[BOAI] Re: In Defence of Elsevier
Jean-Claude Guédon
jean.claude.guedon at umontreal.ca
Wed May 27 20:46:29 BST 2015
There is no need to defend Elsevier. Without a doubt, Elsevier has the
wherewithal to defend itself. And mentioning Elsevier's defence when
gradualism is really the objective does not make much sense.
We can all agree with Stevan that CC_BY-NC-ND is enough for now without
abandoning the objective of CC-BY a little further down the line.
But what do we lose if we ask for CC-BY and, for the moment, get only
CC-BY-NC-ND: is Stevan worried that we might not even get CC-BY-NC-ND?
But, if true (which is far from being proved) that means two things:
1. Elsevier would show its true colours at last;
2. The request button remains to circumvent this bullying risk.
In short, what we need, as a community, is not to defend Elsevier, but
rather agree on gradualism, relentless gradualism, until we get what we
all want to have in the end: complete libre and gratis OA everywhere.
--
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal
Le mercredi 27 mai 2015 à 13:44 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
> I beg the OA community to remain reasonable and realistic.
>
>
>
> Please don't demand that Elsevier agree to immediate CC-BY. If
> Elsevier did that, I could immediately start up a rival free-riding
> publishing operation and sell all Elsevier articles immediately at cut
> rate, for any purpose at all that I could get people to pay for.
> Elsevier could no longer make a penny from selling the content it
> invested in.
>
>
> CC-BY-NC-ND is enough for now. It allows immediate harvesting for
> data-mining.
>
>
>
> The OA movement must stop shooting itself in the foot by
> over-reaching, insisting on having it all, immediately, thus instead
> ending up with next to nothing, as now.
>
>
> As I pointed out in a previous posting, the fact that Elsevier
> requires all authors to adopt CC-BY-NC-ND license is a positive step.
> Please don't force them to back-pedal!
>
>
> Please read the terms, and reflect.
>
>
> SH
>
>
> Accepted Manuscript
> Authors can share their accepted manuscript:
>
>
> Immediately
>
>
> * via their non-commercial personal homepage or blog.
> * by updating a preprint in arXiv or RePEc with the
> accepted manuscript.
> * via their research institute or institutional
> repository for internal institutional uses or as part
> of an invitation-only research collaboration
> work-group.
> * directly by providing copies to their students or to
> research collaborators for their personal use.
> * for private scholarly sharing as part of an
> invitation-only work group on commercial sites with
> which Elsevier has an agreement.
>
> After the embargo period
>
>
> * via non-commercial hosting platforms such as their
> institutional repository.
> * via commercial sites with which Elsevier has an
> agreement.
>
> In all cases accepted manuscripts should:
>
>
> * Link to the formal publication via its DOI.
> * Bear a CC-BY-NC-ND license – this is easy to do, click
> here to find out how.
> * If aggregated with other manuscripts, for example in a
> repository or other site, be shared in alignment with
> our hosting policy.
> * Not be added to or enhanced in any way to appear more
> like, or to substitute for, the published journal
> article.
> How to attach a user license
> Elsevier requires authors posting their accepted manuscript to
> attach a non-commercial Creative Commons user license
> (CC-BY-NC-ND). This is easy to do. On your accepted
> manuscript add the following to the title page, copyright
> information page, or header /footer: © YEAR, NAME. Licensed
> under the Creative Commons [insert license details and URL].
>
>
> For example: © 2015, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative
> Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
> International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
>
>
> You can also include the license badges available from
> the Creative Commons website to provide visual recognition. If
> you are hosting your manuscript as a webpage you will also
> find the correct HTML code to add to your page
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Kathleen
> Shearer <m.kathleen.shearer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (sorry for any cross-posting)
>
>
> In its recently released “Sharing and Hosting Policy FAQ”,
> Elsevier “recognize(s) that authors want to share and promote
> their work and increasingly need to comply with their funding
> body and institution's open access policies.” However there
> are several aspects of their new policy that severely limit
> sharing and open access, in particular the lengthy embargo
> periods imposed in most journals- with about 90% of Elsevier
> journals having embargo periods of 12 months or greater. This
> is a significant rollback from the original 2004 Elsevier
> policy which required no embargos for making author’s accepted
> manuscripts available; and even with the 2012 policy change
> requiring embargoes only when authors were subject to an OA
> mandate.
>
>
> With article processing charges (APCs) that can cost as much
> as $5000 US dollars for publishing in one of Elsevier’s gold
> open access titles or hybrid journals, this is not a viable
> option for many researchers around the world. Furthermore, the
> rationale for lengthy embargo periods is to protect Elsevier’s
> subscription revenue. We do not believe that scientific,
> economic and social progress should be hindered in order to
> protect commercial interests. In addition, there is currently
> no evidence that articles made available through OA
> repositories will lead to cancellations.
>
>
> Elsevier’s new policy also requires that accepted manuscripts
> posted in open access repositories bear a CC-BY-NC-ND license.
> This type of license severely limits the re-use potential of
> publicly funded research. ND restricts the use of derivatives,
> yet derivative use is fundamental to the way in which
> scholarly research builds on previous findings, for example by
> re-using a part of an article (with attribution) in
> educational material. Similarly, this license restricts
> commercial re-use greatly inhibiting the potential impact of
> the results of research.
>
>
> Elsevier’s Director of Access & Policy, Alicia Wise states
> that they “have received neutral-to-positive responses from
> research institutions and the wider research community.” Yet,
> since the “Statement against Elsevier’s sharing policy” was
> published just one week ago (on Wednesday May 20, 2015), it
> has been signed by close to 700 organizations and individuals,
> demonstrating that there is significant opposition to the
> policy.
