The new CUP policy is no longer worthy of admiration, but CUP authors can still comply with the HEFCE policy, which only manates immediate-deposit, not immediate OA.
And I wish we could stop talking about whether publisher policies are or are not “compliant" with funder or institutional mandates:
The institutional and funder mandates are binding on authors and fundees -- the ones receiving the salaries and the funding. Publishers are neither employees nor fundees. Hence they are not mandatees. All they can do is try to block or delay author compliance. But the only way they can do that is by embargoing OA. They have no say whatsoever in the date of deposit of the author’s final draft — only in the date that the deposit is made OA.
Hence publisher policy is moot, insofar as HEFCE’s immediate-deposit requierement is concerned. For OA embargo length rules, HEFCE has punted to RCUK.
Stevan Harnad
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)
