JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives


JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives

JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives


JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

JISC-REPOSITORIES Home

JISC-REPOSITORIES Home

JISC-REPOSITORIES  May 2012

JISC-REPOSITORIES May 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"

From:

Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 13 May 2012 11:06:54 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (70 lines)

** Cross-Posted **

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, May 12, 2012, Alicia Wise (Elsevier Director of Universal
>> Access) wrote:
>>
>> It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their
>> institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops
>> its "you may if you wish but not if you must" clause, which is not
>> only incoherent, but intimidates authors.
>
> Stevan,
> Could you please explain this clause? (This is my ignorance as I don't
> publish with Elevier and so am unfamiliar with their author-side contracts).
> Does it mean that Elsevier sometimes allows Green Open Access and sometimes don't?

It means that Elsevier formally endorses its authors' right to make
their final, peer-reviewed drafts Open Access immediately upon
publication (no embargo) by posting them on their institutional
website (Green Gratis OA) -- "but not in institutional repositories
with mandates for systematic postings."

The distinction between an institutional website and an institutional
repository is bogus.

The distinction between nonmandatory posting (allowed) and mandatory
posting (not allowed) is arbitrary nonsense. ("You retain the right to
post if you wish but not if you must!")

The "systematic" criterion is also nonsense. (Systematic posting would
be the institutional posting of all the articles in the journal; but
any single institution only contributes a tiny, arbitrary fraction of
the articles in any journal, just as any single author does; so the
mandating institution would not be a 3rd-party "free-rider" on the
journal's content: its researchers would simply be making their own
articles OA, by posting them on their institutional website, exactly
as described.)

This "systematic" clause is hence pure FUD, designed to scare or bully
or confuse institutions into not mandating posting, and authors into
not complying with their institutional mandates. (There are also
rumours that in confidential licensing negotiations with institutions,
Elsevier has been trying to link bigger and better pricing deals to
the institution's agreeing not to adopt a Green OA mandate.)

Along with the majority of publishers today, Elsevier is a Green
publisher: It has endorsed immediate (unembargoed) institutional Green
OA posting by its authors ever since 27 May 2004:
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3771.html

Elsevier's public image is so bad today that rescinding its Green
light to self-archive after almost a decade of mounting demand for OA
is hardly a very attractive or viable option:
http://cdn.anonfiles.com/1334923359479.pdf
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#32.Poisoned

And double-talk, smoke-screens and FUD are even less attractive:
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/822-.html

It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their
institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops
its "you may if you wish but not if you must" clause, which is not
only incoherent, but intimidates authors. (This would also help
counteract some of the rather bad press Elsevier has been getting
lately...)

Stevan Harnad

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
November 2005
October 2005


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager