[GOAL] Re: Is Green Open Access in the process of fading away?

[didier.pelaprat at inserm.fr]

Hello,

Many thanks to all of you.
You are probably aware of that:

Springer, which defined itself some months ago as a "green publisher"  
in a advertisement meeting they invited us(they call that  
"information" meeting) and did not ask any embargo for institutional  
open repositories (there was only an embargo for the repositories of  
funders with a mandate), now changed its policy (they call that a "new  
wording") with a 12-month embargo for all Open repositories.

It is now displayed in Sherpa/Romeo.

I was sais that this new policy was settled "in reaction to the US,  
Europe and RCUK policy".

I figured out that this would make some "buzz", but for the moment I  
did not see any reaction. Did you hear from one?

Best regards
Didier Pélaprat



Heather Morrison <hgmorris at sfu.ca> a écrit :

> Thanks for the alert, Richard.
>
> Would the Compact on Open Access Publishing Equity would consider   
> making a statement / recommendation concerning this practice? My   
> suggestion is that this is incompatible with COPE's commitment to   
> establish "durable mechanisms for underwriting reasonable   
> publication charges" as it will force scholars to pay APCs where   
> before green open access would have sufficed. For this reason, I   
> think it would be reasonable for COPE members to refuse to pay open   
> access APCs for any publisher implementing such a policy (extending   
> green open access embargoes for scholarly works covered by an open   
> access mandate).
>
> my two bits,
>
> Heather Morrison
>
> For my call for librarians to withdraw their work as editors,   
> authors, and reviewers from Emerald in light of this practice, see   
> my blogpost LIS Publisher Emerald: profit, not knowledge-sharing?
> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2013/06/lis-publisher-emerald-profit-not.html
>
>
> On 2013-06-17, at 5:48 AM, Richard Poynder wrote:
>
>> When last July Research Councils UK (RCUK) announced its new Open   
>> Access (OA) policy it sparked considerable controversy, not least   
>> because the policy required researchers to "prefer" Gold OA (OA   
>> publishing) over Green OA (self-archiving). The controversy was   
>> such that earlier this year the House of Lords Science & Technology  
>>  Committee launched an inquiry into the implementation of the  
>> policy  and the subsequent report was highly critical of RCUK.
>>
>> As a result of the criticism, RCUK published two clarifications.   
>> Amongst other things, this has seen Green OA reinstated as a viable  
>>  alternative to Gold. At the same time, however, RCUK extended the   
>> permissible maximum embargo before papers can be self-archived from  
>>  12 to 24 months. OA advocates -- who maintain that a six-month   
>> embargo is entirely adequate -- responded by arguing that this   
>> would simply encourage publishers who did not have an embargo to   
>> introduce one, and those that did have one to lengthen it. As a   
>> result, they added, many research papers would be kept behind   
>> publishers' paywalls unnecessarily.
>>
>> It has begun to appear that these warnings may have been right.   
>> Evidence that publishers have indeed begun to respond to RCUK's   
>> policy in this way was presented during a second inquiry into OA --  
>>  this time by the House of Commons Business, Innovation & Skills   
>> (BIS) Committee. The Committee cited the case of a UK publisher who  
>>  recently introduced a 24-month embargo where previously it did not  
>>  have one. The publisher was not named, but it turns out to be a   
>> UK-based company called Emerald.
>>
>> Why did Emerald decide that an embargo is now necessary where   
>> previously it was not? Why do the details of the embargo on   
>> Emerald's web site differ from the details sent to the publisher's   
>> journal editors? And what does Emerald's decision to introduce a   
>> two-year embargo presage for the development of Open Access? To my   
>> surprise, obtaining answers to the first two questions proved more   
>> difficult than I had anticipated.
>>
>> More here:   
>> http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/open-access-emeralds-green-starts-to.html
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GOAL mailing list
>> GOAL at eprints.org
>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>





Dr Didier Pélaprat
INSERM, DISC-Information Scientifique et Technique
Hôpital de Bicètre
Bâtiment Claude Bernard, Secteur Violet, Porte 16
84 Rue du Général Leclerc
94276 Le Kremlin-Bicètre Cedex
France

Tel: 33-1-49-59-19-66
Secrétariat: 33-1-49-59-19-51
Fax: 33-1-49-59-56-03
didier.pelaprat at inserm.fr


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.