[GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers

Mon May 14 08:02:29 BST 2012

Hello Alicia,
do these agreements involve payments to Elsevier by the funding bodies and/or authors and/or authors institutions?

Best regards,
Bernhard
###########################################
Dr. Bernhard Mittermaier
Forschungszentrum Jülich
Leiter der Zentralbibliothek / Head of the Central Library

Tel  ++49-2461-613013
Fax ++49-2461-616103

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] Im Auftrag von goal-request at eprints.org
Gesendet: Montag, 14. Mai 2012 07:48
An: goal at eprints.org
Betreff: GOAL Digest, Vol 6, Issue 57

Send GOAL mailing list submissions to
        goal at eprints.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        goal-request at eprints.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        goal-owner at eprints.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of GOAL digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers
      that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
      (Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF))
   2. "Would [open access] be prestigious just because we say it
      is? I say, why not?" (Omega Alpha Open Access)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 18:58:35 +0100
From: "Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)" <A.Wise at elsevier.com>
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from
        publishers      that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal at eprints.org>,
        "LibLicense-L Discussion Forum" <LIBLICENSE-L at listserv.crl.edu>
Message-ID:
        <2C8CCCD35DB358478B0270655DE2F19D0191EB96 at ELSOXFEXCP40VA.science.regn.net>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

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-0001.html

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 19:29:52 -0400
From: Omega Alpha Open Access <oa.openaccess at gmail.com>
Subject: [GOAL] "Would [open access] be prestigious just because we
        say it  is? I say, why not?"
To: sparc-oaforum at arl.org, goal at eprints.org
Message-ID: <DEC59432-3EA1-4B64-A121-699518B68BCF at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252

"Would [open access] be prestigious just because we say it is? I say, why not?"
http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/would-open-access-be-prestigious-just-because-we-say-it-is-i-say-why-not/

This hat tip goes to Jessica P. Hekman for her May 10, 2012 post on Scientific American?s Guest Blog, ?Moving the Prestige to Open-Access Publishing.? Hekman is preparing to graduate from veterinary school. Before this, she had a twelve year career in online publishing, and got her undergraduate degree in medieval studies from Harvard University.

Hekman is reflecting on the April 17, 2012 memorandum sent by the Harvard Library Faculty Advisory Council (covered by me here), which among other things, encouraged faculty to submit their research articles to open access journals in order to ?move prestige to open access.?

...

Gary F. Daught
Omega Alpha | Open Access
http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com
oa.openaccess @ gmail.com

------------------------------

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

End of GOAL Digest, Vol 6, Issue 57
***********************************

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH
52425 Juelich
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich
Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender),
Karsten Beneke (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt,
Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kennen Sie schon unseren neuen Film? http://www.fz-juelich.de/film
Kennen Sie schon unsere app? http://www.fz-juelich.de/app