Video: Archives départementales des Haute -Seine

Les archives départementales se mettent à la page… internet –
Les archives départementales ont ouvert leur site internet au début de l’année. Ce nouveau média permet notamment au public de trouver des informations pratiques et également de consulter de nombreux documents en ligne. Le site couvre les archives, les bibliothèques et l’archéologie. Un outil indispensable pour tous les chercheurs chevronnés ou en herbe.

Zur Diskussion um den Elsevier-Boykott und Open Access

Einige Links dazu stellt bereit:

Ergänzend dazu der Beitrag von Giesbert Damaschke:

Auch das Handelsblatt berichtet:

” Nach Einschätzung von Analysten der Bank Exane Paribas haben die Proteste bereits wirtschaftliche Folgen und belasten den Aktienkurs des Mutterhauses Reed Elsevier. […]

Insgesamt sind Journale, die von kommerziellen Verlagen herausgegeben werden, im Schnitt dreimal so teuer wie Fachzeitschriften von Non-Profit-Institutionen wie Universitätsverlagen, zeigen Daten von Bergstrom und Mcaffee. Die beiden Forscher erfassen die Preise von Wissenschaftsverlagen systematisch in einer Datenbank. Elsevier versuchte Hochschulbibliotheken mit juristischen Mitten daran zu hindern, den Forschern die Vertragsdetails zu offenbaren – verlor aber 2009 einen Prozess gegen die Washington State University.”

Zur Intransparenz von Elsevier siehe auch die von mir unter bekanntgemachte Weigerung des Robert-Koch-Instituts die einzelnen Embargoperioden der Elsevier-Zeitschriften offenzulegen, da es sich um ein geheimhaltungsbedürftiges Geschäftsgeheimnis von Elsevier handle!

Greener Journals

Jeffrey Beall is a librarian living in Colorado with high merits in studying predatory Open Access publishers and journals. He is the leading expert in this area.

?s=predatory (first mention of Beall here in 2009)

I have his blog Scholarly Open Access in my feeds and read his new piece on Greener Journals

The publisher’s website boasts bright colors but uses unidiomatic English filled with grammatical errors. […] I cannot understand why any serious researcher would pay to have their scholarly articles published by this ridiculous publisher.

As my own English isn’t much better I cannot see bad English as reason to condemn an OA publisher. But browsing through the journal contents I found an article by a serious scientist, Patrick D. Biber:

He has published in various reputable journals:

What the hell motivates an US Associate professor to publish in such a bogus journal? But looking closer on his publications list it is clear that he has published the article already in 2006:

Biber, P.D. 2006. Measuring the effects of salinity stress in the red mangrove, Rhizophora mangle L., African Journal of Agricultural Research 1(1): 1-4 [pdf]

Curiously enough there isn’t a link under “pdf” like the most other publikations. The African Journal of Agricultural Research is an other Open Access journal which is due its publisher Academic Journals on Beall’s Black list:

Nevertheless Biber’s contribution seems serious because it was cited several times including Elsevier journals – according to Google Scholar.

It is not marked in the article nor in the frontdoor page by Academic Journals that the article is CC-BY but this is indeed the case according to the general statement:

Academic Journal (with contact adresses in Kenia and Lagos) writes on handling fees: Academic Journals is a self supporting organization and does not receive funding from any institution/government. Hence, the operation of the Journal is solely financed by the handling fees received from authors. The handling fees are required to meet operations expenses such as employees’ salaries, internet services, electricity etc. Being an Open Access Publisher, Academic Journals does not receive payment for subscription as the journals are freely accessible over the internet.

Greener Journals (with a contact adress in Lagos) has exact the same wording.

Pure plagiarism or indication of personal connections between the two publishers?

I cannot find any evidence on the websites that it is allowed to the publisher on the ground of a copyright transfer or a contract to re-use the arcticle. (And this would only work under the premise that the publisher of Academic Journals and Greener Journals is the same.)

Now we have to examine if the CC license allows this dubious re-use of an old OA article. It is clear what the intention of Greener Journals is: By copying the PDF from Academic Journals (omitting the date of the acceptance 10, August 2006 and changing the copyright notice) the very small contents of the Greener Journal Archives are enriched by a good article of a serious US scientist.

Obviously this practice is highly misleading and unethical – but it is legal according the CC terms?

As readers of my blog entries will know for me the CC-BY license is the only appropriate license to fulfill the BBB OA definitions. Make all research results CC-BY and the data CC0!

But this only works if the terms of the license are respected. You cannot say “Hey scholars look at this case – this can happen if you make your articles CC-BY!” Thus my aim is to show that the re-use isn’t legal and this sceptical argument isn’t valid. CC-BY is the best way for the progress of science and arts!

