LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 29 Jun 2013 20:38:10 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (94 lines)
From: Sally Morris <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:17:53 +0100

I don't think it's fair to describe the aim of publishers as being to
'create as complicated and confusing a landscape as possible while avoiding
any direct confrontation that would allow for the emergence of clear issues'

IMHO, the publishers I know are all trying to accommodate authors' wishes as
far as possible, while at the same time trying not to destroy their own
business.   There is no single clear and obvious way to do this, or you can
be sure they would all be adopting it.  They are all trying to find
solutions to the same problem.

Sally


Sally Morris
West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
Email:  [log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 03:20:11 -0400

While some publishers may have been characterized as "being on the side of
angels" because they allowed some form of self-archiving, the publishers'
strategy has always been very clear: create as complicated and confusing a
landscape as possible while avoiding any direct confrontation that would
allow for the emergence of clear issues. The confusion to be created is easy
to generate: in the name of free competition, let each publisher do as it
pleases. Nowadays, this basic laissez-faire policy has been further enriched
(or "improved" as the case may be), by generating policy drifts. The
Springer example is but one example of all this.

The point of it all is simple: defang the repository device as much as
possible while taking ownership of the Gold road by assimilating it to the
"author-pay" model.

If that is still being on the side of angels, then our entry into paradise
is pretty well assured: anything goes...

PS The murky negotiating approach that avoids clear, black and white,
choices is very visible in other arenas - for example that of rights that
could be extended by publishers to people with impaired vision.
This issue is presently debated in WIPO.

Similar tactics have also been used in other economic areas, for example by
pharmaceutical companies with regard to generic drugs and patenting. When
the question of the common good comes dangerously close, these companies
know they should appear to stay "on the side of angels" as long and as much
as possible by using all the resources of ambiguity and obfuscation. It is
all performed in the name of free enterprise and market "laws".

Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal



-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Poynder <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:49:32 +0100

Last month Danny Kingsley - Manager for Scholarly Communications &
ePublishing at the Australian National University (ANU) - highlighted a
number of publishers that have recently changed their self-archiving (Green
OA) policies.

Amongst the publishers named by Kingsley was Springer - the world's
second-largest journal publisher - which changed its self-archiving policy
earlier this year.

While Springer had previously insisted that where a funder required papers
to be deposited in a central repository like PubMed Central this could only
be done after a 12-month embargo, it allowed authors to post their papers in
institutional repositories immediately. Under the new policy, however, the
12-month embargo has been extended to cover papers posted in institutional
repositories as well. (Although authors can still post copies of their
accepted manuscripts on their personal web sites without embargo).

Kingsley concluded that the change was likely a response to the new UK OA
policy introduced by Research Councils UK (RCUK) on April 1st.
Elsewhere, OA advocate Stevan Harnad has described the change as "Springer
Silliness", and a Springer author has expressed "confusion"
over what the policy actually means.

In the hope of clarifying matters I sent a list of questions to Springer. I
have now published the answers to those questions, and they can be read
here:

http://poynder.blogspot.ca/2013/06/open-access-springer-tightens-rules-on.ht
ml

ATOM RSS1 RSS2