<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=FR link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Thank you Stevan, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>for your always clear explanations, straightforward analyses … and very practical solutions. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Didier<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>De :</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> goal-bounces@eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org] <b>De la part de</b> Stevan Harnad<br><b>Envoyé :</b> lundi 17 juin 2013 23:17<br><b>À :</b> Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<br><b>Objet :</b> [GOAL] Re: Is Green Open Access in the process of fading away?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:42 PM, <<a href="mailto:didier.pelaprat@inserm.fr" target="_blank">didier.pelaprat@inserm.fr</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><p class=MsoNormal>Springer, which defined itself some months ago as a "green publisher"<br>in a advertisement meeting to which they invited us (they call that<br>"information" meeting) and did not ask any embargo for institutional<br>open repositories (there was only an embargo for the repositories of<br>funders with a mandate), now changed its policy (they call that a "new<br>wording") with a 12-month embargo for all Open repositories.<br><br>It is now displayed in Sherpa/Romeo.<br><br>It was said that this new policy was settled "in reaction to the US,<br>Europe and RCUK policy".<br><br>I figured out that this would make some "buzz", but for the moment I<br>did not see any reaction. Did you hear from one?<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>No buzz, because the change is inconsequential:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0cm'><div><div><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#666666'>"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."<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><div><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#666666'><a href="http://www.springer.com/open+access/authors+rights?SGWID=0-176704-12-683201-0">http://www.springer.com/open+access/authors+rights?SGWID=0-176704-12-683201-0</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><div><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#666666'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b>(1) There is no difference between the authors' "own websites" and and their own institution's "repository." </b><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0cm'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";background:white'>"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." </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/1/">http://roarmap.eprints.org/1/</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b>(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. </b><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Indeed this has always been the main reason I have been strongly advocating for years that <a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#q=institutional+central+deposit+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=active&hl=en&tbm=blg&tbas=0&source=lnt&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">self-archiving mandates should always stipulate institutional deposit</a> 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!)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b>(3) But, yes, Finch/RCUK's persistence in its foolish, thoughtless and heedless policy is indeed having its perverse consequences, <a href="http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/oa-advocate-stevan-harnad-withdraws_26.html">exactly as predicted</a>, in the form of more and more of this formalistic FUD from publishers regarding Green OA embargoes.</b><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Fortunately, <a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#lr=&c2coff=1&safe=active&hl=en&tbm=blg&sclient=psy-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">HEFCE/REF</a> 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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>If there's to be "buzz," let the facts and contingencies at least be got straight!<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Stevan Harnad<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>