[GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
Thank you, Graham - all correct, and more clear and concise than I would have been! With kind wishes, Alicia 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.commailto:a.w...@elsevier.com Twitter: @wisealic From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Graham Triggs Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 1:31 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu On 9 December 2013 00:20, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: Alicia, According to your statement below, with CC-BY the only restriction placed by Elsevier is for attribution. However, the Elsevier open access license policy clearly states that Elsevier demands an exclusive license to publish with open access works (including CC-BY). Can you explain this discrepancy? I don't believe this is a discrepancy. What it is saying that the definitive record is published by Elsevier, and the author provides an exclusive licence in order to do so. Re-publishing, or re-distributing via any other venue constitutes a derivative work, which is permissible and does not conflict with the exclusive licence (which is only on the definitive record, not the derivative) - providing the proper attribution is in place. Without the exclusive licence to the definitive record, then as the author retains copyright, then in theory the author could authorize publishing of a version of the definitive record without attribution to the Elsevier version. It's a question of preserving the version of record. The difference between the author providing a licence to Elsevier to distribute an article under CC-BY, and the author providing a CC-BY licence to Elsevier. Comment: Based on this wording it is clear that Elsevier is requiring an exclusive publishing license. This is not compatible with your explanation below that nothing is required beyond attribution as required by the CC-BY license. It is consistent - the article can be re-published elsewhere, providing it is accordance with the CC-BY licence, including attribution to the definitive record as published by Elsevier. G 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] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
There is a general point: the Elsevier site(s) are riddled with Open Access inconsistencies. I have discovered at least: * open access articles behind paywalls * articles advertised as open access but not labelled anywhere * (private correspondence) articles paid for as open access but never posted as such (espite correspondence by authors) * articles without any statement of open access (IMO both the HTML and PDF should have clear statements) * articles with conflicting messages (CC-BY and All rights reserved) There are other serious deficiencies: * the licence is often many pages down the paper (e.g. just before the references and very difficult to locate). It must be on the visible section of page 0. * the Rightslink is seriously broken. All this gives the consistent impression (over at least a year) of an organisation which doesn't care about doing it properly and/or isn't competent to do it. It is clearly a case of retrofitting something that hasn't been prepared for, and without enough investment. The whole area Open-access provided by Toll-Access publishers cries out for a body which creates acceptable practice guidelines, monitors compliance, fines offenders and restores mispaid APCs to authors. If an author pays 5000 USD for a product they deserve better than this. Elsevier are the worst offender that I have investigated, followed by Springer who took all my Open Access images, badged them as (C) SpringerImages and offered them for resale at 60 USD per image. Just because OA is only 5% of your business doesn't mean practice can be substandard. On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: Thank you for the clarification, Alicia and Graham. However, on the Elsevier copyright when publishing open access page, it states that under the Exclusive License Agreement used with open access journals, Elsevier is granted...An exclusive right to publish and distribute an article. From: http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-policies/author-agreement Also the graph on this page shows a one-way distribution from publisher to user. Whoever created this graph obviously does not understand open access. There is no author to publisher (for final version) to repository to whoever option illustrated, for example, and no publisher to user to downstream user who receives article from someone other than the publisher. Open access means that anyone can distribute the article. Even with CC restricted licenses, the restrictions are specific to certain types of uses (e.g. can distribute but not for commercial gain - NC; can distribute but not change - ND; can distribute and create derivatives but derivatives must have the same license - SA). An article that cannot be distributed by others is not open access. It would be helpful to review the actual author's agreement. I don't see a link from the Elsevier site - can you point me to a link? best, Heather Morrison On 2013-12-10, at 5:26 AM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote: Thank you, Graham – all correct, and more clear and concise than I would have been! With kind wishes, Alicia 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 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Graham Triggs Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 1:31 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu On 9 December 2013 00:20, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: Alicia, According to your statement below, with CC-BY the only restriction placed by Elsevier is for attribution. However, the Elsevier open access license policy clearly states that Elsevier demands an exclusive license to publish with open access works (including CC-BY). Can you explain this discrepancy? I don't believe this is a discrepancy. What it is saying that the definitive record is published by Elsevier, and the author provides an exclusive licence in order to do so. Re-publishing, or re-distributing via any other venue constitutes a derivative work, which is permissible and does not conflict with the exclusive licence (which is only on the definitive record, not the derivative) - providing the proper attribution is in place. Without the exclusive licence to the definitive record, then as the author retains copyright, then in theory the author could authorize publishing of a version of the definitive record without attribution to the Elsevier version. It's a question of preserving the version of record. The difference between the author providing a licence to Elsevier to distribute an article under CC-BY, and the author providing a CC-BY licence to Elsevier. Comment: Based on this wording it is clear that Elsevier
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:05, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: Elsevier are the worst offender that I have investigated, followed by Springer who took all my Open Access images, badged them as (C) SpringerImages and offered them for resale at 60 USD per image. Just because OA is only 5% of your business doesn't mean practice can be substandard. Peter, what licence did you publish your OA images under? CC-BY? If so, re-labelling them as © Springer is a form of copyright breach (actionable?), but selling them isn't, of course. Jan Velterop___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
