Hi Stevan, Elsevier has an agreement with one funding body that results in the posting of 100% of the articles flowing from its grant funding. There's no merit to working with publishers on sustainable approaches to green open access? Really??
And with that, I'm going to duck back down behind my parapet. However, I remain happy to talk to anyone about how to expand access including through the full colour spectrum of open access options. With kind wishes, Alicia Dr Alicia Wise Director of Universal Access Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Twitter: @wisealic From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 12:42 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Agreement on Green OA not needed from publishers but from institutions and funders On 2012-06-20, at 7:15 AM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote: ...perhaps time to explore opportunities to work with publishers? No, precisely the opposite, I think: It's time for institutions to realize that institutional Green OA self-archiving policy is (and always has been) exclusively their own business, and not publishers' (who have a rather different business...) Negotiate subscription prices with publishers. But do not even discuss institutional OA policy with publishers. (And advise institutional researchers to ignore incoherent clauses in their copyright agreements: Anything of the form "P but not-P" -- e.g. "you retain the right to self-archive, but not if you are required to exercise the right to self-archive" -- implies anything at all, as well as the opposite of anything at all. Don't give it another thought: just self-archive. And institutions should set policy -- mandate immediate deposit, specify maximum allowable OA-embargo-length, the shorter the better, and keep publisher mumbo-jumbo out of the loop altogether. Ditto for funders, but, to avoid gratuitous extra problems as a 3rd-party site, stipulate institutional rather than institution-external deposit.) Stevan Harnad Dr Alicia Wise Director of Universal Access Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Twitter: @wisealic From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]]<mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> On Behalf Of David Prosser Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 11:31 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Why should publishers agree to Green OA? Laurent makes an important point. OA policies are between the funders or institutions and the researchers. These agreements come before any agreement regarding copyright assignment between authors and publishers. So, it is the job of publishers to decide if they are willing to live with the deposit agreement between the funder/institution and researchers, not the job of funders and institutions to limit their policies to match the needs of publishers. David On 20 Jun 2012, at 11:04, Laurent Romary wrote: Not that I know. I think the French Research Performing Organizations are not planning to put negotiation with editors as a premise to defining their own OA policy. Laurent Le 20 juin 2012 à 11:45, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) a écrit : Hi Laurent, Institutions already do have agreements with publishers via their libraries and/or library consortia.. This is certainly the case for INRIA. With kind wishes, Alicia From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]]<mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> On Behalf Of Laurent Romary Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:11 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Why should publishers agree to Green OA? This definitely makes no sense. Institutions are not going to start negotiating agreements with all publishers one by one. Does Elsevier have so much man power left to start negotiating with all institutions one by one as well. The corresponding budget could then probably used to reduce subscriptions prices ;-) Laurent Le 20 juin 2012 à 09:53, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) a écrit : Hi all, Just a quick point of clarification.... Elsevier doesn't forbid posting if there is a mandate. We ask for an agreement with the institution that has the mandate, and there is no cost for these agreements. The purpose of these agreements is to work out a win-win solution to find a way for the underlying journals in which academics choose to publish to be sustainable even if there are high posting rates. With kind wishes, Alicia Dr Alicia Wise Director of Universal Access Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Twitter: @wisealic From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]]<mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> On Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:23 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Why should publishers agree to Green OA? I have some simple questions about Green OA. I don't know the answers. * is there any *contractual* relationship between a Green-publisher and any legal body? Or is Green simply a permission granted unilaterally by publishers when they feel like it, and withdrawable when they don't. * if Green starts impacting on publishers' revenues (and I understand this is part of the Green strategy - when we have 100% Green then publishers will have to change) what stops them simply withdrawing the permission? Or rationing it? Or any other anti-Green measure * Do publishers receive any funding from anywhere for allowing Green? Green is extra work for them - why should they increase the amount they do? * Is there any body which regularly "negotiates" with publishers such as ACS, who categorically forbid Green for now and for ever. Various publishers seem to indicate that they will allow Green as long as it's a relatively small percentage. But, as Stevan has noted, if your institution mandates Green, then Elsevier forbids it. So I cannot see why, if Green were to reach - say - 50%, the publishers wouldn't simply ration it and prevent 100%. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales). _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal Laurent Romary INRIA & HUB-IDSL [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales). _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal Laurent Romary INRIA & HUB-IDSL [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <ATT00001..txt> Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales). _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales).
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
