From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 23:42:26 +0000

I think the important point here, aside from the double-talk Dr. Wise
continues to employ even after Steven points out the inconsistency, is
that there is no evidence at all that libraries have or will cancel
journal subscriptions because of author self-archiving in
institutional repositories.  So "understandably" simply elides the
lack of justification for this statement.


Kevin L. Smith, M.L.S., J.D.
Director, Copyright and Scholarly Communications
Duke University Libraries



> On May 20, 2015, at 7:37 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 13:34:14 -0400
>
> Exchange with Alicia Wise, Elsevier:
>
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1150-.html
>
> ALICIA WISE, ELSEVIER:
>
> Hi Stevan –
>
> We continue to permit immediate self-archiving in an author’s
> institutional repository. This is now true for all institutional
> repositories, not only those with which we have agreements or those
> that do not have mandates. You are correct that under our old policy,
> authors could post anywhere without an embargo if their institution
> didn’t have a mandate. Our new policy is designed to be consistent and
> fair for everybody, and we believe it now reflects how the
> institutional repository landscape has evolved in the last 10+ years.
>
> We require embargo periods because for subscription articles, an
> appropriate amount of time is needed for journals to deliver value to
> subscribing customers before the manuscript becomes available for
> free. Libraries understandably will not subscribe if the content is
> immediately available for free. Our sharing policy now reflects that
> reality.
>
> With kind wishes,
> Alicia
>
> Dr Alicia Wise
> Director of Access & Policy
> Elsevier
> [log in to unmask]
> @wisealic
> —————————————————
>
> STEVAN HARNAD
>
> Dear Alicia,
>
> Unless I am misunderstanding something, your response seems to be a
> play on words (double-talk).
>
> You say Elsevier permits “immediate self-archiving in… all
> institutional repositories, not only those with which we have
> agreements or those that do not have mandates.”
>
> But “self-archiving” means (and always has meant) Open Access self-archiving.
>
> Otherwise it would merely mean “depositing,” for which no one needs
> (or has ever needed) Elsevier’s permission.
>
> Embargoed depositing is not OA self-archiving (and never was).
>
> So what is new is not the (unneeded) permission from Elsevier to
> deposit, but the very new and regressive embargo on making the deposit
> immediately OA — in other words, an embargo on the immediate
> self-archiving that Elsevier had been officially permitting since
> 2004.
>
> It is shameful to try to justify this flagrant back-pedalling as being
> done “to be consistent and fair for everybody”.
>
> It was clearly done solely to sustain subscriptions at all costs (to
> research access, usage and progress). And Elsever should at least
> admit that, openly (sic).
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Kathleen Shearer
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Please excuse the cross posting.
>>
>> For Immediate Release
>> Wednesday, May 20, 2015
>>
>> Contact:
>> Ranit Schmelzer (SPARC)
>> 202-538-1065
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Katharina Müller (COAR)
>> 49 551 39-22215
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> -------------
>>
>> NEW POLICY FROM ELSEVIER IMPEDES OPEN ACCESS AND SHARING
>>
>> Global coalition of organizations denounce the policy and urge Elsevier to revise it
>>
>> Washington, DC and Göttingen, Germany – Elsevier’s new sharing and hosting policy represents a significant obstacle to the dissemination and use of research knowledge, and creates unnecessary barriers for Elsevier published authors in complying with funders’ open access policies, according to an analysis by the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) and the Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR).
>>
>> “Elsevier’s policy is in direct conflict with the global trend towards open access and serves only to dilute the benefits of openly sharing research results,” said Heather Joseph, Executive Director of SPARC and Kathleen Shearer, Executive Director of COAR, in a joint statement. “Elsevier claims that the policy advances sharing but in fact, it does the opposite. We strongly urge Elsevier to revise it.”
>>
>> The new stance marks a significant departure from Elsevier’s initial policy, established in 2004, which allowed authors to self-archive their final accepted manuscripts of peer-reviewed articles in institutional repositories without delay.  While the stated purpose of the new revision is, in part, to roll back an ill-conceived 2012 amendment prohibiting authors at institutions that have adopted campus-wide Open Access policies from immediate self archiving, the net result of the new policy is that Elsevier has placed greater restrictions on sharing articles.
>>
>> Twenty-three groups today released the following statement in opposition to the policy:
>
> [SNIP]