 爱思唯尔, 2017; 麦肯齐, 2017; Pike, 2016). 总共, 打开
access is not turning out to be the information commons that was envisioned by its pioneers
(Benkler, 2004; 赫斯 & 奥斯特罗姆, 2007; Kranich, 2004; Lessig, 2001; O’Sullivan, 2008; Reichman,
Dedeurwaerdere, & Uhlir, 2009; Reichman, Uhlir, & Dedeurwaerdere, 2016).
Intellectual property issues abound. Researchers who wish to mine texts, and libraries who have
paid large sums for digital access to published content, often claim that text mining should fall
under fair use protections of copyright. (Legal protections vary by country; “fair use” is a term spe-
cific to U.S. law.) 出版商, 反过来, often claim that their contracts cover only “consumptive use”
by human readers and that universities should pay additional fees for mining access. Complicating
matters further, large text corpora may contain both public domain and copyrighted materials that
are indistinguishable for mining purposes (Baldwin, 2014; Elkin-Koren, 2004; Elkin-Koren &
Fischman-Afori, 2017; 莱文, 2014; Senseney et al., 2018; Wilkin, 2017).
Quantitative Science Studies
995
我
D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d
F
r
哦
米
H
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
我
r
e
C
t
.
米
我
t
.
/
e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d
我
F
/
/
/
/
1
3
9
9
3
1
8
6
9
8
9
7
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
5
3
p
d
.
/
F
乙
y
G
你
e
s
t
t
哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3
Whose text, whose mining, and to whose benefit?
2.2. Mining Quantity vs. Quality
Researchers’ ability to mine text is fraught with complications, above and beyond the intellectual
property and contractual challenges. User interfaces to bibliographic databases provide minimal
mining capabilities and may limit the number of records that can be downloaded. Researchers
report missing records and a general lack of transparency in search results when they attempt to
download files for TDM (Dickson, Senseney, 等人。, 2018; Senseney et al., 2018).
Data quality is another complication for TDM. Original articles typically provide accurate
bibliographic descriptions, and may also include “please cite as” instructions. 然而, ref-
erences to published articles, which are essential for bibliometrics or for integrating content
across databases, are inherently dirty data due to the vagaries of how authors create reference
列表. A bibliography in a journal article is far from the “necessary and sufficient” set of citations
that might be assumed by bibliometric evaluations. 相当, it is often an idiosyncratic list of
familiar sources, compiled based on what is handy when the publication is submitted. Too few
authors are bibliographic purists who verify middle initials, dates, DOIs, and page, 体积,
and issue numbers (Borgman, 2015, 2016). Complicating matters further is the lack of agree-
ment on bibliographic styles. At last count, Zotero offered about 9,500 journal styles for refer-
encing, representing about 2,000 unique bibliographic styles (Zotero Style Repository, 2019).
One way to get cleaner data is to extract them from authors’ curricula vitae, as authors have a
vested interest in providing accurate lists of their own oeuvre. 然而, CVs tend to be closely
held documents in many fields. While some individuals post their CVs on web pages, few are
comprehensive or current. To the extent that authors consistently submit their publications to
institutional repositories, which is also rare, these could become reliable sources for biblio-
graphic data.
2.3. Privacy and Intellectual Freedom
As universities automate academic personnel processes, faculty dossiers become high-quality
sources of bibliographic data. These digital dossiers are typically isolated from the public record
for privacy protection. Individuals can give informed consent for specific uses of specific data,
such as a dossier for hiring or promotion. 原则, bibliographic records could be separated
from confidential review letters, allowing bibliographies to become public records that could be
mined. 在实践中, this opportunity rarely arises, even as an opt-in or opt-out mechanism.
然而, these digital dossiers on academic staff are becoming rich sources to be mined
by universities, publishers, and data analytics companies. When dossiers were paper files,
academic personnel processes were entirely internal to universities. When they became digital
files, a new market arose for data management and mining of these materials. 其中一些
academic analytic companies are independent or privately held; others are among the entities
acquired by major publishers in recent years (Ellis, 2019; Posada & 陈, 2018). Rather than
build their own infrastructure, universities are outsourcing many of their academic personnel
services to these companies. Job applicants submit dossiers to websites, as do those who write
their references. Candidates for tenure and promotion also upload their files to university
portals on these systems. Dossier-hosting services have certain mining rights under their
contracts with universities. 相似地, universities may mine these data for strategic purposes
beyond the personnel action for which they were harvested. As faculty become aware of these
systems and practices, concerns arise about who has access to their dossiers and how the data
can be mined for making decisions about their careers, their departments, and their fields
(Borgman, 2018A; Ellis, 2019).
