Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] Re: Elsevier Still Onside of Angels on Immediate, Unembargoed Green OA Self-Archiving By Its Authors

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 20:24:46 -0400


Threading: [BOAI] Elsevier Still Onside of Angels on Immediate, Unembargoed Green OA Self-Archiving By Its Authors from amsciforum AT gmail.com
      • This Message

--001a11c2794cff8a0f04dbb14244
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:10 PM, BISSET J. <james.bisset AT durham.ac.uk> 
wrote=
:


>  From our understanding of Elsevier policy this is not the case in two
> instances:
>
>  1) if the institution requires deposit in their institutional repository
> 2) if the funder requires open access.
>

Dear James,

Elsevier rights agreements state that authors retains the right to make
their final drafts OA immediately upon publication: no embargo.

I will answer your more detailed questions below, but let me already give
you a simple general answer from which all the specific ones can be deduced=
.

If a contract says *you have the right to do X*, then it cannot go on to
stipulate that you only have the "*right to exercise"* your right to 
do X
if you are not required to exercise it. That is empty
double-talk,<http://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Ha=
rnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-=
8&tbm=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#q=3Delsevier+dou=
ble-talk+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&lr=3D&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dact=
ive&hl=3Den&tbm=3Dblg&tbas=3D0&source=3Dlnt&sa=3DX&ei=3DVpiBUeBI08fSAc-pgaA=
M&ved=3D0CBsQpwUoAA&bav=3Don.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=3Dbv.45921128,d.dmQ&fp=3D1=
dc003e2610cd254&biw=3D1181&bih=3D708>and
can and should be completely ignored as empty. A right is a right; you
either have it or you don't.

Moreover, Elsevier authors do not need Elsevier's permission to
*deposit*in their IRs any more than they need Elsevier's permission to
go to the WC!

The only thing at issue is *the right to make the deposit immediately OA
(i.e., free online)*. And Elsevier (like Springer, and about 60% of all
publishers) state that the author retains the right to make the final draft
OA immediately upon publication: no OA embargo.

So all authors with any sense should go ahead and exercise that formally
endorsed right that they retain!

I have an email from Elsevier today confirming that in either of the two
> cases above, immediate deposit is permitted but open access is not
> permitted until [after] an embargo period...
>

Elsevier is just playing on words here. As I said, the right to
*deposit*is not at issue. Elsevier does not have any say over where I
put my final
draft.

The only right at issue is *the right to make the deposit immediately OA
(i.e., free online)*.

Additionally, Durham has reissued its mandate for self-archiving, including
> a requirement that only those deposited (not necessarily open access) can
> be used for consideration in promotion or probation (the 'how' this will
> work us still being looked at - So this has not yet been registered
> anywhere).
>

Bravo on adopting the optimal institutional OA mandate. Soon we can hope
that the Durham mandate will be reinforced by the very same mandate from
HEFCE/REF 
<http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/rsrch/rinfrastruct/openaccess/>:
only articles whose final drafts were deposited in the author's
institutional repository immediately upon acceptance for publication will
be eligible for submission to the next REF (2020).

Institutional and HEFCE immediate-deposit mandates can then mutually
reinforce one another, and institutions will be able to devise a simple
mechanism for monitoring and verifying
compliance<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1004-Harnad-Fo=
llow-Up-Comments-to-BIS-Select-Committee-on-Open-Access.html>
.


> Because we now mandate deposit, Elsevier have indicated we cannot make an=
y
> publications open access until we sign an agreement with them - which
> includes restricting access from immediate upon publication (as it was
> without a mandate) to the embargo periods mentioned above.
>

This is very interesting: Have you asked yourself *why* Elsevier is asking
for a second agreement? Isn't the author's signed agreement enough, if it
is really sufficient to accord him a right yet prevent him from exercising
that right?

