<div dir="ltr">If, after all this, the scientists of the world do not unite now and revive the 'Boycott Elsevier' movement, we cannot blame the publisher hereafter. <div><br></div><div>How can governments and funding bodies which support research remain silent spectators and let publishing companies hijack the copyright to the research results? <br>
<div><br></div><div>Arun<br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">LIBLICENSE</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:liblicense@gmail.com">liblicense@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
Date: Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:43 AM<br>Subject: Elsevier's Unforced Error<br>To: <a href="mailto:LIBLICENSE-L@listserv.crl.edu">LIBLICENSE-L@listserv.crl.edu</a><br><br><br>From: "Hamaker, Charles" <<a href="mailto:cahamake@uncc.edu">cahamake@uncc.edu</a>><br>
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 16:11:37<br>
<br>
<a href="http://svpow.com/2013/12/06/elsevier-is-taking-down-papers-from-academia-edu/" target="_blank">http://svpow.com/2013/12/06/elsevier-is-taking-down-papers-from-academia-edu/</a><br>
<br>
For those who are unhappy with decades of Elsevier's policies,<br>
practices, pricing, and even their recent purchase of Mendeley, their<br>
unforced error in issuing take-down notices is an amazing, mistaken<br>
and ultimately self-destructive decision on Elsevier's part.<br>
<br>
Anyone who has any disagreement with Elsevier on any issue: copyright,<br>
OA policies, hybrid journals, OA pricing, pricing in general, control<br>
of backfiles, text mining, any of a myriad of issues including, their<br>
crazy if you mandate it you can't do it IR policy and their standard<br>
refusal to permit re-printing "their" research, should publicize<br>
this far and wide.<br>
<br>
Elsevier, no matter what they say, has demonstrated beyond any<br>
reasonable doubt in this action, their limited understanding of their<br>
remit, their control of scholarly research, They are nobody's<br>
friend's except their shareholders. They have demonstrated their DNA,<br>
their belief in their right to control the content scholars and<br>
researchers create and publish with Elsevier. They are wrong.<br>
<br>
What copyright law says is irrelevant in this, what authors want to do<br>
with their own research is paramount.<br>
<br>
It might have been masked before under the guise of impact factors and<br>
collegial editorial board meetings in locations worldwide and smart<br>
as a whip editors, and outreach at conferences, and invitations to<br>
"publish your research with us" and PR, and more or less "green" OA<br>
policies, and excellent inhouse readings of directions in future<br>
trends, and all the other trappings and expertise they have in<br>
academic publishing which is at the top of its game. Those trapping<br>
are insufficient.<br>
<br>
Elsevier and its cynical relationship with authors and institutions,<br>
has been demonstrated by Elsevier itself. No one could have done this<br>
to them but themselves.<br>
<br>
The tide of OA, of authors making sure people who need to see it, get<br>
to read their research, OA in all its guises, is inexorable and if<br>
handled correctly even by such behemoths as Elsevier, will lift all<br>
boats in the publishing stream, despite the scaremongers and<br>
naysayers in publishing, or the mistaken advice of some in libraries,<br>
or even among OA advocates themselves. It's logic is persuasive, its<br>
goals commensurate ultimately with what authors want for their own<br>
research. To put up and enforce barriers to what scholars want to<br>
distribute that they themselves produce is antediluvian.<br>
<br>
Elsevier's unforced error may be more effective than any boycott.<br>
<br>
Chuck Hamaker<br>
</div><br></div></div></div>