Hi Danny
This issue has been written about extensively and there have also been studies on this issue. I believe I may have previously consolidated and emailed to you all of the available evidence I am aware of, but I would be happy to do so (again) if helpful. Here is a selection for others that may be interested: Studies * In 2016, The Royal Historical Society in Response to the Stern Review of the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) estimates that true download half-life of a history article is at least 12 years. Read more<http://royalhistsoc.org/response-stern-review-ref/> * In 2014 Phil Davis published a study commissioned by the Association of American Publishers (Overview<http://www.publishers.org/usagestudy/>, Full Study<http://www.publishers.org/_attachments/docs/journalusagehalflife.pdf>) which demonstrates that journal article usage varies widely within and across disciplines, and that only 3% of of journals have half-lives of 12 months or less. Health sciences articles have the shortest median half-life of the journals analyzed, but still more than 50% of health science journals have usage half-lives longer than 24 months. In fields with the longest usage half-lives, including mathematics and the humanities, more than 50% of the journals have usage half-lives longer than 48 months. Articles * Scholarly Kitchen article<http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/12/18/getting-open-access-embargoes-right-rational-policy-must-be-evidence-based/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScholarlyKitchen+%28The+Scholarly+Kitchen%29>, Getting Open Access Embargoes Right: Rational Policy Must Be Evidence-Based * Scholarly Kitchen article, What is the Lifespan of a Research Article<http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/12/18/what-is-the-lifespan-of-a-research-article/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScholarlyKitchen+%28The+Scholarly+Kitchen%29>? * In 2014 the British Academy published a Study on Open Access in the Humanities and Social Sciences (http://www.britac.ac.uk/openaccess/) - shows that article half-lives are likely longer than previously suggested. A 1:2 ratio for embargo period lengths is concluded to be appropriate, but the dividing point should not be STEM:HSS, rather given the actual usage patterns of articles, it should be Medicine (1): HSS, Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry and Life Sciences (2). Suggested embargo lengths are 12 months (Biomedicine) and 24 months (all other fields). Evidence of harm * Journal of Clinical Investigation - went open access with a 0 month embargo in 1996 and lost c. 40% of institutional subscriptions. It blighted the economics of the journal which was forced to return to the subscription model in 2009: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/02/26/end-of-free-access/ * The Annals of Mathematics experiment in green open access was a sobering lesson: libraries cancelled 34% of the subscriptions between 2003 and 2008 when the journal was freely available online. The Annals is one of the very best journals in mathematics and one of the cheapest journals; and so it came as a surprise to many that some of the best- funded libraries in the US had decided to save on the subscription rather than support the experiment in widening access. A mathematics workshop suggested research community support for a 5 year embargo period in this field given that arXiv is also available. See http://www.msri.org/attachments/workshops/587/MSRIfinalreport.pdf * American Journal of Pathology lengthened its embargo period and began working with a commercial publisher because of the negative impact on subscriptions of a 6 month embargo. * Genetics has increased its embargo period from 3, then to 6, then to 12 months because of a negative impact on subscriptions. They have needed to balance a 12 month embargo with the addition of an author payment in order to make this embargo length work - even though they publish in the life sciences. Evidence for the potential effect of embargoes on cancellations * In 2012, was a simple one-question survey by ALPSP: "If the (majority of) content of research journals was freely available within 6 months of publication, would you continue to subscribe?" The results "indicate that only 56% of those subscribing to journals in the STM field would definitely continue to subscribe. In AHSS, this drops to just 35%. " More information is available on the ALPSP site and in embedded links here<http://www.alpsp.org/ebusiness/AboutALPSP/ALPSPStatements/Statementdetails.aspx?ID=407>. This result builds on earlier, more nuanced studies undertaken for ALPSP in 2009 and 2006 and by PRC in 2006. Kind regards Gemma -----Original Message----- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Dr D.A. Kingsley Sent: 20 June 2017 21:18 To: goal@eprints.org Subject: Re: [GOAL] GOAL Digest, Vol 67, Issue 13 *** External email: use caution *** Gemma, Please provide evidence for your statement "an embargo period is needed to enable the subscription model to continue to operate, in the absence of a separate business model² other than it sounds like it *probably* should be true. We all thought cough medicine should work until someone tested it. Danny Dr Danny Kingsley Head, Office of Scholarly Communication Cambridge University LibraryWest Road, CB3 9DR e: da...@cam.ac.uk<mailto:da...@cam.ac.uk> p: 01223 747 437 m: 07711 500 564 t: @dannykay68 w: www.osc.cam.ac.uk<http://www.osc.cam.ac.uk> b: https://unlocking research.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk o: orcid.org/0000-0002-3636-5939 On 20/06/17 07:27, "goal-boun...@eprints.org on behalf of goal-requ...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20goal-requ...@eprints.org>" <goal-boun...@eprints.org on behalf of goal-requ...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20goal-requ...@eprints.org>> wrote: >Send GOAL mailing list submissions to > goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org> > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > goal-requ...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-requ...@eprints.org> > >You can reach the person managing the list at > goal-ow...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-ow...@eprints.org> > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of GOAL digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND > (Hersh, Gemma (ELS-CAM)) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 06:17:46 +0000 >From: "Hersh, Gemma (ELS-CAM)" ><g.he...@elsevier.com<mailto:g.he...