I will not do yet another point-by-point rebuttal <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1150-Elsevier-updates-its-article-sharing-policies,-perspectives-and-services.html>, just to have it all once again ignored by Alicia/Elsevier, responding yet again with nothing but empty jargon and double talk:
*"At each stage of the publication process authors can share their research: before submission, from acceptance, upon publication, and post publication."* This “share” is a weasel word. It does not mean OA. It means what authors have always been able to do, without need of publisher permission: They can share copies — electronic or paper — with other individuals. That’s the 60-year old practice of mailing preprints and reprints individually to requesters. *OA means free immediate access online to all would-be users.* *"For authors who want free immediate access to their articles, we continue to give all authors a choice to publish gold open access with a wide number of open access journals and over 1600 hybrid titles “* In other words, now, the only Elsevier-autthorized way authors can provide OA is to pay extra for it (“Gold OA”). Since 2004 <http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3771.html> Elsevier had endorsed authors providing free immediate (un-embargoed) access (“Green OA”) by self-archiving in their institutional repositories. The double-talk began in 2012 <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/961-Some-Quaint-Elsevier-Tergiversation-on-Rights-Retention.html> . Elsevier can’t seem to bring itself to admit quite openly (sic) that they have (after a lot of ambiguous double-talk) back-pedalled and reneged on their prior policy, instead imposing embargoes of various lengths. They desperately want to be perceived as having taken a positive, progressive step forward. Hence all the denial and double-talk. They try to say that their decision is “fair” and “evidence based” — whereas in fact it is based on asking some biassed and ambiguous questions to some librarians, authors and administrators after having first used a maximum of ever-changing pseudo-legal gibberish to ensure that they can only respond with confusion to the confusion that Elsevier has sown. We cannot get Elsevier to adopt a fair, clear policy (along the lines of their original 2004 one) but we should certainly publicize as loudly and widely as possible the disgraceful and tendentious spin with which they are now trying to sell their unfair, unclear and exploitative back-pedalling. Stevan Harnad On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) < a.w...@elsevier.com> wrote: > Hello everyone – > > > > Just a quick note to draw your attention to our article, posted today in > Elsevier Connect and in response to yesterday’s statement by COAR: > http://www.elsevier.com/connect/coar-recting-the-record. I’ll also > append the full text of this response below. > > > > You might also be interested in this Library Connect webinar on some of > the new institutional repository services we are piloting ( > http://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/articles/2015-01/webinar-institutional-research-repositories-characteristics-relationships-and-roles) > and reading our policies for yourselves: > > > > - Sharing – > http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-posting-policy > - Hosting - http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/hosting > > > > With best wishes, > > Alicia > > *COAR-recting the record* > > We have received neutral-to-positive responses from research institutions > and the wider research community. We are therefore a little surprised that > COAR has formed such a negative view, and chosen not to feedback their > concerns directly to us. We would like to correct the misperceptions. > > Our sharing policy is more liberal in supporting the dissemination and use > of research: > > - At each stage of the publication process authors can share their > research: before submission, from acceptance, upon publication, and post > publication. > - In institutional repositories, which no longer require a formal > agreement to host full text content > - Authors can also share on commercial platforms such as social > collaboration networks > - We provide new services to authors such as the share link which > enables authors to post and share a customized link for 50 days free access > to the final published article > - For authors who want free immediate access to their articles, we > continue to give all authors a choice to publish gold open access with a > wide number of open access journals and over 1600 hybrid titles > > Unlike the claims in this COAR document, the policy changes are based on > feedback from our authors and institutional partners, they are > evidence-based, and they are in alignment with the STM article sharing > principles. They introduce absolutely no changes in our embargo periods. > And they are not intended to suddenly embargo and make inaccessible content > currently available to readers – as we have already communicated in Elsevier > Connect > <http://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-updates-its-policies-perspectives-and-services-on-article-sharing> > . > > In fact, we have been developing services, in partnership with libraries, > to help institutional repositories track research output and display > content to their users. This includes: > > • Sharing metadata: In order to showcase an institutions’ work, an > institutional repository must identify their institution’s research output. > By integrating the ScienceDirect metadata API into the repository, this > task becomes simple. Even in cases where the repository doesn’t hold the > full text manuscript, the article information and abstract can be > displayed.. > > • Sharing user access information and embedding final articles: We > are testing a workflow in which a user’s access level to the full text is > checked on the fly, and if full text access is available, the user will be > served the final published version, instead of the preprint or manuscript > hosted by the repository. Users who are not entitled to view the full text > of the final article will be led to the version available in the > repository, or- if this is not available- to a page where they can view the > first page of the article and options for accessing it (including via > interlibrary loan). This ensures that users will always be served the best > available version. This also enables the repository to display the best > available version to their users even if no self-archived manuscript is > available. > > We have not only updated our policies, we are active in developing and > delivering technology that enables research to be shared more widely. > > COAR states that the addition of a CC-BY-NC-ND license is unhelpful. > Feedback suggests that clarity about how manuscripts can be used is > welcome, when asked in surveys often choose NC ND of their own volition > (see the T&F study from 2014 at > http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/explore/open-access-survey-june2014.pdf > ), and it works across a broad range of use cases. > > Our refreshed policies are about green OA, and some elements of this – for > example the use of embargo periods – are specifically for green OA when it > is operating in tandem with the subscription business model. Here time is > needed for the subscription model to operate as libraries will > understandably not subscribe if this material is available immediately and > for free. > > In closing, we appreciate an open dialogue and are always happy to have a > dialogue to discuss these, or any other, issues further. > > Dr Alicia Wise > > Director of Access and Policy > > Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB > > M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com > > *Twitter: @wisealic* > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, > Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, > Registered in England and Wales. >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