On 10 December 2013 13:05, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: There is a general point: the Elsevier site(s) are riddled with Open Access inconsistencies. I have discovered at least: * open access articles behind paywalls * articles advertised as open access but not labelled anywhere * (private correspondence) articles paid for as open access but never posted as such (espite correspondence by authors) * articles without any statement of open access (IMO both the HTML and PDF should have clear statements) The question is whether these are honest mistakes, system failures, or something more deliberate. Occasionally, things are going to go wrong - especially when you are talking about options (e.g. as in a hybrid journal) rather than a blanket policy across a journal or publisher. However, they would still represent a breach of the contract that was agreed when the article was published. Which would mean two things: 1) The publisher should act quickly to comply with the terms of the contract 2) Compensation could be due to the injured party(ies) Which ought to mean refunding the author a portion of their APC (maybe 1/365th for each day or part day that it is closed access). And refunding anyone who paid to have access to the article. * articles with conflicting messages (CC-BY and All rights reserved) Copyright vs distribution / usage licence. These aren't really conflicting - in fact, it's only through asserting copyright that you can provide a CC licence. The reader is [still] granted the rights that have been reserved through copyright. There are other serious deficiencies: * the licence is often many pages down the paper (e.g. just before the references and very difficult to locate). It must be on the visible section of page 0. * the Rightslink is seriously broken. These are standards issues - or rather, that there is enough room for variability in what is legally required to actually make this difficult for users. So in order to make things easier, the industry should agree some standards that they will comply with. G ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
I will go one step further: I believe that all the instances noted by Peter are not simply oversights; I believe they are part of a kind of benign neglect aimed at creating as much confusion as possible. The result is that researchers do not know which way to and, therefore, abstain. At least, if I were a strategist within one of these big publishers, this is what I would strive to do: avoid direct confrontation and muddy the waters as much as you can while optimizing the revenue stream from whatever source. Jean-Claude Guédon Le mardi 10 décembre 2013 à 13:05 +, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit : There is a general point: the Elsevier site(s) are riddled with Open Access inconsistencies. I have discovered at least: * open access articles behind paywalls * articles advertised as open access but not labelled anywhere * (private correspondence) articles paid for as open access but never posted as such (espite correspondence by authors) * articles without any statement of open access (IMO both the HTML and PDF should have clear statements) * articles with conflicting messages (CC-BY and All rights reserved) There are other serious deficiencies: * the licence is often many pages down the paper (e.g. just before the references and very difficult to locate). It must be on the visible section of page 0. * the Rightslink is seriously broken. All this gives the consistent impression (over at least a year) of an organisation which doesn't care about doing it properly and/or isn't competent to do it. It is clearly a case of retrofitting something that hasn't been prepared for, and without enough investment. The whole area Open-access provided by Toll-Access publishers cries out for a body which creates acceptable practice guidelines, monitors compliance, fines offenders and restores mispaid APCs to authors. If an author pays 5000 USD for a product they deserve better than this. Elsevier are the worst offender that I have investigated, followed by Springer who took all my Open Access images, badged them as (C) SpringerImages and offered them for resale at 60 USD per image. Just because OA is only 5% of your business doesn't mean practice can be substandard. On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: Thank you for the clarification, Alicia and Graham. However, on the Elsevier copyright when publishing open access page, it states that under the Exclusive License Agreement used with open access journals, Elsevier is granted...An exclusive right to publish and distribute an article. From: http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-policies/author-agreement Also the graph on this page shows a one-way distribution from publisher to user. Whoever created this graph obviously does not understand open access. There is no author to publisher (for final version) to repository to whoever option illustrated, for example, and no publisher to user to downstream user who receives article from someone other than the publisher. Open access means that anyone can distribute the article. Even with CC restricted licenses, the restrictions are specific to certain types of uses (e.g. can distribute but not for commercial gain - NC; can distribute but not change - ND; can distribute and create derivatives but derivatives must have the same license - SA). An article that cannot be distributed by others is not open access. It would be helpful to review the actual author's agreement. I don't see a link from the Elsevier site - can you point me to a link? best, Heather Morrison On 2013-12-10, at 5:26 AM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote: Thank you, Graham – all correct, and more clear and concise than I would have been! With kind wishes, Alicia 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 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Graham Triggs Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 1:31 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu On 9 December 2013 00:20, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: Alicia, According to your statement below, with CC-BY the only restriction placed
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
On 10 December 2013 13:38, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:05, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: Elsevier are the worst offender that I have investigated, followed by Springer who took all my Open Access images, badged them as (C) SpringerImages and offered them for resale at 60 USD per image. Just because OA is only 5% of your business doesn't mean practice can be substandard. Peter, what licence did you publish your OA images under? CC-BY? If so, re-labelling them as © Springer is a form of copyright breach (actionable?), but selling them isn't, of course Potentially, the images could be claimed to be derivative works, which could then by copyrighted. Springer no doubt does format conversions, resizing, etc. that may qualify this. And branding would presumably be watermarking to make the images unusable without a fee. However, even a copyrighted derivative should acknowledge the original copyright. Or even in terms of watermarking to make unpaid images unusable, they could use the original copyright. As Jan notes, providing a separate service that may be of value to those purchasing content via that means is not necessarily in conflict with open access. And as you have entered into a publishing agreement with Springer, that will no doubt include granting the rights to re-use the content elsewhere - including making the images available in a commercial service, even if the OA licence is infact CC-NC (or CC-NC-ND). (In fact, this can be of use to users, being able to purchase commercial use rights where the CC licence does not provide them). None of this [should] prevent the free use / re-use of images made available within the context of an open access article - i.e. if I go to the open access article, and download an image from there, I should be able to use it in accordance with the CC licence granted. Providing a separate, chargeable service to serve a different market with different needs is not necessarily wrong - offering different sizes, tagging for discovery (of images, rather than articles), possibly commercial rights, are all value adds. Ultimately people can choose to use [and pay] for it, or not. But they ought to be able to seek out the open access publication, and use the material acquired from there under the terms of the open access licence that is given. G ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
CC-BY - they were published through BioMedCentral. Springer labelled all images that went through their business as (C) SpringerImages. This included Wikimedia, many third-parties and I even found D*sn*y content. Wikimedia rightly cared. No-one in academia cared. Of course it's copyright breach. The point is that toll-access publishers have a mentality that everything that crosses their doors belongs to them. It's much cheaper to claim the lot rather than work out what they own and what they don't. It's only awkward people like me who care. On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:05, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: Elsevier are the worst offender that I have investigated, followed by Springer who took all my Open Access images, badged them as (C) SpringerImages and offered them for resale at 60 USD per image. Just because OA is only 5% of your business doesn't mean practice can be substandard. Peter, what licence did you publish your OA images under? CC-BY? If so, re-labelling them as © Springer is a form of copyright breach (actionable?), but selling them isn't, of course. Jan Velterop ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote: I will go one step further: I believe that all the instances noted by Peter are not simply oversights; I believe they are part of a kind of benign neglect aimed at creating as much confusion as possible. The result is that researchers do not know which way to and, therefore, abstain. There are many hypotheses. I am not picking one in this case. * One, which I think happened about 10 years ago was general ignorance. We've never heard of this Open Access thing - etc. That's no longer the case anywhere * we simply don't care. Again I doubt that. Most publishers have heard of Open Access. Note that benign neglect when driving a car in UK is called careless driving and can land you in jail. careless publishing is an offence morraly and should be legally. * our company knows how to do things. I call this institutionisation, in keeping with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism. The organization as a whole is unaware of the injustice it is causing and may even think it is doing OK. * incompetence. Could also be system failure. * deliberate muddying. I differentiate this from careless publishing. I am absolutely sure it's happening. * moving the goal posts. Similar, but different. Here the position is clearly defined but constantly changing. At least, if I were a strategist within one of these big publishers, this is what I would strive to do: avoid direct confrontation and muddy the waters as much as you can while optimizing the revenue stream from whatever source. The fact that the *deliberate* policy on CC-BY vs CC-NC/ND is so messy is an indication that muich of this is deliberate. PLOS/BMC/eLife/PeerJ/Ubiquity... are honest brokers. Pay your APC and they provide very clear CC-BY. There was never any question. The Toll-access publishers could an should have done this. Springer and Wiley have (I think) universal CC-BY. Good for them. But many others have offered tempting CC-NC and authors have chosen it. The analysis is as sophisticated as going into a class of 10-year-olds and asking do you want carrot salad or do you want burger and chips and fried mars bar? Oh and the burger is cheaper. Of course authors aren't sophisticated enough to know that the *only* beneficiaries of CC-NC are the publishers because they then have a monopoly to sell reprints (which could be tens of thousands of USD per paper). -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
Hi all, I agree - it sounds like there could be a problem with the metadata feed we supply to Rightslink or else how permissions for open access articles display in their systems - we will investigate. With kind wishes, Alicia From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 9:44 PM To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu Dear Peter Thanks for your elaborate responses. I have encountered the strange Rightslink messages as well. I think at least Elsevier should reconfigure these. Maybe Alicia can comment on that. Best, Jeroen - Jeroen Bosman, subject librarian GeographyGeoscience Utrecht University Libraryhttp://www.uu.nl/library email: j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl telephone: +31.30.2536613 mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3. Utrecht web: Jeroen Bosmanhttp://www.uu.nl/university/library/en/disciplines/geo/Pages/ContactBosman.aspx twitter:@geolibrarianUBU / @jeroenbosman - From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust Sent: zondag 8 december 2013 22:15 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) a.w...@elsevier.commailto:a.w...@elsevier.com wrote: Hi Jeroen, These articles can of course be used without any restriction other than the attribution required by the CC-BY license. With kind wishes, Alicia If I visit an Elsevier CC-BY article and ask for permissions - say for translation by myself - I get the message from RightsLink: Pricing for this request requires the approval of an Elsevier Commercial Sales Representative. You will be notified of the price before order confirmation. The processing period may take up to three business days. To enable Elsevier to contact you and price the request, please create a Rightslink account, or log in if you haven't already, and confirm the order details. This is seems in direct contravention of the CC-BY licence which would enable anyone to translate an article without permission. I would actually expect Elsevier to charge me for the rights if I continued with this process and I am not prepared to take the risk. I have encountered many examples of Elsevier CC-BY articles behind Paywalls and with restrictions on re-use. It is unacceptable to require the re-user to be brave enough to assert that the CC-BY article overrides the additional and incompatible restrictions and prices from Elsevier. I would ask Elsevier to adopt a similar policy to Publishers such as BMC and PLoS and simply state, under Permissions, that the paper is available under the CC-BY licence and any legitimate re-use may be made. 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 826tel:%2B44%20%280%29%207823%20536%20826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.commailto:a.w...@elsevier.com Twitter: @wisealic From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 9:56 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu Heather, That would be new for me. Do you mean to say that Gold OA articles from Elsevier with a CC-BY license can not be shared without restriction? The exclusive license you mention is not in the fine print here:http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/open-access/open-access-policies/oa-license-policy/user-licenses Jeroen Bosman Op 7 dec. 2013 om 22:58 heeft Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca het volgende geschreven: I argue that the problem here is not green open access. It's Elsevier. Even their version of CC-BY (with exclusive license to publish) does not resolve this problem. This is one of the reasons I am participating in the Elsevier boycott and encourage all scholars to join me (google The Cost of Knowledge). My two bits, Heather Morrison On Dec 7, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Bosman, J.M. j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl wrote: Peter, This is not about where authors may self archive their papers, but about the version they archive. Academia (and Researchgate, and personal sites) have thousands of published versions archived by the authors. That is against most publishers' policies. Cambridge University Press is a good exception allowing archiving of the publishers' version after an embargo period.. Elsevier has always been issuing takedown notices
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
On 9 December 2013 00:20, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.cawrote: Alicia, According to your statement below, with CC-BY the only restriction placed by Elsevier is for attribution. However, the Elsevier open access license policy clearly states that Elsevier demands an exclusive license to publish with open access works (including CC-BY). Can you explain this discrepancy? I don't believe this is a discrepancy. What it is saying that the definitive record is published by Elsevier, and the author provides an exclusive licence in order to do so. Re-publishing, or re-distributing via any other venue constitutes a derivative work, which is permissible and does not conflict with the exclusive licence (which is only on the definitive record, not the derivative) - providing the proper attribution is in place. Without the exclusive licence to the definitive record, then as the author retains copyright, then in theory the author could authorize publishing of a version of the definitive record without attribution to the Elsevier version. It's a question of preserving the version of record. The difference between the author providing a licence to Elsevier to distribute an article under CC-BY, and the author providing a CC-BY licence to Elsevier. Comment: Based on this wording it is clear that Elsevier is requiring an exclusive publishing license. This is not compatible with your explanation below that nothing is required beyond attribution as required by the CC-BY license. It is consistent - the article can be re-published elsewhere, providing it is accordance with the CC-BY licence, including attribution to the definitive record as published by Elsevier. G ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
Heather, That would be new for me. Do you mean to say that Gold OA articles from Elsevier with a CC-BY license can not be shared without restriction? The exclusive license you mention is not in the fine print here:http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/open-access/open-access-policies/oa-license-policy/user-licenses Jeroen Bosman Op 7 dec. 2013 om 22:58 heeft Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca het volgende geschreven: I argue that the problem here is not green open access. It's Elsevier. Even their version of CC-BY (with exclusive license to publish) does not resolve this problem. This is one of the reasons I am participating in the Elsevier boycott and encourage all scholars to join me (google The Cost of Knowledge). My two bits, Heather Morrison On Dec 7, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Bosman, J.M. j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl wrote: Peter, This is not about where authors may self archive their papers, but about the version they archive. Academia (and Researchgate, and personal sites) have thousands of published versions archived by the authors. That is against most publishers' policies. Cambridge University Press is a good exception allowing archiving of the publishers' version after an embargo period.. Elsevier has always been issuing takedown notices, but not at this scale and mostly not against their own authors. In that sense this is new and a sign that Elsevier wants to fight the very idea that outcomes of science should circulate freely. Strictly juridically speaking Elsevier is just asserting copyright of course. But I hope it will be another wake up call for authors with the effect that they start to massively share their last author versions through their institutional repositories and other routes. And of course they can publish in reasonably priced full OA journals. Jeroen Bosman Utrecht University Library Op 7 dec. 2013 om 08:20 heeft Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.ukmailto:ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk het volgende geschreven: List members can also refer to the following article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, which includes comments from the founder and CEO of Academia.eduhttp://Academia.edu Richard Price, and from Elsevier: http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/posting-your-latest-article-you-might-have-to-take-it-down/48865 Elsevier has also posted a statement on the matter here: http://www.elsevier.com/connect/a-comment-on-takedown-notices From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust Sent: 07 December 2013 05:04 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: jisc-repositories; ASIST Special Interest Group on Metrics Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier Study Commissioned by UK BIS List members may be aware that Elsevier sent out thousands of take-down notices for Green OA yesterday. See http://svpow.com/2013/12/06/elsevier-is-taking-down-papers-from-academia-edu/ and much twitter discussion. These manuscripts are Green. They are self archived by authors after publication. But this is forbidden by Elsevier - the manuscripts can only be posted in an Institutional Repository (and then, I assume, only if there is no mandate requiring deposition). This is lunacy and it's to the discredit of the academics that they play this convoluted and sterile game created by the publishers. Publishers' reason for insisting on IRs over Academia.eduhttp://Academia.edu is that readers actually use Academia. The purpose of the BOAI declaration was to make scholarship available to everyone. This farce makes scholarship available to almost no-one. ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.orgmailto:GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.orgmailto:GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.orgmailto: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] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
Joeren, Thanks very much to the link. The explanatory paragraph at the top explicitly states that the licenses define how readers and the general public can use these works. In other words, Elsevier's twist on CC licenses suggests that not even their CC-BY license permits redistribution by other organizations, whether commercial or not. In future with Elsevier's approach to CC-BY we could be seeing takedown notices for CC-BY works at Academia.eduhttp://Academia.edu, and also archives including PMC and institutional archives. If scholars agree that it is not a good idea to give control over a very substantial portion of the world's scholarly literature to a very small group of companies ultimately beholden only to their owners for the primary purposes of profit, let's stop giving them our copyright. Join the boycott - and tell your library to cancel the big deals of the big publishers. best, Heather Morrison On Dec 8, 2013, at 7:47 AM, Bosman, J.M. j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl wrote: Heather, That would be new for me. Do you mean to say that Gold OA articles from Elsevier with a CC-BY license can not be shared without restriction? The exclusive license you mention is not in the fine print here:http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/open-access/open-access-policies/oa-license-policy/user-licenseshttp://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/open-access/open-access-policies/oa-license-policy/user-licenses Jeroen Bosman Op 7 dec. 2013 om 22:58 heeft Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca het volgende geschreven: I argue that the problem here is not green open access. It's Elsevier. Even their version of CC-BY (with exclusive license to publish) does not resolve this problem. This is one of the reasons I am participating in the Elsevier boycott and encourage all scholars to join me (google The Cost of Knowledge). My two bits, Heather Morrison On Dec 7, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Bosman, J.M. j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl wrote: Peter, This is not about where authors may self archive their papers, but about the version they archive. Academia (and Researchgate, and personal sites) have thousands of published versions archived by the authors. That is against most publishers' policies. Cambridge University Press is a good exception allowing archiving of the publishers' version after an embargo period.. Elsevier has always been issuing takedown notices, but not at this scale and mostly not against their own authors. In that sense this is new and a sign that Elsevier wants to fight the very idea that outcomes of science should circulate freely. Strictly juridically speaking Elsevier is just asserting copyright of course. But I hope it will be another wake up call for authors with the effect that they start to massively share their last author versions through their institutional repositories and other routes. And of course they can publish in reasonably priced full OA journals. Jeroen Bosman Utrecht University Library Op 7 dec. 2013 om 08:20 heeft Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.ukmailto:ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk het volgende geschreven: List members can also refer to the following article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, which includes comments from the founder and CEO of Academia.eduhttp://Academia.edu Richard Price, and from Elsevier: http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/posting-your-latest-article-you-might-have-to-take-it-down/48865 Elsevier has also posted a statement on the matter here: http://www.elsevier.com/connect/a-comment-on-takedown-notices From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust Sent: 07 December 2013 05:04 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: jisc-repositories; ASIST Special Interest Group on Metrics Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier Study Commissioned by UK BIS List members may be aware that Elsevier sent out thousands of take-down notices for Green OA yesterday. See http://svpow.com/2013/12/06/elsevier-is-taking-down-papers-from-academia-edu/ and much twitter discussion. These manuscripts are Green. They are self archived by authors after publication. But this is forbidden by Elsevier - the manuscripts can only be posted in an Institutional Repository (and then, I assume, only if there is no mandate requiring deposition). This is lunacy and it's to the discredit of the academics that they play this convoluted and sterile game created by the publishers. Publishers' reason for insisting on IRs over Academia.eduhttp://Academia.edu is that readers actually use Academia. The purpose of the BOAI declaration was to make scholarship available to everyone. This farce makes scholarship available to almost no-one. ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.orgmailto:GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
Hi Jeroen, These articles can of course be used without any restriction other than the attribution required by the CC-BY license. With kind wishes, Alicia 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.commailto:a.w...@elsevier.com Twitter: @wisealic From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 9:56 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu Heather, That would be new for me. Do you mean to say that Gold OA articles from Elsevier with a CC-BY license can not be shared without restriction? The exclusive license you mention is not in the fine print here:http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/open-access/open-access-policies/oa-license-policy/user-licenses Jeroen Bosman Op 7 dec. 2013 om 22:58 heeft Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca het volgende geschreven: I argue that the problem here is not green open access. It's Elsevier. Even their version of CC-BY (with exclusive license to publish) does not resolve this problem. This is one of the reasons I am participating in the Elsevier boycott and encourage all scholars to join me (google The Cost of Knowledge). My two bits, Heather Morrison On Dec 7, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Bosman, J.M. j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl wrote: Peter, This is not about where authors may self archive their papers, but about the version they archive. Academia (and Researchgate, and personal sites) have thousands of published versions archived by the authors. That is against most publishers' policies. Cambridge University Press is a good exception allowing archiving of the publishers' version after an embargo period.. Elsevier has always been issuing takedown notices, but not at this scale and mostly not against their own authors. In that sense this is new and a sign that Elsevier wants to fight the very idea that outcomes of science should circulate freely. Strictly juridically speaking Elsevier is just asserting copyright of course. But I hope it will be another wake up call for authors with the effect that they start to massively share their last author versions through their institutional repositories and other routes. And of course they can publish in reasonably priced full OA journals. Jeroen Bosman Utrecht University Library Op 7 dec. 2013 om 08:20 heeft Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.ukmailto:ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk het volgende geschreven: List members can also refer to the following article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, which includes comments from the founder and CEO of Academia.eduhttp://Academia.edu Richard Price, and from Elsevier: http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/posting-your-latest-article-you-might-have-to-take-it-down/48865 Elsevier has also posted a statement on the matter here: http://www.elsevier.com/connect/a-comment-on-takedown-notices From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust Sent: 07 December 2013 05:04 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: jisc-repositories; ASIST Special Interest Group on Metrics Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier Study Commissioned by UK BIS List members may be aware that Elsevier sent out thousands of take-down notices for Green OA yesterday. See http://svpow.com/2013/12/06/elsevier-is-taking-down-papers-from-academia-edu/ and much twitter discussion. These manuscripts are Green. They are self archived by authors after publication. But this is forbidden by Elsevier - the manuscripts can only be posted in an Institutional Repository (and then, I assume, only if there is no mandate requiring deposition). This is lunacy and it's to the discredit of the academics that they play this convoluted and sterile game created by the publishers. Publishers' reason for insisting on IRs over Academia.eduhttp://Academia.edu is that readers actually use Academia. The purpose of the BOAI declaration was to make scholarship available to everyone. This farce makes scholarship available to almost no-one. ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.orgmailto:GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.orgmailto:GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.orgmailto:GOAL@eprints.org 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, Registered in England
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
In his reply to Heather Morrison, Jeoren Bosman wrote:
Do you mean to say that Gold OA articles from Elsevier with a CC-BY license
can not be shared without restriction? The exclusive license you mention is not
in the fine print
This issue was raised previously (August 2012) in this forum, but I think it's
worth making some relevant distinctions.
There are two licenses involved when one chooses OA with Elsevier, in a (Gold)
OA journal or via the Open Access Article program (hybrid OA).
First, upon final submission, the author grants Elsevier an exclusive license
to publish and distribute the article, and to attach a CC license to it. This
contract is solely between Elsevier and the author, and binds the latter, who
keeps the copyright but, due to the exclusive character of the license, loses
(for the time being) the right to publish and distribute the article. The
author presumably keeps the right to adapt it and publish these adaptations
(derivative works, translations, etc.).
Then, upon publication, Elsevier attaches a user license to the article, which
gives permissions to everybody (including the author). If the licence is
CC-BY-NC, for instance, these include non commercial publication and
distribution. Thus, the author regains part of the rights which were granted
Elsevier in the first place, but Elsevier keeps the commercial publishing and
distributing rights.
The situation becomes a little bit weird if the license is CC-BY. Then, anyone
may (re)publish the article, even on a commercial basis, so that Elsevier
effectively gives away the exclusive rights it has previously obtained from the
author.
