<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial"><a href="http://www.elsevier.com/connect/coar-recting-the-record#comment-2037996108"><b><span style="color:rgb(38,38,38)">Alicia Wise wrote</span></b></a><span style="color:rgb(38,38,38)">:</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Dear Stevan,</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">I admire your vision
and passion for green open access – in fact we all do here at Elsevier - and
for your tenacity as your definitions and concepts of green open access have
remain unchanged for more than 15 years. We also recognize that the open access
landscape has changed dramatically over the last few years, for example with
the emergence of Social Collaboration Networks. This refresh of our policy, the
first since 2004, reflects what we are hearing from researchers and research
institutions about how we can support their changing needs. We look forward to
continuing input from and collaboration with the research community, and will
continue to review and refine our policy.</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Let me state clearly
that we support both green and gold OA. Embargo periods have been used by us –
and other publishers – for a very long time and are not new. The only thing
that’s changed about IRs is our old policy said you had to have an agreement
which included embargos, and the new policy is you don’t need to do an
agreement provided you and your authors comply with the embargo period policy.
It might be most constructive for people to just judge us based on reading
through the policy and considering what we have said and are saying.</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">With kind wishes and
good night,</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Alicia Wise, Elsevier</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Dear Alicia,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">You wrote:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">"This refresh of our policy [is|
the first since 2004... Embargo periods have been used by us... for a very long
time and are not new. The only thing that’s changed about IRs is our old policy
said you had to have an agreement which included embargos..."</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Is this the old policy that hasn't changed changed
since 2004 (when Elsevier was still on the "<a href="http://j.mp/OAngelS"><span style="color:rgb(3,37,83)">side of the angels</span></a>" insofar as Green OA
was concerned) until the "refresh"? (I don't see any mention of
embargoes in it...):</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Date:</span></i></b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> Thu, 27 May 2004 03:09:39 +0100 </span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">From:</span></i></b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> "Hunter, Karen (ELS-US)" </span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">To:</span></i></b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> "'<a href="http://harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk">harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk</a>'" </span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Cc:</span></i></b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> "Karssen, Zeger (ELS)" , "Bolman, Pieter (ELS)" ,
"Seeley, Mark (ELS)" </span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Subject:</span></i></b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> Re: Elsevier journal list </span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Stevan, </span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">[H]ere is what we have
decided on post-"prints" (i.e. published articles, whether published
electronically or in print): </span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">An author may post his
version of the final paper on his personal web site and on his institution's
web site (including its institutional respository). Each posting should include
the article's citation and a link to the journal's home page (or the article's
DOI). The author does not need our permission to do this, but any other posting
(e.g. to a repository elsewhere) would require our permission. By "his
version" we are referring to his Word or Tex file, not a PDF or HTML
downloaded from ScienceDirect - but the author can update his version to
reflect changes made during the refereeing and editing process. Elsevier will
continue to be the single, definitive archive for the formal published version.
</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">We will be gradually
updating any public information on our policies (including our copyright forms
and all information on our web site) to get it all consistent. </span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Karen Hunter </span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Senior Vice President,
Strategy </span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Elsevier </span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">+1-212-633-3787 </span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"><a href="http://k.hunter_at_elsevier.com">k.hunter_at_elsevier.com</a></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Yes, the definition of authors providing free,
immediate online access (Green OA self-archiving) has not changed since the
online medium first made it possible. Neither has researchers’ need for it
changed, nor its benefits to research.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">What has changed is Elsevier policy -- in the
direction of trying to embargo Green OA to ensure that it does not Elsevier's
current revenue levels at any risk. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Elsevier did not try to embargo Green OA from
2004-2012 — but apparently only because they did not believe that authors would
ever really bother to provide much Green OA, nor that their institutions and
