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/


Le 23/06/2015 00:53, LIBLICENSE a écrit :
>
> From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 22:40:49 +0000
>
> I would still be very interested in answers to my two questions below,
> particularly from those who have been most critical of Elsevier’s new
> policy.
>
> 1. As far as anyone on this list can tell, does the matrix at
> http://www.slideshare.net/aliciawise/whats-changed-in-sharing-policy fully
> and accurately represent what has changed with the new policy?
>
> 2. If so, it appears to me that Elsevier’s new sharing policy actually
> represents a net increase in liberality when it comes to sharing and
> posting ― am I mistaken about that?
>
> ---
> Rick Anderson
> Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections
> Marriott Library, University of Utah
> [log in to unmask]