One may wonder why Elsevier asks exclusive rights in the first place, simply to
give them away later? The only right it retains in the case of the CC-BY
license is to be able to cease at some time to distribute the article under
this license. But, as I pointed out in the above-mentioned discussion, the
original CC-BY license would still be in force, and the article could then be
republished by the author, or anyone for that purpose. In fact, it could have
been republished (or posted on a repository) at any time by anyone: this is
what CC-BY entails.
One should note that OA publishers like PLoS and BioMed Central, which use the
CC-BY license, don't ask that authors to grant an exclusive license; they only
ask them to agree to attach the licence to the article.
Here are relevant excerpts from PLoS and BMC publication conditions:
Upon submission of an article, its authors are asked to indicate their
agreement to abide by an open access Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
license. http://www.plosone.org/static/policies
In submitting a research article ('article') to any of the journals published
by BioMed Central [...] I agree to the following license agreement: [ terms of
the BioMed Central open access license, identical to CC-BY ]
http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/copyright
Marc Couture
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca wrote: I argue that the problem here is not green open access. It's Elsevier. Even their version of CC-BY (with exclusive license to publish) does not resolve this problem. The only version of CC-BY is that created by Creative Commons: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode It may not be arbitrarily modified, nor can its use be restricted or modified by additional exterior protocols: From section 8: d and e *No term or provision of this License shall be deemed waived and no breach consented to unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged with such waiver or consent.This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You.* I have done a moderate amount of exploration of Elsevier's Open Access and have not observed any modified CC-BY licences - the licence statement refers back to the CC authority. I have observed CC-BY licences on documents which also assert (C) Elsevier; All rights Reserved which would be overridden be clauses d and e. I have also observed articles labelled CC-BY behind paywalls and have alerted the world (including Elsevier) to this. It would be legal to copy these articles and post them openly anywhere. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) a.w...@elsevier.comwrote: Hi Jeroen, These articles can of course be used without any restriction other than the attribution required by the CC-BY license. With kind wishes, Alicia If I visit an Elsevier CC-BY article and ask for permissions - say for translation by myself - I get the message from RightsLink: Pricing for this request requires the approval of an Elsevier Commercial Sales Representative. You will be notified of the price before order confirmation. The processing period may take up to three business days. To enable Elsevier to contact you and price the request, please create a Rightslink account, or log in if you haven't already, and confirm the order details. This is seems in direct contravention of the CC-BY licence which would enable anyone to translate an article without permission. I would actually expect Elsevier to charge me for the rights if I continued with this process and I am not prepared to take the risk. I have encountered many examples of Elsevier CC-BY articles behind Paywalls and with restrictions on re-use. It is unacceptable to require the re-user to be brave enough to assert that the CC-BY article overrides the additional and incompatible restrictions and prices from Elsevier. I would ask Elsevier to adopt a similar policy to Publishers such as BMC and PLoS and simply state, under Permissions, that the paper is available under the CC-BY licence and any legitimate re-use may be made. 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* *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On Behalf Of *Bosman, J.M. *Sent:* Sunday, December 08, 2013 9:56 AM *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu Heather, That would be new for me. Do you mean to say that Gold OA articles from Elsevier with a CC-BY license can not be shared without restriction? The exclusive license you mention is not in the fine print here: http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/open-access/open-access-policies/oa-license-policy/user-licenses Jeroen Bosman Op 7 dec. 2013 om 22:58 heeft Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca het volgende geschreven: I argue that the problem here is not green open access. It's Elsevier. Even their version of CC-BY (with exclusive license to publish) does not resolve this problem. This is one of the reasons I am participating in the Elsevier boycott and encourage all scholars to join me (google The Cost of Knowledge). My two bits, Heather Morrison On Dec 7, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Bosman, J.M. j.bos...@uu.nl wrote: Peter, This is not about where authors may self archive their papers, but about the version they archive. Academia (and Researchgate, and personal sites) have thousands of published versions archived by the authors. That is against most publishers' policies. Cambridge University Press is a good exception allowing archiving of the publishers' version after an embargo period.. Elsevier has always been issuing takedown notices, but not at this scale and mostly not against their own authors. In that sense this is new and a sign that Elsevier wants to fight the very idea that outcomes of science should circulate freely. Strictly juridically speaking Elsevier is just asserting copyright of course. But I hope it will be another wake up call for authors with the effect that they start to massively share their last author versions through their institutional repositories and other routes. And of course they can publish in reasonably priced full OA journals. Jeroen Bosman Utrecht University Library Op 7 dec. 2013 om 08:20 heeft Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk het volgende geschreven: List members can also refer to the following article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, which includes comments from the founder and CEO of Academia.edu Richard Price, and from Elsevier: http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/posting-your-latest-article-you-might-have-to-take-it-down/48865 Elsevier has also posted a statement on the matter here: http://www.elsevier.com/connect/a-comment-on-takedown-notices *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orggoal-boun...@eprints.org] *On Behalf Of *Peter Murray-Rust *Sent:* 07 December 2013 05:04 *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) *Cc:* jisc-repositories; ASIST Special Interest Group on Metrics *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Elsevier Study Commissioned by UK BIS List members may be aware that Elsevier sent out thousands of take-down notices for Green OA yesterday. See http://svpow.com/2013/12/06/elsevier-is-taking-down-papers-from-academia-edu/and much twitter
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
