Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

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

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] Re: [GOAL] Re: My last post on the Cherubim/Seraphim issue (promise!)

From: Michael Eisen <mbeisen AT gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 06:50:05 -0700


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

--089e01494736dae82404dbd0a030
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Back in 2002 when the debates about Gold vs. Green OA began, I and other
advocates for developing Gold OA publishing argued that the friendly stance
of publishers like Elsevier to self-archiving was a transient state, and
that as soon as people started to make appreciable numbers of papers
available in IRs - thereby actually threatening publisher revenues -
publishers would change their tune. And this is exactly what we're seeing
with Elsevier. Yes, their policies now are confusing, but I suspect they
won't be for long, and that we'll soon see explicit policies that require
embargoes.

The proper response on the part of instituions is not to sign agreements
with Elsevier and other publishers allowing embargoes, but to set a clear
mandate for OA with no embargoes. Publishers will have to live with our
terms, rather than continuing to demand that we live with theirs.


On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 6:08 AM, <brentier AT ulg.ac.be> wrote:

> Elsevier's policy is now clear:
> *Accepted author manuscripts 
(AAM)<http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-acc=
ess/open-access-policies/article-posting-policy#accepted-author-manuscript>
> *: Immediate posting and dissemination of AAM=92s is allowed to personal
> websites, to institutional repositories, or to arXiv. However, if your
> institution has an open access policy or mandate that requires you to pos=
t,
> Elsevier requires an agreement to be in place which respects the
> journal-specific embargo periods. Click 
here<http://cdn.elsevier.com/asse=
ts/pdf_file/0018/121293/external-embargo-list.pdf> for
> a list of journal specific embargo periods (PDF) and see our funding body
> 
agreements<http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-policies=
/funding-body-agreements> for
> more details.
>
> Le 3 mai 2013 =E0 14:17, Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk> a 
=E9crit=
 :
>
>
> On 2013-05-03, at 5:02 AM, Andras Holl <holl AT konkoly.hu> wrote:
>
> 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,
>
> You are right that the pseudo-legal hedging is a pain.
>
> But in point of fact, Elsevier is still just as Green on paper as Springe=
r
> is,
> once one realizes that one can ignore all their hedging.
>
> It is clear that Elsevier wants to hold onto the good PR it gains them to
> be
> perceived as "Green." That's why they have not, in fact, revoked 
their
> policy since it was adopted in 
2004<http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/H=
ypermail/Amsci/index.html#msg3771>.
> They have a terrible image problem,
> on all fronts, and this is their only positive face.
>
> But it's not just psychology or strategy: *The Elsevier policy really doe=
s
> *
> *mean that all Elsevier authors retain their right to provide Green OA,*
> *unembargoed. *
>
> Yes, it's a nuisance that Elsevier hedges this with pseudo-legal FUD,
> but our job is to make it clear to authors, institutions and funders that
> the Elsevier policy does, indeed, formally allow immediate, unembargoed
> OA, exactly as Springer policy does, and that the Elsevier hedging is
> empty and can be completely ignored.
>
> The real problem here is not Elsevier's double talk: It is *the gratuitou=
s
> *
> *boost that the credibility of Elsevier's hedging has received from the*
> *breath-takingly fatuous and counterproductive Finch/RCUK policy* and its
> "flow-charts" (which Elsevier has eagerly included in its rights
> documentation).
>
> For Elsevier has now got a new "positive face" that it can use 
for PR:
> Elsevier is fully "*RCUK-compliant*."
>
> Please add this to the growing list of the perverse effects of
> Finch/RCUK...
>
> But rest assured that (1) the RCUK's own forced back-pedalling, grudgingl=
y
> admitting that Green is just as RCUK-compliant as Gold, together with
> (2) HEFCE/RCUK's timely proposal to mandate immediate-deposit as the
> precondition for submitting a paper for REF 2020 undoes most of the
> damage done by the Finch Report.
>
> Stevan
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL AT eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL AT eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>


--=20
Michael Eisen, Ph.D.
Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Associate Professor, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
University of California, Berkeley

