With all respect, Stevan, I am not sure it is worth answering publishers' policy tricks with deposit hacks. The core question is: does Elsevier fulfills, by making such statements, its duties as service provider in the domain of scholarly communication. If not, we, as institutions, have to be clear as to what we want, enforce the corresponding policy (i.e. we determine what and in which way we want our publications to be disseminated) and inform the communities accordingly. Such statements encourage us to increase our communication towards researchers concerning predatory behaviours. And this is one for sure. Laurent
Le 25 sept. 2013 à 07:56, Stevan Harnad a écrit : > Here's Elsevier's latest revision of the wording of its author rights > agreement stating what rights Elsevier authors retain for their "Accepted > Author Manuscript [AAM]". > Elsevier believes that individual authors should be able to distribute their > AAMs [Accepted Author Manuscripts] for their personal voluntary needs and > interests, e.g. posting to their websites or their institution’s repository, > e-mailing to colleagues. However, our policies differ regarding the > systematic aggregation or distribution of AAMs... Therefore, deposit in, or > posting to, subject-oriented or centralized repositories (such as PubMed > Central), or institutional repositories with systematic posting mandates is > permitted only under specific agreements between Elsevier and the repository, > agency or institution, and only consistent with the publisher’s policies > concerning such repositories. Voluntary posting of AAMs in the arXiv subject > repository is permitted. > Please see my prior analyses of this Elsevier double-talk about authors > retaining the right to make their AAMs OA in their institutional repositories > "voluntarily," but not if their institutions mandate it "systematically." > Here's a summary: > > 1. The author-side distinction between an author's self-archiving voluntarily > and mandatorily is pseudo-legal nonsense: Authors can truthfully safely > assert that whatever they do, they do "voluntarily." > > 2. The institution-side distinction between voluntary and "systematic" > self-archiving by authors has nothing to do with rights agreements between > the author and Elsevier: It is an attempt by Elsevier to create a contingency > between (a) its "Big Deal" journal pricing negotiations with an institution > and (b) that institution's self-archiving policies. Institutions should of > course decline to discuss their self-archiving policies in any way in their > pricing negotiations with any publisher. > > 3. "Systematicity" (if it means anything at all) means systematically > collecting, reconstructing and republishing the contents of a journal -- > presumably on the part of a rival, free-riding publisher, hurting the > original publisher's revenues; this would constitute a copyright violation on > the part of the rival systematic, free-riding publisher, not the author: An > institution does nothing of the sort (any more than an individual > self-archiving author does). The institutional repository contains only the > institution's own tiny random fragment of any individual journal's annual > contents. > > All of the above is in any case completely mooted if an institution adopts > the ID/OA mandate, because that mandate only requires that the deposit be > made immediately, not that it be made OA immediately. (If the author wishes > to comply with a publisher OA embargo policy --which Elsevier does not have > -- the repository's "Almost-OA" eprint-request Button can tide over > researcher needs during any OA embargo with one click from the requestor and > one click from the author.) > > Stevan Harnad > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal Laurent Romary INRIA & HUB-IDSL laurent.rom...@inria.fr
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