Well obviously not, because of the double-talk I just mentioned. In an
agreement with the clause

*Clause C1:* "*You retain the right to do X*"


followed by the clause

*Clause C2: *"*but you may not "exercise your right" to do X if 
you are
required to do X*"


you are sanctioning a contradiction. Logically speaking (and contracts must
obey logic as surely as they must obey the law), this is pretty much the
same as simply saying:

*Clause C1:* "*You may do X*"


and

*Clause C2: *"*You may not do X*."


With a logical contradiction, you can pretty much take your choice and do
whatever you like, because anything (and the opposite of anything) follows
from a contradiction.

A good choice would be to read sequentially, follow Clause 1, and simply
ignore Clause 2, which just says the opposite. If challenged, cite clause 1=
.

And this is the real reason that Elsevier is not comfortable with relying
on its signed author rights agreement with its authors as grounds for
restraining them form doing what the retain the right to do if they are
required to do it. So they instead try to get a signature to yet another
agreement, from yet another party -- the university -- a further agreement
tjat would have the (failed) intended effect of the author rights
agreement: *The institution must sign that it may not require the author to
exercise his right to provide immediate OA.*

Solution? Simple: The university should not sign!

If Elsevier really thinks its author agreement has already seen to it that
mandated authors may not provide immediate OA if required by his
university, then there is no call for the university to sign a thing.

Of course, this is not quite the way Elsevier goes about trying to get the
university to sign: It proposes a contingency, in confidential pricing
negotiations, between the subscription deal it offers the university, and
whether or not they require immediate OA.

This would be unethical if it weren't so ludicrous.

Of course the university should not sign away its right to mandate
immediate-deposit because of a subscription-deal contingency.

But the solution is even simpler than that. Not only should the university
not sign any agreement with Elsevier over what it may or may not require
its researchers do, but the university should not worry too much about
embargoes; it should simply implement the "Almost OA" 
email-eprint-request
Button<http://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%2=
0OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&tbm=
=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#q=3DButton+blogurl:ht=
tp://openaccess.eprints.org/&hl=3Den&lr=3D&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive&tbm=3Db=
lg&tbas=3D0&source=3Dlnt&sa=3DX&ei=3DHnU5UcDCFIyq0AGWhIHQAw&ved=3D0CBwQpwUo=
AA&fp=3D1&biw=3D1288&bih=3D758&bav=3Don.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&cad=3Db&sei=3D5KGBU=
b2GD6Pm0gGa24HoDw>
.

That way not only will the university's immediate-deposit mandate (with the
help of the HEFCE/REF immediate-deposit mandate) ensure that all final
drafts are immediately deposited and that at least 60% of those
immediate-deposits (including all Elsevier deposits!) will be made
immediately OA. But, in addition, even the those immediate-deposits that
are from from the 40% of journals -- which (unlike Springer and Elsevier
and APS and IOP and all the other publishers who are on the Side if the
angels) try to embargo OA -- will be made "Almost OA", via the 
Button.

And with the help of the eprint Button, the ID/OA mandate will go on to
make OA embargoes as ineffectual as Clause 2, once the immediate-deposit
mandate becomes universal.

And a word about "systematicity": Systematically duplicating the 
contents
of a journal would mean duplicating all of its contents. But a single
institution just provides a tiny (and unsystematic) fraction of any
journal's contents.

Globally mandated OA will be another story: But Elsevier cannot hope to
persuade all universities worldwide to desist from mandating OA! (And it is
noteworthy that Elsevier is not even trying to get research funders to sign
"agreements" not mandate OA, or to extend OA embargoes; Elsevier's 
strategy
there is lobbying, since they don't have the subscription discount carrot
with which it lures naive universities into signing over their mandating
rights in exchange for a better subscription Big-Deal.

However, if Alicia is indicating this new stance is a move away from that
> which I was told by Elsevier earlier today, and is still less than clearl=
y
> indicated on their web pages (which indicate an author can comply by
> self-archiving, but then go on to list embargo periods which do not meet
> RCUK policy) then that is great news.
>

Alicia is just re-stating the Clause 1. Take her at her word.