funders would ever bother to require them to provide it (for its benefits to
research).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">But for some reason <b>Elsevier is not ready to admit
that Elsevier has now decided to embargo Green OA purely to ensure that it does
put Elsevier's current subscription revenue levels at any risk. </b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Instead, Elsevier wants to hold OA hostage to its
current revenue levels -- by embargoing Green OA, with the payment of <a href="https://www.google.ca/search?num=20&q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org+%22fools+gold%22&oq=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org+%22fools+gold%22&gs_l=serp.3...339136.344145.0.345749.12.12.0.0.0.0.217.856.11j0j1.12.0.ckpsrh...0...1.1.64.serp..12.0.0._lRkTp5SLmk"><span style="color:rgb(3,37,83)">Fools-Gold OA</span></a> publication fees the only
alternative for immediate OA. This ensures that Elsevier's current revenue
levels either remain unchanged, or increase. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">But, for public-relations reasons, Elsevier prefers to
try to portray this as all being done out of “fairness,” and to facilitate
“sharing” (in the spirit of OA).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">The “fairness” is to ensure that no institution is
exempt from Elsevier’s Green OA embargoes. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">And the “sharing” is the social sharing services like <a href="http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/mendeley"><span style="color:rgb(3,37,83)">Mendeley</span></a>
(which Elsevier owns), about which Elsevier now believes (for the time being)
that authors would not bother to use enough to put their current revenue levels
at risk (and their institutions and funders cannot mandate that they use them)
-- hence that that they would not pose a risk to Elsevier's current
subscription revenue levels.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Yet another one of the “changes” with which Elsevier
seems to be trying to promote sharing seems to be by trying to find a way to
outlaw the institutional repositories’ "<a href="http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/hosting#non-commercial-platforms"><span style="color:rgb(3,37,83)">share button</span></a>" (otherwise known as the <a href="http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/"><span style="color:rgb(3,37,83)">“Fair-Dealing”
Button</span></a>). </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">So just as Elsevier is trying to claim credit for
“allowing” authors to do “dark” (i.e., embargoed, non-OA) deposits, for which
no publisher permission whatsoever is or ever was required, Elsevier now has
its lawyers scrambling to find a formalizable way to make it appear as if
Elsevier can forbid its authors to provide individual reprints to one another,
as authors have been doing for six decades, under yet another new bogus formal
pretext to make it appear sufficiently confusing and threatening to ensure that
the responses to Elsevier author surveys (for its "evidence-based
policy") continue to be sufficiently perplexed and meek to justify any
double-talk in either Elsevier policy or Elsevier PR.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">The one change in Elsevier policy that one can
applaud, however (though here too the underlying intentions were far from
benign), is the <a href="http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-posting-policy#accepted-manuscript"><span style="color:rgb(3,37,83)">CC-BY-NC-ND license</span></a> (unless Elsevier one day
decides to back-pedal on that too too). That license is now not only allowed
but required for any accepted paper that an author elects to self-archive.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Let me close by mentioning a few more of the howlers
that keep making Elsevier's unending series of arbitrary contractual bug-fixes
logically incoherent (i.e., self-contradictory) and technically nonsensical,
hence moot, unenforceable, and eminently ignorable for anyone who takes a few
moments to think instead of cringe. <i>Elsevier is trying to use pseudo-legal
words to squeeze the virtual genie (the Web) back into the physical bottle (the
old, land-based, print-on-paper world):</i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Locus of deposit:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">
Elsevier tries to make legal distinctions on "where" the author may
make their papers (Green) OA on the Web: "You may post it here but not
there." "Here" might be an institutional website,
"there" may be a central website. "Here" might be an
institutional author's homepage, "there" might be an institutional
repository.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">But do Elsevier's legal beagles ever stop to ask
themselves what this all means, in the online medium? <i>If you make your paper
openly accessible anywhere at all on the web, it is openly accessible (and
linkable and harvestable) from and to anywhere else on the Web.</i> Google and
google scholar will pick up the link, and so will a host of other harvesters
and indexers. And users never go to the deposit site to seek a paper: They seek
and find and link to it via the link harvesters and indexers. So locus
restrictions are silly and completely empty in the virtual world. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">The silliest of all is the injunction that "you
may post it on your institutional home page but not your institutional
repository." What nonsense! The institutional home page and the
institutional repository are just tagged disk sectors and software functions,
of the self-same institution. They are virtual entities, created by definition;
one can be renamed as the other at any time. And their functionalities are
completely swappable or integrable too. That too is a feature of the virtual