First you have to ask if there is a specification on the original website defining the attribution like “By attributing this article according the CC-BY license you have to mention the name of the author, the name of the journal and the following URL”. Read the legal code at

4b If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution (“Attribution Parties”) in Licensor’s copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; (ii) the title of the Work if supplied; (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and (iv) , consistent with Section 3(b), in the case of an Adaptation, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation (e.g., “French translation of the Work by Original Author,” or “Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author”). The credit required by this Section 4 (b) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors. For the avoidance of doubt, You may only use the credit required by this Section for the purpose of attribution in the manner set out above and, by exercising Your rights under this License, You may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of You or Your use of the Work, without the separate, express prior written permission of the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties.

Therefore it is possible to designate the name of the author the journal title and the publisher as “attribution parties”.

I am unaware of any OA CC-BY journal with such a designation. For me it is ethical to mirror a CC-BY article with the standard bibliographic citation like Biber, P.D. 2006. Measuring the effects of salinity stress in the red mangrove, Rhizophora mangle L., African Journal of Agricultural Research 1(1): 1-4 adding the source URL (or DOI – please keep in mind that both publishers doesn’t offer DOIs!). If I have some critical comments on Biber’s work I can reproduce the whole article for reader’s comfort. This is the sense of CC-BY.

As there is no such designation on the Academic journals website there is no license violation by Greener Journals in this regard.

But there are two other violations of the license terms:

1. There is no mentioning of the CC-license in the PDF nor on the abstract page by Greener Journals.

The CC-BY legal code reads: You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the terms of this License. You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform.

2. The original copyright notices are not kept (“keep intact all copyright notices for the Work”, quoted above). For German law see also § 95c UrhG (German Copyright Act).

I cannot image that Professor Biber has made an individual contract with the Lagos company or persons behind Greener Journals allowing them to re-use its 2006 article. Thus one has to conclude that the fraudulent re-use by Greener Journals clearly violates the CC-BY license terms. Violating the CC terms is violation of copyright. It is illegal and this clearly confirms Beall’s judgement on this bogus OA publisher.


CC-BY (URL quoted above). You are free to distribute this blog entry (without the picture below), to build upon or adapt it (especially by meliorating its English) if you distribute it with the following Copyright notice: “(c) Klaus Graf: Greener Journals. In: Archivalia, 2012, Februar 19,” And don’t forget to mention the license URI!

Source: Greener Journals website

Vorsicht bei Schenkungen

Ein ausgezeichneter Beitrag von Peter Hirtle zu einem US-Rechtsstreit:

What lessons can a cultural heritage repository take away from this case? First and foremost, it emphasizes the need to respect and follow the terms in a deed of gift. Sometimes deeds require practices and procedures that are outside of the ordinary, but that just means that our workflows have to be such that anomalous items are consistently identified.

Second, we should make sure that the terms in the deed are as clear as possible. Pearse-Hocker’s Deed of Gift (Exhibit B of the original complaint) states “I hereby also assign and transfer all copyright that I possess to the National Museum of the American Indian, subject only to the conditions which may be specified below.” What conditions were specified below? “I do not, by this gift, transfer copyright in the photographs to the Smithsonian Institution”! Why have a deed with two conflicting sections in it?

In addition, the deed granted to the museum “an irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, license to use, reproduce, display, and publish, in all media, including electronic media and on-line, the photographs for all standard, educational, museum, and archival purposes.” Many would argue that providing copies for non-profit documentaries on PBS is part of the standard educational mission of the museum. Yet this interpretation could be in conflict with the next sentence of the deed, which states that “requests by people or entities outside the Smithsonian to reproduce or publish the photographs shall be directed to the donor.” If the Smithsonian felt that only for-profit uses should be referred to the donor, it should have made this clear in the deed.

Third, this case reminds us that running a repository involves taking risks. We run the risk that users might steal collection material or that dirty documents caked in lead dust or mold might injure staff or patrons. We particularly run risks when we duplicate materials for patrons. It is an essential part of our service, but one that needs to be managed by knowledgeable practice and procedures. One wonders, for example, if the museum may have weakened its own defenses by charging a permission fee that is separate from the cost of making the reproduction. Such fees are designed to generate money for the museum, pure and simple. They are unconnected to “standard, educational, museum, and archival purposes,” and hence could not be supported by even the most generous reading of the license grant in the contract. Could the desire to secure $150 in permission fees have cost the museum almost $50,000 in damages?

Lastly, I would reiterate the point I made in my original post. Since the case against Firelight Media did not get very far, we do not know what its fair use defense might have looked like. I continue to suspect, however, that Firelight, like most of our users, did not really understand the difference between the permission given by the repository and the permission it needed from the copyright owner. And it may not have understood that both were needed for its use of the photographs. The museum’s invoice stated that “[p]ermission is granted for the use of the following imagery, worldwide, all media rights for the life of the project.” By providing only one of the permissions that users need, we may in the end be misleading them.

