[GOAL] Re: My last post on the Cherubim/Seraphim issue (promise!)

[brentier]

I fully agree.
I was just willing to set the record straight.
Saying it was clear was not a sign of enthusiasm on my part...

Le 3 mai 2013 à 16:08, Michael Eisen  a écrit :

> Back in 2002 when the debates about Gold vs. Green OA began, I and other 
> advocates for developing Gold OA publishing argued that the friendly stance 
> of publishers like Elsevier to self-archiving was a transient state, and that 
> as soon as people started to make appreciable numbers of papers available in 
> IRs - thereby actually threatening publisher revenues - publishers would 
> change their tune. And this is exactly what we're seeing with Elsevier. Yes, 
> their policies now are confusing, but I suspect they won't be for long, and 
> that we'll soon see explicit policies that require embargoes.
> 
> The proper response on the part of instituions is not to sign agreements with 
> Elsevier and other publishers allowing embargoes, but to set a clear mandate 
> for OA with no embargoes. Publishers will have to live with our terms, rather 
> than continuing to demand that we live with theirs.
> 
> 
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 6:08 AM,  wrote:
>> Elsevier's policy is now clear:
>> Accepted author manuscripts (AAM): Immediate posting and dissemination of 
>> AAM’s is allowed to personal websites, to institutional repositories, or to 
>> arXiv. However, if your institution has an open access policy or mandate 
>> that requires you to post, Elsevier requires an agreement to be in place 
>> which respects the journal-specific embargo periods. Click here for a list 
>> of journal specific embargo periods (PDF) and see our funding body 
>> agreements for more details.
>> 
>> 
>> Le 3 mai 2013 à 14:17, Stevan Harnad  a écrit :
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2013-05-03, at 5:02 AM, Andras Holl  wrote:
>>> 
 Though this be madness, yet there is method in it. I think that could be 
 said on Elsevier's OA 
 policy, because of two reasons. Firstly, it quite effectively hinders OA. 
 Secondly, however badly 
 constructed this OA policy is, one can see that from a publisher's 
 perspective, mandates like the
 NIH mandate are threatening. As a side effect, other mandates - which 
 would cover only a tiny
 fraction of the articles, and does not designate a single target 
 repository are also affected,
 regardless that these hardly affect any publishers' profits. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Andras,
>>> 
>>> You are right that the pseudo-legal hedging is a pain.
>>> 
>>> But in point of fact, Elsevier is still just as Green on paper as Springer 
>>> is,
>>> once one realizes that one can ignore all their hedging.
>>> 
>>> It is clear that Elsevier wants to hold onto the good PR it gains them to be
>>> perceived as "Green." That's why they have not, in fact, revoked their
>>> policy since it was adopted in 2004. They have a terrible image problem, 
>>> on all fronts, and this is their only positive face.
>>> 
>>> But it's not just psychology or strategy: The Elsevier policy really does
>>> mean that all Elsevier authors retain their right to provide Green OA,
>>> unembargoed. 
>>> 
>>> Yes, it's a nuisance that Elsevier hedges this with pseudo-legal FUD,
>>> but our job is to make it clear to authors, institutions and funders that
>>> the Elsevier policy does, indeed, formally allow immediate, unembargoed
>>> OA, exactly as Springer policy does, and that the Elsevier hedging is 
>>> empty and can be completely ignored.
>>> 
>>> The real problem here is not Elsevier's double talk: It is the gratuitous
>>> boost that the credibility of Elsevier's hedging has received from the
>>> breath-takingly fatuous and counterproductive Finch/RCUK policy and its
>>> "flow-charts" (which Elsevier has eagerly included in its rights 
>>> documentation).
>>> 
>>> For Elsevier has now got a new "positive face" that it can use for PR:
>>> Elsevier is fully "RCUK-compliant."
>>> 
>>> Please add this to the growing list of the perverse effects of Finch/RCUK...
>>> 
>>> But rest assured that (1) the RCUK's own forced back-pedalling, grudgingly
>>> admitting that Green is just as RCUK-compliant as Gold, together with
>>> (2) HEFCE/RCUK's timely proposal to mandate immediate-deposit as the
>>> precondition for submitting a paper for REF 2020 undoes most of the
>>> damage done by the Finch Report.
>>> 
>>> Stevan
>>> ___
>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Michael Eisen, Ph.D.
> Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
> Associate Professor, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
> University of California, Berkeley
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
___

[GOAL] Re: My last post on the Cherubim/Seraphim issue (promise!)

[Michael Eisen]

Back in 2002 when the debates about Gold vs. Green OA began, I and other
advocates for developing Gold OA publishing argued that the friendly stance
of publishers like Elsevier to self-archiving was a transient state, and
that as soon as people started to make appreciable numbers of papers
available in IRs - thereby actually threatening publisher revenues -
publishers would change their tune. And this is exactly what we're seeing
with Elsevier. Yes, their policies now are confusing, but I suspect they
won't be for long, and that we'll soon see explicit policies that require
embargoes.

The proper response on the part of instituions is not to sign agreements
with Elsevier and other publishers allowing embargoes, but to set a clear
mandate for OA with no embargoes. Publishers will have to live with our
terms, rather than continuing to demand that we live with theirs.


