[GOAL] Re: FW: Cambridge policy change

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

These changes in policy, appearing in a surreptitious way, not entirely
clear, etc., had to be anticipated: they are, alas, one of the most
potent weapons against the Green road because they keep confusing the
landscape. Rogue publishers achieve a similar goal on the Gold side of
things. Publishers do not even have to coordinate among themselves. In
fact, the more chaotic the process is, the better it is from their
perspective.

In my opinion, all mandates should immediately include immediate
collection into a dark archive with a button. Then articles could be
moved from and to the dark archive as needed. Ideally, some form of
metadata should be able to register the changes of policy in such a way
that all affected articles in a given repository would be transferred
automatically when such changes would be noticed.

In fact, more effective metadata, covering more ground than is the case
now (for example re-use rights), and more thoroughly implemented in the
repositories appears to be urgently needed.

-- 

Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal



Le jeudi 02 octobre 2014 à 18:31 +0100, Richard Poynder a écrit :

> Forwarding from the JISC-REPOSITORIES mailing list.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES at JISCMAIL.AC.UK]
> On Behalf Of Gray, Andrew D.
> Sent: 02 October 2014 16:55
> To: JISC-REPOSITORIES at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Cambridge policy change
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Just spotted this today: Cambridge Journals have apparently changed their
> overall green OA policy sometime in the past few months (there's no date on
> the new policy that I can see to indicate when it was brought in, and I
> can't find an announcement)
> 
> July:
> http://web.archive.org/web/20140714210504/http://journals.cambridge.org/acti
> on/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4608
> Now: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4608
> 
> You used to be able to post the version of record to an institutional
> repository with a twelve-month embargo, but this has been altered to
> "abstract only". The AAM used to have no embargo, and this has now been
> altered to six months after publication. The new policy is undated, and they
> haven't updated the "Copyright and Repositories" agreement, which still
> lists the old terms:
> 
> http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4676
> 
> It's still RCUK-compliant, but it's a bit frustrating - Cambridge had had
> one of the better self-deposit policies.
> 
> - Andrew Gray
>   anday at bas.ac.uk // 01223 221 312
>   Library, British Antarctic Survey
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20141002/4fc7ac9b/attachment.html