Exchange with Alicia Wise, Elsevier: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1150-.html
ALICIA WISE, ELSEVIER: Hi Stevan – We continue to permit immediate self-archiving in an author’s institutional repository. This is now true for all institutional repositories, not only those with which we have agreements or those that do not have mandates. You are correct that under our old policy, authors could post anywhere without an embargo if their institution didn’t have a mandate. Our new policy is designed to be consistent and fair for everybody, and we believe it now reflects how the institutional repository landscape has evolved in the last 10+ years. We require embargo periods because for subscription articles, an appropriate amount of time is needed for journals to deliver value to subscribing customers before the manuscript becomes available for free. Libraries understandably will not subscribe if the content is immediately available for free. Our sharing policy now reflects that reality. With kind wishes, Alicia Dr Alicia Wise Director of Access & Policy Elsevier a.w...@elsevier.com @wisealic ————————————————— STEVAN HARNAD Dear Alicia, Unless I am misunderstanding something, your response seems to be a play on words (double-talk). You say Elsevier permits “immediate self-archiving in… all institutional repositories, not only those with which we have agreements or those that do not have mandates.” But “self-archiving” means (and always has meant) Open Access self-archiving. Otherwise it would merely mean “depositing,” for which no one needs (or has ever needed) Elsevier’s permission. Embargoed depositing is not OA self-archiving (and never was). So what is new is not the (unneeded) permission from Elsevier to deposit, but the very new and regressive embargo on making the deposit immediately OA — in other words, an embargo on the immediate self-archiving that Elsevier had been officially permitting since 2004. It is shameful to try to justify this flagrant back-pedalling as being done “to be consistent and fair for everybody”. It was clearly done solely to sustain subscriptions at all costs (to research access, usage and progress). And Elsever should at least admit that, openly (sic). Sincerely, Stevan Harnad On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Kathleen Shearer < m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com> wrote: > Please excuse the cross posting. > > For Immediate Release > Wednesday, May 20, 2015 > > Contact: > Ranit Schmelzer (SPARC) > 202-538-1065 > sparcme...@arl.org > > Katharina Müller (COAR) > 49 551 39-22215 > off...@coar-repositories.org > > ------------- > > *NEW POLICY FROM ELSEVIER IMPEDES OPEN ACCESS AND SHARING* > > *Global coalition of organizations denounce the policy and urge Elsevier > to revise it* > > *Washington, DC and Göttingen, Germany* – Elsevier’s new sharing and > hosting policy > <http://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-updates-its-policies-perspectives-and-services-on-article-sharing> > represents a significant obstacle to the dissemination and use of > research knowledge, and creates unnecessary barriers for Elsevier published > authors in complying with funders’ open access policies, according to an > analysis by the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition > (SPARC) and the Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR). > > “Elsevier’s policy is in direct conflict with the global trend towards > open access and serves only to dilute the benefits of openly sharing > research results,” said Heather Joseph, Executive Director of SPARC and > Kathleen Shearer, Executive Director of COAR, in a joint statement. > “Elsevier claims that the policy advances sharing but in fact, it does the > opposite. We strongly urge Elsevier to revise it.” > > The new stance marks a significant departure from Elsevier’s initial > policy, established in 2004, which allowed authors to self-archive their > final accepted manuscripts of peer-reviewed articles in institutional > repositories without delay. While the stated purpose of the new revision > is, in part, to roll back an ill-conceived 2012 amendment prohibiting > authors at institutions that have adopted campus-wide Open Access policies > from immediate self archiving, the net result of the new policy is that > Elsevier has placed greater restrictions on sharing articles. > > Twenty-three groups today released the following statement in opposition > to the policy: > > “On April 30, 2015, Elsevier announced a new sharing and hosting policy > for Elsevier journal articles. This policy represents a significant > obstacle to the dissemination and use of research knowledge, and creates > unnecessary barriers for Elsevier published authors in complying with > funders’ open access policies. In addition, the policy has been adopted > without any evidence that immediate sharing of articles has a negative > impact on publishers’ subscriptions. > > “Despite the claim by Elsevier that the policy advances sharing, it > actually does the opposite. The policy imposes unacceptably long embargo > periods of up to 48 months for some journals. It also requires authors to > apply a "non-commercial and no derivative works" license for each article > deposited into a repository, greatly inhibiting the re-use value of these > articles. Any delay in the open availability of research articles curtails > scientific progress and places unnecessary constraints on delivering the > benefits of research back to the public. > > “Furthermore, the policy applies to "all articles previously published and > those published in the future" making it even more punitive for both > authors and institutions. This may also lead to articles that are currently > available being suddenly embargoed and inaccessible to readers. > > “As organizations committed to the principle that access to information > advances discovery, accelerates innovation and improves education, we > support the adoption of policies and practices that enable the immediate, > barrier free access to and reuse of scholarly articles. This policy is in > direct conflict with the global trend towards open access and serves only > to dilute the benefits of openly sharing research results. > > “We strongly urge Elsevier to reconsider this policy and we encourage > other organizations and individuals to express their opinions.” > > *The statement is available here > <https://www.coar-repositories.org/activities/advocacy-leadership/petition-against-elseviers-sharing-policy/> > and > we welcome others to show their support by also endorsing it.* > > The statement has been signed by the following groups: > COAR: Confederation of Open Access Repositories > SPARC: Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition > ACRL: Association of College and Research Libraries > ALA: American Library Association > ARL: Association of Research Libraries > Association of Southeastern Research Libraries > Australian Open Access Support Group > IBICT: Brazilian Institute of Information in Science and Technology > CARL: Canadian Association of Research Libraries > CLACSO: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales > COAPI: Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions > Creative Commons > Creative Commons (USA) > EIFL > Electronic Frontier Foundation > Greater Western Library Alliance > LIBER: European Research Library Association > National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences > OpenAIRE > Open Data Hong Kong > Research Libraries UK > SANLiC: South African National Licensing Consortium > University of St Andrews Library > > > SPARC®, the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, is an > international alliance of academic and research libraries working to > correct imbalances in the scholarly publishing system. Developed by the > Association of Research Libraries, SPARC has become a catalyst for change. > Its pragmatic focus is to stimulate the emergence of new scholarly > communication models that expand the dissemination of scholarly research > and reduce financial pressures on libraries. More information can be found > at http://www.sparc.arl.org. > > COAR, the Confederation of Open Access Repositories, is an international > association with over 100 members and partners from five continents > representing universities, research institutions, government research > funders, and others. COAR’s mission is to enhance the visibility and > application of research outputs through a global network of Open Access > digital repositories. COAR brings together the major repository initiatives > in order to align policies and practices and acts as a global voice for the > repository community. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
