[GOAL] Re: Why should publishers agree to Green OA?

Wed Jun 20 14:03:12 BST 2012

Hi again, David -

Thanks for this.  We do work with funders (see http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/fundingbodyagreements) and look forward to working with RLUK members too.

On your second point... I don't know who the publisher is, we supported the work of the group (I served on one of the Finch sub-groups), and we have welcomed the Finch Report (see http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/intro.cws_home/finchreport).

With kind wishes,

Alicia

Dr Alicia Wise
Director of Universal Access
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<mailto:a.wise at elsevier.com>
Twitter: @wisealic

From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf Of David Prosser
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 12:51 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Why should publishers agree to Green OA?

Hi Alicia

We are happy to work with publishers - we do so all the time - and pursue sustainable models for scholarly communications.  But let's be clear - the publishing industry is a service industry.  Vastly important, but a service industry nevertheless.  It is perfectly reasonable for funders of research to determine how they want the outputs of the research they fund to be disseminated.

And let's also remember - while publicly the talk is of collaboration, privately one 'leading publishing group' has been engaged in briefing the Daily Mail with the most egregious rubbish about open access.  I realise that you only speak for Elsevier, but you must see that it is very difficult to have an honest collaboration when one party is busy trying to undermine the process in this way.

David

On 20 Jun 2012, at 12:15, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote:

Hi David,

What I really liked about the Finch Report is that it points a way forward that can enable different stakeholders to work together constructively to widen access.  Changes would be required from all stakeholders, but we would all get further faster by working together.  I know it will be controversial, perhaps especially so on this list, but is it perhaps time to explore opportunities to work withpublishers?

With kind wishes,

Alicia

Dr Alicia Wise
Director of Universal Access
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<mailto:a.wise at elsevier.com>
Twitter: @wisealic

From: goal-bounces at eprints.org<mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org> [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org]<mailto:[mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org]> On Behalf Of David Prosser
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 11:31 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Why should publishers agree to Green OA?

Laurent makes an important point.  OA policies are between the funders or institutions and the researchers.  These agreements come before any agreement regarding copyright assignment between authors and publishers.  So, it is the job of publishers to decide if they are willing to live with the deposit agreement between the funder/institution and researchers, not the job of funders and institutions to limit their policies to match the needs of publishers.

David

On 20 Jun 2012, at 11:04, Laurent Romary wrote:

Not that I know. I think the French Research Performing Organizations are not planning to put negotiation with editors as a premise to defining their own OA policy.
Laurent

Le 20 juin 2012 à 11:45, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) a écrit :

Hi Laurent,

Institutions already do have agreements with publishers via their libraries and/or library consortia..  This is certainly the case for INRIA.

With kind wishes,

Alicia

From: goal-bounces at eprints.org<mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org> [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org]<mailto:[mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org]> On Behalf Of Laurent Romary
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:11 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Why should publishers agree to Green OA?

This definitely makes no sense. Institutions are not going to start negotiating agreements with all publishers one by one. Does Elsevier have so much man power left to start negotiating with all institutions one by one as well. The corresponding budget could then probably used to reduce subscriptions prices ;-)
Laurent

Le 20 juin 2012 à 09:53, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) a écrit :

Hi all,

Just a quick point of clarification.... Elsevier doesn't forbid posting if there is a mandate.  We ask for an agreement with the institution that has the mandate, and there is no cost for these agreements.  The purpose of these agreements is to work out a win-win solution to find a way for the underlying journals in which academics choose to publish to be sustainable even if there are high posting rates.

With kind wishes,

Alicia

Dr Alicia Wise
Director of Universal Access
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<mailto:a.wise at elsevier.com>
Twitter: @wisealic

From: goal-bounces at eprints.org<mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org> [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org]<mailto:[mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org]> On Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:23 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Why should publishers agree to Green OA?

I have some simple questions about Green OA. I don't know the answers.

* is there any *contractual* relationship between a Green-publisher and any legal body? Or is Green simply a permission granted unilaterally by publishers when they feel like it, and withdrawable when they don't.
* if Green starts impacting on publishers' revenues (and I understand this is part of the Green strategy - when we have 100% Green then publishers will have to change) what stops them simply withdrawing the permission? Or rationing it? Or any other anti-Green measure
* Do publishers receive any funding from anywhere for allowing Green? Green is extra work for them - why should they increase the amount they do?
* Is there any body which regularly "negotiates" with publishers such as ACS, who categorically forbid Green for now and for ever.

Various publishers seem to indicate that they will allow Green as long as it's a relatively small percentage. But, as Stevan has noted, if your institution mandates Green, then Elsevier forbids it. So I cannot see why, if Green were to reach - say - 50%, the publishers wouldn't simply ration it and prevent 100%.

--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069

Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales).

_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL at eprints.org<mailto:GOAL at eprints.org>
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Laurent Romary
INRIA & HUB-IDSL
laurent.romary at inria.fr<mailto:laurent.romary at inria.fr>

Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales).

_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL at eprints.org<mailto:GOAL at eprints.org>
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Laurent Romary
INRIA & HUB-IDSL
laurent.romary at inria.fr<mailto:laurent.romary at inria.fr>

<ATT00001..txt>

Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales).

<ATT00001..txt>

Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120620/ac8c1e18/attachment-0001.html 