On Sat, May 12, 2012, Alicia Wise (Elsevier Director of Universal Access) wrote:
> I agree that we are mixing up several issues/objectives, and helpfully Keith > has identified some of these.  I can think of a few others and I suspect > there are more strands in this knot which others will hopefully identify. The first and foremost issue on the Global Open Access List is Open Access (OA). 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...) > * we are probably conflating needs/practices in different disciplines All disciplines need, want, and benefit from OA. 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...) > > * we are certainly conflating temporal challenges - how we xxx or yyy in 2012 > may be different from the way we do it in 2015 or 2020.  Text mining is an > example. OA is needed now, not in 2015 or 2020. It will be very helpful if... > > * we sometimes construct the false dichotomy of an open access world vs. a > subscription world - there is already a blend of gold, green, subscription, > and other business models, and there will continue to be for awhile (possibly > forever) OA is not a business model, it is Open Access. It will be very helpful if... > * we conflate pragmatic and idealistic discussions and yet need both A purely pragmatic issue: It will be very helpful if... > > * we too often duck the important issue of funding - for example could the > dynamics of sustainable gold+green be different from the dynamics of > sustainable subscription+green?  Could the price be different for gratis > gold oa vs. libre gold oa? Subscription publishing is being paid for via subscriptions. If and when subscriptions become unsustainable, because institutions have cancelled them, publishing can convert to Gold OA and the institutions will have the windfall subscription cancellation savings to pay for it. But for now: It will be very helpful if... > > To refer back to my original query about what positive things are established > scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access > and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, > recognized let me be cheeky and suggest one.  The recent STM public > statement that publishers support sustainable open access > (http://www.stm-assoc.org/publishers-support-sustainable-open-access/) is one > thing I would suggest should be celebrated by others who are also interested > in open access. Statements of support are always welcome. But as we are talking pragmatics rather than ideology: 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...) http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/822-.html Stevan Harnad Begin forwarded message: From: Stevan Harnad List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: May 11, 2012 8:11:19 AM EDT To: "Global Open Access List \(Successor of AmSci\)" <goal@eprints.org> Subject: [GOAL] Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized" El 11/05/2012 11:19, Wise, Alicia (Elsevier) asked: [W]hat positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized? Dr Alicia Wise Director of Universal Access Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com I Twitter: @wisealic On 2012-05-11, at 6:13 AM, Reme Melero wrote: I would recommend the following change in one clause of the  What rights do I retain as a journal author*? stated in Elsevier's portal, which says "the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your personal or institutional website or server for scholarly purposes*, incorporating the complete citation and with a link to the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the article (but not in subject-oriented or centralized repositories or institutional repositories with mandates for systematic postings unless there is a specific agreement with the publisher. <externalLink_3.gif>Click here for further information);" By this one: "the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your personal,  institutional website,  subject-oriented or centralized repositories or institutional repositories or server for scholarly purposes, incorporating the complete citation and with a link to the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the article " I think this could be something to be encouraged, celebrated and recognized! That would be fine. Or even this simpler one would be fine: "the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your personal,  institutional website or institutional repositories or server for scholarly purposes, incorporating the complete citation and with a link to the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the article " The metadata and link can be harvested from the institutional repositories by institution-external repositories or search services, and the shameful, cynical, self-serving and incoherent clause about "mandates  for systematic postings"  ("you may post if you wish but not if you must"), which attempts to take it all back, is dropped. That clause -- added when Elsevier realized that Green Gratis OA mandates were catching on -- is a paradigmatic example of the publisher FUD and double-talk that Andrew Adams and others were referring to on GOAL. Dropping it would be a great cause for encouragement, celebration and recognition, and would put Elsevier irreversibly on the side of the angels. Stevan Harnad _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