world.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">So all Elsevier is doing by treating these virtual
entities as if they were physical ones (besides confusing and misleading their
authors) is creating terminological nuisances, forcing system administrators to
keep re-naming and re-assigning sectors and functions, needlessly, and
vacuously, just to accommodate vacuous nuisance terminological stipulations.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">(The same thing applies to "systematicity"
and "aggregation," which I notice that Elsevier has since dropped as
futile: The attempt had been to outlaw posting where the contents of a journal
were being systematically aggregated, by analogy with a rival free-riding
publisher systematically gathering together all the disparate papers in a
journal so as to re-sell them at a cut-rate. Well not only is an institution no
free-rising aggregator: all it is gathering<i> its <u>own</u> paper output</i>,
published in multiple disparate journals. But, because of the virtual nature of
the medium, it is in fact the Web itself that is systematically gathering all
disparate papers together, wherever they happen to be hosted, using their
metadata tags: author, title, journal, date, URL. The rest is all just software
functionality. And if the full-text is out there, somewhere, anywhere, and it
is OA, then there is no way to stop the rest of this very welcome and useful
functionality.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">The Arxiv exception.</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> In
prior iterations of the policy, Elsevier tried (foolishly) to outlaw central
deposit. They essentially tried to tell authors who had been making their
papers OA in Arxiv since 1991 that they may no longer do that. Well, that did
not go down very well, so those "legal" restrictions have now been
replaced by the "Arxiv exception": Authors making their papers OA
there (or in RePeC) are now officially exempt from the Elsevier OA embargo. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Well here we are again: an arbitrary Elsevier
restriction on immediate-OA, based on locus of deposit. The Pandora's box that
this immediately opens is that all a mandating institution need do in order to
detoxify Elsevier's OA embargo completely is to mandate immediate (dark)
deposit of all institutional output in the institutional repository <i>alongside
remote deposit in Arxiv</i> (which is already automated through the <a href="http://arxiv.org/help/submit_sword"><span style="color:rgb(3,37,83)">SWORD
software</span></a>). That completely moots all Elsevier OA embargoes. Yet
another example of Elsevier's ineffectual nuisance stipulations consisting of
ad-hoc, pseudo-legal epicycles, all having one sole objective: to try to scare
authors of doing anything that might possibly pose a risk to Elsevier's current
revenue streams, using any words that will do the trick, even if only for a
while, and even if they make no sense.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">What's next, Elsevier? "You may use <i>this</i>
software but not <i>this</i> software"?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">The Share Button.</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">
Although it never defines what it means by "Share Button" (nor why it
is trying to outlaw it), if what Elsevier means is the Institutional
Repository's <a href="https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy"><span style="color:rgb(3,37,83)">copy-request Button</span></a>, intended to provide
individual copies to individual copy-requestors, then this too is just a
software-facilitated eprint request. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Whenever a user seeks an embargoed deposit, they can
click the Button to send an email to the author to request a copy. The author
need merely click a link in the email to authorize the software to send the
copy.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">So does Elsevier now want to make yet another nuisance
stipulation, so the Button cannot be called a "Share Button," so
instead the name of the author of the embargoed paper has to be made into an
email link that notifies the author that the requestor seeks a copy, with the
requestor's email alive, and clickable, so that inserting the embargoed paper's
URL will attach one copy to the email?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Elsevier is not going to make many friends by trying
to force its authors to do jump through gratuitous hoops in order to
accommodate Elsevier's ever more arbitrary and absurd attempts to contain the
virtual ether with arbitrary verbal hacks.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">There are more.</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">
There are further nuisance tactics in the current iteration of Elsevier's charm
initiative, in which self-serving restrictions keep being portrayed as Elsevier's
honest attempts to facilitate rather than hamper sharing. One particularly
interesting one that I have not yet deconstructed (but that the attentive
reader of the latest Elsevier documentation will have detected) likewise moots
all Elsevier OA embargoes even more conveniently than depositing all papers in
Arxiv -- but I leave that as an exercise to the reader.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">So Alicia, if Elsevier "admires [my]
vision," let me invite you to consult with me about present and future OA
policy conditions. I'll be happy to share with you which ones are logically
incoherent and technically empty in today's virtual world. It could save
Elsevier a lot of futile effort and save Elsevier authors from a lot of useless
and increasingly arbitrary and annoying nuisance-rules.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Best wishes,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Arial;color:rgb(38,38,38)">Stevan Harnad</span></b><span style="font-family:Arial"></span></p>
</div>