I'm afraid I don't see what is incoherent about Elsevier's policy. It certainly does NOT have the meaning attributed to it by "Dixit," who seems to be the one confused here.
Sandy Thatcher At 8:44 PM -0500 1/10/11, Stevan Harnad wrote: >** Cross-posted ** > >The following query came up on the UKCORR mailing list: > >> I was surprised to read the paragraph below under author's rights > >(http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/copyright##rights) >> "the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the >>> final journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review >>> process) on your personal or institutional web site or server for >>> scholarly purposes, incorporating the complete citation and with a >>> link to the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the article (but not >>> in subject-oriented or centralized repositories or institutional >>> repositories with mandates for systematic postings unless there is >>> a specific agreement with the publisher- see >>> http://www.elsevier.com/fundingbody agreements for further >>> information]);" > >You can't blame Elsevier's Perplexed Permissions Personnel for >trying: After all, if researchers -- clueless and cowed about >copyright -- have already lost nearly two decades of research >access and impact for no reason at all, making it clear that only >if/(when they are required (mandated) by their institutions and >funders will they dare to do what is manifestly in their own best >interests and already fully within their reach, then it's only >natural that those who perceive their own interests to be in >conflict with those of research and researchers will attempt to >see whether they cannot capitalize on researchers' guileless >gullibility, yet again. > >In three words, the above "restrictions" on the green light to >make author's final drafts OA are (1) arbitrary, (2) incoherent, >and (3) unenforceable. They are the rough equivalent of saying: >You have "the right to post a revised personal version of the >text of the final journal article (to reflect changes made in the >peer review process) on your personal or institutional web site >or server for scholarly purposes -- but not if you are required >to do so by your institution or funder." > >They might as well have added "or if you have a blue-eyed uncle >who prefers tea to toast on alternate Tuesdays." > >My own inclination is to say that if researchers prove to be >stupid enough to fall for that, then they deserve everything that >is coming to them (or rather, withheld from them). > >But even I, seasoned cynic that the last 20 years have made me, >don't believe that researchers are quite that stupid -- though I >wouldn't put it past SHERPA/Romeo to go ahead and solemnly >enshrine this latest bit of double-talk in one of its slavish >lists of "General Conditions" on a publisher's otherwise "green" >self-archiving policy, thereby helpfully furnishing an effective >pseudo-official megaphone for every such piece of optimistic >gibberish, no matter how absurd. > >My advice to authors (if, unlike what the sensible computer >scientists and physicists have been doing all along -- namely, >self-archiving without first seeking anyone's blessing for two >decades -- they only durst self-archive if their publishers have >first given them their green light to do so) is that they take >their publishers at their word when they do give them their green >light to do so, and ignore any SHERPA/Romeo tommy-rot they may >try to append to that green light to make it seem as if there is >any rational line that can be drawn between "yes, you may make >your refereed final draft OA" and "no, you may not make your >refereed final draft OA." > >For those who are interested in knowing what is actually >happening, worldwide, insofar as OA self-archiving is concerned, >I recommend reading Peter Suber's stirring 2010 Summary of real >progress rather than the sort of pseudo-legalistic >smoke-screening periodically emitted by Permissions Department >Pundits (whether or not not they are canonized by SHERPA-Romeo): >http://www.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/fos/newsletter/01-02-11.htm#2010 > >Dixit, > >Your Weary and Wizened Archivangelist -- Sanford G. Thatcher 8201 Edgewater Drive Frisco, TX 75034-5514 e-mail: sandy.thatc...@alumni.princeton.edu Phone: (214) 705-1939 Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sanford.thatcher "If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying."-John Ruskin (1865) "The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people who can write know anything."-Walter Bagehot (1853)