Quantitative Science Studies
996
我
D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d
F
r
哦
米
H
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
我
r
e
C
t
.
米
我
t
.
/
e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d
我
F
/
/
/
/
1
3
9
9
3
1
8
6
9
8
9
7
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
5
3
p
d
.
/
F
乙
y
G
你
e
s
t
t
哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3
Whose text, whose mining, and to whose benefit?
The emerging academic analytics industry appears to be following the successful business
models of Alphabet/Google, Facebook, and Amazon in aggregating vast amounts of data
about people’s lives. To the consumer, they promote the advantages of improving user experi-
ence with intelligent adaptation. To their business clients and investors, they promote the advan-
tages of predictive analytics that can be deployed to strategic advantage. In the academic
社区, predictive analytics are being used to assess the performance of students and
faculty, departments, 大学, journals, research programs, and much more. The concentra-
tion of data by a few large players gives them a “god’s eye view” of their domains, with minimal
oversight or regulation (Economist, 2017).
A related concern is the ability of publishers to surveil uses of scholarly materials. Ownership of
intellectual property carries a large set of rights and responsibilities, some of which are associated
with privacy protection and intrusion. Corporate owners of scholarly publishing, 媒体, 和
social media content deploy digital rights management (DRM) technologies to track uses and users
in minute detail. These technologies have eroded traditional protections of privacy and intellectual
freedom in libraries and other domains (科恩, 1996; 林奇, 2017).
The ability of publishers and other database companies to surveil the uses of their content
also has implications for intellectual freedom. To submit TDM queries to some of these sys-
特姆斯, researchers may explicitly, or sometimes implicitly, be providing database owners with
their research questions and methods. These constraints are of considerable concern to many
研究人员, who would prefer to search anonymously or to download text for local manipu-
关系 (Dickson et al., 2018). Among the motivations of HathiTrust Digital Library to build a
research center is to facilitate TDM within the constraints of copyright law, with a rich array of
工具 (HathiTrust Digital Library, 2019). Another positive development is a shift in international
copyright law to allow more TDM for scholarly and other purposes, on the grounds that these
constraints would limit the growth of new data-intensive commerce (Samuelson, 2019).
3. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
As scholarly information retrieval has degraded, from customized discipline-specific tools to
generic search engines, TDM becomes researchers’ best option for sophisticated information
retrieval and content analysis. Open access publishing, despite making vastly more scholarly
content available to read online, has not resulted in substantial improvements in open content
矿业. The lack of convergence of TDM and open access is due partly to a lack of foresight by
activists who focused on human readers alone. TDM and robotic searching also democratize
access to knowledge. The larger cause for the lack of convergence is the vested interests of
publishers and other private stakeholders in maintaining control over intellectual property.
These forms of control have proven lucrative, as more uses can be made of bibliographic data
and scholarly materials through mining and combining with other intellectual assets (Posada &
陈, 2018).
Scholarly research with TDM methods, pioneered in the humanities in the 1960s, has benefited
from advances in computation and data science. Researchers have deployed these methods, 独自的
or in combination with other analytical tools, across academe. TDM is among the methods on
which quantitative social sciences depends. The irony is that scholars produce the content that
is valuable to mine, and build many of the tools on which these methods depend, and yet encoun-
ter ever more barriers in their efforts to exploit those texts in new ways. Universities collectively,
and academic authors individually, have led the fight for more open access to knowledge for
读者. University contracts with publishers are changing. Authors have more control over where
Quantitative Science Studies
997
我
D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d
F
r
哦
米
H
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
我
r
e
C
t
.
米
我
t
.
/
e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d
我
F
/
/
/
/
1
3
9
9
3
1
8
6
9
8
9
7
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
5
3
p
d
.
/
F
乙
y
G
你
e
s
t
t
哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3
Whose text, whose mining, and to whose benefit?
they submit their work, and more opportunity to post their work in open access repositories.
Copyright law is allowing more data mining. Now is the time for activism on uses of our scholarly
内容. By enabling TDM on our works, individually and collectively, readers and researchers
can make fuller use of scholarly knowledge. Scholars are overdue in asking, “Whose text, 谁的
矿业, and to whose benefit?”
致谢
This paper is an expanded version of a discussion paper written for Data Mining with Limited
Access Text: National Forum in 2018 (Borgman, 2018乙; Dickson et al., 2018). Thank you to
the organizers of the forum for the invitation, and to Michael Scroggins and Morgan Wofford of
UCLA for comments and discussion on earlier drafts.
