Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
[BOAI] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT gmail.com>
** Cross-Posted ** On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 AT cam.ac.uk> ↵ wrote: > > On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT ↵ gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sat, May 12, 2012, Alicia Wise (Elsevier Director of Universal >> Access) wrote: >> >> It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their >> institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops >> its "you may if you wish but not if you must" clause, which ↵ is not >> only incoherent, but intimidates authors. > > Stevan, > Could you please explain this clause? (This is my ignorance as I don't > publish with Elevier and so am unfamiliar with their author-side ↵ contracts). > Does it mean that Elsevier sometimes allows Green Open Access and ↵ sometimes don't? It means that Elsevier formally endorses its authors' right to make their final, peer-reviewed drafts Open Access immediately upon publication (no embargo) by posting them on their institutional website (Green Gratis OA) -- "but not in institutional repositories with mandates for systematic postings." The distinction between an institutional website and an institutional repository is bogus. The distinction between nonmandatory posting (allowed) and mandatory posting (not allowed) is arbitrary nonsense. ("You retain the right to post if you wish but not if you must!") The "systematic" criterion is also nonsense. (Systematic posting ↵ would be the institutional posting of all the articles in the journal; but any single institution only contributes a tiny, arbitrary fraction of the articles in any journal, just as any single author does; so the mandating institution would not be a 3rd-party "free-rider" on the journal's content: its researchers would simply be making their own articles OA, by posting them on their institutional website, exactly as described.) This "systematic" clause is hence pure FUD, designed to scare or ↵ bully or confuse institutions into not mandating posting, and authors into not complying with their institutional mandates. (There are also rumours that in confidential licensing negotiations with institutions, Elsevier has been trying to link bigger and better pricing deals to the institution's agreeing not to adopt a Green OA mandate.) Along with the majority of publishers today, Elsevier is a Green publisher: It has endorsed immediate (unembargoed) institutional Green OA posting by its authors ever since 27 May 2004: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3771.html Elsevier's public image is so bad today that rescinding its Green light to self-archive after almost a decade of mounting demand for OA is hardly a very attractive or viable option: http://cdn.anonfiles.com/1334923359479.pdf http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#32.Poisoned And double-talk, smoke-screens and FUD are even less attractive: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/822-.html It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and their institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier drops its "you may if you wish but not if you must" clause, which is not only incoherent, but intimidates authors. (This would also help counteract some of the rather bad press Elsevier has been getting lately...) Stevan Harnad -- To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page: http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f
[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
E-mail: email@example.com .