[GOAL] Re: Positive example: Springer
The percentage of OA articles is useful, but no guarantee against double dipping. Subscription publishers set the price. If your normal price increase would be about 5% (well above inflation, but typical in scholarly publishing), but you want to look like you're not double dipping, you can simply increase normal price to 6%, then tell your customers what a great OA deal they are getting with only a 5.2% price increase. Springer is owned by private equity firms and is hardly transparent. A publicly traded corporation like Elsevier has public reporting requirements that don't apply to companies like Springer. That's one of the reasons Elsevier profits tend to be highlighted. Their financial statements are transparent. Another way to look at the .8%: 99.2% of the articles in this journal are published as toll access. The only OA material in the latest volume is the Editor's notes. This piece presents detailed numbers on the journal's publication practices (submissions, rejections, increase in impact factor, innovation in review - considering reviews from prior submissions). There is no mention of open access. Springer is arguably the OA leader among the big traditional publishers. However, looking at this journal, if OA disappeared altogether, it is not clear that they'd even notice. According to Sherpa Romeo, authors in this journal can self-archive both pre-prints and post-prints, with a year's embargo on the post-print. The year's embargo is not optimal, but is a much more realistic solution for access to these articles than waiting for the journal to become OA, along with all back issues, which may never happen. In other words, a year may seem like a long time to wait for access to a post-print, but if the alternative is life of the author plus 70 years to public domain (assuming no further copyright term extensions in the meantime), then a year is not that long in comparison. Conclusion: open access publishing is a good thing, but to achieve the broadest possible access we need archiving, too. best, Heather On May 27, 2015, at 2:18 AM, brent...@ulg.ac.bemailto:brent...@ulg.ac.be brent...@ulg.ac.bemailto:brent...@ulg.ac.be wrote: Eric, What is the significance of 0.8% (83/10,429) ? What useful metrics can you draw from that ? Why would Springer deserve a kudo ? Just for transparency? What's new if it becomes clear that double-dipping means taking underfunded academic institutions for a ride ? Greetings, Bernard _ BernardRentier Hon. Rector, Université de Liège, Belgium Le 27 mai 2015 à 00:53, Éric Archambault eric.archamba...@science-metrix.commailto:eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com a écrit : Dear all Yesterday I was complaining about the fact that journals were not transparent about their gold à la pièce. Here is an example of a positive step in the right direction: http://link.springer.com/journal/10645 Here, one can see clearly what the OA papers are, and one can calculate the proportion of Gold to locked papers. The stats for this journal reveals that 83/10,429 papers are gold à la pièce (aka hybrid). This helps library determine if they are taken for a ride (i.e. with double dipping). I’ll see whether and how Science-Metrix could start monitoring these journals to see how much more they get cited (or less, as this is a hypothesis!) – this would show the golden benefits to scientific publishers. Well, Kudo to Springer! The company should definitely be congratulated for leading the way among the big three, it is the least afraid of embracing OA, the most transparent, and likely to be coming out on top following the transition to OA (which certainly won’t be a simple flip, as Stevan said, rather a Escher impossible-figure, an evolutionarily unstable strategy. As Schumpeter said, these are certainly gales of creative destruction, and let’s hope that more progressive publishers such as Springer destroy the market share of dinosaurs!). Éric Archambault ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.orgmailto:GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.orgmailto: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
[GOAL] In Defence of Elsevier
I beg the OA community to remain reasonable and realistic. *Please don't demand that Elsevier agree to immediate CC-BY. *If Elsevier did that, I could immediately start up a rival free-riding publishing operation and sell all Elsevier articles immediately at cut rate, for any purpose at all that I could get people to pay for. Elsevier could no longer make a penny from selling the content it invested in. CC-BY-NC-ND https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ is enough for now. It allows immediate harvesting for data-mining. The OA movement must stop shooting itself in the foot by over-reaching, insisting on having it all, immediately, thus instead ending up with next to nothing, as now. As I pointed out in a previous posting, *the fact that Elsevier requires all authors to adopt **CC-BY-NC-ND license is a positive step*. Please don't force them to back-pedal! Please read the terms, and reflect. SH Accepted Manuscript http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-posting-policy#accepted-manuscript Authors can share their accepted manuscript: *Immediately * - via their non-commercial personal homepage or blog. - by updating a preprint http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-policies/preprint_lightbox in arXiv or RePEc with the accepted manuscript. - via their research institute or institutional repository for internal institutional uses or as part of an invitation-only research collaboration work-group. - directly by providing copies to their students or to research collaborators for their personal use. - for private scholarly sharing as part of an invitation-only work group on commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement. *After the embargo period * - via non-commercial hosting platforms such as their institutional repository. - via commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement. *In all cases accepted manuscripts should:* - Link to the formal publication via its DOI http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/lightbox-doi. - Bear a CC-BY-NC-ND license – this is easy to