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

Didier Pélaprat didier.pelaprat at inserm.fr
Tue Jun 18 10:49:06 BST 2013


Thank you Stevan, 

for your always clear explanations, straightforward analyses 
 and very
practical solutions. 

 

Didier

 

De : goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] De la part
de Stevan Harnad
Envoyé : lundi 17 juin 2013 23:17
À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Objet : [GOAL] Re: Is Green Open Access in the process of fading away?

 

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:42 PM, <didier.pelaprat at inserm.fr> wrote:

Springer, which defined itself some months ago as a "green publisher"
in a advertisement meeting to which 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.

It was said 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?

 

No buzz, because the change is inconsequential:

 

"Authors may self-archive the author’s accepted manuscript of their articles
on their own websites. Authors may also deposit this version of the article
in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months
after official publication or later."

http://www.springer.com/open+access/authors+rights?SGWID=0-176704-12-683201-
0

 

(1) There is no difference between the authors' "own websites" and and their
own institution's "repository." 

 

Authors' websites are sectors of their own institution's diskspace, and
their institutional repository is a sector of their own institution's
diskspace. Way back in 2003 U. Southampton had already laid this nonsensical
pseudo-legal distinction to rest pre-emptively by formally declaring their
authors' sector of their institutional repository their personal website:

 

"3e. Copyright agreements may state that eprints can be archived on your
personal homepage. As far as publishers are concerned, the EPrint Archive is
a part of the Department's infrastructure for your personal homepage." 

http://roarmap.eprints.org/1/

 

(2) As to institution-external OA repositories, many green publishers try to
forbid them, but this too is futile nonsense. They can simply link to the
full-text in the institutional repository. 

 

Indeed this has always been the main reason I have been strongly advocating
for years that self-archiving mandates should always stipulate institutional
deposit
<http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archiva
ngelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&nu
m=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#q=institutional+central+deposit+blogurl:http://op
enaccess.eprints.org/&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=active&hl=en&tbm=blg&tbas=0&source=l
nt&sa=X&ei=jHe_UbP0CKXH0gH1m4HgDw&ved=0CBsQpwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm
=bv.47883778,d.dmQ&fp=e842c107f9c204e7&biw=1136&bih=78>  rather than
institution-external deposit. (Springer or any publisher has delusions,
however, if they think any of their pseudo-legal double-talk can get
physicists who have been self-archiving directly in Arxiv for over two
decades to change their ways!)

 

(3) But, yes, Finch/RCUK's persistence in its foolish, thoughtless and
heedless policy is indeed having its perverse consequences, exactly as
predicted
<http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/oa-advocate-stevan-harnad-withdraws_2
6.html> , in the form of more and more of this formalistic FUD from
publishers regarding Green OA embargoes.

 

Fortunately, HEFCE/REF
<http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archiva
ngelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&nu
m=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#lr=&c2coff=1&safe=active&hl=en&tbm=blg&sclient=ps
y-ab&q=hefce+ref+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&oq=hefce+ref
+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&gs_l=serp.3...968901.970989.
1.971714.9.9.0.0.0.1.173.950.5j4.9.0...0.0...1c.1.17.p>  has taken heed. If
their proposed immediate-(institutional)-deposit mandate is adopted, not
only is all this publisher FUD mooted, but it increases the likelihood that
other OA mandates. too, will be upgraded to HEFCE's date-stamped
immediate-deposit as the mechanism for submitting articles to institutional
research performance review or national research assessment.

 

If there's to be "buzz," let the facts and contingencies at least be got
straight!

 

Stevan Harnad

 

 

-------------- section suivante --------------
Une pi?ce jointe HTML a ?t? nettoy?e...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20130618/21f8e184/attachment.html 


More information about the GOAL mailing list