From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:11:32 +0000

Thanks for this, Annaig — I confess that I’m having a hard time following
the complexities of both the two versions of the policies and your
analysis of the changes, so I hope Alicia will chime in to clarify.

---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections
Marriott Library, University of Utah
[log in to unmask]



On 6/23/15, 4:23 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>From: Annaig Mahe <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:10:05 +0200
>
>From what I have understood, this matrix does not fully tell the story
>and the new policy is both simplier (or tries to be) and more
>restricted than the old one :
>
>1- What is missing on the matrix, is the fact that the accepted
>manuscript can be immediately deposited to update a preprint on ArXiv
>and RePec (only).
>A second kind of information is also missing: that is, which
>commercial social sharing platforms are having (or will have) an
>agreement with Elsevier. On its website, Elsevier gives this list :
>http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-science/open-access/agreements -
>but I must admit this is not what I had understood with "commercial
>social sharing platform". I was more thinking about such platforms as
>Academia.edu or ResearchGate... This list seems more to be the list of
>agreements between Elsevier and institutions using "accepted
>manuscripts for internal purposes and private sharing".
>
>2 - The new policy is somewhat simplier and more restricted because
>the difference between voluntary and mandated deposit on institutional
>repositories does not exist anymore. Under the old policy, authors
>could voluntarily deposit their accepted manuscript without embargo,
>and where a mandate existed, an agreement was necessary between
>Elsevier and the mandating institution (+ an embargo) before a deposit
>could be made. Now, the accepted manuscript can be immediately
>"ingested" by the institutional repositories but, if I have understood
>clearly, without being made immediately publicly available (= visible,
>open access), only after a period of embargo.
>
>And where institutions wish to use accepted mansucripts for "internal
>purposes and private sharing", an agreement with Elsevier is needed
>(see the list above).
>
>So this seems to me to amount to a more restricted policy, as the
>immediate availability of voluntary deposit is not possible anymore
>(only on personal website, ArXiv and RePec): immediate ingesting does
>not mean immediate open access (or have I mistaken the meaning of
>"ingesting" ?). Even when self-archiving is now allowed on subject
>repositories (or commercial social sharing platforms with an
>agreement), this is with an embargo.
>
>Annaïg Mahé
>Lecturer in information science
>Urfist de Paris / Ecole nationale des chartes
>http://urfist.enc.sorbonne.fr/