Best wishes,

Stevan



> On 1 May 2013, at 14:49, "Stevan Harnad" <amsciforum AT 
gmail.com> wrote:
>
>    *Alicia Wise*  AT *wisealic* 
<https://twitter.com/wisealic>20h<https://tw=
itter.com/wisealic/status/329287890641252352>
>
>  AT *AmSciForum* <https://twitter.com/AmSciForum> Stevan - 
Elsevier's #*oa*<=
https://twitter.com/search?q=3D%23oa&src=3Dhash>agreement with RCUK, 
includ=
ing gold & green options, is described here:http://www.
> elsevier.com/about/publishi
> ng-guidelines/policies/funding-body-agreements/research-councils-uk 
=85<h=
ttp://t.co/s8faOyHfEE>
>
>  *Stevan Harnad*  AT *AmSciForum* 
<https://twitter.com/AmSciForum>8h<https:/=
/twitter.com/AmSciForum/status/329457762482397185>
>
>  AT *wisealic* <https://twitter.com/wisealic> Simple Question: 
Is/isn't
> Elsevier-like Springer-still Green on immediate, unembargoed 
#*oa*<https:=
//twitter.com/search?q=3D%23oa&src=3Dhash>self-archiving?
>  http://j.mp/11B5gcg  <http://t.co/Jd0DTucqng>
>
>
>  *Alicia Wise*  AT *wisealic* 
<https://twitter.com/wisealic>19m<https://twit=
ter.com/wisealic/status/329587843716509696>
>
>  AT *AmSciForum* <https://twitter.com/AmSciForum> *yes, Elsevier 
endorses
> immediate self-archiving of accepted final drafts free for all on the web
> immediately upon acceptance.*
>
>
>   *Stevan Harnad*  AT *AmSciForum* 
<https://twitter.com/AmSciForum>3m<https:=
//twitter.com/AmSciForum/status/329591992843640833>
>
>  AT *wisealic* <https://twitter.com/wisealic> Thanks Alicia. Then 
Elsevier
> remains on Side of the Angels & I will continue to attest to that! 
<https=
://twitter.com/search?q=3D%23oa&src=3Dhash>
>
>

