And then these “researcher driven initiatives" will eventually just get bought out by Elsevier or another big publisher, or lag because they can’t find stable funding.
That is why we need a community-based infrastructure, governed and managed in a distributed way, which will allow researchers to innovate and build their services on top. Some of us are coalescing around an ecosystem that looks like this: 1. Libraries support and manage open content locally (that is actually the mission of a library) 2. Value added networked services are built on top - including peer review and annotation 3. Move subscription funds towards local content management and to support network services 4. Adopt governance principles for this global research infrastructure as recommended in Bilder G, Lin J, Neylon C (2015) Principles for Open Scholarly Infrastructure-v1, retrieved [date], http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1314859 We need to find solutions that are “at scale” if we want to change the system. Best, Kathleen > On Jun 20, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Couture Marc <marc.cout...@teluq.ca> wrote: > > Hi all, > > What’s to conclude from this perplexing answer? > > I did check Elsevier’s policy, in case it had changed overnight... but it > didn’t: manuscripts under embargo still must bear CC licenses allowing > anybody (except the authors, who are bound by the publishing agreement they > have signed) to post them on a non-commercial site (that includes all > institutional repositories, as far as I can see). > > I can just assume that “it wouldn’t really work very well for very long” > means that if it does works (that is, if enough researchers and repository > staff members do what is needed), Elsevier will simply (again) change its > policy, like they did before after mandates became more prevalent. > > Will this cat-and-mouse play ever end? > > Researchers could - and should - be the ones calling the shots, deciding how > and under what conditions their results are made public. Some are already > showing the way ( <>MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from > "openlibhums.org" claiming to be http:/openlibhums.org > <http://openlibhums.org/>, http://episciences.org <http://episciences.org/>, > http://discreteanalysisjournal.com <http://discreteanalysisjournal.com/>, > etc.). > > Marc Couture > > > De : goal-boun...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> > [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>] De la > part de Hersh, Gemma (ELS-CAM) > Envoyé : 20 juin 2017 02:18 > À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Objet : Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND > > Dear Richard > > Elsevier's hosting policy > <https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/hosting> explains how > platforms can host Elsevier content. This includes enabling institutional > repositories to share their employee's or student's accepted manuscripts > publicly after an embargo period, but not beforehand. > > The challenge with the proposal below is that it wouldn’t really work very > well for very long; an embargo period is needed to enable the subscription > model to continue to operate, in the absence of a separate business model. > > Best wishes > > Gemma > > Gemma Hersh > VP, Policy and Communications > Elsevier I 125 London Wall I London I EC2Y 5AS > M: +44 (0) 7855 258 957 I E: g.he...@elsevier.com > <mailto:g.he...@elsevier.com> > Twitter: @gemmahersh > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org <mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > <http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal>
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
