[BOAI] Re: COAR-recting the record

[Iryna Kuchma]

[Forwarded message from Kathleen Shearer]

(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
<http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/121293/external-embargo-list.pdf>
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
<https://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/open-access/sponsored-articles> 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
<http://oaspa.org/why-cc-by/> 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
<http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/11/16331/0655> 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
<https://www.coar-repositories.org/activities/advocacy-leadership/petition-against-elseviers-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 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
<http://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-updates-its-policies-perspectives-and-services-on-article-sharing>
.
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 at
http://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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/boai-forum/attachments/20150528/9738c2fd/attachment-0001.html