*William Gunn* <https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/-/2008076.publicprofile> (Mendeley) wrote:
“[*E]verything you could post publicly and immediately before, you can do so now. There's a NEW category of author manuscript, one which now comes with Elsevier-supplied metadata specifying the license and the embargo expiration date, that is subject to the embargo. The version the author sent to the journal, even post peer-review, can be posted publicly and immediately, which wasn't always the case before…*” Actually in the 2004-2012 <http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3771.html> Elsevier policy it *was* the case: Elsevier authors could post their post-peer-review versions publicly and immediately in their institutional repositories. This was then obfuscated by Elsevier from 2012-2014 <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/961-Some-Quaint-Elsevier-Tergiversation-on-Rights-Retention.html> with double-talk, and now has been formally embargoed in 2015. Elsevier authors can, however, post their post-peer-review versions publicly and immediately on their institutional home page or blog, as well as on Arxiv or RePeC, with an immediate CC-BY-NC-ND license. That does in fact amount to the same thing as the 2004-2012 policy (in fact better, because of the license <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1155-In-Defence-of-Elsevier.html>), but it is embedded in such a smoke-screen of double-talk and ambiguity that most authors and institutional OA policy-makers and repository-managers will be unable to understand and implement it. My main objection is to Elsevier’s smokescreen. This could all be stated and implemented so simply if Elsevier were acting in good faith. But to avoid any risk to itself, Elsevier prefers to keep research access at risk with complicated, confusing edicts.
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