do, click here http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/lightbox_attach-a-user-license to find out how. - If aggregated with other manuscripts, for example in a repository or other site, be shared in alignment with our hosting policy http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/hosting. - Not be added to or enhanced in any way to appear more like, or to substitute for, the published journal article. How to attach a user license http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/lightbox_attach-a-user-license Elsevier requires authors posting their accepted manuscript to attach a non-commercial Creative Commons user license (CC-BY-NC-ND). This is easy to do. On your accepted manuscript add the following to the title page, copyright information page, or header /footer: © YEAR, NAME. Licensed under the Creative Commons [insert license details and URL]. For example: © 2015, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ You can also include the license badges available from the Creative Commons website http://creativecommons.org/about/downloads to provide visual recognition. If you are hosting your manuscript as a webpage you will also find the correct HTML code to add to your page On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Kathleen Shearer m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com wrote: (sorry for any cross-posting) In its recently released “Sharing and Hosting Policy FAQ”, Elsevier “recognize(s) that authors want to share and promote their work and increasingly need to comply with their funding body and institution's open access policies.” However there are several aspects of their new policy that severely limit sharing and open access, in particular the lengthy embargo periods imposed in most journals- with about 90% of Elsevier journals http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/121293/external-embargo-list.pdf having embargo periods of 12 months or greater. This is a significant rollback from the original 2004 Elsevier policy which required no embargos for making author’s accepted manuscripts available; and even with the 2012 policy change requiring embargoes only when authors were subject to an OA mandate. With article processing charges (APCs) that can cost as much as $5000 US dollars https://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/open-access/sponsored-articles for publishing in one of Elsevier’s gold open access titles or hybrid journals, this is not a viable option for many researchers around the world. Furthermore, the rationale for lengthy embargo periods is to protect Elsevier’s subscription revenue. We do not believe that scientific, economic and social progress should be hindered in order to protect commercial interests. In addition,
[GOAL] Re: COAR-recting the record
On 2015-05-27, at 12:37 PM, Kathleen Shearer wrote: Elsevier’s new policy also requires that accepted manuscripts posted in open access repositories bear a CC-BY-NC-ND license. This type of license severely limits the re-use potential of publicly funded research. ND restricts the use of derivatives, yet derivative use is fundamental to the way in which scholarly research builds on previous findings, for example by re-using a part of an article (with attribution) in educational material. Comments: Creative Commons has existed for about 10 years. Scholars have been building on previous findings for millenia. In the past few centuries, scholarship has flourished in building on the results of previous findings in a largely All Rights Reserved environment. Education is an important public good, and related to scholarly research. Scholars need education before they can research. However, they are not the same thing. The open movements - open education, open government, open source, open data and open access - each involve different groups with different interests. It is, in my opinion, an error to conflate these movements. For example, commercial use when applied to open education could mean a democratization of knowledge - or a transfer of public goods to private educational institutions that could threaten the public institutions that produce the work in the first place. There are valid scholarly reasons for not allowing derivative and commercial use, including: Third party works. Scholars often use third party works, with permission, in their articles and books. In doing so, they do not acquire copyright; this remains with the original copyright holder. Scholars and scholarly societies noted that the RCUK preference for CC-BY was problematic with respect to third party works: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/openaccess/2014review/ Even if these portions of works have appropriate copyright limitations, if people assume that a CC-BY article or journal means that all the work is CC-BY, this is a problem for the authors. Some of the work included in scholarly journals is by or of research subjects who have their own rights, for example privacy and sometimes copyright. I argue that it is generally not ethical to release such works under terms of blanket downstream commercial and re-use rights. Lessig's blog post on the Chang v. Virgin Mobile case should be required reading for anyone promoting CC licenses for scholarly works: http://www.lessig.org/2007/09/on-the-texas-suit-against-virg/ The CC license site says this about CC-BY: This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, (from:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/) Build upon is the tradition in scholarship (even with All Rights Reserved), and distribute seems fairly obvious for scholars wishing to share their work. However, it is not clear that scholars themselves wish to grant rights to remix and tweak their work. Scholarly careers are built on reputation. A poor downstream remix or tweak can reflect badly on the original scholar. Some scholars are happy to participate in this experiment, but many are not. I am not supporting Elsevier (still participating in the boycott), however I think Elsevier may be closer to the author perspective on this than either COAR or SPARC. best, Heather Morrison ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Dove Medical Press: open access publisher or copyright maximalist?
