Il 19/09/21 13:10, Peter Patel-Schneider ha scritto:
"In accordance with funding body requirements, Elsevier does
offer alternative open access publishing options. Visit our open access
page for full information."
I did read it, and it says "This journal has an embargo period of 24
months". Of course one can just ignore such abusive requests and archive
anyway under a cc-by license the so-called preprint, which will be 99 %
the same thing, but authors may not know that. Advertising such journals
on this mailing list might be appropriate if the poster explains how to
ignore abusive requests from the publisher.
In the specific case, some exceptions are admitted by the publisher for
Plan S compliance but only to certain authors funded by certain funders.
The result is a very complicated situation
<https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/id/publication/14154> and a very low open
access rate of some 20 % <https://link.lens.org/y11mtZdDtHg>. I don't
mean to single out JWS as particularly egregious: this is typical of
most venues controlled by closed access publishers (including ACM, IEEE
etc.). I only mentioned JWS because it was recently advertised on this
list (and Wiktionary-l).
I don't see any benefit in using Wikimedia properties to advertise
for-profit endeavours which are clearly incompatible with the Wikimedia
mission and values, as well as Wikidata's very reason of existence. The
anti-OA venues usually have enough marketing power to get known without
our help.
Il 19/09/21 13:24, Dan Brickley ha scritto:
> I guess refining policing wiki rules is what some folks do for fun around
> here, so maybe I should switch to listening mode at this point…
Personally I found everyone's contributions to this discussion useful so
far. The most effective policy will be one which enjoys consensus among
researchers and wiki contributors alike.
Federico
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list -- wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wikidata-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