On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 6:08 AM,  wrote:

> Elsevier's policy is now clear:
> *Accepted author manuscripts 
> (AAM)
> *: Immediate posting and dissemination of AAM’s is allowed to personal
> websites, to institutional repositories, or to arXiv. However, if your
> institution has an open access policy or mandate that requires you to post,
> Elsevier requires an agreement to be in place which respects the
> journal-specific embargo periods. Click 
> here
>  for
> a list of journal specific embargo periods (PDF) and see our funding body
> agreements
>  for
> more details.
>
> Le 3 mai 2013 à 14:17, Stevan Harnad  a écrit :
>
>
> On 2013-05-03, at 5:02 AM, Andras Holl  wrote:
>
> Though this be madness, yet there is method in it. I think that could be
> said on Elsevier's OA
> policy, because of two reasons. Firstly, it quite effectively hinders OA.
> Secondly, however badly
> constructed this OA policy is, one can see that from a publisher's
> perspective, mandates like the
>
> NIH mandate are threatening. As a side effect, other mandates - which
> would cover only a tiny
>
> fraction of the articles, and does not designate a single target
> repository are also affected,
>
> regardless that these hardly affect any publishers' profits.
>
>
> Andras,
>
> You are right that the pseudo-legal hedging is a pain.
>
> But in point of fact, Elsevier is still just as Green on paper as Springer
> is,
> once one realizes that one can ignore all their hedging.
>
> It is clear that Elsevier wants to hold onto the good PR it gains them to
> be
> perceived as "Green." That's why they have not, in fact, revoked their
> policy since it was adopted in 
> 2004.
> They have a terrible image problem,
> on all fronts, and this is their only positive face.
>
> But it's not just psychology or strategy: *The Elsevier policy really does
> *
> *mean that all Elsevier authors retain their right to provide Green OA,*
> *unembargoed. *
>
> Yes, it's a nuisance that Elsevier hedges this with pseudo-legal FUD,
> but our job is to make it clear to authors, institutions and funders that
> the Elsevier policy does, indeed, formally allow immediate, unembargoed
> OA, exactly as Springer policy does, and that the Elsevier hedging is
> empty and can be completely ignored.
>
> The real problem here is not Elsevier's double talk: It is *the gratuitous
> *
> *boost that the credibility of Elsevier's hedging has received from the*
> *breath-takingly fatuous and counterproductive Finch/RCUK policy* and its
> "flow-charts" (which Elsevier has eagerly included in its rights
> documentation).
>
> For Elsevier has now got a new "positive face" that it can use for PR:
> Elsevier is fully "*RCUK-compliant*."
>
> Please add this to the growing list of the perverse effects of
> Finch/RCUK...
>
> But rest assured that (1) the RCUK's own forced back-pedalling, grudgingly
> admitting that Green is just as RCUK-compliant as Gold, together with
> (2) HEFCE/RCUK's timely proposal to mandate immediate-deposit as the
> precondition for submitting a paper for REF 2020 undoes most of the
> damage done by the Finch Report.
>
> Stevan
>
> ___
> 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
>
>


-- 
Michael Eisen, Ph.D.
Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Associate Professor, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
University of California, Berkeley
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: My last post on the Cherubim/Seraphim issue (promise!)

[brentier]

Elsevier's policy is now clear:
Accepted author manuscripts (AAM): Immediate posting and dissemination of AAM’s 
is allowed to personal websites, to institutional repositories, or to arXiv. 
However, if your institution has an open access policy or mandate that requires 
you to post, Elsevier requires an agreement to be in place which respects the 
journal-specific embargo periods. Click here for a list of journal specific 
embargo periods (PDF) and see our funding body agreements for more details.


Le 3 mai 2013 à 14:17, Stevan Harnad  a écrit :

> 
> On 2013-05-03, at 5:02 AM, Andras Holl  wrote:
> 
>> Though this be madness, yet there is method in it. I think that could be 
>> said on Elsevier's OA 
>> policy, because of two reasons. Firstly, it quite effectively hinders OA. 
>> Secondly, however badly 
>> constructed this OA policy is, one can see that from a publisher's 
>> perspective, mandates like the
>> NIH mandate are threatening. As a side effect, other mandates - which would 
>> cover only a tiny
>> fraction of the articles, and does not designate a single target repository 
>> are also affected,
>> regardless that these hardly affect any publishers' profits. 
> 
> 
> Andras,
> 
> You are right that the pseudo-legal hedging is a pain.
> 
> But in point of fact, Elsevier is still just as Green on paper as Springer is,
> once one realizes that one can ignore all their hedging.
> 
> It is clear that Elsevier wants to hold onto the good PR it gains them to be
> perceived as "Green." That's why they have not, in fact, revoked their
> policy since it was adopted in 2004. They have a terrible image problem, 
> on all fronts, and this is their only positive face.
> 
> But it's not just psychology or strategy: The Elsevier policy really does
> mean that all Elsevier authors retain their right to provide Green OA,
> unembargoed. 
> 
> Yes, it's a nuisance that Elsevier hedges this with pseudo-legal FUD,
> but our job is to make it clear to authors, institutions and funders that
> the Elsevier policy does, indeed, formally allow immediate, unembargoed
> OA, exactly as Springer policy does, and that the Elsevier hedging is 
> empty and can be completely ignored.
> 
> The real problem here is not Elsevier's double talk: It is the gratuitous
> boost that the credibility of Elsevier's hedging has received from the
> breath-takingly fatuous and counterproductive Finch/RCUK policy and its
> "flow-charts" (which Elsevier has eagerly included in its rights 
> documentation).
> 
> For Elsevier has now got a new "positive face" that it can use for PR:
> Elsevier is fully "RCUK-compliant."
> 
> Please add this to the growing list of the perverse effects of Finch/RCUK...
> 
> But rest assured that (1) the RCUK's own forced back-pedalling, grudgingly
> admitting that Green is just as RCUK-compliant as Gold, together with
> (2) HEFCE/RCUK's timely proposal to mandate immediate-deposit as the
> precondition for submitting a paper for REF 2020 undoes most of the
> damage done by the Finch Report.
> 
> Stevan
> ___
> 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