Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
[BOAI] Re: Elsevier Still Onside of Angels on Immediate, Unembargoed Green OA Self-Archiving By Its Authors
From: "Andras Holl" <holl AT konkoly.hu>
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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org .