>
>
> Elsevier has indicated that they “are always happy to have a
> dialogue to discuss these, or any other, issues further.” We
> would like to offer the following concrete recommendations to
> Elsevier to improve their policy:
>
> 1. Elsevier should allow all authors to make their
> “author’s accepted manuscript” openly available
> immediately upon acceptance through an OA repository
> or other open access platform.
>
> 2. Elsevier should allow authors to choose the type of
> open license (from CC-BY to other more restrictive
> licenses like the CC-BY-NC-ND) they want to attach to
> the content that they are depositing into an open
> access platform.
>
> 3. Elsevier should not attempt to dictate author’s
> practices around individual sharing of articles.
> Individual sharing of journal articles is already a
> scholarly norm and is protected by fair use and other
> copyright exceptions. Elsevier cannot, and should not,
> dictate practices around individual sharing of
> articles.
>
>
> We strongly encourage Elsevier to revise their policy in order
> to better align with the interests of the research
> community. We would also be pleased to meet to discuss these
> recommendations with Elsevier at any time.
>
>
>
>
> Kathleen Shearer, Executive Director, COAR
>
>
> Heather Joseph, Executive Director, SPARC
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Wise, Alicia
> > (ELS-OXF) <A.Wise at elsevier.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone –
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Just a quick note to draw your attention to our
> > article, posted today in Elsevier Connect and in
> > response to yesterday’s statement by
> > COAR: http://www.elsevier.com/connect/coar-recting-the-record. I’ll also append the full text of this response below.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You might also be interested in this Library Connect
> > webinar on some of the new institutional repository
> > services we are piloting
> > (http://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/articles/2015-01/webinar-institutional-research-repositories-characteristics-relationships-and-roles) and reading our policies for yourselves:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > * Sharing
> > – http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-posting-policy
> > * Hosting
> > - http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/hosting
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > With best wishes,
> >
> > Alicia
> >
> > COAR-recting the record
> >
> > We have received neutral-to-positive responses from
> > research institutions and the wider research
> > community. We are therefore a little surprised that
> > COAR has formed such a negative view, and chosen not
> > to feedback their concerns directly to us. We would
> > like to correct the misperceptions.
> >
> > Our sharing policy is more liberal in supporting the
> > dissemination and use of research:
> >
> > * At each stage of the publication process
> > authors can share their research: before
> > submission, from acceptance, upon
> > publication, and post publication.
> > * In institutional repositories, which no
> > longer require a formal agreement to host
> > full text content
> > * Authors can also share on commercial
> > platforms such as social collaboration
> > networks
> > * We provide new services to authors such as
> > the share link which enables authors to post
> > and share a customized link for 50 days free
> > access to the final published article
> > * For authors who want free immediate access
> > to their articles, we continue to give all
> > authors a choice to publish gold open access
> > with a wide number of open access journals
> > and over 1600 hybrid titles
> >
> > Unlike the claims in this COAR document, the policy
> > changes are based on feedback from our authors and
> > institutional partners, they are evidence-based, and
> > they are in alignment with the STM article sharing
> > principles. They introduce absolutely no changes in
> > our embargo periods. And they are not intended to
> > suddenly embargo and make inaccessible content
> > currently available to readers – as we have already
> > communicated in Elsevier Connect.
> >
> > In fact, we have been developing services, in
> > partnership with libraries, to help institutional
> > repositories track research output and display
> > content to their users. This includes:
> >
> > • Sharing metadata: In order to showcase an
> > institutions’ work, an institutional repository must
> > identify their institution’s research output. By
> > integrating the ScienceDirect metadata API into the
> > repository, this task becomes simple. Even in cases
> > where the repository doesn’t hold the full text
> > manuscript, the article information and abstract can
> > be displayed..
> >
> > • Sharing user access information and embedding
> > final articles: We are testing a workflow in which a
> > user’s access level to the full text is checked on
> > the fly, and if full text access is available, the
> > user will be served the final published version,
> > instead of the preprint or manuscript hosted by the
> > repository. Users who are not entitled to view the
> > full text of the final article will be led to the
> > version available in the repository, or- if this is
> > not available- to a page where they can view the
> > first page of the article and options for accessing
> > it (including via interlibrary loan). This ensures
> > that users will always be served the best available
> > version. This also enables the repository to display
> > the best available version to their users even if no
> > self-archived manuscript is available.
> >
> > We have not only updated our policies, we are active
> > in developing and delivering technology that enables
> > research to be shared more widely.
> >
> > COAR states that the addition of a CC-BY-NC-ND
> > license is unhelpful. Feedback suggests that
> > clarity about how manuscripts can be used is
> > welcome, when asked in surveys often choose NC ND of
> > their own volition (see the T&F study from 2014
> > athttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/explore/open-access-survey-june2014.pdf ), and it works across a broad range of use cases.
> >
> > Our refreshed policies are about green OA, and some
> > elements of this – for example the use of embargo
> > periods – are specifically for green OA when it is
> > operating in tandem with the subscription business
> > model. Here time is needed for the subscription
> > model to operate as libraries will understandably
> > not subscribe if this material is available
> > immediately and for free.
> >
> > In closing, we appreciate an open dialogue and are
> > always happy to have a dialogue to discuss these, or
> > any other, issues further.
> >
> > Dr Alicia Wise
> >
> > Director of Access and Policy
> >
> > Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I
> > Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB
> >
> > M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.wise at elsevier.com
> >
> > Twitter: @wisealic
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________
> >
> > Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard,
> > Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United
> > Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, Registered in
> > England and Wales.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/boai-forum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/boai-forum/attachments/20150527/5d11352a/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Boai-forum
mailing list