--089e01494736dae82404dbd0a030
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Back in 2002 when the debates about Gold vs. 
Green OA bega=
n, I and other advocates for developing Gold OA publishing argued that the =
friendly stance of publishers like Elsevier to self-archiving was a transie=
nt state, and that as soon as people started to make appreciable numbers of=
 papers available in IRs - thereby actually threatening publisher revenues =
- publishers would change their tune. And this is exactly what we&#39;re 
se=
eing with Elsevier. Yes, their policies now are confusing, but I suspect th=
ey won&#39;t be for long, and that we&#39;ll soon see explicit policies 
tha=
t require embargoes.<div>
<br></div><div style>The proper response on the part of 
instituions is not =
to sign agreements with Elsevier and other publishers allowing embargoes, b=
ut to set a clear mandate for OA with no embargoes. Publishers will have to=
 live with our terms, rather than continuing to demand that we live with th=
eirs.</div>
</div><div 
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div 
class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri,=
 May 3, 2013 at 6:08 AM,  <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a 
href=3D"mailto:brentier AT =
ulg.ac.be" target=3D"_blank">brentier AT 
ulg.ac.be</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><b=
lockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 
.8ex;border-left:1px =
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"auto"><div>Elsevier&#39;s policy is now 
clear:</div><div><table=
 border=3D"1" style=3D"border-spacing:0px;width:779px;border:1px 
solid rgb(=
188,188,188);border-top-left-radius:6px;border-top-right-radius:6px;border-=
bottom-right-radius:6px;border-bottom-left-radius:6px;margin:12px 0px 
35px"=
>
<tbody><tr><td 
style=3D"margin:0px;padding:8px;border-top-width:1px;border-=
right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-top-color:rgb(188,188,188);b=
order-top-style:solid;border-left-style:none;color:rgb(56,56,56);font-size:=
12px;text-align:left">
<font color=3D"#000000" size=3D"3"><span 
style=3D"background-color:rgba(255=
,255,255,0)"><strong><a 
href=3D"http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/o=
pen-access-policies/article-posting-policy#accepted-author-manuscript" 
styl=
e=3D"text-decoration:none" target=3D"_blank">Accepted 
author manuscripts (A=
AM)</a></strong>: Immediate posting and dissemination of AAM=92s is 
allowed=
 to personal websites, to institutional repositories, or to arXiv. However,=
 if your institution has an open access policy or mandate that requires you=
 to post, Elsevier requires an agreement to be in place which respects the =
journal-specific embargo periods. Click=A0<a 
href=3D"http://cdn.elsevier.co=
m/assets/pdf_file/0018/121293/external-embargo-list.pdf" 
style=3D"text-deco=
ration:none" target=3D"_blank">here</a>=A0for a list of 
journal specific em=
bargo periods (PDF) and see our=A0<a 
href=3D"http://www.elsevier.com/about/=
open-access/open-access-policies/funding-body-agreements" 
style=3D"text-dec=
oration:none" target=3D"_blank">funding body 
agreements</a>=A0for more deta=
ils.</span></font></td>
</tr><tr 
style=3D"background-color:rgb(247,247,247);background-repeat:initi=
al 
initial"></tr></tbody></table><br></div><div><br>Le 3 mai 2013 =E0 14:17=
, Stevan Harnad &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:harnad AT 
ecs.soton.ac.uk" target=3D"_bl=
ank">harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk</a>&gt; a 
=E9crit=A0:<br>
<br></div><div><div 
class=3D"h5"><blockquote 
type=3D"cite"><div><br><div><d=
iv>On 2013-05-03, at 5:02 AM, Andras Holl &lt;<a 
href=3D"mailto:holl AT konkol=
y.hu" target=3D"_blank">holl AT konkoly.hu</a>&gt; 
wrote:</div><br><blockquote=
 type=3D"cite">





