[GOAL] Re: In Defence of Elsevier
Stevan Harnad
amsciforum at gmail.com
Thu May 28 00:30:15 BST 2015
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Michael Eisen <mbeisen at gmail.com> wrote:
> I could rewrite that entire plea substituting CC-BY-NC-ND with "posting in
> institutional repositories with an embargo". Just because you don't care
> about something does not mean that the rest of the OA community should stop
> caring about it. To me the use of CC-BY-NC-ND is not a step it in the right
> direction - it is an explicit effort on the part of publishers like
> Elsevier to define open access down - to reify a limited license in a way
> that will be difficult to change in the future. Now - before the use of
> CC-BY-NC-ND becomes widespread - is the time to stop it. Later will be too
> late.
>
On the road from subscription access to Fair-Gold CC-BY, (1) posting with
an embargo and no license is getting almost nowhere, (2) posting with no
embargo and no license is getting further ahead, and (3) posting with
CC-BY-NC-ND is getting still further.
Don't insist on what is not yet within reach, dismissing what already is
within practical reach as not enough.
Advocating a practical transitional strategy does not mean not caring.
(And it's already late for OA, but no step forward now makes it too late
for any later step forward.)
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I beg the OA community to remain reasonable and realistic.
>>
>> *Please don't demand that Elsevier agree to immediate CC-BY. *If
>> Elsevier did that, I could immediately start up a rival free-riding
>> publishing operation and sell all Elsevier articles immediately at cut
>> rate, for any purpose at all that I could get people to pay for. Elsevier
>> could no longer make a penny from selling the content it invested in.
>>
>> CC-BY-NC-ND <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/> is
>> enough for now. It allows immediate harvesting for data-mining.
>>
>> The OA movement must stop shooting itself in the foot by over-reaching,
>> insisting on having it all, immediately, thus instead ending up with next
>> to nothing, as now.
>>
>> As I pointed out in a previous posting, *the fact that Elsevier requires
>> all authors to adopt **CC-BY-NC-ND license is a positive step*. Please
>> don't force them to back-pedal!
>>
>> Please read the terms, and reflect.
>>
>> SH
>>
>> Accepted Manuscript
>> <http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-posting-policy#accepted-manuscript>
>>
>>
>> Authors can share their accepted manuscript:
>>
>> *Immediately *
>>
>>
>> - via their non-commercial personal homepage or blog.
>> - by updating a preprint
>> <http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-policies/preprint_lightbox> in
>> arXiv or RePEc with the accepted manuscript.
>> - via their research institute or institutional repository for
>> internal institutional uses or as part of an invitation-only research
>> collaboration work-group.
>> - directly by providing copies to their students or to research
>> collaborators for their personal use.
>> - for private scholarly sharing as part of an invitation-only work
>> group on commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement.
>>
>> *After the embargo period *
>>
>>
>> - via non-commercial hosting platforms such as their institutional
>> repository.
>> - via commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement.
>>
>> *In all cases accepted manuscripts should:*
>>
>>
>> - Link to the formal publication via its DOI
>> <http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/lightbox-doi>.
>> - Bear a CC-BY-NC-ND license – this is easy to do, click here
>> <http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/lightbox_attach-a-user-license> to
>> find out how.
>> - If aggregated with other manuscripts, for example in a
>> repository or other site, be shared in alignment with our hosting
>> policy <http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/hosting>.
>> - Not be added to or enhanced in any way to appear more like, or
>> to substitute for, the published journal article.
>>
>> How to attach a user license
>> <http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/lightbox_attach-a-user-license>
>>
>> Elsevier requires authors posting their accepted manuscript to attach a
>> non-commercial Creative Commons user license (CC-BY-NC-ND). This is easy
>> to do. On your accepted manuscript add the following to the title page,
>> copyright information page, or header /footer: © YEAR, NAME. Licensed under
>> the Creative Commons [insert license details and URL].
