From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 06:13:03 +0000

I feel contractually obliged (and I know I’m boring everybody) to
point out that the evidence that links journal usage patterns to
library purchasing patterns is pretty much non-existent.  Setting
embargoes based on usage patterns is faith-based, not evidence-based.

David

On 19 Jun 2015, at 00:46, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: "Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 17:54:19 +0000
>
> Hi Ann,
>
> Thank you, and Rick, for drawing attention to the What's Changed slide
> (http://www.slideshare.net/aliciawise/whats-changed-in-sharing-policy).
> It's been viewed 581 times, c. 125 of these when I first distributed
> the link and a further 200 times in the last couple of days.
>
> You ask several questions about embargos: their length, how they are
> set, and whether we would like to rationalize or normalize the embargo
> periods.
>
> First, the length of our embargo periods, and particularly how many
> journals have 48 month embargo periods.  The answer is that only 25,
> or 1.1%, of our journals have 48 month embargo periods.  54.7% of our
> journals have embargo periods of 12 months.  We are using a shorter
> embargo list in the UK, and in that case 83.7% of our journals have
> embargo periods of 12 months.  Longer embargo periods are typically
> used for social science and some physical science titles where there
> is a longer usage half-life.
>
> (For us, and for other publishers, see:
> http://publishers.org/sites/default/files/uploads/PSP/journalusagehalflife.pdf).
>
> We are reviewing our embargo periods in 2015, and while I cannot
> pre-judge the outcome of this review, we are very conscious of the
> many new funding body policies that have emerged in the last year with
> 12 month embargo periods.  We obviously want embargo periods that
> support authors, funders and journals.
>
> Second, you ask about how we set embargo periods.  These are largely
> based on underlying usage patterns, but following review of usage data
> we do sense-check the suggested embargo period with publishers and
> consult with Society publishing partners.  This sense-check factors
> in: feedback from researchers, analysis of researcher sharing
> behaviors, what our competitors are doing, and funder policies and
> mandates that might influence author submission decisions.  As I
> explained above, we want embargo periods that support authors, funders
> and journals, but there will be occasions where the requirements of
> funders for short embargo periods, for example of six months, won’t
> align with our need to protect journals.  If a funder insists on 6
> month embargo periods and we can’t see a way for that to be
> sustainable for a journal, then we have gold OA options available.
> Most funders with such policies provide funding for gold OA
> publishing.
>
> Third, you ask if we would like to rationalize or normalize the
> embargo periods.  We do understand the administration and
> communication benefits for us all of increased simplicity, and we do
> see more coherence in embargo periods over time.  However it is likely
> there will always be some exceptions and that it will not be possible
> to get 100% alignment for all our journals on one specific embargo
> period.
>
> With kind wishes,
> Alicia
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:45:55 -0400
>
> Alicia Wise also linked to this chart in her posting of 4 June, and I
> happen to agree that the clarifications are more crisp and thus are
> useful -- and in some cases actually increase share-ability.
>
> In the extensive liblicense-l discussion on this whole matter, Rick is
> the one commentator who references the chart.  Others haven't
> commented - perhaps they haven't yet looked at it?
>
> The largest amount of heat has been generated over the length of
> embargoes, some (?) being as long as 48 months, presumably.  Now, I've
> assumed that Elsevier (like Springer, Wiley, and others) distributes
> (or publishes, if you will) a number of journals that it doesn't own
> or control.  These are likely produced by societies and research
> organizations and contracted with Elsevier.
>
> What I next assumed is that the owners of those journals are
> responsible for their policies about revenue, access, editorial, etc.
> And so, it would be up to them to decide about the length of the
> embargo period, not necessarily Elsevier.  Since Alicia noted that the
> length of embargo is an ongoing topic of conversation at Elsevier, I
> also assumed that as much as possible Elsevier would like to
> rationalize or normalize the embargo period, but is not always able to
> do that.  So I've not laid the responsibility for longer embargo
> periods squarely at Elsevier's door.
>
> Is this correct (Alicia, please!) or am I wrong here (possibly many
> readers will tell me that I am.
>
> Regards, Ann Okerson