From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:30:58 -0400

Wiley publishes nearly 1500 journals:

http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/

1064 of them are Wiley-Blackwell journals according to SHERPA-Romeo

http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/pub/580/

And 246 of them are John Wiley and Sons journals according to SHERPA-Romeo

http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/pub/45/

Wiley Open Access publishes 12 pure-Gold OA journals (cost c. $2000 - $3000)

http://www.wileyopenaccess.com/details/content/12f25d2979e/Authors.html

In addition the Wiley OnlineOpen Hybrid Gold OA option (cost c. $3000)
is available for some 1240 Wiley journals (80%), eight of them now
offering CC-BY.

http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-40

The SHERPA-Romeo information (as well as the Wiley information) on
Wiley's policy on un-embargoed Gratis Green OA self-archiving is now
quite complicated and difficult to understand, so let me put a very
simple, straight-forward question to John Wiley & Sons (Wiley-1) and
to Wiley-Blackwell (Wiley-2) publishers:

Does Wiley-1/Wiley-2, like Springer, formally recognize its authors'
right to make their final, refereed drafts OA immediately upon
publication (no embargo) by self-archiving them in their institutional
OA repository (Green OA)?

If the answer is yes, then the 1240 Wiley paid Gold OA options and the
eight of them with CC-BY are a very welcome and positive step.

If, unlike Springer (which also offers paid Gold, both full and
hybrid), Wiley-1/Wiley-2 embargoes Green OA, then Wiley's Gold OA
options (including CC-BY) are a Trojan Horse, and a highly expensive
one, blocking Green OA in order to force authors who want to provide
immediate OA to pay for it, even though institutional subscriptions
are paying publication costs in full.

In the latter case, CC-BY is an (easy) sop, providing something that
only a few sub-fields need (CC-BY) at the cost of denying all fields
what they urgently need (OA) unless they are able and willing to pay
Wiley even more money for it.

A clear, unequivocal answer from Wiley-1/Wiley-2 could settle this at once.

And then we'll know whether Wiley's recent PR is indeed progress for
OA, or another attempt to block it (until it comes on the publisher's
financial terms).

Stevan Harnad

On 2012-08-15, at 4:56 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote:

From: Ann Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:30:59 +0300

Of possible interest, an adjustment to Wiley's licensing policies.  Ann Okerson

#######

From a Wiley Announcement:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., today announced revised licensing
arrangements for proprietary journals published under the Wiley Open
Access program. The journals will adopt the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC-BY) licence which allows commercial use of published
articles.

The Wiley Open Access portfolio also includes journals published
with society partners, many of which will similarly transfer to the
Creative Commons Attribution licence.

Wiley is responding to recent developments in funder and
government policies and supports the sustainable evolution of
scientific publishing. The change will be implemented immediately.

[SNIP]

Rachel Burley, Vice President and Director, Open Access,
commented, “Wiley is committed to meeting the evolving needs of the
authors who wish to provide open access to the published articles that
convey the results of their research.”

Burley continued, “Our announcement today concerns Wiley’s fully
open access journals. We are also reviewing the licensing arrangements
for our hybrid program OnlineOpen, our open access option for
individual articles published in subscription journals. In
consultation with our publishing partners, we aim to continue to
develop and deliver sustainable open access products providing author
choice and high levels of service.”

Complete Announcement at:
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/PressRelease/pressReleaseId-104537.html