From: William Gunn <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 17:55:07 -0700

I don't represent COAR in any way (beyond obvious to most of you!),
but I think statement highlighted by Rick is clear enough that maybe I
can clear up his confusion without their involvement.

They seem to me to be saying that any delay or restriction is
undesirable, rather than unacceptable.

Rick, do you think that delay and restriction, by themselves in the
absence of any downstream effects on sustainability or whatever, are
intrinsically good things?

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 8:34 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]