<div bgcolor=3D"#ffffff">Though this be madness, yet there is 
method in it.=
 I think that could be said on Elsevier&#39;s OA
<br>policy, because of two reasons. Firstly, it quite effectively hinders 
O=
A. Secondly, however badly
<br>constructed this OA policy is, one can see that from a 
publisher&#39;s =
perspective, mandates like the</div></blockquote><blockquote 
type=3D"cite">=
<div bgcolor=3D"#ffffff">NIH mandate are threatening. As a side 
effect, oth=
er mandates - which would cover only a tiny</div>
</blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div 
bgcolor=3D"#ffffff">fraction of=
 the articles, and does not designate a single target repository are also a=
ffected,</div></blockquote><blockquote 
type=3D"cite"><div bgcolor=3D"#fffff=
f">regardless that these hardly affect any publishers&#39; 
profits.=A0</div=
>
</blockquote></div><div><br></div><div><div style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:1=
3px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35)">Andras,</div><div 
style=3D"margi=
n:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35)"><br></div><div =
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35)">
You are right that the pseudo-legal hedging is a pain.</div><div 
style=3D"m=
argin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35);min-height:1=
5px"><br></div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;co=
lor:rgb(35,35,35)">
But in point of fact, Elsevier is still just as Green on paper as Springer =
is,</div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rg=
b(35,35,35)">once one realizes that one can ignore all their 
hedging.</div>
<div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,3=
5);min-height:15px"><br></div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-=
family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35)">It is clear that Elsevier wants to 
hold o=
nto the good PR it gains them to be</div>
<div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,3=
5)">perceived as &quot;Green.&quot; That&#39;s why they 
have not, in fact, =
revoked their</div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Aria=
l;color:rgb(35,35,35)">
policy since it was adopted <a 
href=3D"http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/=
Hypermail/Amsci/index.html#msg3771" 
target=3D"_blank"><span style=3D"color:=
rgb(18,85,204)">in 2004</span></a>. They have=A0a terrible 
image problem,=
=A0</div>
<div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,3=
5)">on all fronts, and this is their only positive 
face.</div><div style=3D=
"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35);min-height=
:15px">
<br></div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:r=
gb(35,35,35)">But it&#39;s not just psychology or strategy: 
<i>The Elsevier=
 policy really does</i></div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-f=
amily:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35)">
<i>mean that all Elsevier authors retain their right to provide Green 
OA,</=
i></div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb=
(35,35,35)"><i>unembargoed.=A0</i></div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:=
13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35);min-height:15px">
<br></div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:r=
gb(35,35,35)">Yes, it&#39;s a nuisance that Elsevier hedges this 
with pseud=
o-legal FUD,</div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial=
;color:rgb(35,35,35)">
but our job is to make it clear to authors, institutions and funders that</=
div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,=
35,35)">the Elsevier policy does, indeed, formally allow immediate, 
unembar=
goed</div>
<div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,3=
5)">OA, exactly as Springer policy does, and that the Elsevier hedging 
is=
=A0</div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rg=
b(35,35,35)">
empty and=A0can be=A0completely ignored.</div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font=
-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35);min-height:15px"><br></div=
><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,=
35)">
The real problem here is not Elsevier&#39;s double talk: It is <i>the 
gratu=
itous</i></div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;co=
lor:rgb(35,35,35)"><i>boost that the credibility of 
Elsevier&#39;s hedging =
has received from the</i></div>
<div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,3=
5)"><i>breath-takingly fatuous and counterproductive Finch/RCUK 
policy</i> =
and its</div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;colo=
r:rgb(35,35,35)">
&quot;flow-charts&quot; (which Elsevier has eagerly included in its 
rights=
=A0</div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rg=
b(35,35,35)">documentation).</div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;f=
ont-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35);min-height:15px">
<br></div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:r=
gb(35,35,35)">For Elsevier has now got a new &quot;positive 
face&quot; that=
 it can use for PR:</div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-famil=
y:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35)">
Elsevier is fully 
&quot;<b>RCUK-compliant</b>.&quot;</div><div 
style=3D"mar=
gin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35);min-height:15p=
x"><br></div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;colo=
r:rgb(35,35,35)">
Please add this to the growing list of the perverse effects of Finch/RCUK..=
.</div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(=
35,35,35);min-height:15px"><br></div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13p=
x;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35)">
But rest assured that (1) the RCUK&#39;s own forced back-pedalling, 
grudgin=
gly</div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rg=
b(35,35,35)">admitting that Green is just as RCUK-compliant as Gold, 
togeth=
er with</div>
<div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,3=
5)">(2) HEFCE/RCUK&#39;s timely proposal to mandate 
immediate-deposit as th=
e</div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(=
35,35,35)">
precondition for submitting a paper for REF 2020 undoes most of 
the</div><d=
iv 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35)=
">damage done by the Finch Report.</div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:=
13px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(35,35,35);min-height:15px">
<br></div><div 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:r=
gb(35,35,35)">Stevan</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</s=
pan><br>
<span>GOAL mailing list</span><br><span><a 
href=3D"mailto:GOAL AT eprints.org"=
 target=3D"_blank">GOAL AT 
eprints.org</a></span><br><span><a 
href=3D"http://m=
ailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" 
target=3D"_blank">http://mail=
man.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a></span><br>
</div></blockquote></div><br>______________________________________________=
_<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:GOAL AT eprints.org">GOAL AT 
eprints.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" 
target=3D"=
_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br 
clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- 
<br>Michael =
Eisen, Ph.D.<br>Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical 
Institute<br>Associate =
Professor, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology<br>University of 
Califo=
rnia, Berkeley
</div>

--089e01494736dae82404dbd0a030--

        
--      
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 .