On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Michael Eisen <mbei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I could rewrite that entire plea substituting CC-BY-NC-ND with "posting in > institutional repositories with an embargo". Just because you don't care > about something does not mean that the rest of the OA community should stop > caring about it. To me the use of CC-BY-NC-ND is not a step it in the right > direction - it is an explicit effort on the part of publishers like > Elsevier to define open access down - to reify a limited license in a way > that will be difficult to change in the future. Now - before the use of > CC-BY-NC-ND becomes widespread - is the time to stop it. Later will be too > late. > On the road from subscription access to Fair-Gold CC-BY, (1) posting with an embargo and no license is getting almost nowhere, (2) posting with no embargo and no license is getting further ahead, and (3) posting with CC-BY-NC-ND is getting still further. Don't insist on what is not yet within reach, dismissing what already is within practical reach as not enough. Advocating a practical transitional strategy does not mean not caring. (And it's already late for OA, but no step forward now makes it too late for any later step forward.) > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I beg the OA community to remain reasonable and realistic. >> >> *Please don't demand that Elsevier agree to immediate CC-BY. *If >> Elsevier did that, I could immediately start up a rival free-riding >> publishing operation and sell all Elsevier articles immediately at cut >> rate, for any purpose at all that I could get people to pay for. Elsevier >> could no longer make a penny from selling the content it invested in. >> >> CC-BY-NC-ND <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/> is >> enough for now. It allows immediate harvesting for data-mining. >> >> The OA movement must stop shooting itself in the foot by over-reaching, >> insisting on having it all, immediately, thus instead ending up with next >> to nothing, as now. >> >> As I pointed out in a previous posting, *the fact that Elsevier requires >> all authors to adopt **CC-BY-NC-ND license is a positive step*. Please >> don't force them to back-pedal! >> >> Please read the terms, and reflect. >> >> SH >> >> Accepted Manuscript >> <http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-posting-policy#accepted-manuscript> >> >> >> Authors can share their accepted manuscript: >> >> *Immediately * >> >> >> - via their non-commercial personal homepage or blog. >> - by updating a preprint >> >> <http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-policies/preprint_lightbox> >> in >> arXiv or RePEc with the accepted manuscript. >> - via their research institute or institutional repository for >> internal institutional uses or as part of an invitation-only research >> collaboration work-group. >> - directly by providing copies to their students or to research >> collaborators for their personal use. >> - for private scholarly sharing as part of an invitation-only work >> group on commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement. >> >> *After the embargo period * >> >> >> - via non-commercial hosting platforms such as their institutional >> repository. >> - via commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement. >> >> *In all cases accepted manuscripts should:* >> >> >> - Link to the formal publication via its DOI >> <http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/lightbox-doi>. >> - Bear a CC-BY-NC-ND license – this is easy to do, click here >> >> <http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/lightbox_attach-a-user-license> to >> find out how. >> - If aggregated with other manuscripts, for example in a >> repository or other site, be shared in alignment with our hosting >> policy <http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/hosting>. >> - Not be added to or enhanced in any way to appear more like, or >> to substitute for, the published journal article. >> >> How to attach a user license >> <http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/lightbox_attach-a-user-license> >> >> Elsevier requires authors posting their accepted manuscript to attach a >> non-commercial Creative Commons user license (CC-BY-NC-ND). This is easy >> to do. On your accepted manuscript add the following to the title page, >> copyright information page, or header /footer: © YEAR, NAME. Licensed under >> the Creative Commons [insert license details and URL]. >> For example: © 2015, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons >> Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International >> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ >> >> >> You can also include the license badges available from the Creative >> Commons website <http://creativecommons.org/about/downloads> to provide >> visual recognition. If you are hosting your manuscript as a webpage you >> will also find the correct HTML code to add to your page >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Kathleen Shearer < >> m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> (sorry for any cross-posting) >>> >>> In its recently released “Sharing and Hosting Policy FAQ”, Elsevier >>> “recognize(s) that authors want to share and promote their work and >>> increasingly need to comply with their funding body and institution's open >>> access policies.” However there are several aspects of their new policy >>> that severely limit sharing and open access, in particular the lengthy >>> embargo periods imposed in most journals- with about 90% of Elsevier >>> journals >>> <http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/121293/external-embargo-list.pdf> >>> having >>> embargo periods of 12 months or greater. This is a significant rollback >>> from the original 2004 Elsevier policy which required no embargos for >>> making author’s accepted manuscripts available; and even with the 2012 >>> policy change requiring embargoes only when authors were subject to an OA >>> mandate. >>> >>> With article processing charges (APCs) that can cost as much as $5000 >>> US dollars >>> <https://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/open-access/sponsored-articles> >>> for publishing in one of Elsevier’s gold open access titles or hybrid >>> journals, this is not a viable option for many researchers around the >>> world. Furthermore, the rationale for lengthy embargo periods is to protect >>> Elsevier’s subscription revenue. We do not believe that scientific, >>> economic and social progress should be hindered in order to protect >>> commercial interests. In addition, there is currently no evidence that >>> articles made available through OA repositories will lead to cancellations. >>> >>> >>> Elsevier’s new policy also requires that accepted manuscripts posted in >>> open access repositories bear a CC-BY-NC-ND license. This type of license >>> severely limits the re-use potential of publicly funded research. ND >>> restricts the use of derivatives, yet derivative use is fundamental >>> <http://oaspa.org/why-cc-by/> to the way in which scholarly research >>> builds on previous findings, for example by re-using a part of an article >>> (with attribution) in educational material. Similarly, this license >>> restricts commercial re-use greatly inhibiting >>> <http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/11/16331/0655> the potential >>> impact of the results of research. >>> >>> Elsevier’s Director of Access & Policy, Alicia Wise states that they >>> “have received neutral-to-positive responses from research institutions and >>> the wider research community.” Yet, since the “Statement against >>> Elsevier’s sharing policy >>> <https://www.coar-repositories.org/activities/advocacy-leadership/petition-against-elseviers-sharing-policy/>” >>> was published just one week ago (on Wednesday May 20, 2015), it has been >>> signed by close to 700 organizations and individuals, demonstrating that >>> there is significant opposition to the policy. >>> >>> Elsevier has indicated that they “are always happy to have a dialogue to >>> discuss these, or any other, issues further.” We would like to offer the >>> following concrete recommendations to Elsevier to improve their policy: >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> Elsevier should allow all authors to make their “author’s accepted >>> manuscript” openly available immediately upon acceptance through an OA >>> repository or other open access platform. >>> 2. >>> >>> Elsevier should allow authors to choose the type of open license >>> (from CC-BY to other more restrictive licenses like the CC-BY-NC-ND) they >>> want to attach to the content that they are depositing into an open >>> access >>> platform. >>> 3. >>> >>> Elsevier should not attempt to dictate author’s practices around >>> individual sharing of articles. Individual sharing of journal articles is >>> already a scholarly norm and is protected by fair use and other copyright >>> exceptions. Elsevier cannot, and should not, dictate practices around >>> individual sharing of articles. >>> >>> We strongly encourage Elsevier to revise their policy in order to better >>> align with the interests of the research community. We would also be >>> pleased to meet to discuss these recommendations with Elsevier at any time. >>> >>> >>> Kathleen Shearer, Executive Director, COAR >>> >>> Heather Joseph, Executive Director, SPARC >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Michael Eisen, Ph.D. > Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute > Professor of Genetics, Genomics and Development > Department of Molecular and Cell Biology > University of California, Berkeley > > _______________________________________________ > 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