Dove Medical Press is one open access publisher with an approach to noncommercial that helps to explain the push for the most liberal CC licenses. The use of noncommercial for Dove is clearly intended solely to protect the publisher's financial interests. (Others reasons for using NC licenses are protection of author and research subject rights and the OA status of the works themselves). What is unusual though is that DMP is claiming copyright in hyperlinking. This is one of the most dangerous arguments of copyright maximalists, in my opinion. Imagine if we had to clear copyright every time we cite a work? That's the world of linking-requires-permissions. The Dove commercial re-use PDF is available here: http://www.dovepress.com/cr_data/2013_Terms_for_Dove_website_re_commercial_re-use.pdf I have copied the most pertinent language and added comments in my blogpost, Open Access: current issues in copyright and licensing: http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2015/05/open-access-publishing-current-issues.html This copying is covered by my fair dealing rights to copy portions of texts for purposes of academic research and critique. These rights apply regardless of the licensing status of the original works. Sometimes scholars we need to critique works that the copyright holders actually don't want to share. Fair use / fair dealing needs to be part of the broader discussion on re-use in scholarly works. best, -- Dr. Heather Morrison Assistant Professor École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies University of Ottawa http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/ heather.morri...@uottawa.ca ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: COAR-recting the record
(sorry for any cross-posting) In its recently released “Sharing and Hosting Policy FAQ”, Elsevier “recognize(s) that authors want to share and promote their work and increasingly need to comply with their funding body and institution's open access policies.” However there are several aspects of their new policy that severely limit sharing and open access, in particular the lengthy embargo periods imposed in most journals- with about 90% of Elsevier journals http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/121293/external-embargo-list.pdf having embargo periods of 12 months or greater. This is a significant rollback from the original 2004 Elsevier policy which required no embargos for making author’s accepted manuscripts available; and even with the 2012 policy change requiring embargoes only when authors were subject to an OA mandate. With article processing charges (APCs) that can cost as much as $5000 US dollars https://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/open-access/sponsored-articles for publishing in one of Elsevier’s gold open access titles or hybrid journals, this is not a viable option for many researchers around the world. Furthermore, the rationale for lengthy embargo periods is to protect Elsevier’s subscription revenue. We do not believe that scientific, economic and social progress should be hindered in order to protect commercial interests. In addition, there is currently no evidence that articles made available through OA repositories will lead to cancellations. Elsevier’s new policy also requires that accepted manuscripts posted in open access repositories bear a CC-BY-NC-ND license. This type of license severely limits the re-use potential of publicly funded research. ND restricts the use of derivatives, yet derivative use is fundamental http://oaspa.org/why-cc-by/ to the way in which scholarly research builds on previous findings, for example by re-using a part of an article (with attribution) in educational material. Similarly, this license restricts commercial re-use greatly inhibiting http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/11/16331/0655 the potential impact of the results of research. Elsevier’s Director of Access Policy, Alicia Wise states that they “have received neutral-to-positive responses from research institutions and the wider research community.” Yet, since the “Statement against Elsevier’s sharing policy https://www.coar-repositories.org/activities/advocacy-leadership/petition-against-elseviers-sharing-policy/” was published just one week ago (on Wednesday May 20, 2015), it has been signed by close to 700 organizations and individuals, demonstrating that there is significant opposition to the policy. Elsevier has indicated that they “are always happy to have a dialogue to discuss these, or any other, issues further.” We would like to offer the following concrete recommendations to Elsevier to improve their policy: Elsevier should allow all authors to make their “author’s accepted manuscript” openly available immediately upon acceptance through an OA repository or other open access platform. Elsevier should allow authors to choose the type of open license (from CC-BY to other more restrictive licenses like the CC-BY-NC-ND) they want to attach to the content that they are depositing into an open access platform. Elsevier should not attempt to dictate author’s practices around individual sharing of articles. Individual sharing of journal articles is already a scholarly norm and is protected by fair use and other copyright exceptions. Elsevier cannot, and should not, dictate practices around individual sharing of articles. We strongly encourage Elsevier to revise their policy in order to better align with the interests of the research community. We would also be pleased to meet to discuss these recommendations with Elsevier at any time. Kathleen Shearer, Executive Director, COAR Heather Joseph, Executive Director, SPARC On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) a.w...@elsevier.com mailto:a.w...@elsevier.com wrote: Hello everyone – Just a quick note to draw your attention to our article, posted today in Elsevier Connect and in response to yesterday’s statement by COAR: http://www.elsevier.com/connect/coar-recting-the-record http://www.elsevier.com/connect/coar-recting-the-record. I’ll also append the full text of this response below. You might also be interested in this Library Connect webinar on some of the new institutional repository services we are piloting (http://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/articles/2015-01/webinar-institutional-research-repositories-characteristics-relationships-and-roles http://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/articles/2015-01/webinar-institutional-research-repositories-characteristics-relationships-and-roles) and reading our policies for yourselves: Sharing – http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-posting-policy
[GOAL] More RE: Positive example: Springer ... is the Royal Society a better example?
