[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"

Sun May 13 18:58:35 BST 2012

Hi all,

Stevan Harnad has helpfully summarized Elsevier's posting policy for
accepted author manuscripts, but has left out a couple of really
important elements.  

He is correct that all our authors can post voluntarily to their
websites and institutional repositories.  Posting is also fine where
there is a requirement/mandate AND we have an agreement in place.  We
have a growing number of these agreements. 

An overview of our funding body agreements can be read here:
www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/fundingbodyagreements .
These agreements, for example, mean that we post to UKPMC for authors
who receive funding from a number of funding agencies including the
Wellcome Trust.  We deposit manuscripts into PMC for NIH-funded authors.
Posting in the arXiv is fine too.  

We are also piloting open access agreements with a growing number of
institutions, including posting in institutional repositories.  It is
already clear that one size does not fit all institutions, and we are
keen to continue learning, listening, and partnering.

Our access policies can be read in full at
www.elsevier.com/wps/find/intro.cws_home/access_policies (health
warning: they are written for those who really enjoy detail) and we've
been working on a more friendly and succinct summary too (but this is
still a work in progress).

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

P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.wise at elsevier.com
I 

Twitter: @wisealic

From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On
Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust
Sent: 13 May 2012 16:51
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from
publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com>
wrote:

** Cross-Posted **

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>
> Stevan,
> Could you please explain this clause? (This is my ignorance as I don't
> publish with Elevier and so am unfamiliar with their author-side
contracts).
> Does it mean that Elsevier sometimes allows Green Open Access and
sometimes don't?

It means that Elsevier formally endorses its authors' right to make
their final, peer-reviewed drafts Open Access immediately upon
publication (no embargo) by posting them on their institutional
website (Green Gratis OA) -- "but not in institutional repositories
with mandates for systematic postings."

It is exactly this sort of clause - usually badly written - that is
widespread in publishers documents (if you can even find them).  Just
remember that *we* pay for their lawyers' salaries. The strategy is
common and exemplified by Ross Mounce's work on licences. Make it
complex and make it different from every other publisher. Never use a
single community-agreed approach. 

If the publishers wanted to make it simple and professional it could
have been done a decade ago. It's not hard. A protocol and licence
saying what could/not be done in Green OA.

What I worry about is that the publishers can change the rules whenever
they feel like. They are quit capable of saying it's "Green" just as
Wiley has done for highly paid "Fully Open Access" (not even as green as
Stevan is asking for). 

The point is that these rules are made by people who don't care about
scholarly publishing. The sooner we admit we are dealing with an
industry every bit as lovable as bankers the sooner we'll put in place
*our* rules and not theirs.

	The distinction between an institutional website and an
institutional
	repository is bogus.

Of course it is. Unless you are trying to appear helpful and trying not
to be.

	The distinction between nonmandatory posting (allowed) and
mandatory
	posting (not allowed) is arbitrary nonsense. ("You retain the
right to
	post if you wish but not if you must!")

Of course it is. It takes a highly paid marketeer to dream that up. 

	The "systematic" criterion is also nonsense. (Systematic posting
would
	be the institutional posting of all the articles in the journal;
but
	any single institution only contributes a tiny, arbitrary
fraction of
	the articles in any journal, just as any single author does; so
the
	mandating institution would not be a 3rd-party "free-rider" on
the
	journal's content: its researchers would simply be making their
own
	articles OA, by posting them on their institutional website,
exactly
	as described.)

	This "systematic" clause is hence pure FUD, designed to scare or
bully
	or confuse institutions into not mandating posting, and authors
into
	not complying with their institutional mandates. (There are also
	rumours that in confidential licensing negotiations with
institutions,
	Elsevier has been trying to link bigger and better pricing deals
to
	the institution's agreeing not to adopt a Green OA mandate.)

That's why I raised it a few days ago. We are dealing with people many
of whose staff have probably never seen a scholarly pub. 

	Along with the majority of publishers today, Elsevier is a Green
	publisher: It has endorsed immediate (unembargoed) institutional
Green
	OA posting by its authors ever since 27 May 2004:
	http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3771.html

But that is no a legally binding contract and that's the problem.

	Elsevier's public image is so bad today that rescinding its
Green
	light to self-archive after almost a decade of mounting demand
for OA
	is hardly a very attractive or viable option:
	http://cdn.anonfiles.com/1334923359479.pdf
	http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#32.Poisoned

	And double-talk, smoke-screens and FUD are even less attractive:
	http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/822-.html

	It will be very helpful in helping researchers to provide -- and
their
	institutions and funders to mandate -- Open Access if Elsevier
drops
	its "you may if you wish but not if you must" clause, which is
not

	only incoherent, but intimidates authors. (This would also help
	counteract some of the rather bad press Elsevier has been
getting
	lately...)

I actually suspect that no-one reading this list has any power to change
Elsevier policy - it's set at boardroom level by people who could be
selling soap. 

-- 
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).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120513/1666367b/attachment.html 