LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 1 Jun 2015 20:03:16 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (58 lines)
From: Kathleen Shearer <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 17:12:55 -0400

Hi Rick,

Of course, the ultimate goal is to have 100% immediate open access.
This will maximum use, impact and (therefore) benefits of our
collective investments in research.

As you know, many OA policies have employed the use of embargo periods
to help protect publishers’ subscription revenue as they shift to new
business models. We consider the use of embargo periods as an
acceptable transitional mechanism to help facilitate a wholesale shift
towards Open Access.

That said, embargo periods dilute the benefits of open access policies
and we believe that, if they are adopted, they should be no more than
6 months for the life and physical sciences, 12 months for social
sciences and humanities.  We further believe that mechanisms for
reducing – or eliminating – embargo periods should be included in Open
Access policies.

Best, Kathleen

Kathleen Shearer
Executive Director, Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR)
[log in to unmask]
Skype: kathleenshearer2 - twitter: @KathleeShearer



On May 30, 2015, at 11:34 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 13:17:13 +0000

One sentence in COAR’s Statement Against Elsevier’s Sharing Policy (
) stands out to me in particular:

“Any delay in the open availability of research articles curtails
scientific progress and places unnecessary constraints on delivering
the benefits of research back to the public.”

This is quite a remarkable statement — what’s it saying is that any
access model that involves anything less than a) immediate and
universal free access under b) any terms other than CC BY is
unacceptable. In practice, this would seem to be a call for the
abolishment of toll access entirely. If so, that’s fine, but it seems
like we shouldn’t be coy about it — can anyone from COAR clarify
whether this was the intent of the language in question? And if not,
then was this language included by accident?

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2