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>
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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
E-mail: email@example.com .