From: "Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 17:15:00 +0000
Hi Brian,
Thanks for this message and these questions. The questions you asked
are in normal case, and I have answered in CAPS (apologies for
'shouting' - I originally distinguished your questions from our
answers by color but cannot post to Liblicense-l with that formatting;
the list doesn't handle color):
1 - Is this correct? Elsevier no longer allows full public access
immediately to an accepted manuscript. It allows on-campus ("private")
institutional repository access, until the embargo period is up.
NO, THIS IS NOT QUITE CORRECT. FULL PUBLIC ACCESS IS IMMEDIATELY
ALLOWED ON ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTS POSTED TO AN AUTHOR’S PERSONAL WEBSITE
OR BLOG, AND AUTHORS CAN ALSO IMMEDIATELY REFRESH THEIR PREPRINTS
POSTED ON ARXIV AND REPEC WITH MANUSCRIPTS. IN ADDITION TO THIS,
IMMEDIATE SELF-ARCHIVING TO THE AUTHOR’S INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY IS
PERMITTED FOR INSTITUTIONAL USE AND PRIVATE SHARING WHICH INCLUDES
THINGS LIKE THE DISTRIBUTION OF COPIES, PAPER OR ELECTRONIC FOR
INTERNAL USE, INCLUSION IN GRANT FUNDING APPLICATIONS, AND FOR USE IN
COURSEPACKS AND LEARNING MATERIALS. IRS CAN THEN ENABLE PUBLIC ACCESS
TO ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT AFTER THE EMBARGO PERIOD. OF COURSE, GOLD OPEN
ACCESS ARTICLES CAN BE IMMEDIATELY ARCHIVED IN THE FINAL VERSION AND
WE HAVE A WIDE RANGE OF OPTIONS FOR AUTHORS TO CHOOSE FROM IF THEY
WISH TO USE THIS ROUTE.
2 - This new policy applies retrospectively, which is to say,
institutions can be asked to take down articles that were posted
according to the old policies, with some possible negotiable wiggle
time to accommodate transitions.
WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS POLICY WITH LIBRARIANS PRIOR TO THE LAUNCH, WE
RECOGNIZED THIS COULD BE A POTENTIAL ISSUE. BASED ON HELPFUL
CONVERSATIONS OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS IT IS CLEAR THAT WE NEED TO MAKE
IT MUCH MORE CLEAR THAT WE NEVER INTENDED FOR IRS AND OTHER
NON-COMMERCIAL REPOSITORIES TO TAKE RETROSPECTIVE ACTION. WE HAVE
CORRECTED OUR FAQS TO REFLECT THIS.
WE WANT TO HELP NON-COMMERCIAL SITES IMPLEMENT THIS POLICY GOING
FORWARD, AND WILL BE PROVIDING TOOLS AND SERVICES TO HELP WITH THIS –
FOR EXAMPLE TAGGED MANUSCRIPTS. IF THERE ARE IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENTS
WHICH ANYONE FINDS CHALLENGING, WE WOULD LIKE TO HELP AND ENCOURAGE
YOU TO CONTACT US VIA [log in to unmask]
3 - Is Stevan Harnad correct, or not correct, in claiming in the
combox at: http://www.elsevier.com/connect/coar-recting-the-record
that "Since 2004 Elsevier had endorsed authors providing free
immediate (un-embargoed) access (“Green OA”) by self-archiving in
their institutional repositories." And in implying that a shift in
this policy began to evidence itself in 2012? (I assume here that he
means, in the sentence above, self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript.
ACTUALLY, EMBARGO PERIODS HAVE BEEN USED BY US – AND OTHER PUBLISHERS
– FOR A VERY LONG TIME AND ARE NOT NEW. I JOINED ELSEVIER IN 2010 SO
THIS ALL PRE-DATES ME, BUT MY COLLEAGUE MARK SEELEY HAS REVIEWED OUR
OLD POLICY MATERIALS. HE NOTES THAT ELSEVIER’S 2004 POLICY DOES NOT
SPECIFICALLY REFER TO EMBARGOS BUT DOES HAVE A PROHIBITION ON
SYSTEMATIC POSTING. IN 2008 THIS WAS FURTHER CLARIFIED TO MAKE CLEAR
THAT VOLUNTARY SYSTEMATIC POSTING OF MANUSCRIPTS COULD BE DONE WITH NO
EMBARGO PERIOD, BUT ANY OTHER FORM OF SYSTEMATIC POSTING (E.G. WHERE A
MANDATE OR POLICY IS IN PLACE) WOULD REQUIRE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH
ELSEVIER THAT INCLUDED USE OF EMBARGO PERIODS. IN 2012 THERE WAS NO
POLICY CHANGE, WE MERELY UPDATED THE WEBPAGE WITH A BETTER LAYOUT AND
FORMAT AND TRIED TO CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE: THE POLICY DETAILS REMAINED
UNCHANGED AS WERE OUR EMBARGO PERIODS.
