From: "Laughtin-Dunker, Kristin" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 17:16:26 +0000

Interesting how Elsevier's idea of "fair for everybody" is to add more
restrictions by embargoing everyone, rather than move toward true open
access and lift embargoes that were in place simply because one's
institution had a mandate.

There are articles in my institution's repository that were previously
openly available because, at the time we posted them, no embargo was
required.  We're going to have to go in, identify, and embargo these
now.  That's hardly "fair".

Kristin Laughtin-Dunker, MLIS
Coordinator of Scholarly Communications & Electronic Resources
Leatherby Libraries
Chapman University
http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu

-----Original Message-----
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