@elsevier.com>> >Subject: Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND >To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" ><goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>> >Message-ID: > ><cy4pr08mb2838541601fbd60eecb655fe8f...@cy4pr08mb2838.namprd08.prod.out >lo >ok.com> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >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<mailto:g.he...@elsevier.com%3cmailto:g.he...@elsevier.com>> >Twitter: @gemmahersh > > > > >From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> >[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On >Behalf Of Richard Poynder >Sent: 18 June 2017 14:30 >To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) ><goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>> >Subject: Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND > > >*** External email: use caution *** > > >On a related topic, this poster might be of interest to list members: > >Exploiting Elsevier?s Creative Commons License Requirement to Subvert >Embargo > >"In the last round of author sharing policy revisions, Elsevier created >a labyrinthine title-by-title embargo structure requiring embargoes >from >12-48 months for author sharing via institutional repository (IR), >while permitting immediate sharing via author's personal website or >blog. At the same time, all pre-publication versions are to bear a >Creative Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND) >license. > >"At the time this policy was announced, it was rightly criticized by >many in the scholarly communication community as overly complicated and >unnecessary. However, this CC licensing requirement creates an avenue >for subverting the embargo in the IR to achieve quicker open >distribution of the author's accepted manuscript. > >"In short, authors may post an appropriately licensed copy on their >personal site, at which point we may deposit without embargo in the IR, >not through the license granted in the publication agreement, but >through the CC license on the author's version, which the sharing >policy mandates. This poster will outline this issue, our >experimentation with application, and engage viewers in questions >regarding its potential risks, benefits, and workflows." > >https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/24107 > >? > > >On 18 June 2017 at 12:24, Mittermaier, Bernhard ><b.mitterma...@fz-juelich.de<mailto:b.mitterma...@fz-juelich.de<mailto:b.mitterma...@fz-juelich.de%3cmailto:b.mitterma...@fz-juelich.de>>> > wrote: >Dear colleagues, > >on sharing in file-sharing networks, Creatice Commons explain: > >?Can I share CC-licensed material on file-sharing networks? >Yes. All CC licenses allow redistribution of the unmodified material by >any means, including distribution via file-sharing networks. Note that >file-trading is expressly considered to be noncommercial for purposes >of compliance with the NC licenses. Barter of NC-licensed material for >other items of value is not permitted.? >https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-share-cc-licensed-material-on-fi >le- >sharing-networks > >The ?Elsevier Sharing Rules? say >?CC-BY-NC-ND licensed articles may be shared on non-commercial >platforms only.? >http://help.sciencedirect.com/flare/sdhelp_Left.htm#CSHID=password.htm| >Sta >rtTopic=Content%2Fsharing_pubs.htm|SkinName=svs_SD<http://help.scienced >ire >ct.com/flare/sdhelp_Left.htm#CSHID=password.htm%7CStartTopic=Content%2F >sha >ring_pubs.htm%7CSkinName=svs_SD> > >and again in the table at the bottom of that webpage: ?Public posting >on commercial platforms (e.g., >www.researchgate.net<http://www.researchgate.net<http://www.researchgate.net%3chttp:/www.researchgate.net>>, >www.academia.edu<http://www.academia.edu<http://www.academia.edu%3chttp:/www.academia.edu>>)? > :not allowed > >I?ve been asking Alicia Wise, on what grounds why Elsevier takes that >position. She replied: >?Both ResearchGate & academia.edu<http://academia.edu> use content >commercially to sell advertising & services around the content they >disseminate? and ?Both ResearchGate & >academia.edu<https://t.co/IQgdiiCF1s> are problems in Germany as they >go beyond private use to make NC content publicly available? >(https://twitter.com/wisealic/status/874284792275140609 and >https://twitter.com/wisealic/status/874284916644696066 ) > >My interpretation of the CC licence is that sharing of CC BY-NC-ND >article by commercial platforms is OK as long as they don?t sell the >articles (which they don?t do). >But apart from that - what authors are doing is IMHO definitely not >prohibited because they have no commercial gain whatsoever. > >What do you think? > >Kind regards >Bernhard >########################################### > >Dr. Bernhard Mittermaier >Forschungszentrum J?lich GmbH >Leiter der Zentralbibliothek / Head of the Central Library >52425 J?lich >Tel ++49-2461-613013<tel:+49%202461%20613013> >Fax ++49-2461-616103<tel:+49%202461%20616103> > >Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich >Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498 >Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher >Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Wolfgang Marquardt (Vorsitzender), >Karsten Beneke (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt, >Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt > > >_______________________________________________ >GOAL mailing list >GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org%3cmailto:GOAL@eprints.org>> >http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > >-- >Richard Poynder >www.richardpoynder.co.uk<http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk<http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk%3chttp:/www.richardpoynder.co.uk>> > >________________________________ > >Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, >Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, >Registered in England and Wales. >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was >scrubbed... >URL: >http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20170620/2915 >b45 >5/attachment.html > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >GOAL mailing list >GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> >http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > >End of GOAL Digest, Vol 67, Issue 13 >************************************ _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ________________________________ Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, Registered in England and Wales.
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
