Hi Lorna
This is very interesting. A lot of publishers who publish on behalf of societies claim that they are constrained by those societies and imply that they (the publisher) cannot be as radical as they would like. It is good to have evidence of a publisher essentially imposing a new, restrictive policy on the society without any consultation!
Best wishes
David
David C Prosser PhD
Executive Director, RLUK
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7862 8436
Mob: +44 (0) 7825 454586
www.rluk.ac.uk
RLUK Twitter feed: RL_UK
Director's Twitter feed: RLUK_David
Registered Office: Senate House Library, Senate House, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HU
Registered Company no: 2733294
Registered Charity no: 1026543
On 2 Oct 2014, at 18:21, Lorna Mitchell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello Andrew,
>
> This won't help with the wider issues but I can provide some information on when this change happened as CUP contacted colleagues here at the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh on the 11th September asking us to agree to this change to the OA policy for our journal, the Edinburgh Journal of Botany. We didn't get any indication as to why they were implementing the change or why they were doing it in the middle of the year.
>
> I've replied to CUP on behalf of the Garden querying the change as my reading is that the new policy won't be compliant with the HEFCE policy for the next REF - I'm currently still waiting for a response.
>
> Lorna
>
>
> Ms Lorna Mitchell
> Head of Library Services, Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh
>
> Tel: +44 (0)131 248 2850
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gray, Andrew D.
> Sent: 02 October 2014 16:55
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Cambridge policy change
>
> Hi all,
>
> Just spotted this today: Cambridge Journals have apparently changed their overall green OA policy sometime in the past few months (there's no date on the new policy that I can see to indicate when it was brought in, and I can't find an announcement)
>
> July: http://web.archive.org/web/20140714210504/http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4608
> Now: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4608
>
> You used to be able to post the version of record to an institutional repository with a twelve-month embargo, but this has been altered to "abstract only". The AAM used to have no embargo, and this has now been altered to six months after publication. The new policy is undated, and they haven't updated the "Copyright and Repositories" agreement, which still lists the old terms:
>
> http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4676
>
> It's still RCUK-compliant, but it's a bit frustrating - Cambridge had had one of the better self-deposit policies.
>
> - Andrew Gray
> [log in to unmask] // 01223 221 312
> Library, British Antarctic Survey
>
>
>
> This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
>
> --
> The Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh is a charity registered in Scotland (No SC007983)
|