Dear Peter Thanks for your elaborate responses. I have encountered the strange Rightslink messages as well. I think at least Elsevier should reconfigure these. Maybe Alicia can comment on that. Best, Jeroen - Jeroen Bosman, subject librarian GeographyGeoscience Utrecht University Libraryhttp://www.uu.nl/library email: j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl telephone: +31.30.2536613 mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3. Utrecht web: Jeroen Bosmanhttp://www.uu.nl/university/library/en/disciplines/geo/Pages/ContactBosman.aspx twitter:@geolibrarianUBU / @jeroenbosman - From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust Sent: zondag 8 december 2013 22:15 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) a.w...@elsevier.commailto:a.w...@elsevier.com wrote: Hi Jeroen, These articles can of course be used without any restriction other than the attribution required by the CC-BY license. With kind wishes, Alicia If I visit an Elsevier CC-BY article and ask for permissions - say for translation by myself - I get the message from RightsLink: Pricing for this request requires the approval of an Elsevier Commercial Sales Representative. You will be notified of the price before order confirmation. The processing period may take up to three business days. To enable Elsevier to contact you and price the request, please create a Rightslink account, or log in if you haven't already, and confirm the order details. This is seems in direct contravention of the CC-BY licence which would enable anyone to translate an article without permission. I would actually expect Elsevier to charge me for the rights if I continued with this process and I am not prepared to take the risk. I have encountered many examples of Elsevier CC-BY articles behind Paywalls and with restrictions on re-use. It is unacceptable to require the re-user to be brave enough to assert that the CC-BY article overrides the additional and incompatible restrictions and prices from Elsevier. I would ask Elsevier to adopt a similar policy to Publishers such as BMC and PLoS and simply state, under Permissions, that the paper is available under the CC-BY licence and any legitimate re-use may be made. 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 826tel:%2B44%20%280%29%207823%20536%20826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.commailto:a.w...@elsevier.com Twitter: @wisealic From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 9:56 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu Heather, That would be new for me. Do you mean to say that Gold OA articles from Elsevier with a CC-BY license can not be shared without restriction? The exclusive license you mention is not in the fine print here:http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/open-access/open-access-policies/oa-license-policy/user-licenses Jeroen Bosman Op 7 dec. 2013 om 22:58 heeft Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca het volgende geschreven: I argue that the problem here is not green open access. It's Elsevier. Even their version of CC-BY (with exclusive license to publish) does not resolve this problem. This is one of the reasons I am participating in the Elsevier boycott and encourage all scholars to join me (google The Cost of Knowledge). My two bits, Heather Morrison On Dec 7, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Bosman, J.M. j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl wrote: Peter, This is not about where authors may self archive their papers, but about the version they archive. Academia (and Researchgate, and personal sites) have thousands of published versions archived by the authors. That is against most publishers' policies. Cambridge University Press is a good exception allowing archiving of the publishers' version after an embargo period.. Elsevier has always been issuing takedown notices, but not at this scale and mostly not against their own authors. In that sense this is new and a sign that Elsevier wants to fight the very idea that outcomes of science should circulate freely. Strictly juridically speaking Elsevier is just asserting copyright of course. But I hope it will be another wake up call for authors with the effect that they start to massively share their last author versions through their institutional repositories and other routes. And of course they can publish in reasonably priced full OA
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
Alicia, According to your statement below, with CC-BY the only restriction placed by Elsevier is for attribution. However, the Elsevier open access license policy clearly states that Elsevier demands an exclusive license to publish with open access works (including CC-BY). Can you explain this discrepancy? Details: According to the Elsevier open access website, it says: Open access license policy.. There are two distinct types of licenses which need to be defined during the open access publication process: • Author agreement: In order for us to do our job of publishing and disseminating your research article we need publishing rights. For open access articles we use an exclusive licensing agreement in which authors retain copyright in their article. (Read more). • User license: Users or readers of your article also need to be clear on how they can use the article. Our policy for gold open access articles is detailed below. From: http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-policies/oa-license-policy In the details page, it is stated that For articles published in either an Open Access Journal or via our Open Access Article program, we use an Exclusive License Agreement... Elsevier is granted An exclusive right to publish and distribute an article. From: http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-policies/author-agreement Comment: Based on this wording it is clear that Elsevier is requiring an exclusive publishing license. This is not compatible with your explanation below that nothing is required beyond attribution as required by the CC-BY license. GOAL readers please note that traditional publishers have tended to replace the traditional copyright transfer agreement with a license to publish with subscription journals. The terms of a license to publish can be every bit as restrictive as full copyright transfer. best, Heather Morrison On 2013-12-08, at 10:52 AM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote: Hi Jeroen, These articles can of course be used without any restriction other than the attribution required by the CC-BY license. With kind wishes, Alicia 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 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Bosman, J.M. Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 9:56 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu Heather, That would be new for me. Do you mean to say that Gold OA articles from Elsevier with a CC-BY license can not be shared without restriction? The exclusive license you mention is not in the fine print here:http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/open-access/open-access-policies/oa-license-policy/user-licenses Jeroen Bosman Op 7 dec. 2013 om 22:58 heeft Heather Morrison heather.morri...@uottawa.ca het volgende geschreven: I argue that the problem here is not green open access. It's Elsevier. Even their version of CC-BY (with exclusive license to publish) does not resolve this problem. This is one of the reasons I am participating in the Elsevier boycott and encourage all scholars to join me (google The Cost of Knowledge). My two bits, Heather Morrison On Dec 7, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Bosman, J.M. j.bos...@uu.nl wrote: Peter, This is not about where authors may self archive their papers, but about the version they archive. Academia (and Researchgate, and personal sites) have thousands of published versions archived by the authors. That is against most publishers' policies. Cambridge University Press is a good exception allowing archiving of the publishers' version after an embargo period.. Elsevier has always been issuing takedown notices, but not at this scale and mostly not against their own authors. In that sense this is new and a sign that Elsevier wants to fight the very idea that outcomes of science should circulate freely. Strictly juridically speaking Elsevier is just asserting copyright of course. But I hope it will be another wake up call for authors with the effect that they start to massively share their last author versions through their institutional repositories and other routes. And of course they can publish in reasonably priced full OA journals. Jeroen Bosman Utrecht University Library Op 7 dec. 2013 om 08:20 heeft Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk het volgende geschreven: List members can also refer to the following article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, which includes comments from the founder and CEO of Academia.edu Richard Price, and from Elsevier: http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/posting-your-latest-article-you-might-have-to-take-it-down/48865 Elsevier has also posted