--001a11c2794cff8a0f04dbb14244
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">On 
Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:10 PM,=
 BISSET J. <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a 
href=3D"mailto:james.bisset AT durham.ac.u=
k" target=3D"_blank">james.bisset AT 
durham.ac.uk</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><di=
v class=3D"gmail_quote">
<div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" 
style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px=
 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left=
-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div 
bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><div><div>
</div>
<div>From our understanding of Elsevier policy this is not the case in 
two =
instances:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1) if the institution requires deposit in their institutional 
reposito=
ry</div>
<div>2) if the funder requires open 
access.</div></div></div></blockquote><=
div><br></div><div style>Dear James,</div><div 
style><br></div><div style>E=
lsevier rights agreements state that authors retains the right to make thei=
r final drafts OA immediately upon publication: no embargo.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>I will answer your more 
detailed questions =
below, but let me already give you a simple general answer from which all t=
he specific ones can be deduced.</div><div 
style><br></div><div style>If a =
contract says <i>you have=A0the right to do X</i>, then it cannot 
go on to =
stipulate that you only have the &quot;<i>right to 
exercise&quot;</i>=A0you=
r right to do X if you are not required to exercise it. That is <a 
href=3D"=
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&amp;lr=3D&amp;q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%=
20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&amp;ie=3DUTF-8=
&amp;tbm=3Dblg&amp;tbs=3Dqdr:m&amp;num=3D100&amp;c2coff=3D1&amp;safe=3Dacti=
ve#q=3Delsevier+double-talk+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&amp;lr=
=3D&amp;c2coff=3D1&amp;safe=3Dactive&amp;hl=3Den&amp;tbm=3Dblg&amp;tbas=3D0=
&amp;source=3Dlnt&amp;sa=3DX&amp;ei=3DVpiBUeBI08fSAc-pgaAM&amp;ved=3D0CBsQp=
wUoAA&amp;bav=3Don.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&amp;bvm=3Dbv.45921128,d.dmQ&amp;fp=3D1dc=
003e2610cd254&amp;biw=3D1181&amp;bih=3D708">empty 
double-talk,</a> and=A0ca=
n and should be completely ignored as empty.=A0A right is a right; you eith=
er have it or you don&#39;t.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Moreover, Elsevier 
authors do not need Else=
vier&#39;s permission to <i>deposit</i> in their IRs any more 
than they nee=
d Elsevier&#39;s permission to go to the WC!=A0</div><div 
style><br></div>
<div style>The only thing at issue is <i>the right to make the 
deposit imme=
diately OA (i.e., free online)</i>. And Elsevier (like Springer, and 
about =
60% of all publishers) state that the author retains the right to make the =
final draft OA immediately upon publication: no OA embargo.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>So all authors with any 
sense should go ahe=
ad and exercise that formally endorsed right that they 
retain!</div><div st=
yle><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" 
style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px=
 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left=
-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">
<div>I have an email from Elsevier today confirming that in either of the 
t=
wo cases above, immediate deposit is permitted but open access is not permi=
tted until [after] an embargo 
period...<br></div></div></blockquote><div>
<br></div><div style>Elsevier is just playing on words here. 
As I said, the=
 right to <i>deposit</i> is not at issue. Elsevier does not have 
any say ov=
er where I put my final draft.=A0</div><div 
style><br></div><div style>The =
only right at issue is=A0<i>the right to make the deposit immediately OA 
(i=
.e., free online)</i>.<br>
</div><div style><br></div><blockquote 
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204=
);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div 
bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><div><=
/div>

