On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Laurent Romary <laurent.rom...@inria.fr>wrote:
> With all respect, Stevan, I am not sure it is worth answering publishers' > policy tricks with deposit hacks. The core question is: does Elsevier > fulfill, 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 > Easy to state the principle, Laurent, but not so easy to get institutions to do it. I am interested in practical results: Effective Green OA Mandates, not a constraint on authors' choice of journal, not to reform publishers, nor to teach authors the facts of life. Institutions and funders can and should all adopt immediate-deposit mandates. Then there is the question of which immediate-deposits to make immediate (unembargoed) OA. This posting about Elsevier was to inform authors and institutions that Elsevier is still Green, as it has been since 2004, and that *they can and should make their immediate-deposits immediately OA*. That is a clear, simple, doable message. Yours, I'm afraid, is not. Let's agree to this: Institutions and funders can and should all adopt immediate-deposit mandates. They can and should make all their Elsevier immediate-deposits immediate OA. Having done all that, they can follow your advice too, about what to do if they feel "Elsevier is not fulfilling its duties as a service provider" (if they can figure out what, exactly, it entails their doing -- and if they feel like doing it: (1) Immediate OA (already covered above)? (2) Don't publish with Elsevier? (3) Cancel Elsevier? Stevan Harnad 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]<http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/author-rights-and-responsibilities?a=105167#accepted-author-manuscript> > ". > > *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<http://j.mp/ElsevierDoubletalk> 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<https://www.google.be/?gws_rd=cr&ei=HXZCUoeuCM3HsgbIioG4Cg#q=%22immediate-deposit%22+harnad+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<https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy> 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
