I think it's reasonable and realistic to frame this latest policy shift as part of the ongoing efforts of Elsevier to define Open Access on its own terms. This is yet another example of a series of successful policy tacks and canny acquisitions that consolidate existing market share while laying the foundation for future service expansion. The obvious intent to further undermine the effectiveness of institutional repository services by showing a preference toward fragmented dissemination via 'personal homepage or blog' or the Janus-faced endorsement of subject repository deposit is very illuminating. The institutional Open Access mandate has been in Elsevier's cross-hairs for some time now and this will undermine it further.
Regards, Garret McMahon - University College Dublin On 28 May 2015 at 00:30, Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