COMPETING INTERESTS
The author has no competing interests.
资金信息
No funding was received for this research.
参考
Baldwin, 磷. (2014). The copyright wars: Three centuries of trans-
Atlantic battle. Retrieved from http://press.princeton.edu/titles/
10303.html
Benkler, 是. (2004). Commons-based strategies and the problems of
patents. 科学, 305(5687), 1110–1111. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1100526
Borgman, C. L. (2000). From Gutenberg to the global information
基础设施: Access to information in the networked world.
剑桥, 嘛: 与新闻界.
Borgman, C. L. (2007). Scholarship in the digital age: 信息,
基础设施, and the internet. 剑桥, 嘛: 与新闻界.
Borgman, C. L. (2015). Big data, little data, no data: Scholarship in
the networked world. 剑桥, 嘛: 与新闻界.
Borgman, C. L. (2016). Data citation as a bibliometric oxymoron. 在
C. 右. Sugimoto (埃德。), Theories of informetrics and scholarly
沟通 (PP. 93–115). Retrieved from https://www.degruyter.
com/view/product/379257
Borgman, C. L. (2018A). Open data, grey data, and stewardship:
Universities at the privacy frontier. Berkeley Technology Law
杂志, 33(2), 365–412. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38B56D489
Borgman, C. L. (2018乙). Text data mining from the author’s per-
观望的: Whose text, whose mining, and to whose benefit?
ArXiv:1803.04552 [Cs]. Presented at the National Forum: 数据
Mining Research Using In-copyright and Limited-access Text
数据集, 芝加哥, 伊尔. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04552
Borgman, C. L。, Moghdam, D ., & Corbett, 磷. K. (1984). Effective
online searching: A basic text. 纽约: Marcel Dekker.
Boulton, G。, Babini, D ., 霍德森, S。, 李, J。, Marwala, T。, Musoke,
中号. G. N。, … Wyatt, S. (2015). Open data in a big data world: An in-
ternational accord [Outcome of Science International 2015 会议].
Retrieved from ICSU, IAP, ISSC, TWAS website: https://twas.org/sites/
default/files/open-data-in-big-data-world_ short_en.pdf
科恩, J. 乙. (1996). A right to read anonymously: A closer look at
“copyright management” in cyberspace. Connecticut Law Review,
28, 981–1039.
Cookson, 右. (2016). Elsevier buys research sharing website.
金融时报, 可能 17. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/
content/807f7714-1c48-11e6-b286-cddde55ca122
Dickson, E., Senseney, M。, Namachchivaya, B., & Ludäscher, 乙.
(2018). IMLS National Forum on data mining research using in-
copyright and limited-access text datasets: Discussion paper,
forum statements, and SWOT analyses. Retrieved from https://
www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/100055
Duguid, 磷. (2007). Inheritance and loss? A brief survey of Google
图书. First Monday, 12. Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/
htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1972/1847
Economist. (2017). The world’s most valuable resource is no longer
油, but data, 可能 6. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/
news/ leaders/21721656-data-economy-demands-new-
approach-antitrust-rules-worlds-most-valuable-resource
Elkin-Koren, 氮. (2004). The Internet and copyright policy dis-
课程. 在H. Nissenbaum & 中号. 乙. Price (编辑。), 学院 & 这
互联网 (PP. 252–274). 纽约: Peter Lang.
Elkin-Koren, N。, & Fischman-Afori, 氧. (2017). Rulifying fair use.
亚利桑那州法律评论, 59(1). Retrieved from http://arizonalawreview.
org/rulifying-fair-use/
Ellis, L. (2018). In talks with Elsevier, UCLA reaches for a novel bar-
gaining chip: Its faculty. The Chronicle of Higher Education,
十二月 12. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/arti-
cle/In-Talks-With-Elsevier-UCLA/245311
Ellis, L. (2019). Elsevier’s presence on campuses spans more than
journals. That has some scholars worried. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 四月 3. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.
com/article/Elsevier-s-Presence-on/246048
Quantitative Science Studies
998
我
D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d
F
r
哦
米
H
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
我
r
e
C
t
.
米
我
t
.
/
e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d
我
F
/
/
/
/
1
3
9
9
3
1
8
6
9
8
9
7
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
5
3
p
d
.
/
F
乙
y
G
你
e
s
t
t
哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3
Whose text, whose mining, and to whose benefit?
