Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

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

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] Openness

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 13:15:09 -0400


Threading:      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: Openness from jean.claude.guedon AT umontreal.ca

--f46d043c801e2bafe80517c86f4d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

*William Gunn*
<https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/-/2008076.publicprofile> 
(Mendeley)
wrote:

=E2=80=9C[*E]verything you could post publicly and immediately before, you =
can do
so now. There's a NEW category of author manuscript, one which now comes
with Elsevier-supplied metadata specifying the license and the embargo
expiration date, that is subject to the embargo. The version the author
sent to the journal, even post peer-review, can be posted publicly and
immediately, which wasn't always the case before=E2=80=A6*=E2=80=9D

Actually in the 2004-2012
<http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3771.html> Elsevier
policy it *was* the case: Elsevier authors could post their
post-peer-review versions publicly and immediately in their institutional
repositories. This was then obfuscated by Elsevier from 2012-2014
<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/961-Some-Quaint-Elsevier=
-Tergiversation-on-Rights-Retention.html>
with
double-talk, and now has been formally embargoed in 2015.

Elsevier authors can, however, post their post-peer-review versions
publicly and immediately on their institutional home page or blog, as well
as on Arxiv or RePeC, with an immediate CC-BY-NC-ND license. That does in
fact amount to the same thing as the 2004-2012 policy (in fact better,
because of the license
<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1155-In-Defence-of-Elsev=
ier.html>),
but it is embedded in such a smoke-screen of double-talk and ambiguity that
most authors and institutional OA policy-makers and repository-managers
will be unable to understand and implement it.

My main objection is to Elsevier=E2=80=99s smokescreen. This could all be s=
tated
and implemented so simply if Elsevier were acting in good faith. But to
avoid any risk to itself, Elsevier prefers to keep research access at risk
with complicated, confusing edicts.

--f46d043c801e2bafe80517c86f4d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"" 
style=3D"font-family:verdana,arial,helveti=
ca,sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px"><a 
href=3D"https://www.ti=
meshighereducation.co.uk/-/2008076.publicprofile" 
style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,1=
02)"><strong>William 
Gunn</strong></a>=C2=A0(Mendeley) wrote:=C2=A0<blockqu=
ote>=E2=80=9C[<em>E]verything you could post publicly and immediately 
befor=
e, you can do so now. There&#39;s a NEW category of author manuscript, one 
=
which now comes with Elsevier-supplied metadata specifying the license and =
the embargo expiration date, that is subject to the embargo. The version th=
e author sent to the journal, even post peer-review, can be posted publicly=
 and immediately, which wasn&#39;t always the case 
before=E2=80=A6</em>=E2=
=80=9D</blockquote>Actually in the=C2=A0<a 
href=3D"http://users.ecs.soton.a=
c.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3771.html" 
style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102)">2004-2=
012</a>=C2=A0Elsevier policy it=C2=A0<em>was</em>=C2=A0the 
case: Elsevier a=
uthors could post their post-peer-review versions publicly and immediately =
in their institutional repositories. This was then obfuscated by Elsevier f=
rom=C2=A0<a 
href=3D"http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/961-S=
ome-Quaint-Elsevier-Tergiversation-on-Rights-Retention.html" 
style=3D"color=
:rgb(0,51,102)">2012-2014</a>=C2=A0with double-talk, and now has 
been forma=
lly embargoed in 2015.<br><br>Elsevier authors can, however, post 
their pos=
t-peer-review versions publicly and immediately on their institutional home=
 page or blog, as well as on Arxiv or RePeC, with an immediate CC-BY-NC-ND =
license. That does in fact amount to the same thing as the 2004-2012 policy=
 (in fact=C2=A0<a 
href=3D"http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives=
/1155-In-Defence-of-Elsevier.html" 
style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102)">better, be=
cause of the license</a>), but it is embedded in such a smoke-screen of 
dou=
ble-talk and ambiguity that most authors and institutional OA policy-makers=
 and repository-managers will be unable to understand and implement it.=C2=
=A0<br><br>My main objection is to Elsevier=E2=80=99s smokescreen. 
This cou=
ld all be stated and implemented so simply if Elsevier were acting in good =
faith. But to avoid any risk to itself, Elsevier prefers to keep research a=
ccess at risk with complicated, confusing 
edicts.</div><div><br></div></div=
>

--f46d043c801e2bafe80517c86f4d--

        
--      
To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/boai-forum

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

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .