There is significant publisher investment often overlooked when publishing
costs are mentioned in wooing individuals in academia and other research arenas
to participate in publisher endeavors. What publishers' primary
constituents--authors and editors and researchers (and yes readers) ---want a
The mistake authors make is to 'pay' publishers for their services by
transferring copyright. They should pay with money and get open access. Full
open access, CC-BY.
The reason why they pay is that they want services. Let's call those services
'formal publishing'. They don't need those servic
r to the Archimer success of
80%.
Hélène Bosc
- Original Message -
From: Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:15 PM
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Why should publishers agree to Green OA?
Hi David,
What
Alicia,
What on earth business is it of Elsevier what the arrangements I have with my
funding body or university? You are seriously overreaching in your arrogance
to presume to interfere. You either give me (i.e. all authors) the right to
make a green deposit or you don't. This overweening att
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 11:31 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Why should publishers agree to Green OA?
Laurent makes an important point. OA policies are between the funders or
institutions and the researchers. These agreements come before any agreement
r
h kind wishes,
>
> Alicia
>
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
> Laurent Romary
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:11 AM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Why should publishers agree to
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:15 PM, THE DIRECTOR OF UNIVERSAL ACCESS,
ELSEVIER wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> ** **
>
> What I really liked about the Finch Report is that it points a way forward
> that can enable different stakeholders to work together constructively to
> widen access. Changes would b
boun...@eprints.org] *On
Behalf Of *Garret McMahon
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:27 AM
*To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
*Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Why should publishers agree to Green OA?
Alicia,
This is the first time I've heard mention of Elsevier's Green OA
pol
l Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Why should publishers agree to Green OA?
This definitely makes no sense. Institutions are not going to start negotiating
agreements with all publishers one by one. Does Elsevier have so much man power
left to start negotiating with all i
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Laurent Romary wrote:
> Not that I know. I think the French Research Performing Organizations are
> not planning to put negotiation with editors as a premise to defining their
> own OA policy.
> Laurent
>
>
Well said,
This is not a friendly "win-win" discussion.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:11 AM
>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
>> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Why should publishers agree to Green OA?
>>
>> This definitely makes no sense. Institutions are not going to start
>> negotiating agreements with all publishe
, June 20, 2012 9:11 AM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Why should publishers agree to Green OA?
>
> This definitely makes no sense. Institutions are not going to start
> negotiating agreements with all publishers one by one. Does Elsevier have
20, 2012 9:11 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Why should publishers agree to Green OA?
This definitely makes no sense. Institutions are not going to start negotiating
agreements with all publishers one by one. Does Elsevier have so much man power
left to
-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
Garret McMahon
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:27 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Why should publishers agree to Green OA?
Alicia,
This is the first time I've heard mention of Elsevier's
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:53 AM, The Director Of Universal Access -
(Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) ) wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> ** **
>
> Just a quick point of clarification…. Elsevier doesn’t forbid posting if
> there is a mandate. We ask for an agreement with the institution that has
> the mandate, an
Alicia,
This is the first time I've heard mention of Elsevier's Green OA policy
predicated on an institutional mandate. Up to now, IR deposit of the
author's peer-reviewed accepted draft on acceptance for publication has
been central to funding council policies on OA. Are you saying that deposit
o
This definitely makes no sense. Institutions are not going to start negotiating
agreements with all publishers one by one. Does Elsevier have so much man power
left to start negotiating with all institutions one by one as well. The
corresponding budget could then probably used to reduce subscrip
Hi all,
Just a quick point of clarification Elsevier doesn't forbid posting if
there is a mandate. We ask for an agreement with the institution that has the
mandate, and there is no cost for these agreements. The purpose of these
agreements is to work out a win-win solution to find a way
On 19 Jun 2012, at 22:51, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Jan Velterop wrote:
>
> Given these difficulties and imponderables associated with 'green', I believe
> that 'gold' has a much better chance to lead to a stable open access. And the
> argument that 'green' woul
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Jan Velterop wrote:
> Given these difficulties and imponderables associated with 'green', I
> believe that 'gold' has a much better chance to lead to a stable open
> access. And the argument that 'green' would be cheaper is not
> substantiated. In fact, 'gold' is
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
* is there any *contractual* relationship between a Green-publisher and any
> legal body? Or is Green simply a permission granted unilaterally by
> publishers when they feel like it, and withdrawable when they don't.
>
Green publishers st
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Jan Velterop wrote:
> Peter,
>
> There is no contractual 'green' as far as I am aware. It is just a --
> reluctant -- permission (or less, a lack of explicit prohibition). From a
> publisher's point of view it was for a long time OK to allow 'green' as the
> calcu
Peter,
There is no contractual 'green' as far as I am aware. It is just a -- reluctant
-- permission (or less, a lack of explicit prohibition). From a publisher's
point of view it was for a long time OK to allow 'green' as the calculation was
that it would be chaotic, and no real threat to subs
23 matches
Mail list logo