The Royal Society has had a 'transparent-pricing' policy, since 2012, that accounts for income, from 'author-pays' open access articles, in setting future subscription rates. See: http://royalsocietypublishing.org/librarians/transparent-pricing Dana L. Roth Caltech 1-32 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540 dzr...@library.caltech.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of brent...@ulg.ac.be Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 10:41 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Positive example: Springer Eric, What is the significance of 0.8% (83/10,429) ? What useful metrics can you draw from that ? Why would Springer deserve a kudo ? Just for transparency? What's new if it becomes clear that double-dipping means taking underfunded academic institutions for a ride ? Greetings, Bernard _ BernardRentier Hon. Rector, Université de Liège, Belgium Le 27 mai 2015 à 00:53, Éric Archambault eric.archamba...@science-metrix.commailto:eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com a écrit : Dear all Yesterday I was complaining about the fact that journals were not transparent about their gold à la pièce. Here is an example of a positive step in the right direction: http://link.springer.com/journal/10645 Here, one can see clearly what the OA papers are, and one can calculate the proportion of Gold to locked papers. The stats for this journal reveals that 83/10,429 papers are gold à la pièce (aka hybrid). This helps library determine if they are taken for a ride (i.e. with double dipping). I’ll see whether and how Science-Metrix could start monitoring these journals to see how much more they get cited (or less, as this is a hypothesis!) – this would show the golden benefits to scientific publishers. Well, Kudo to Springer! The company should definitely be congratulated for leading the way among the big three, it is the least afraid of embracing OA, the most transparent, and likely to be coming out on top following the transition to OA (which certainly won’t be a simple flip, as Stevan said, rather a Escher impossible-figure, an evolutionarily unstable strategy. As Schumpeter said, these are certainly gales of creative destruction, and let’s hope that more progressive publishers such as Springer destroy the market share of dinosaurs!). Éric Archambault ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.orgmailto: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
[GOAL] Re: Positive example: Springer
Eric, What is the significance of 0.8% (83/10,429) ? What useful metrics can you draw from that ? Why would Springer deserve a kudo ? Just for transparency? What's new if it becomes clear that double-dipping means taking underfunded academic institutions for a ride ? Greetings, Bernard _ BernardRentier Hon. Rector, Université de Liège, Belgium Le 27 mai 2015 à 00:53, Éric Archambault eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com a écrit : Dear all Yesterday I was complaining about the fact that journals were not transparent about their gold à la pièce. Here is an example of a positive step in the right direction: http://link.springer.com/journal/10645 Here, one can see clearly what the OA papers are, and one can calculate the proportion of Gold to locked papers. The stats for this journal reveals that 83/10,429 papers are gold à la pièce (aka hybrid). This helps library determine if they are taken for a ride (i.e. with double dipping). I’ll see whether and how Science-Metrix could start monitoring these journals to see how much more they get cited (or less, as this is a hypothesis!) – this would show the golden benefits to scientific publishers. Well, Kudo to Springer! The company should definitely be congratulated for leading the way among the big three, it is the least afraid of embracing OA, the most transparent, and likely to be coming out on top following the transition to OA (which certainly won’t be a simple flip, as Stevan said, rather a Escher impossible-figure, an evolutionarily unstable strategy. As Schumpeter said, these are certainly gales of creative destruction, and let’s hope that more progressive publishers such as Springer destroy the market share of dinosaurs!). Éric Archambault ___ 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
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier: Trying to squeeze the virtual genie back into the physical bottle
David Prosser wrote: I remember severn or eight years ago a prominent publisher saying that allo= wing green self-archiving was a massive tactical mistake on the part of pub= lishers. They only allowed it because they believed it would never gain an= y traction. This is why Elsevier is back-paddling furiously and we are tre= ated to the rather sad sight of Alicia Wise trying to promote the back-pedd= ling as a massive move towards fairness and being responsive of the desires= of researchers and research institutions. So both Stevan and David seem to be saying we should be happy with (not supportive of, but happy about) Elsevier's move, since it means that we're (albeit still too slowly) winning the battle for Open Access by following Stevan's prescription (universal gratis, Green first - achieveable with interlocking funder and institutional greeen deposit mandates plus the button). -- Professor Andrew A Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: In Defence of Elsevier