[GOAL] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
Peter, This is not about where authors may self archive their papers, but about the version they archive. Academia (and Researchgate, and personal sites) have thousands of published versions archived by the authors. That is against most publishers' policies. Cambridge University Press is a good exception allowing archiving of the publishers' version after an embargo period.. Elsevier has always been issuing takedown notices, but not at this scale and mostly not against their own authors. In that sense this is new and a sign that Elsevier wants to fight the very idea that outcomes of science should circulate freely. Strictly juridically speaking Elsevier is just asserting copyright of course. But I hope it will be another wake up call for authors with the effect that they start to massively share their last author versions through their institutional repositories and other routes. And of course they can publish in reasonably priced full OA journals. Jeroen Bosman Utrecht University Library Op 7 dec. 2013 om 08:20 heeft Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.ukmailto:ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk het volgende geschreven: List members can also refer to the following article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, which includes comments from the founder and CEO of Academia.eduhttp://Academia.edu Richard Price, and from Elsevier: http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/posting-your-latest-article-you-might-have-to-take-it-down/48865 Elsevier has also posted a statement on the matter here: http://www.elsevier.com/connect/a-comment-on-takedown-notices From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust Sent: 07 December 2013 05:04 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: jisc-repositories; ASIST Special Interest Group on Metrics Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier Study Commissioned by UK BIS List members may be aware that Elsevier sent out thousands of take-down notices for Green OA yesterday. See http://svpow.com/2013/12/06/elsevier-is-taking-down-papers-from-academia-edu/ and much twitter discussion. These manuscripts are Green. They are self archived by authors after publication. But this is forbidden by Elsevier - the manuscripts can only be posted in an Institutional Repository (and then, I assume, only if there is no mandate requiring deposition). This is lunacy and it's to the discredit of the academics that they play this convoluted and sterile game created by the publishers. Publishers' reason for insisting on IRs over Academia.eduhttp://Academia.edu is that readers actually use Academia. The purpose of the BOAI declaration was to make scholarship available to everyone. This farce makes scholarship available to almost no-one. ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.orgmailto: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] Re: Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: List members may be aware that Elsevier sent out thousands of take-down notices for Green OA yesterday. See http://svpow.com/2013/12/06/elsevier-is-taking-down-papers-from-academia-edu/and much twitter discussion. These manuscripts are Green. They are self archived by authors after publication. But this is forbidden by Elsevier - the manuscripts can only be posted in an Institutional Repository (and then, I assume, only if there is no mandate requiring deposition). This is lunacy and it's to the discredit of the academics that they play this convoluted and sterile game created by the publishers. Publishers' reason for insisting on IRs over Academia.edu is that readers actually use Academia. The purpose of the BOAI declaration was to make scholarship available to everyone. This farce makes scholarship available to almost no-one. Don't (just) boycott or fulminate: Deposit! Elsevier may have enough clout with take-down notices to 3rd-party service providers (and might be able to weather the backlash blizzard that will follow) -- but not with institutions self-archiving their own research output. I take this as yet another cue to push 100% for immediate institutional deposit mandates and the Button from all institutions and funders. Since 2004 Elsevier formally recognizes their authors' right to do immediate, unembargoed OA self-archiving on their institutional website. And even if they ever do try to rescind that, closed-access deposit is immune to take-down notices. (But I don't think Elsevier will dare arouse that global backlash by rescinding its 9-year policy of endorsing unembargoed Green OA -- they will instead try to hope that they can either bluff authors off with their empty-double-talk about systematicity and voluntariness or buy their institutions off by sweetening their publication deal on condition they don't mandate Green OA…) On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Bo-Christer Björk bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi wrote: The Elsevier study on OA prevalence study was part of broader report. The methods are just shortly mentioned so its a bit problematic to comment in detail. The global gold OA share found is 9,7 % of scopus articles, consisting of 5,5 % APC paid and 4,2 others (not just 5.5 % as Stevan noted below). The global hybrid share is 0.5. The green global share could be assumed to more or less be the sum of preprint versions of 6.4 % and accepted versions 5.0 %, adding directly to around 11 %. In particular if their method only took the first found full text copy and then classified it The big flaw of the study seems to be in the sample used, since it consisted of equal numbers of Scopus articles that had been published 2 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months before the Googling. If the hits are simple added up for all the sampled articles this means that a major share of selfarchivied manuscripts are ignored, due to embargoes or author behavior in for instance selfarchiving once a year. For instance half of the copies in PMC would not be found in this way. Equally the very low figure for Open Archives, 1.0 %, could be a result of this method. Our own results for delayed OA are around 5 %. So all in all the figures are much lower than if one includes articles made OA with at least a one year delay, which we find is the method we would recommend for studies claiming to give overall OA uptake figures. Whether this methodological choice was a conscious one from the study team or just an oversight is difficult to know. But if they would have adhered to a strict interpretation that only immediate OA is OA, the sampling should have been different. Now it's somewhere in between. Bo-Christer is quite right. Elsevier's arbitrary (and somewhat self-serving) 6-category classification system (each of whose categories is curiously labelled a publishing system) leaves much to be desired: 1. Gold Open Access 2. Hybrid 3. Subsidised 4. Open Archives 5. Green Open Access: Pre-print versions 6. Green Open Access: Accepted Author Manuscript versions It is not just what Elsevier called Gold Open Access that was Gold Open Access, but also what they called Subsidised. The difference is merely that what they called Gold was publishing-fee-based Gold and what they called subsidized was subsidy-based Gold. Elsevier also neglected to mention that Subsidised did not necessarily mean subsidized either: There are also subscription-based journals that make their online versions free immediately upon publication; hence they are likewise Gold OA journals. What Elsevier called Open Archives is also not what it sounds like: It seems to be *Delayed Access* articles, accessible only after a publisher embargo, either on the publisher's website or in another central website, such as PubMed
