[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] OA's Real Battle-Ground in 2014: The One-Year Embargo
On 12/7/2013, Jeroen Bosman wrote: *JS:* Stevan, As you say, this is indeed specualation. I can follow the reasoning but wonder if you could mention examples of publishers releasing content after one year as you say under 6. See Laakso Bjork (2013) in the text appended at the end of this posting. *JS: *The roadmap you put before us here is a major turn from the massive introduction of hybrid gold now offered by publishers and accepted by governments (UK, NL). The publishers' road is the road to over-priced, double-paid, double-dipped Fool's Gold OA. The alternative is the road to Green OA -- which will in turn lead to single-paid, affordable, sustainable Fair Gold OA. *JS: *I am afraid that currently many authors and universities would be content with (one year) delayed gold OA and retaining subscriptions. I do not think that under those circumstances there would still be massive support for depositing author versions for just one year. We do not even have that now, with almost no delayed gold at all. Until recently authors and universities were content with subscription-access alone. Then came the OA movement. Now the publishers are trying to offer 1-year Delayed Access instead of OA (and they only offer that under pressure for OA). The pressure for OA will only increase, not decrease. Publisher access-embargoes block access as surely as publisher subscription tolls do. If access is needed for research at all, it is needed immediately upon acceptance for publication, not just a year (or two, or ten) later. OA means immediate (and permanent) online access. *JS: *It may be tactically important to convince the research community of green ID/OA mandates before publishers make this switch. Publishers are offering embargoed access only because of pressure for immediate OA, from researchers as well us institutional and funder OA mandated. The Liège/HEFCE immediate-deposit mandate model (ID/OA) is probably the most effective mandate model, and the one to which all OA mandates can be easily upgraded. *JS: *One final suggestion: it would be nice to have your speculative roadmap and the OA classification you suggest in this thread available on the eprints.org webpage, for easy reference. I've posted a revised version of it in http://openaccess.eprints.org and appended it below. I've also added two references (Harnad 2007, 2010) for the leveraged transition from subscription access to mandated Green OA and finally to Fair Gold. I will first reply to David Wojick's (*DW*) optimistic comment about the prospect of publishers demanding and US lawmakers agreeing to Green OA embargoes longer than the ones proposed by OSTP. (DW is a policy consultant with OSTI and for some reason one cannot fathom, sounds uncannily like a publishing industry lobbyisthttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1027-Revealing-Dialogue-on-CHORUS-with-David-Wojick,-OSTI-Consultant.html !) On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:12 PM, David Wojick dwoj...@craigellachie.us wrote: *DW:* In case some of you have not seen it, the draft FIRST bill in the US House has a major Federal OA section beginning on page 32 (section 302). http://www.fabbs.org/files/5913/8375/7907/Discussion%20Draft%20of%20House%20Science%20Committee%20Bill.pdf *DW: I*n particular it provides for embargo periods of up to 24 months, rather than OSTP's baseline of 12 months. Agencies can also go for 30 or 36 months for specific cases that must be justified. As a policy analyst I would say there is no way to tell where OA is going at this point. The wheel of fortune is still spinning, as it were. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/dwojick/ Nowhere else on the planet is a publisher OA embargo longer than a year being seriously contemplated -- but, as I said, the Liège/HEFCE immediate-deposit mandate model (ID/OA) is immune to publisher embargoes… *Stevan Harnad* OA's Real Battle-Ground in 2014: The One-Year Embargohttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1084-OAs-Real-Battle-Ground-in-2014-The-One-Year-Embargo.html The prediction that It is almost certain that within the next few years most journals will become [Delayed] Gold (with an embargo of 12 months)http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1083-Immediate-vs.-Delayed-Access.html is an extrapolation and inference from the manifest pattern across the last half-decade: 1. Journal publishers know (better than anyone) that OA is inevitable and unstoppable, only delayable (via embargoes). 2. Journal publishers also know that it is the first year of sales that sustains their subscriptions. (The talk about later sales is just hyperbole.) 3. Publishers have accordingly been fighting tooth and nail against Green OA mandates, by lobbying against Green OA
[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 a
[GOAL] BLOG: Reflections on the Open Access Research Conference 2013
Apologies for cross posting Hello all, The Open Access and Research Conference 2013, held at QUT between 31 October – 1 November 2013, focused on the theme of Discovery, Impact and Innovation. This was only the second open access conference held in Australia and featured speakers discussing open access activities from around the world. The AOASG has published a blog summarising some of the key messages that emerged from the discussions: Reflections on the Open Access Research Conference 2013 - http://aoasg.org.au/2013/12/09/reflections-on-the-open-access-and-research-conference-2013/ Danny Dr Danny Kingsley Executive Officer Australian Open Access Support Group e: e...@aoasg.org.aumailto:e...@aoasg.org.au p: +612 6125 6839 w: .aoasg.org.au t: @openaccess_oz ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
