From: "Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:00:33 +0000

Hi Annaig,

I've uploaded a French translation of our sharing guidelines to
slideshare.  You can find it here:
http://www.slideshare.net/aliciawise/francais-elsevier-sharing-policy
and I hope this is helpful.  Let me address each of your points in
turn.

The slide shows that preprints on arXiv and RePec can be refreshed
with accepted manuscripts.  I did not include this in the what's
changed slide, as we've long permitted this by agreement.

You ask about the agreements we will have in place with social sharing
platforms, and correctly note that these are not yet available on our
website.  You instead found our website providing an overview of our
OA agreements with funding bodies
(http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-science/open-access/agreements)
and correctly note that these are about something different.
Returning to the commercial social sharing platforms, we prefer to
work with all commercial sharing platforms that researchers use, have
reached out to all we are aware of, and are in discussion with those
who responded.  We have created an information resource for them
(http://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/hosting/hosting).
In due course, we plan to provide a list of commercial platforms and
tools where researchers have more sharing options available to them.
Our aim is to be clear and helpful in explaining how researchers can
share their research online and we will continue to develop our
communications.

I am glad you found the removal of the voluntary vs. systematic
distinction in our policy more simple.  For the (very few, I believe -
but do correct me if I am wrong) IRs with only voluntary posting then
this is the one way in which our policy is more restrictive. This
change removes an incredibly complex element of our old policy that
was near impossible to communicate clearly to researchers and research
institutions, creates a level playing field between repositories,
removes a distinction that had been criticized as a disincentive to
the introduction of institutional OA policies, and sets out a clear
framework that we believe will work at scale given the widespread
adoption of green OA policies and mandates from funders.

No agreement is needed for institutions to use embargoed AMs for
internal purposes and private sharing.  This is one of the ways in
which our new policy is more flexible for all repositories than our
old policy was.

Thank you very much for your comments, Annaig, and I hope I have
correctly addressed all your points.  If I have missed or
misunderstood anything please do let me know.  With kind wishes,

Alicia

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:11:32 +0000

Thanks for this, Annaig — I confess that I’m having a hard time
following the complexities of both the two versions of the policies
and your analysis of the changes, so I hope Alicia will chime in to
clarify.

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



On 6/23/15, 4:23 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>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/

________________________________

Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane,
Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084,
Registered in England and Wales.