From: Danny Kingsley <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 17:39:13 +0000

Hello everyone,

This week Elsevier announced a revision of their policies
(http://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-updates-its-policies-perspectives
-and-services-on-article-sharing)

In them they refer to these principles twice (see below).

Other than a short discussion on this list I have not seen any other
consultation, summary of consultation. Announcement that the principles
are being endorsed/rejected or anything.

But they are now apparently a Œthing¹. I hope ResearchGate and
Academia.edu have spoken to their legal departments -things could get
interesting.

Danny

<snip>
To strike this balance and implement the STM Article Sharing Principles
<http://www.elsevier.com/connect/elseviers-contribution-to-the-stm-voluntar
y-principles-consultation-request>, we are refreshing our posting policy.
We invite hosting platforms ­ whether repositories or social collaboration
networks ­ to work with us to make the vision of seamless research sharing
a reality.

<snip>

Our services to help repositories and other hosting platforms
* As a signatory to the STM Article Sharing Principles
<http://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-welcomes-new-stm-principles-to-fa
cilitate-academic-sharing>, we are committed to making it simple and
seamless for researchers to share their research on platforms of their
choice. To support this, we are actively working with platform partners to
facilitate additional sharing options and to develop industry technology,
standards and best practices for article sharing.

* For institutional repositories, we have removed a complex distinction
between mandated and voluntary posting, thereby permitting all
institutional repositories to host their researchers¹ accepted manuscripts
immediately and to make these publicly accessible after the embargo
period. We are developing API services to make it easier to implement the
policy, and we are piloting these with our institutional repository
partners. We are piloting this approach and will be rolling out the
services later in the year.

--
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head of Scholarly Communication
Cambridge University Library
e: [log in to unmask]
t: @dannykay68



On 09/03/2015 21:10, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>From: Fred Dylla <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 13:30:54 +0000
>
>LIBLICENSE readers:
>
>As chair of the STM Working Group for Article Sharing on Scientific
>Collaboration Networks (SCNs), I am delighted to see our draft
>guidelines being discussed in this forum. I especially thank Ann
>Okerson for providing three key questions about our attempt to draw-up
>a set of draft principles for article sharing, and Scott Plutchak for
>his careful analysis, which largely sums up our intent for this
>engagement exercise.
>
>Here are responses to Ann¹s comments and questions from her March 3rd
>posting on LIBLICENSE:
>
>----Ann:  Scholars and researchers are hampered from scholarly sharing
>of their and their colleagues' works, and the wish is to help them to
>share without worrying that they shouldn't be doing this.  (If this is
>the case, we in libraries don't encounter such fears.)
>
>Fred: Yes, we have received questions from libraries and researchers
>about what tools and sharing mechanisms are allowed for sharing
>articles using these networks, so we hope to answer some of these
>questions and provide clarity and needed consistency across the wide
>scholarly research community.
>
>----Ann:  It would be interesting to learn how much work is being
>shared among scholars in their networks and communities.
>
>(Possibly, but then why should we try to shape the way in which
>different scholarly/research communities do this, which seems to be
>asked for, by creating principles and asking for signatures.)
>
>Fred: Yes, we see scholarly sharing increasing over time with these
>networks‹they clearly provide a more efficient means of article
>sharing than an author¹s mailing list or posting on the author's
>website. As user loyalty to individual publisher sites or other
>platforms can shift, it¹s beneficial to all stakeholders to have
>broader insight into what content is being consumed and how SCNs are
>being used by researchers to improve their ability to collaborate.
>
>----Ann:   A number of folks read this initiative as paving the way to
>regulating and monetizing scholarly sharing.  (Maybe this is a cynical
>interpretation, but it's not an illogical one.)
>
>Fred:   We intend to lower barriers to sharing documents and encourage
>collaboration between all actors. All of us in this enterprise ­
>authors, their collaborators, librarians, SCNs and publishers ­ share
>the goal of ensuring that journal articles are read and used to
>advance research.
>
>----Scott Plutchak¹s March 4th LIBLICENSE analysis of the intention of
>this exercise and our request for the scholarly community to weigh in
>on the draft principles is accurate. I hope the summary below
>describing the purpose of STM¹s efforts on this topic will be a useful
>complement to Scott¹s commentary:
>
>The primary goal of this STM consultation with the community is to
>minimize ambiguity between researchers, publishers, and SCNs about how
>article sharing is best supported, and to deliver a better experience
>to researchers, while giving visibility to publishers and institutions
>on the activity around sharing. Actions that are encouraged that are
>consistent with this goal include:
>
>* Developers of SCNs should configure their systems to make the
>distinction between posting articles (OA) and metadata (for non-OA)
>clear and efficient;
>
>* Publishers and SCNs should provide consistent support for sharing
>articles in private groups and define a clear path for public posting
>of subscription content;
>
>* All sectors of the scholarly community should work together to
>develop systems that could track how much such sharing actually takes
>place.
>
>If we are successful with the above actions then we will minimize
>ambiguity and mixed messages from SCNs about what kind of article
>sharing their systems should be used for. We would further avoid a
>flurry of individual and inconsistent policy statements on the part of
>publishers, and uncertainty on the part of SCN users about what is
>appropriate when using these systems.
>
>The publishers involved in the STM Association effort could be
>questioned for just including publishers in the initial effort of the
>producing the draft principles statement. But we initially had
>disparate views that we needed to align to make sure we were on the
>same page ourselves, before opening our consultation to the wider
>community. We very much welcome input from librarians and networks not
>connected to publishers to broaden the consultation. To participate,
>see the STM Consultation webpage:
>
>http://www.stm-assoc.org/stm-consultations/scn-consultation-2015/.
>
>Fred Dylla
>
>H. Frederick Dylla
>
>Chair, STM working group for article sharing on scholarly
>collaboration networks (SCNs)
>Executive Director & CEO, American Institute of Physics