<div>Additionally, Durham has reissued its mandate for self-archiving, 
incl=
uding a requirement that only those deposited (not necessarily open access)=
 can be used for consideration in promotion or probation (the 
&#39;how&#39;=
 this will work us still being looked at
 - So this has not yet been registered 
anywhere).<br></div></div></blockquo=
te><div><br></div><div style>Bravo on adopting the 
optimal institutional OA=
 mandate. Soon we can hope that the Durham mandate will be reinforced by th=
e very same mandate from <a 
href=3D"http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/rsrch/r=
infrastruct/openaccess/">HEFCE/REF</a>: only articles whose final 
drafts we=
re deposited in the author&#39;s institutional repository immediately upon 
=
acceptance for publication will be eligible for submission to the next REF =
(2020).</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Institutional and HEFCE 
immediate-deposit m=
andates can then mutually reinforce one another, and institutions will be a=
ble to devise a <a 
href=3D"http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archive=
s/1004-Harnad-Follow-Up-Comments-to-BIS-Select-Committee-on-Open-Access.htm=
l">simple mechanism for monitoring and verifying 
compliance</a>.</div>
<div style>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" 
style=3D"margin:0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);borde=
r-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div 
bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><div></div>
<div>Because we now mandate deposit, Elsevier have indicated we cannot 
make=
 any publications open access until we sign an agreement with them - which =
includes restricting access from immediate upon publication (as it was with=
out a mandate) to the embargo periods
 mentioned 
above.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Thi=
s is very interesting: Have you asked yourself <i>why</i> Elsevier 
is askin=
g for a second agreement? Isn&#39;t the author&#39;s signed agreement 
enoug=
h, if it is really sufficient to accord him a right yet prevent him from ex=
ercising that right?</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Well obviously not, 
because of the double-t=
alk I just mentioned. In an agreement with the clause</div><div 
style><br><=
/div></div></div><blockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 
40px;border:none;p=
adding:0px">
<div class=3D"gmail_extra" style><div 
class=3D"gmail_quote" style><div styl=
e><b>Clause C1:</b>=A0&quot;<i>You retain the right to 
do X</i>&quot;=A0</d=
iv></div></div></blockquote><div 
class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_=
quote"><div style>
<br></div><div style>followed by the 
clause=A0</div><div style><br></div></=
div></div><blockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 
40px;border:none;padding:=
0px"><div class=3D"gmail_extra" style><div 
class=3D"gmail_quote" style><div=
 style>
<b>Clause C2:=A0</b>&quot;<i>but you may not 
&quot;exercise your right&quot=
; to do X if you are required to do 
X</i>&quot;</div></div></div></blockquo=
te><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div 
class=3D"gmail_quote"><div style><br></d=
iv>
<div style>you are sanctioning a contradiction. Logically speaking (and 
con=
tracts must obey logic as surely as they must obey the law), this is pretty=
 much the same as simply saying:</div><div 
style><br></div></div></div>
<blockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 
40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra" style><div 
class=3D"gmail_quote" style><div style><b>=
Clause C1:</b>=A0&quot;<i>You may do 
X</i>&quot;=A0</div></div></div></bloc=
kquote>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div 
class=3D"gmail_quote"><div style><br></div>=
<div style>and</div><div 
style><br></div></div></div><blockquote 
style=3D"m=
argin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div 
class=3D"gmail_extra" =
style>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote" style><div 
style><b>Clause C2:=A0</b>&quot;<i>Yo=
u may not do 
X</i>.&quot;</div></div></div></blockquote><div class=3D"gmail=
_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div 
style><br></div><div style>With a l=
ogical contradiction, you can pretty much take your choice and do whatever =
you like, because anything (and the opposite of anything) follows from a co=
ntradiction.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>A good choice would be 
to read sequentially=
, follow Clause 1, and simply ignore Clause 2, which just says the opposite=
. If challenged, cite clause 1.</div><div 
style><br></div><div style>And th=
is is the real reason that Elsevier is not comfortable with relying on its =
signed author rights agreement with its authors as grounds for restraining =
them form doing what the retain the right to do if they are required to do =
it. So they instead try to get a signature to yet another agreement, from y=
et another party -- the university -- a further agreement tjat would have t=
he (failed) intended effect of the author rights agreement: <i>The 
institut=
ion must sign that it may not require the author to exercise his right to p=
rovide immediate OA.</i></div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Solution? Simple: The 
university should not=
 sign!=A0</div><div style><br></div><div style>If 
Elsevier really thinks it=
s author agreement has already seen to it that mandated authors may not pro=
vide immediate OA if required by his university, then there is no call for =
the university to sign a thing.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Of course, this is not 
quite the way Elsevi=
er goes about trying to get the university to sign: It proposes a contingen=
cy, in confidential pricing negotiations, between the subscription deal it =
offers the university, and whether or not they require immediate 
OA.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>This would be unethical 
if it weren&#39;t s=
o ludicrous.</div><div style><br></div><div 
style>Of course the university =
should not sign away its right to mandate immediate-deposit because of a su=
bscription-deal contingency.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>But the solution is 
even simpler than that.=
 Not only should the university not sign any agreement with Elsevier over w=
hat it may or may not require its researchers do, but the university should=
 not worry too much about embargoes; it should simply implement the 
&quot;A=
lmost OA&quot; <a 
href=3D"http://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&amp;lr=3D&amp=
;q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.e=
prints.org/&amp;ie=3DUTF-8&amp;tbm=3Dblg&amp;tbs=3Dqdr:m&amp;num=3D100&amp;=
c2coff=3D1&amp;safe=3Dactive#q=3DButton+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.o=
rg/&amp;hl=3Den&amp;lr=3D&amp;c2coff=3D1&amp;safe=3Dactive&amp;tbm=3Dblg&am=
p;tbas=3D0&amp;source=3Dlnt&amp;sa=3DX&amp;ei=3DHnU5UcDCFIyq0AGWhIHQAw&amp;=
ved=3D0CBwQpwUoAA&amp;fp=3D1&amp;biw=3D1288&amp;bih=3D758&amp;bav=3Don.2,or=
.r_cp.r_qf.&amp;cad=3Db&amp;sei=3D5KGBUb2GD6Pm0gGa24HoDw">email-eprint-requ=
est Button</a>.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>That way not only will 
the university&#39;s=
 immediate-deposit mandate (with the help of the HEFCE/REF immediate-deposi=
t mandate) ensure that all final drafts are immediately deposited and that =
at least 60% of those immediate-deposits (including all Elsevier deposits!)=
 will be made immediately OA. But, in addition, even the those immediate-de=
posits that are from from the 40% of journals -- which (unlike Springer and=
 Elsevier and APS and IOP and all the other publishers who are on the Side =
if the angels) try to embargo OA -- will be made &quot;Almost OA&quot;, 
via=
 the Button.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>And with the help of 
the eprint Button, the=
 ID/OA mandate will go on to make OA embargoes as ineffectual as Clause 2, =
once the immediate-deposit mandate becomes 
universal.<br></div><div style>
<br></div><div style>And a word about 
&quot;systematicity&quot;: Systematic=
ally duplicating the contents of a journal would mean duplicating all of it=
s contents. But a single institution just provides a tiny (and unsystematic=
) fraction of any journal&#39;s contents.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Globally mandated OA 
will be another story:=
 But Elsevier cannot hope to persuade all universities worldwide to desist =
from mandating OA! (And it is noteworthy that Elsevier is not even trying t=
o get research funders to sign &quot;agreements&quot; not mandate OA, 
or to=
 extend OA embargoes; Elsevier&#39;s strategy there is lobbying, since 
they=
 don&#39;t have the subscription discount carrot with which it lures naive 
=
universities into signing over their mandating rights in exchange for a bet=
ter subscription Big-Deal.</div>
<div style><br></div><blockquote 
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px =
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);bord=
er-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div 
bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><div></div>
<div>However, if Alicia is indicating this new stance is a move away from 
t=
hat which I was told by Elsevier earlier today, and is still less than clea=
rly indicated on their web pages (which indicate an author can comply by se=
lf-archiving, but then go on to
 list embargo periods which do not meet RCUK policy) then that is great new=
s.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Alicia is just re-=
stating the Clause 1. Take her at her word.</div><div 
style><br></div>
<div style>Best wishes,</div><div 
style><br></div><div style>Stevan =A0</di=
v><div><br></div><div>=A0</div><blockquote 
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m=
argin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204=
,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><div><div>
On 1 May 2013, at 14:49, &quot;Stevan Harnad&quot; &lt;<a 
href=3D"mailto:am=
sciforum AT gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">amsciforum AT 
gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<b=
r>
<br>
</div>
<div></div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">
<div>
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:&#39;Helvetica 
Neue&#39;,Aria=
l,sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:18px;background-color:rgb(246,246,2=
46)">
<a href=3D"https://twitter.com/wisealic" 
style=3D"color:rgb(153,153,153);te=
xt-decoration:none" target=3D"_blank"><strong 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51)"=
>Alicia Wise</strong>=A0<span 
style=3D"font-size:12px;direction:ltr"><s sty=
le=3D"text-decoration:none;color:rgb(187,187,187)"> AT 
</s><b>wisealic</b></sp=
an></a><small 
style=3D"font-size:12px;color:rgb(187,187,187);float:right;ma=
rgin-top:1px"><a 
href=3D"https://twitter.com/wisealic/status/32928789064125=
2352" title=3D"12:35 PM - 30 Apr 13" 
style=3D"color:rgb(153,153,153);text-d=
ecoration:none" 
target=3D"_blank">20h</a></small></div>

