On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:42 PM, leo waaijers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> No Stevan, I do not miss the point of your pointed questions to Alicia. The
> point is that your questions are too pointed. They disregard Alicia's role.
> Which is, maintaining the subscription model as long as possible. If
> Elsevier succeeds in making a mandate to deposit part of a license,
> institutes implicitly accept that cancellation of the licence would make
> their mandate 'illegal'. So, hocus-pocus, cancellation of the licence is
> harmful to (green) open access. C'est tout. Leo.
Leo, all I can do by way of proving that I too get the point (*all* of
it, including the underlying motivation on Elsevier's part) is to
quote what I've already said, which, amongst other points, says the
same thing you just said:
"...Elsevier's target here is very obviously not author rights at all.
Rather, the clause in question is an attempt to influence
institutions' own policies, with their own research output, by trying
to redefine the author's right to post an article online free for all
as being somehow contingent on institutional research posting policy,
and hence requiring Elsevier's agreement.
"It would seem to me that institutions would do well to refrain from
making any agreement with Elsevier (or even entering into discussion
with Elsevier) about institutional policy -- other than what price
they are willing to pay for what journals *(even if Elsevier reps
attempt to make a quid-pro-quo deal).* [EMPHASIS ADDED]
"And it would seem to me that Elsevier authors should go ahead and
post their accepted author manuscripts in their institutional
repositories, voluntarily, exercising the right that Elsevier has
formally recognized as resting with the author alone since 2004, and
ignore any new clause that contains double-talk trying to make a link
between the author's right to exercise that author right and the
policy of the author's institution on whether or not the author should
exercise that right."
Stevan Harnad
>
>
> On 5/14/2012 1:45 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> On 2012-05-14, at 6:28 AM, leo waaijers wrote:
>
> So, what is the meaning of a mandate then?
>
>
> An institutional mandate is an administrative requirement, like the "publish
> or perish" mandate. It does not co-opt authors' free will, and whether
> authors comply or don't comply, they do it voluntarily (not involuntarily)
> -- and, as you know, especially when the mandate has not been properly
> formulated and implemented, many authors don't comply.
>
> Moreover, as Alma Swan's multinational, multidisciplinary survey shows,
> although most authors don't self-archive spontaneously (partly out of fear
> of publishers), most of them state that they would self-archive if their
> institutions mandated it -- over 80% of them saying they would do so
> "willingly."
>
> Besides, Leo, you seem to be missing the point of my pointed questions to
> Alicia:
>
> The issue is not "free will" versus coercion.
>
> The issue is the self-contradiction between (1) a formal statement that a
> right rests with the author (i.e., does not require seeking the agreement of
> the publisher) yet at the same time (2) stipulating that the right to
> *exercise* that right requires seeking agreement from the publisher!
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
> On 5/14/2012 11:55 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> An author who wishes to comply with an institutional posting mandate
> is posting voluntarily. An author who does not wish to comply with an
> institutional posting mandate refrains from posting, likewise
> voluntarily.
>
>
|