As with most lawsuits, I suspect that this was a bad experience for everyone except the lawyers. Pearse-Hocker will be lucky if her $40,000 cash payment covers her legal fees in the case. The museum is out that same amount of money, as well as its time and expense in defending itself. Most of all, therefore, this case reminds us about the importance of working with donors so that a disagreement never reaches this stage.

Archives départementales des Alpes-Maritimes auf Wikisource

“Les Archives départementales des Alpes-Maritimes contribuent sur Wikisource depuis janvier 2012 en important et corrigeant un ensemble de visites paroissiales du XVIIIe siècle. Les Archives font intervenir des étudiants en paléographie sur ce projet, coordonnés par Mme Cavalié, directrice adjointe des Archives.

La mise en ligne et correction de ces visites est faite dans le but d’une édition de l’ensemble du corpus.

Wikimédia France coordonne l’aide à ce projet.”
Link zur Wikisource-Seite

Seit wann ist die Chronik der Pseudorektoren der Benediktskapelle zu Dortmund eine neuzeitliche Fälschung?

Dies behaupten die Geschichtsquellen des deutschen Mittelalters:

[29.3.2012: Der Eintrag wurde – ohne Hinweis auf Archivalia – korrigiert, ist aber nicht zitierbar, da sich die URL mit jedem Datenbankupdate ändert!!]

Neuzeitliche Fälschung, angeblich eine Chronik aus Dortmund bis zum Jahr 1391.

Handschriften – Mss.
v. Edd., pp. 495-497

Ausgaben – Edd.
J. Hansen , Chronik der Pseudorektoren der Benediktskapelle zu Dortmund, Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde, 11, 1886, 513-550 mit einem Urkundenanhang

Literatur – Comm.
v. Edd., pp. 493-512

Lorenz, II (1887) 79

R. Sprandel , Fälschungen in der öffentlichen Meinung, in Fälschungen im Mittelalter. Internationaler Kongreß der MGH, 16.-19. Sept. 1986, MGH Schriften , 33/1, 1988, 257

H. J. Mierau , Continuationes: Die Fortsetzungen zu Papst-Kaiser-Chroniken des späten Mittelalters, Die Geschichtsschreibung in Mitteleuropa. Projekte und Forschungsprobleme, cur. J. Wenta, in Subsidia historiographica, 1, Torún 1999, 174

Da man seit Hansen annimmt, dass die Fälschung der Kapellenchronik durch Heinrich von Broke am Ende des 14. Jahrhunderts erfolgte, muss man die beiden jüngsten Titel (Sprandel und Mierau) sichten. Sprandel ist ein für eine Quellenkunde ganz unerheblicher Titel, der es bei einer bloßen Erwähnung des Textes belässt. Was Frau Mierau schreibt, habe ich nicht zur Hand, aber der Schnipsel aus ihrem Aufsatz ist eindeutig: “Heinrich von Broke, der mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit am Ende des 14. Jahrhunderts in Dortmund die Chronik der Pseudorektoren fälschte,”*+Jahrhunderts+in+Dortmund+die+Chronik+der+Pseudorektoren+f%C3%A4lschte%22

Nun habe ich für meine Studien zum Dortmunder Stadtpatron Reinold eine Menge Dortmunder Literatur gesichtet, erinnere mich aber nicht, jemals von einer neuzeitlichen Fälschung gelesen zu haben. Peter Johanek hat dem Text 2006 in “Ferne Welten” mehrere Abschnitte gewidmet, die zu zitieren gewesen wären (S. 45f.). Ebenso Henn im Sammelband Spätmittelalterliche städtische Geschichtsschreibung 2001, S. 50: “Fälschung des ausgehenden 14. Jahrhunderts”. In der Stadtgeschichte/Festschrift 1982: Fälschung um 1380:

Unerlässlich ist die Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse des Editors Hansen in seiner späteren Ausgabe der Dortmunder Chroniken:

Wie eine neuzeitliche Fälschung von den Chroniken Nederhoffs und Westhoffs benutzt worden sein soll, sagen die Geschichtsquellen nicht (Edition Hansen S. 510f.). Was ist mit den von Hansen aufgezeigten Übereinstimmungen der Chronik mit dem Notariatsinstrument von 1381 (S. 502)? Dass die drei vollständigen Handschriften A, B, C, nach denen Hansen edierte, erst der Zeit um 1600 entstammen, ist ja nicht untypisch für die Überlieferung der Dortmunder Historiographie. Hansens Darlegungen sind insgesamt schlüssig, während die Geschichtsquellen den Benutzer verantwortungslos in die Irre führen. Schlimmstenfalls verbreitet er die Falschaussage weiter, aber auch die mögliche Zeitverschwendung durch Prüfung des Unsinns ist nicht zu unterschätzen.