<p 
style=3D"margin:0px;word-wrap:break-word;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(=
51,51,51);font-family:&#39;Helvetica 
Neue&#39;,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:1=
4px;line-height:18px;background-color:rgb(246,246,246)">
<a href=3D"https://twitter.com/AmSciForum" dir=3D"ltr" 
style=3D"color:rgb(4=
4,207,76);text-decoration:none" target=3D"_blank"><s 
style=3D"text-decorati=
on:none;color:rgb(128,226,147)"> AT 
</s><b>AmSciForum</b></a> Stevan - Elsevie=
r&#39;s
<a 
href=3D"https://twitter.com/search?q=3D%23oa&amp;src=3Dhash" 
dir=3D"ltr"=
 style=3D"color:rgb(44,207,76);text-decoration:none" 
target=3D"_blank">
<s 
style=3D"text-decoration:none;color:rgb(128,226,147)">#</s><b>oa</b></a>=
 agreement with RCUK, including gold &amp; green options, is described 
here=
:<a href=3D"http://t.co/s8faOyHfEE" 
title=3D"http://www.elsevier.com/about/=
publishing-guidelines/policies/funding-body-agreements/research-councils-uk=
" dir=3D"ltr" rel=3D"nofollow" 
style=3D"color:rgb(44,207,76);text-decoratio=
n:none" target=3D"_blank"><span 
style=3D"color:rgb(44,207,76);text-decorati=
on:none;font-size:0px;line-height:0">
http://www.</span><span 
style=3D"color:rgb(44,207,76);text-decoration:none"=
>elsevier.com/about/publishi</span><span 
style=3D"color:rgb(44,207,76);text=
-decoration:none;font-size:0px;line-height:0">ng-guidelines/policies/fundin=
g-body-agreements/research-councils-uk</span><span 
style=3D"color:rgb(44,20=
7,76);text-decoration:none"><span 
style=3D"font-size:0px;line-height:0">=A0=
</span>=85</span></a></p>

<p 
style=3D"margin:0px;word-wrap:break-word;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(=
51,51,51);font-family:&#39;Helvetica 
Neue&#39;,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:1=
4px;line-height:18px;background-color:rgb(246,246,246)">
</p>
<div style=3D"white-space:normal"><a 
href=3D"https://twitter.com/AmSciForum=
" style=3D"color:rgb(153,153,153);text-decoration:none" 
target=3D"_blank"><=
strong style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51)">Stevan 
Harnad</strong>=A0<span style=
=3D"font-size:12px;direction:ltr"><s 
style=3D"text-decoration:none;color:rg=
b(187,187,187)"> AT 
</s><b>AmSciForum</b></span></a><small 
style=3D"font-size:=
12px;color:rgb(187,187,187);float:right;margin-top:1px"><a 
href=3D"https://=
twitter.com/AmSciForum/status/329457762482397185" title=3D"11:50 PM - 
30 Ap=
r 13" style=3D"color:rgb(153,153,153);text-decoration:none" 
target=3D"_blan=
k">8h</a></small></div>

<p style=3D"margin:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><a 
href=3D"https://twitter.com=
/wisealic" dir=3D"ltr" 
style=3D"color:rgb(44,207,76);text-decoration:none" =
target=3D"_blank"><s 
style=3D"text-decoration:none;color:rgb(128,226,147)">=
 AT </s><b>wisealic</b></a> Simple Question:
 Is/isn&#39;t Elsevier-like Springer-still Green on immediate, unembargoed 
=
<a 
href=3D"https://twitter.com/search?q=3D%23oa&amp;src=3Dhash" 
dir=3D"ltr"=
 style=3D"color:rgb(44,207,76);text-decoration:none" 
target=3D"_blank">
<s 
style=3D"text-decoration:none;color:rgb(128,226,147)">#</s><b>oa</b></a>=
 self-archiving?
<a href=3D"http://t.co/Jd0DTucqng" 
title=3D"http://j.mp/11B5gcg" dir=3D"ltr=
" rel=3D"nofollow" 
style=3D"color:rgb(44,207,76);text-decoration:none" targ=
et=3D"_blank">=A0<span 
style=3D"color:rgb(44,207,76);text-decoration:none;f=
ont-size:0px;line-height:0">http://</span><span 
style=3D"color:rgb(44,207,7=
6);text-decoration:none">j.mp/11B5gcg</span><font 
color=3D"#2ccf4c"><span s=
tyle=3D"font-size:0px;line-height:0"></span></font><span style=3D"color:rgb=
(44,207,76);text-decoration:none"><span 
style=3D"font-size:0px;line-height:=
0">=A0</span></span></a></p>