I could rewrite that entire plea substituting CC-BY-NC-ND with posting in institutional repositories with an embargo. Just because you don't care about something does not mean that the rest of the OA community should stop caring about it. To me the use of CC-BY-NC-ND is not a step it in the right direction - it is an explicit effort on the part of publishers like Elsevier to define open access down - to reify a limited license in a way that will be difficult to change in the future. Now - before the use of CC-BY-NC-ND becomes widespread - is the time to stop it. Later will be too late. On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: I beg the OA community to remain reasonable and realistic. *Please don't demand that Elsevier agree to immediate CC-BY. *If Elsevier did that, I could immediately start up a rival free-riding publishing operation and sell all Elsevier articles immediately at cut rate, for any purpose at all that I could get people to pay for. Elsevier could no longer make a penny from selling the content it invested in. CC-BY-NC-ND https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ is enough for now. It allows immediate harvesting for data-mining. The OA movement must stop shooting itself in the foot by over-reaching, insisting on having it all, immediately, thus instead ending up with next to nothing, as now. As I pointed out in a previous posting, *the fact that Elsevier requires all authors to adopt **CC-BY-NC-ND license is a positive step*. Please don't force them to back-pedal! Please read the terms, and reflect. SH Accepted Manuscript http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-posting-policy#accepted-manuscript Authors can share their accepted manuscript: *Immediately * - via their non-commercial personal homepage or blog. - by updating a preprint http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-policies/preprint_lightbox in arXiv or RePEc with the accepted manuscript. - via their research institute or institutional repository for internal institutional uses or as part of an invitation-only research collaboration work-group. - directly by providing copies to their students or to research collaborators for their personal use. - for private scholarly sharing as part of an invitation-only work group on commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement. *After the embargo period * - via non-commercial hosting platforms such as their institutional repository. - via commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement. *In all cases accepted manuscripts should:* - Link to the formal publication via its DOI http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/lightbox-doi. - Bear a CC-BY-NC-ND license – this is easy to do, click here http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/lightbox_attach-a-user-license to find out how. - If aggregated with other manuscripts, for example in a repository or other site, be shared in alignment with our hosting policy http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/hosting. - Not be added to or enhanced in any way to appear more like, or to substitute for, the published journal article. How to attach a user license http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/lightbox_attach-a-user-license Elsevier requires authors posting their accepted manuscript to attach a non-commercial Creative Commons user license (CC-BY-NC-ND). This is easy to do. On your accepted manuscript add the following to the title page, copyright information page, or header /footer: © YEAR, NAME. Licensed under the Creative Commons [insert license details and URL]. For example: © 2015, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ You can also include the license badges available from the Creative Commons website http://creativecommons.org/about/downloads to provide visual recognition. If you are hosting your manuscript as a webpage you will also find the correct HTML code to add to your page On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Kathleen Shearer m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com wrote: (sorry for any cross-posting) In its recently released “Sharing and Hosting Policy FAQ”, Elsevier “recognize(s) that authors want to share and promote their work and increasingly need to comply with their funding body and institution's open access policies.” However there are several aspects of their new policy that severely limit sharing and open access, in particular the lengthy embargo periods imposed in most journals- with about 90% of Elsevier journals http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/121293/external-embargo-list.pdf having embargo periods of 12 months or greater. This is a significant rollback from the original 2004 Elsevier policy