>> For example: © 2015, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons
>> Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
>>
>>
>> You can also include the license badges available from the Creative
>> Commons website <http://creativecommons.org/about/downloads> to provide
>> visual recognition. If you are hosting your manuscript as a webpage you
>> will also find the correct HTML code to add to your page
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Kathleen Shearer <
>> m.kathleen.shearer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> (sorry for any cross-posting)
>>>
>>> In its recently released “Sharing and Hosting Policy FAQ”, Elsevier
>>> “recognize(s) that authors want to share and promote their work and
>>> increasingly need to comply with their funding body and institution's open
>>> access policies.” However there are several aspects of their new policy
>>> that severely limit sharing and open access, in particular the lengthy
>>> embargo periods imposed in most journals- with about 90% of Elsevier
>>> journals
>>> <http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/121293/external-embargo-list.pdf> having
>>> embargo periods of 12 months or greater. This is a significant rollback
>>> from the original 2004 Elsevier policy which required no embargos for
>>> making author’s accepted manuscripts available; and even with the 2012
>>> policy change requiring embargoes only when authors were subject to an OA
>>> mandate.
>>>
>>> With article processing charges (APCs) that can cost as much as $5000
>>> US dollars
>>> <https://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/open-access/sponsored-articles>
>>> for publishing in one of Elsevier’s gold open access titles or hybrid
>>> journals, this is not a viable option for many researchers around the
>>> world. Furthermore, the rationale for lengthy embargo periods is to protect
>>> Elsevier’s subscription revenue. We do not believe that scientific,
>>> economic and social progress should be hindered in order to protect
>>> commercial interests. In addition, there is currently no evidence that
>>> articles made available through OA repositories will lead to cancellations.
>>>
>>>
>>> Elsevier’s new policy also requires that accepted manuscripts posted in
>>> open access repositories bear a CC-BY-NC-ND license. This type of license
>>> severely limits the re-use potential of publicly funded research. ND
>>> restricts the use of derivatives, yet derivative use is fundamental
>>> <http://oaspa.org/why-cc-by/> to the way in which scholarly research
>>> builds on previous findings, for example by re-using a part of an article
>>> (with attribution) in educational material. Similarly, this license
>>> restricts commercial re-use greatly inhibiting
>>> <http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/11/16331/0655> the potential
>>> impact of the results of research.
>>>
>>> Elsevier’s Director of Access & Policy, Alicia Wise states that they
>>> “have received neutral-to-positive responses from research institutions and
>>> the wider research community.” Yet, since the “Statement against
>>> Elsevier’s sharing policy
>>> <https://www.coar-repositories.org/activities/advocacy-leadership/petition-against-elseviers-sharing-policy/>”
>>> was published just one week ago (on Wednesday May 20, 2015), it has been
>>> signed by close to 700 organizations and individuals, demonstrating that
>>> there is significant opposition to the policy.
>>>
>>> Elsevier has indicated that they “are always happy to have a dialogue to
>>> discuss these, or any other, issues further.” We would like to offer the
>>> following concrete recommendations to Elsevier to improve their policy:
>>>
>>> 1.
>>>
>>> Elsevier should allow all authors to make their “author’s accepted
>>> manuscript” openly available immediately upon acceptance through an OA
>>> repository or other open access platform.
>>> 2.
>>>
>>> Elsevier should allow authors to choose the type of open license
>>> (from CC-BY to other more restrictive licenses like the CC-BY-NC-ND) they
>>> want to attach to the content that they are depositing into an open access
>>> platform.
>>> 3.
>>>
>>> Elsevier should not attempt to dictate author’s practices around
>>> individual sharing of articles. Individual sharing of journal articles is
>>> already a scholarly norm and is protected by fair use and other copyright
>>> exceptions. Elsevier cannot, and should not, dictate practices around
>>> individual sharing of articles.
>>>
>>> We strongly encourage Elsevier to revise their policy in order to better
>>> align with the interests of the research community. We would also be
>>> pleased to meet to discuss these recommendations with Elsevier at any time.
>>>
>>>
>>> Kathleen Shearer, Executive Director, COAR
>>>
>>> Heather Joseph, Executive Director, SPARC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) <
>>> A.Wise at elsevier.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello everyone –
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just a quick note to draw your attention to our article, posted today
>>>> in Elsevier Connect and in response to yesterday’s statement by COAR:
>>>> http://www.elsevier.com/connect/coar-recting-the-record. I’ll also
>>>> append the full text of this response below.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You might also be interested in this Library Connect webinar on some of
>>>> the new institutional repository services we are piloting (
>>>> http://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/articles/2015-01/webinar-institutional-research-repositories-characteristics-relationships-and-roles)
>>>> and reading our policies for yourselves:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Sharing –
>>>> http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-posting-policy
>>>> - Hosting - http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/hosting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With best wishes,
>>>>
>>>> Alicia
>>>>
>>>> *COAR-recting the record*
>>>>
>>>> We have received neutral-to-positive responses from research
>>>> institutions and the wider research community. We are therefore a little
>>>> surprised that COAR has formed such a negative view, and chosen not to
>>>> feedback their concerns directly to us. We would like to correct the
>>>> misperceptions.