WHAT CHANGED IN 2015 IS THE REMOVAL OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR IRS WITH
ANY FORM OF SYSTEMATIC POSTING TO HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH US. FROM
TALKING WITH LIBRARIANS OVER THE LAST 3 YEARS WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE
NEED FOR AN AGREEMENT WAS VIEWED AS OVERLY RESTRICTIVE AND AS A
DISINCENTIVE TO DEVELOP INSTITUTIONAL OA POLICIES. SO IN THE NEW
POLICY WE JUST REMOVED THE NEED FOR AGREEMENTS AND INSTEAD IRS CAN
HOST ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTS AND MAKE THIS PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE AFTER
EMBARGO. WE MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT ALL IRS CAN CONTINUE TO INGEST
MANUSCRIPTS FROM THE POINT OF ACCEPTANCE, AND WE HAVE EXTENDED THE
WAYS THESE MANUSCRIPTS CAN BE USED DURING THE EMBARGO PERIOD.
3. Elsevier construes embargoed open access as green archiving?
BRIAN, I AM NOT QUITE SURE HOW TO ANSWER THIS AS I’M NOT 100% CLEAR ON
WHAT YOU MEAN BY ‘GREEN ARCHIVING’ AND OA DEFINITIONS ARE VARIED AND
SENSITIVE AND ENORMOUSLY TRICKY TO DISCUSS VIA EMAIL. FOR US OPEN
ACCESS IS THE PERMANENT FREE AVAILABILITY OF CONTENT WITH CLEAR RE-USE
RIGHTS. THERE ARE TWO BROAD APPROACHES TO THIS CHARACTERIZED BY THE
BUSINESS MODEL UNDER WHICH AN ARTICLE IS PUBLISHED: 1) GOLD OPEN
ACCESS ARTICLES WHERE A FEE IS PAID TO COVER PUBLISHING COSTS AND THE
ARTICLE IS IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE TO ALL PERMANENTLY AND IN ITS FINAL
FORM WHICH CAN ALSO BE SELF-ARCHIVED AND 2) SUBSCRIPTION ARTICLES
WHERE AN ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT VERSION OF THE ARTICLE IS MADE PUBLICLY
AVAILABLE AFTER AN EMBARGO PERIOD. GREEN OPEN ACCESS IS MOST COMMONLY
ASSOCIATED WITH SELF-ARCHIVING, BUT CAN ALSO HAPPEN THROUGH EFFORTS OF
PUBLISHERS (E.G. DELAYED ACCESS TO THE FINAL VERSION ON THE
PUBLISHER’S WEBSITE, FOR EXAMPLES ALL OF OUR CELL PRESS TITLES ARE
AVAILABLE FREE AFTER 12 MONTHS VIA THE CELL PRESS WEBSITE) AND THROUGH
SERVICES SUCH AS CHORUS.
I hope these answers are constructive and helpful, as they are
intended to be. Our main aims with our recent policy change was to
support a framework that makes it easier for researchers to share and
more clear how they can do so, including on newer commercial sharing
sites, and to lift the requirement for IRs to have agreements with us.
While I am here please can I also note that we are very happy to
engage in discussion any time. We are aware of meetings organized by
Kevin Smith at Duke tomorrow and by SPARC on Thursday and perhaps
someone from those organizations on this list would like to take us up
on this offer?
With kind wishes,
Alicia
Dr Alicia Wise
Director of Access and Policy
Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB
M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: [log in to unmask]
Twitter: @wisealic
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Simboli <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, May 21, 2015 at 9:53 PM
Dr. Wise,
So that I better understand the emerging controversy about Elsevier's
new archiving policies, can you publicly address the following
questions?
1. Is this correct?
Elsevier no longer allows full public access immediately to an
accepted manuscript. It allows on-campus ("private") institutional
repository access, until the embargo period is up. This new policy
applies retrospectively, which is to say, institutions can be asked to
take down articles that were posted according to the old policies,
with some possible negotiable wiggle time to accommodate transitions.
2. Is Stevan Harnad correct, or not correct, in claiming in the combox at:
http://www.elsevier.com/connect/coar-recting-the-record
that "Since 2004 Elsevier had endorsed authors providing free
immediate (un-embargoed) access (“Green OA”) by self-archiving in
their institutional repositories." And in implying that a shift in
this policy began to evidence itself in 2012? (I assume here that he
means, in the sentence above, self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript.
3. Elsevier construes embargoed open access as green archiving?
Thanks
Regards,
Brian Simboli
Science Librarian
Information Resources
E.W. Fairchild Martindale
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, PA 18015-3170
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
|
