[GOAL] Re: On Author/Publisher Agreements

[Stevan Harnad]

On 2013-05-03, at 10:53 AM, Couture Marc <marc.couture at teluq.ca> wrote:

> I strongly support the advice to ignore altogether all these extra and confusing conditions.
> 
> Let's ask Elsevier the question in our own terms:

> 1. Do you, YES or NO, allow posting of author manuscripts?

> 2. If YES:

> a) Which version can be posted: preprint, postprint, publisher-formated?

> b) Where can it be posted: author's or institution's website, repository (institutional or centralized)?

> c) When can it be posted: upon acceptance, after an embargo period (for all or some journals)?

> and accept only answers to that question.

But Elsevier has already answered each of these questions in one single sentence:

"Accepted author manuscripts (AAM): Immediate posting and dissemination of AAM’s 
is allowed to personal websites, to institutional repositories, or to arXiv." 

What follows that sentence is a piece of gibberish that has nothing to do with the author, nor with an 
author/publisher rights agreement:

"However, if your institution has an open access policy or mandate that requires you to post, Elsevier 
requires an agreement to be in place - [an agreement from whom? and why on earth would that 
other party comply with Elsevier? and what on earth has that to do with you? -- ]  which respects the 
journal-specific embargo periods."

This is the part that all sensible authors should completely (and contemptuously!) ignore as a non
sequitur: If the publisher wants to try to get further agreements out of other parties, let the publisher try. 
But that's got nothing to do with the author, nor with the author's rights agreement with the publisher.

Stevan Harnad


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20130503/322cbad3/attachment.html