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: Fri, 3 May 2013 11:02:31 +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


Though this be madness, yet there is method in it. I think that could be said 
on Elsevier's OA
policy, because of two reasons. Firstly, it quite effectively hinders OA. 
Secondly, however badly
constructed this OA policy is, one can see that from a publisher's perspective, 
mandates like the NIH mandate are threatening. As a side effect, other mandates 
- which would cover only a tiny fraction of the articles, and does not 
designate a single target repository are also affected, regardless that these 
hardly affect any publishers' profits.

Andras

On Fri, 3 May 2013 07:57:43 +0100, David Prosser wrote
> I agree with Andras and I cannot see how any publisher who has a policy 
along the lines of:
> 
> 
> You may make your author version freely available without embargo unless 
you are mandated (by funder or institution) to do so, in which case you may not 
make your author version freely available without embargo
> 
> can be described as being on the side of the Angels.  We may dismiss such 
a policy as FUD or even claim that it is illogical and unenforceable - as 
Stevan does - but we cannot possibly describe it as angelic.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David C Prosser PhD
> Executive Director, RLUK
> 
> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7862 8436
> Mob: +44 (0) 7825 454586
> www.rluk.ac.uk
> 
> RLUK Twitter feed: RL_UK
> Director's Twitter feed: RLUK_David 
> 
> Postal Address: Room 451, Senate House Library, Senate House, Malet 
Street, London WC1E 7HU
> 
> Registered Office:Maughan Library and Information Services Centre, King's 
College London, Chancery Lane,  London WC2A 1LR 
> Registered Company no: 2733294
> Registered Charity no: 1026543
> 
> 
> 
> On 2 May 2013, at 08:17, Andras Holl wrote:
> 
> 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 
> 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> 
> <ATT00001..txt>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 .