From: William Gunn <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 18:04:07 -0700

David, I think that might be reading into things a bit too much. The
changes incorporate both public and private sharing, including the
bits from the STM consultation as well as the Elsevier sharing policy.
Taken together, it's clear that there is more permitted sharing than
before. Whether or not these policies result in more actual sharing
remains to be seen.

Best,
--
William Gunn | Head of Academic Outreach, Mendeley | @mrgunn
http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/william-gunn | (650) 614-1749



On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 8:29 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 10:54:07 +0000
>
> it is interesting to see that in less than a month Dr Wise’s
> justification for the change in Elsevier’s policy has shifted.
>
> In early May she wrote (in a note to Stevan Harnad, posted here on 3 May):
>
> 'I wanted to reach out to you directly to let you know about some
> changes we are making which will enable Elsevier published content to
> be shared more widely.'
>
> It is clear that the claimed motivation was wider sharing of material.
> This has now shifted to supporting 'a framework that makes it more
> clear to researchers how they can share their research’.
>
> It became clear that the new policy is more restrictive than previous
> policies - increased embargoes applied to all authors - and so the
> ‘more widely’ justification became increasingly untenable.
>
> David
>
>
> On 27 May 2015, at 00:17, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > From: "Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)" <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 21:28:09 +0000
> >
> > Hi again, everyone – one last final post from me
> >
> > ·         Our main aims with our new sharing and hosting policies are
> > to support a framework that makes it more clear to researchers how
> > they can share their research, including on newer commercial sharing
> > sites, and to lift the old requirement for IRs to have agreements with
> > us.
> >
> > ·         A key concern that we are hearing now is about the length of
> > our embargo periods rather than the fact of their existence. Our
> > journal specific embargo periods are evidence-based (e.g. usage
> > evidence) and typically range from 12-24 months, however there are
> > exceptions which can be either longer or shorter than 12/24 months.
> > Generally embargos should be set on a title-by-title basis by
> > publishers, however we recognize that other stakeholders seek
> > influence over embargo lengths too and this is reasonable. We are
> > committed to collaboration and partnership as we continue to move
> > forward with open access.
> >
> > ·         We have already been planning a review of our embargo
> > periods in 2015.  While I cannot pre-judge the outcome of this review,
> > we are very conscious of the many new funding body policies that have
> > emerged in the last year with 12 month embargo periods all of which we
> > will factor in.
> >
> > ·         We appreciate the feedback we have received, and there is
> > clearly a need to continue these discussions.  We’re happy to talk at
> > any time, and will be participating at the upcoming Open Repositories
> > conference in Indianapolis (June 9 & 10) and also at ALA at the end of
> > June.   (Our earlier offer to talk with colleagues at Duke and SPARC
> > this week, or indeed anytime, still stands!)
> >
> > Good night,
> >
> > Alicia
> >
> > Dr Alicia Wise
> > Director of Access and Policy
> > Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB
> > E: [log in to unmask]