On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Jan Velterop <velte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Elsevier's (or at least Tom Reller's) response is as expected, though it
> does show an apparent – mistaken IMO – belief in the idea that a 'final'
> manuscript is inferior to the published version of an article. Much
> inferior, actually, given that the published version purports to justify
> the difference in cost to the reader wishing to access the article. My
> experience – though by definition limited, of course – is that the
> difference between final manuscript and published article is mostly minor
> in terms of content, and mainly one of appearance. If we look beyond
> content, there is often a difference in findability, usability (e.g. for
> TDM) and functionality (e.g. links and enhancements). For the professional
> end-user, my contention is that those differences in usability and
> functionality are much more important than any slight differences in
> content (which, if present at all, are mostly of a linguistic nature, not a
> scientific one).
>
> So why don't subscription publishers use that distinction in their
> policies and provide a simple, human-readable-only version freely, on their
> own web sites (findability, transparency as regards usage), while keeping
> the fully functional, machine-readable version for the professional
> scientist (power-user) covered by subscription pay-walls?
>
Just to dispel all doubt, Green OA does not mean embargoed OA.
The ID/OA (immediate-deposit, optional-access) mandate (Liège/HEFCE model)
is just a compromise strategy, to make it possible for all institutions and
funders to adopt an effective, harmonized mandate that is immune to
publisher embargoes.
The length of the allowable OA embargo thus becomes a separate matter. The
automated copy-request Button provides Almost-OA during any embargo. And
universal mandatory ID/OA + the Button hasten the inevitable transitition
to immediate-OA (and then Fair Gold and CC-BY).
If publishers provided immediate read-only access, that would be very nice
-- but it would not diminish the need nor the momentum for immediate Green
OA (just as publishers providing delayed Gold after a year will not
diminish the need or the momentum for immediate Green OA).
It does not take a great deal of thought to realize that if access-denial
is a problem for research, then immediate access is the solution, not
access-delay. That is not a definitional matter. It is common sense.
And no matter how hard one tries to cite Holy Writ (BOAI 2002) by way of
justification, besides the definition of OA having subsequently been
refined, it is also a matter of common sense that Gratis OA (free online
access) is a component of Libre OA (free online access + re-use rights) and
already within reach of institutional and funder Green Gratis OA mandates
(but not yet grasped), beginning with ID/OA .
So over-reaching for Libre instead of grasping Gratis is not the way to get
either of them.
*Stevan Harnad*
> Not quite the same as true open access, clearly. That is, not as good as
> 'gold' (be it supported by APCs or subsidies). But neither is 'green' with
> its fragmented nature, often low functionality (only simple PDFs, no TDM),
> often embargoed, etc. Making a distinction with regard to access on the
> real basis of functionality differences instead of the illusory basis of
> content differences may be a compromise more meaningful for authors on the
> one hand (visibility) and incidental readers outside of academia on the
> other ('ocular' access).
>
> I see 'green' open access as an awkward compromise (providing open access
> while keeping subscriptions in place), and what I'm proposing here would
> take away at least some of that awkwardness (the fragmented nature of
> 'green'). It should not hurt the publisher more than free access to the
> accepted final manuscript in repositories does, which they seem to accept.
>
> Obviously, publishing systems that provide immediate and full open access
> to fully functional versions at the point of publication ('gold') don't
> need this compromise, and are to be preferred.
>
> Some more thoughts on this here:
> http://theparachute.blogspot.nl/2013/12/lo-fun-and-hi-fun.html
>
> Jan Velterop
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com>
> *Subject: **Institutions: Ignore Elsevier Take-Down Notices (and Mandate
> Immediate-Deposit)*
> *Date: *20 December 2013 07:17:37 CET
> *To: *jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
> *Reply-To: *Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com>
>
> Re: http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/19/elsevier/ (Elsevier Take-Down Notice
> to Harvard)
>
> See Exchange on Elsevier Website:
> http://www.elsevier.com/connect/a-comment-on-takedown-notices
>
> *December 17, 2013 at 9:05 pm*
> *Stevan Harnad*: Tom, I wonder if it would be possible to drop the
> double-talk and answer a simple question: Do or do not Elsevier authors
> retain the right to make their peer-reviewed final drafts on their own
> institutional websites immediately, with no embargo? Just a Yes or No,
> please… Stevan
>
> *December 18, 2013 at 2:36 pm*
> *Tom Reller*: Hello Dr. Harnad. I don’t agree with your characterization
> of our explanation here, but nevertheless as requested, there is a simple
> answer to your question – yes. Thank you.
>
> *December 20, 2013*
> *Stevan Harnad:* Tom, thank you. Then I suggest that the institutions of
> Elsevier authors ignore the Elsevier take-down notices (and also adopt an
> immediate-deposit mandate that is immune to all publisher take-down notices
> by requiring immediate deposit, whether or not access to the
> immediate-deposit is made immediately OA)… Stevan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
