[BOAI] Re: In Defence of Elsevier

Thu May 28 06:23:55 BST 2015

Dear Stevan,

I have no problem with CC-BY-NC-ND. The problem I have with Elsevier's
policy is

- they require Counter compliance for repositories (I don't know any Counter
compliant repositories, though I see project PIRUS on the Counter website);

- they definition on non-commercial excludes any non-commercial repositories
providing service for any other (even non-commercial) organisations besides
the parent organisation.

So practically, as I read it, no repositories comply right now. Certainly not mine. 
I had an earlier agreement with Elsevier - I hope it is still holds, but I am not sure. 
I can ask, of course, but I feel that individual researchers will again feel (wrongly or 
rightly) that they could not deposit, at best they will be uncertain.

Andras Holl

On Wed, 27 May 2015 13:44:11 -0400, Stevan Harnad wrote
> 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:

> 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.
> 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.
> 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-policyHosting - 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 contentAuthors can also share on commercial platforms such as social collaboration networksWe 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
> 
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Andras Holl / Holl Andras                e-mail: holl at konkoly.hu 
Konkoly Observatory / MTA CsFK CsI       Tel.: +36 1 3919368 Fax: +36 1 2754668 
IT advisor / Szamitastechn. koordinator  Mail: H1525 POBox 67, Budapest, Hungary 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/boai-forum/attachments/20150528/0d0ef16d/attachment-0001.html 