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: "Andras Holl" <holl AT konkoly.hu>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 09:17:05 +0200


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


Dear Stevan,

Regardless however right you are, Elsevier's play with words succesfully 
confuses
a large number of authors, who do not deposit because of this.

Andras

On Wed, 1 May 2013 20:24:46 -0400, Stevan Harnad wrote
> 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, 
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: 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.
>  
> 
> 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 without a 
mandate) to the embargo periodsmentioned 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.
> 
> 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 clearly 
indicated on their web pages (which indicate an author can comply by 
self-archiving, but then go on tolist 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 wisealic20h
>  AT AmSciForum Stevan - Elsevier's#oa agreement with RCUK, including gold 
& green options, is described 
here:http://www.elsevier.com/about/publishing-guidelines/policies/funding-body-agreements/research-councils-uk …
> 
> Stevan Harnad  AT AmSciForum8h
>  AT wisealic Simple Question:Is/isn't Elsevier-like Springer-still Green 
on immediate, unembargoed #oa self-archiving? http://j.mp/11B5gcg 
> 
> Alicia Wise  AT wisealic19m
>  AT AmSciForum yes, Elsevierendorses immediate self-archiving of accepted 
final drafts free for all on the web immediately upon acceptance.
> 
> Stevan Harnad  AT AmSciForum3m
>  AT wisealicThanks Alicia. Then Elsevier remains on Side of the Angels 
& I will continue to attest to that!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Andras Holl / Holl Andras                e-mail: holl AT konkoly.hu 
Konkoly Observatory / MTA CsFK CsI       Tel.: +36 1 3919368 Fax: +36 1 
2754668 
IT manager / Szamitastechn. rendszervez. Mail: H1525 POBox 67, Budapest, 
Hungary 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

ATTACHMENT: message.html!

-- 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 .