爱思唯尔. (2017). Elsevier acquires bepress, a leading service provider
used by academic institutions to showcase their research
(八月 2). Retrieved October 28, 2019, 从: https://万维网.
elsevier.com/about/press-releases/corporate/elsevier-acquires-
bepress,-a-leading-service-provider-used-by-academic-institutions-
to-showcase-their-research
Enserink, 中号. (2016). In dramatic statement, European leaders call
for ‘immediate’ open access to all scientific papers by 2020.
科学. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag0577
European Union Publications Office. (2018). Turning FAIR data into
现实: Final report and action plan from the European Commission
expert group on FAIR data, 十一月 26. [网站]. Retrieved
十二月 6, 2018, 来自 https://publications.europa.eu/en/
publication-detail/-/publication/7769a148-f1f6-11e8-9982-
01aa75ed71a1/ language-en/format-PDF
Ginsparg, 磷. (2011). ArXiv at 20. 自然, 476(7359), 145–147.
https://doi.org/10.1038/476145a
Harnad, S. (1991). Post-Gutenberg galaxy: The fourth revolution in
the means of production of knowledge. Public-Access Computer
Systems Review, 2, 39–53. Retrieved from http://www.ecs.soton.
ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad91.postgutenberg.html
Harnad, S. (1999). Free at last: The future of peer-reviewed jour-
nals. D-Lib Magazine, 5(12). Retrieved from http://www.dlib.
org/dlib/december99/12harnad.html
Harnad, S. (2005). The implementation of the Berlin Declaration
on Open Access: Report on the Berlin 3 Meeting held 28
February–1 March 2005, 南安普敦, 英国. D-Lib Magazine,
11(3). Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march05/harnad/
03harnad.html
HathiTrust Digital Library. (2019). Hathi Trust Research Center.
Retrieved November 4, 2019, 来自 https://www.hathitrust.org/htrc
赫斯, C。, & 奥斯特罗姆, 乙. (2007). Understanding knowledge as a commons:
From theory to practice. 剑桥, 嘛: 与新闻界.
Kranich, 氮. (2004). The information commons: A public policy
报告. Retrieved from The Free Expression Policy Project,
Brennan Center for Justice, NYU School of Law website: http://
www.fepproject.org/policyreports/ InformationCommons.pdf
权, D. (2017). Major German Universities cancel Elsevier con-
tracts. The Scientist ( 七月 17). Retrieved from https://www.the-sci-
entist.com/news-analysis/major-german-universities-cancel-else-
vier-contracts-31208
Lammey, 右. (2014). CrossRef’s text and data mining services.
Learned Publishing, 27(4), 245–250. https://doi.org/10.1087/
20140402
Leetaru, K. (2008). Mass book digitization: The deeper story of
Google Books and the Open Content Alliance. First Monday,
13. Retrieved from https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/
view/2101/2037
Lessig, L. (2001). The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a
connected world. 纽约: 兰登书屋.
莱文, 中号. (2014). 版权, open data, and the availability-
usability gap: 挑战, 机会, and approaches for
libraries. 在J. 中号. Ray (埃德。), Research data management: Practical
strategies for information professionals. West Lafayette: Purdue
大学出版社.
林奇, C. (2017). The rise of reading analytics and the emerging
calculus of reader privacy in the digital world. First Monday,
22(4). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v22i4.7414
麦当劳, D ., & 凯莉, U. (2014). Value and benefits of text min-
英. Retrieved July 31, 2018, from Jisc website: http://www.jisc.
ac.uk/reports/value-and-benefits-of-text-mining
麦肯齐, L. (2017). Elsevier makes move into institutional repos-
itories with acquisition of Bepress. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved
来自 https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/08/03/elsevier-
makes-move-institutional-repositories-acquisition-bepress
Murray-Rust, P。, Neylon, C。, Pollock, R。, & Wilbanks, J. (2010).
Panton principles. Retrieved August 30, 2013, from http://
pantonprinciples.org/
Nunberg, G. (2010). Counting on Google Books. The Chronicle
审查, 十二月 16. https://www.chronicle.com/article/
Counting-on-Google-Books/125735
O’Sullivan, 中号. (2008). Creative Commons and contemporary copy-
正确的: A fitting shoe or “a load of old cobblers”? First Monday, 13.
Retrieved from http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.
php/fm/article/view/2087/1919
Pike, G. H. (2016). Elsevier buys SSRN.com: What it means for
scholarly publication (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2963709).
