Current Liblicense Archive - Re: Open Access: Springer tightens rules on self-archiving

List archives since November 2011, after the list migrated to the Center for Research Libraries.


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LIBLICENSE-L Home

LIBLICENSE-L Home

LIBLICENSE-L  June 2013

LIBLICENSE-L June 2013

Subject:

Re: Open Access: Springer tightens rules on self-archiving

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:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (93 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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options



Archives

October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011

RSS1