Like David I agree with Stevan apart from his criticism of SHERPA-RoMEO.

In one sense the Elsevier wording comes as no surprise, in that when many 
publishers have said that they allow "green" self-archiving it has always 
been with a sometimes unspoken "caveat" that they will review their policy 
if repository deposit happens on a large scale. The more recent element is 
the inclusion of "institutional repositories with mandates for systematic 
postings", which I assume to be Elsevier's response to the growing number of 
institutional mandates. I agree with Stevan that authors should not hold 
back from repository deposit if they do not know whether or not the wording 
applies to them. They should hold onto their rights as authors.

Despite ambiguities around the words "mandates for systematic postings", 
Elsevier are more open than some other publishers about their wishes on 
repository deposit. There are rumours than another major publisher is taking 
action to block repository deposit without publicising the fact on 
SHERPA-RoMEO. I encourage all repository managers to share any information 
they have about how publisher policies are being applied in practice.

Fred Friend

-----Original Message----- 
From: David Prosser
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 10:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Rights Reductio Ad Absurdum

Of course, I agree with almost everything Stevan says.  The exception being 
the rather snide comments regarding SHERPA-RoMEO.

RoMEO is not 'enshrining' or 'canonising' anything.  It is reporting.  And 
if an author signs a copyright agreement with Elsevier then they are are 
agreeing to the terms reported.  We may all agree that these terms are ' (1) 
arbitrary, (2) incoherent, and (3) unenforceable', but it's not for RoMEO to 
make that call.  It is a database of 'permissions that are normally given as 
part of each publisher's copyright transfer agreement' not 'permission that 
we think sensible leaving out the one's we don't like'.  That may reduce its 
advocacy power and do nothing to dispel the confusion being created by 
publishers with arbitrary, incoherent, and (possibly) unenforceable clauses 
in their policies, but it does have the advantage of being honest.

David




On 6 Jan 2011, at 03:00, Stevan Harnad wrote:

> ** Cross-posted **
>
> The following query came up on the UKCORR mailing list:
>
>> I was surprised to read the paragraph below under author's rights
>>  (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/copyright##rights)
>>
>>> "the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the
>>> final journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review
>>> process) on your personal or institutional web site or server for
>>> scholarly purposes, incorporating the complete citation and with a
>>> link to the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the article (but not
>>> in subject-oriented or centralized repositories or institutional
>>> repositories with mandates for systematic postings unless there is
>>> a specific agreement with the publisher- see
>>> http://www.elsevier.com/fundingbody agreements for further
>>> information]);"
>
> You can't blame Elsevier's Perplexed Permissions Personnel for trying:
> After all, if researchers -- clueless and cowed about copyright --
> have already lost nearly two decades of research access and impact for
> no reason at all, making it clear that only if/(when they are required
> (mandated) by their institutions and funders will they dare to do what
> is manifestly in their own best interests and already fully within
> their reach, then it's only natural that those who perceive their own
> interests to be in conflict with those of research and researchers
> will attempt to see whether they cannot capitalize on researchers'
> guileless gullibility, yet again.
>
> In three words, the above "restrictions" on the green light to make
> author's final drafts OA are (1) arbitrary, (2) incoherent, and (3)
> unenforceable. They are the rough equivalent of saying: You have "the
> right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final
> journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process)
> on your personal or institutional web site or server for scholarly
> purposes -- but not if you are required to do so by your institution
> or funder."
>
> They might as well have added "or if you have a blue-eyed uncle who
> prefers tea to toast on alternate Tuesdays."
>
> My own inclination is to say that if researchers prove to be stupid
> enough to fall for that, then they deserve everything that is coming
> to them (or rather, withheld from them).
>
> But even I, seasoned cynic that the last 20 years have made me, don't
> believe that researchers are quite that stupid -- though I wouldn't
> put it past SHERPA/Romeo to go ahead and solemnly enshrine this latest
> bit of double-talk in one of its slavish lists of "General Conditions"
> on a publisher's otherwise "green" self-archiving policy, thereby
> helpfully furnishing an effective pseudo-official megaphone for every
> such piece of optimistic gibberish, no matter how absurd.
>
> My advice to authors (if, unlike what the sensible computer scientists
> and physicists have been doing all along -- namely, self-archiving
> without first seeking anyone's blessing for two decades -- they only
> durst self-archive if their publishers have first given them their
> green light to do so) is that they take their publishers at their word
> when they do give them their green light to do so, and ignore any
> SHERPA/Romeo tommy-rot they may try to append to that green light to
> make it seem as if there is any rational line that can be drawn
> between "yes, you may make your refereed final draft OA" and "no, you
> may not make your refereed final draft OA."
>
> For those who are interested in knowing what is actually happening,
> worldwide, insofar as OA self-archiving is concerned, I recommend
> reading Peter Suber's stirring 2010 Summary of real progress rather
> than the sort of pseudo-legalistic smoke-screening periodically
> emitted by Permissions Department Pundits (whether or not not they are
> canonized by SHERPA-Romeo):
> http://www.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/fos/newsletter/01-02-11.htm#2010
>
> Dixit,
>
> Your Weary and Wizened Archivangelist