<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/4.6.6">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
<TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%">
<TR>
<TD>
--
<PRE>
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal
</PRE>
<BR>
<BR>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
Le jeudi 02 octobre 2014 à 18:31 +0100, Richard Poynder a écrit :
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
Forwarding from the JISC-REPOSITORIES mailing list.
-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list [<A HREF="mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK">mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK</A>]
On Behalf Of Gray, Andrew D.
Sent: 02 October 2014 16:55
To: <A HREF="mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK">JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK</A>
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:
<A HREF="http://web.archive.org/web/20140714210504/http://journals.cambridge.org/acti">http://web.archive.org/web/20140714210504/http://journals.cambridge.org/acti</A>
on/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4608
Now: <A HREF="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4608">http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4608</A>
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:
<A HREF="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4676">http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=4676</A>
It's still RCUK-compliant, but it's a bit frustrating - Cambridge had had
one of the better self-deposit policies.
- Andrew Gray
<A HREF="mailto:anday@bas.ac.uk">anday@bas.ac.uk</A> // 01223 221 312
Library, British Antarctic Survey
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
<A HREF="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</A>
<A HREF="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</A>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>