From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 02:19:41 +0000

Thanks for clarifying that, Kathleen. That¹s what I thought you guys
were saying but I wanted to be sure.

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


On 6/1/15, 6:03 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>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 publishers¹ 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 COAR¹s Statement Against Elsevier¹s Sharing Policy (
>) stands out to me in particular:
>
>³Any 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.²
>
>This is quite a remarkable statement ‹ what¹s 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, that¹s fine, but it seems
>like we shouldn¹t 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]