Retrieved from Social Science Research Network website:
https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2963709
Piwowar, H。, Priem, J。, Larivière, 五、, Alperin, J. P。, 马蒂亚斯, L。,
Norlander, B., … Haustein, S. (2018). The state of OA: A large-
scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access ar-
ticles. 同行杂志, 6, e4375. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375
PMC Overview. (2018). Retrieved January 22, 2018, 来自 https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/intro/
Posada, A。, & 陈, G. (2018). Inequality in knowledge produc-
的: The integration of academic infrastructure by big publishers.
In L. Chan & 磷. Mounier (编辑。), ELPUB 2018. https://doi.org/
10.4000/proceedings.elpub.2018.30
Rabesandratana, 时间. (2019). The world debates open-access man-
dates. 科学, 363(6422), 11–12. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.363.6422.11
Reichman, J. H。, Dedeurwaerdere, T。, & Uhlir, 磷. F. (2009).
Designing the microbial research commons: Strategies for acces-
唱歌, managing, and using essential public knowledge assets.
华盛顿, 华盛顿特区: 美国国家科学院出版社.
Reichman, J. H。, Uhlir, 磷. F。, & Dedeurwaerdere, 时间. (2016).
Governing digitally integrated genetic resources, 数据, and liter-
ature: Global intellectual property strategies for a redesigned mi-
crobial research commons. 纽约, 美国: 剑桥
大学出版社.
Samuelson, 磷. (2019). Europe’s Controversial Digital Copyright
Directive Finalized. ACM 通讯, 62(11), 24–27.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3363179
Senseney, M。, Dickson, E., Namachchivaya, B., & Ludäscher, 乙.
(2018). Data mining research with in-copyright and use-limited
text datasets: Preliminary findings from a systematic literature re-
view and stakeholder interviews. International Journal of Digital
Curation, 13, 183–194. https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.620
Suber, 磷. (2012). Open access. 剑桥, 嘛: 与新闻界.
UC and Elsevier. (2019). Retrieved May 6, 2019, from Office of
Scholarly Communication website: https://osc.universityofcali-
fornia.edu/open-access-at-uc/publisher-negotiations/uc-and-
elsevier/
Van de Sompel, H. (2013). From the version of record to a version of
the record. Opening Plenary Session presented at the Coalition for
Networked Information (CNI) 春天 2013 Membership Meeting,
San Antonio, 德克萨斯州.
Van de Sompel, H。, 罗森塔尔, D. S. H。, & 纳尔逊, 中号. L. (2016).
Web Infrastructure to Support e-Journal Preservation (和
更多的). ArXiv:1605.06154 [Cs]. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/
abs/1605.06154
Wilkin, J. 磷. (2017). How large is the “public domain”? A comparative
analysis of Ringer’s 1961 copyright renewal study and HathiTrust
CRMS data. 大学 & Research Libraries, 78(2), 201–218. https://
doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.2.201
Quantitative Science Studies
999
我
D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d
F
r
哦
米
H
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
我
r
e
C
t
.
米
我
t
.
/
e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d
我
F
/
/
/
/
1
3
9
9
3
1
8
6
9
8
9
7
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
5
3
p
d
/
.
F
乙
y
G
你
e
s
t
t
哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3
Whose text, whose mining, and to whose benefit?
Wilkinson, 中号. D ., Dumontier, M。, Aalbersberg, Ij. J。, Appleton, G。, Axton,
M。, Baak, A。, … Mons, 乙. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for
scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data,
3, 160018. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18
威廉姆斯, L. A。, 狐狸, L. M。, Roeder, C。, & 猎人, L. (2014). Negotiating
a text mining license for faculty researchers. 信息技术
and Libraries, 33(3), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v33i3.5485
Willinsky, J. (2006). The access principle: The case for open access
Willinsky, J. (2018). The academic library in the face of cooperative
and commercial paths to open access. Library Trends, 67(2),
196–213. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2018.0033
Yeager, A. (2018). Sweden cancels agreement with Elsevier over
open access. The Scientist, 可能 16. Retrieved from https://
www.the-scientist.com/the-nutshell/sweden-cancels-agreement-
with-elsevier-over-open-access-64405
Zotero Style Repository. (2019). Retrieved January 24, 2018, 从
to research and scholarship. 剑桥, 嘛: 与新闻界.
https://www.zotero.org/styles
我
D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d
F
r
哦
米
H
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
我
r
e
C
t
.
米
我
t
.
/
e
d
你
q
s
s
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d
我
F
/
/
/
/
1
3
9
9
3
1
8
6
9
8
9
7
q
s
s
_
A
_
0
0
0
5
3
p
d
/
.
F
乙
y
G
你
e
s
t
t
哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3
Quantitative Science Studies
1000
