Don't rail against the publishing industry. Just "lower the bar" and mandate ID/OA. http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html
ID/OA mandates are immune to Elsevier's FUD clause. ID/OA delivers at least 60% immediate OA plus 40% Almost-OA. And once ID/OA mandates are universally adopted, there will be no stopping 100% Green Gratis OA. And, soon thereafter: universal, affordable Gold OA plus all the Libre OA (CC-BY) you want and need. Stevan Harnad On 2012-05-13, at 11:51 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: > > > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Stevan Harnad <[email protected]> wrote: > ** Cross-Posted ** > > On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Stevan Harnad <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > > 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." > > It is exactly this sort of clause - usually badly written - that is > widespread in publishers documents (if you can even find them). Just > remember that *we* pay for their lawyers' salaries. The strategy is common > and exemplified by Ross Mounce's work on licences. Make it complex and make > it different from every other publisher. Never use a single community-agreed > approach. > > If the publishers wanted to make it simple and professional it could have > been done a decade ago. It's not hard. A protocol and licence saying what > could/not be done in Green OA. > > What I worry about is that the publishers can change the rules whenever they > feel like. They are quit capable of saying it's "Green" just as Wiley has > done for highly paid "Fully Open Access" (not even as green as Stevan is > asking for). > > The point is that these rules are made by people who don't care about > scholarly publishing. The sooner we admit we are dealing with an industry > every bit as lovable as bankers the sooner we'll put in place *our* rules and > not theirs. > > > > > > The distinction between an institutional website and an institutional > repository is bogus. > > Of course it is. Unless you are trying to appear helpful and trying not to be. > > 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!") > > Of course it is. It takes a highly paid marketeer to dream that up. > > 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.) > > That's why I raised it a few days ago. We are dealing with people many of > whose staff have probably never seen a scholarly pub. > > 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 > > But that is no a legally binding contract and that's the problem. > > 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...) > > I actually suspect that no-one reading this list has any power to change > Elsevier policy - it's set at boardroom level by people who could be selling > soap. > > > > > -- > Peter Murray-Rust > Reader in Molecular Informatics > Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry > University of Cambridge > CB2 1EW, UK > +44-1223-763069 > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