>>>>
>>>> Our sharing policy is more liberal in supporting the dissemination and
>>>> use of research:
>>>>
>>>> - At each stage of the publication process authors can share their
>>>> research: before submission, from acceptance, upon publication, and post
>>>> publication.
>>>> - In institutional repositories, which no longer require a formal
>>>> agreement to host full text content
>>>> - Authors can also share on commercial platforms such as social
>>>> collaboration networks
>>>> - We provide new services to authors such as the share link which
>>>> enables authors to post and share a customized link for 50 days free access
>>>> to the final published article
>>>> - For authors who want free immediate access to their articles, we
>>>> continue to give all authors a choice to publish gold open access with a
>>>> wide number of open access journals and over 1600 hybrid titles
>>>>
>>>> Unlike the claims in this COAR document, the policy changes are based
>>>> on feedback from our authors and institutional partners, they are
>>>> evidence-based, and they are in alignment with the STM article sharing
>>>> principles. They introduce absolutely no changes in our embargo periods.
>>>> And they are not intended to suddenly embargo and make inaccessible content
>>>> currently available to readers – as we have already communicated in Elsevier
>>>> Connect
>>>> <http://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-updates-its-policies-perspectives-and-services-on-article-sharing>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> In fact, we have been developing services, in partnership with
>>>> libraries, to help institutional repositories track research output and
>>>> display content to their users. This includes:
>>>>
>>>> • Sharing metadata: In order to showcase an institutions’ work,
>>>> an institutional repository must identify their institution’s research
>>>> output. By integrating the ScienceDirect metadata API into the repository,
>>>> this task becomes simple. Even in cases where the repository doesn’t hold
>>>> the full text manuscript, the article information and abstract can be
>>>> displayed..
>>>>
>>>> • Sharing user access information and embedding final articles:
>>>> We are testing a workflow in which a user’s access level to the full text
>>>> is checked on the fly, and if full text access is available, the user will
>>>> be served the final published version, instead of the preprint or
>>>> manuscript hosted by the repository. Users who are not entitled to view the
>>>> full text of the final article will be led to the version available in the
>>>> repository, or- if this is not available- to a page where they can view the
>>>> first page of the article and options for accessing it (including via
>>>> interlibrary loan). This ensures that users will always be served the best
>>>> available version. This also enables the repository to display the best
>>>> available version to their users even if no self-archived manuscript is
>>>> available.
>>>>
>>>> We have not only updated our policies, we are active in developing and
>>>> delivering technology that enables research to be shared more widely.
>>>>
>>>> COAR states that the addition of a CC-BY-NC-ND license is unhelpful.
>>>> Feedback suggests that clarity about how manuscripts can be used is
>>>> welcome, when asked in surveys often choose NC ND of their own
>>>> volition (see the T&F study from 2014 at
>>>> http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/explore/open-access-survey-june2014.pdf
>>>> ), and it works across a broad range of use cases.
>>>>
>>>> Our refreshed policies are about green OA, and some elements of this –
>>>> for example the use of embargo periods – are specifically for green OA when
>>>> it is operating in tandem with the subscription business model. Here time
>>>> is needed for the subscription model to operate as libraries will
>>>> understandably not subscribe if this material is available immediately and
>>>> for free.
>>>>
>>>> In closing, we appreciate an open dialogue and are always happy to have
>>>> a dialogue to discuss these, or any other, issues further.
>>>>
>>>> Dr Alicia Wise
>>>>
>>>> Director of Access and Policy
>>>>
>>>> Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5
>>>> 1GB
>>>>
>>>> M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.wise at elsevier.com
>>>>
>>>> *Twitter: @wisealic*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane,
>>>> Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084,
>>>> Registered in England and Wales.
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GOAL mailing list
>> GOAL at eprints.org
>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Michael Eisen, Ph.D.
> Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
> Professor of Genetics, Genomics and Development
> Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
> University of California, Berkeley
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150527/87d0f420/attachment-0001.html
More information about the GOAL
mailing list