<p style=3D"margin:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><br>
</p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px;word-wrap:break-word"></p>
<div style=3D"white-space:normal"><a 
href=3D"https://twitter.com/wisealic" =
style=3D"color:rgb(153,153,153);text-decoration:none" 
target=3D"_blank"><st=
rong style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51)">Alicia 
Wise</strong>=A0<span style=3D"fo=
nt-size:12px;direction:ltr"><s 
style=3D"text-decoration:none;color:rgb(187,=
187,187)"> AT 
</s><b>wisealic</b></span></a><small 
style=3D"font-size:12px;col=
or:rgb(187,187,187);float:right;margin-top:1px"><a 
href=3D"https://twitter.=
com/wisealic/status/329587843716509696" title=3D"8:27 AM - 1 May 
13" style=
=3D"color:rgb(153,153,153);text-decoration:none" 
target=3D"_blank">19m</a><=
/small></div>

<p style=3D"margin:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><a 
href=3D"https://twitter.com=
/AmSciForum" dir=3D"ltr" 
style=3D"color:rgb(44,207,76);text-decoration:none=
" target=3D"_blank"><s 
style=3D"text-decoration:none;color:rgb(128,226,147)=
"> AT </s><b>AmSciForum</b></a> <b>yes, 
Elsevier
 endorses immediate self-archiving of accepted final drafts free for all on=
 the web immediately upon acceptance.</b></p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><br>
</p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px;word-wrap:break-word"></p>
<div style=3D"white-space:normal">
<div><a href=3D"https://twitter.com/AmSciForum" 
style=3D"color:rgb(153,153,=
153);text-decoration:none" target=3D"_blank"><strong 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,=
51,51)">Stevan Harnad</strong>=A0<span 
style=3D"font-size:12px;direction:lt=
r"><s 
style=3D"text-decoration:none;color:rgb(187,187,187)"> AT 
</s><b>AmSciFo=
rum</b></span></a><small 
style=3D"font-size:12px;color:rgb(187,187,187);flo=
at:right;margin-top:1px"><a 
href=3D"https://twitter.com/AmSciForum/status/3=
29591992843640833" title=3D"8:43 AM - 1 May 13" 
style=3D"color:rgb(153,153,=
153);text-decoration:none" 
target=3D"_blank">3m</a></small></div>

<p 
style=3D"margin:0px;word-wrap:break-word;white-space:pre-wrap"><a href=
=3D"https://twitter.com/wisealic" dir=3D"ltr" 
style=3D"color:rgb(44,207,76)=
;text-decoration:none" target=3D"_blank"><s 
style=3D"text-decoration:none;c=
olor:rgb(128,226,147)"> AT 
</s><b>wisealic</b></a>
 Thanks Alicia. Then Elsevier remains on Side of the Angels &amp; I will 
co=
ntinue to attest to that!
<a 
href=3D"https://twitter.com/search?q=3D%23oa&amp;src=3Dhash" 
dir=3D"ltr"=
 style=3D"color:rgb(44,207,76);text-decoration:none" 
target=3D"_blank">
</a></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div><br><=
/div></div>

--001a11c2794cff8a0f04dbb14244--

        
--      
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:  openaccess@soros.org .