LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU


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 2015

LIBLICENSE-L June 2015

Subject:

Re: Question about the COAR statement

From:

LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 1 Jun 2015 20:03:16 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (58 lines)

From: Kathleen Shearer <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 17:12:55 -0400

Hi Rick,

Of course, the ultimate goal is to have 100% immediate open access.
This will maximum use, impact and (therefore) benefits of our
collective investments in research.

As you know, many OA policies have employed the use of embargo periods
to help protect publishers’ subscription revenue as they shift to new
business models. We consider the use of embargo periods as an
acceptable transitional mechanism to help facilitate a wholesale shift
towards Open Access.

That said, embargo periods dilute the benefits of open access policies
and we believe that, if they are adopted, they should be no more than
6 months for the life and physical sciences, 12 months for social
sciences and humanities.  We further believe that mechanisms for
reducing – or eliminating – embargo periods should be included in Open
Access policies.

Best, Kathleen

Kathleen Shearer
Executive Director, Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR)
[log in to unmask]
Skype: kathleenshearer2 - twitter: @KathleeShearer



On May 30, 2015, at 11:34 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 13:17:13 +0000

One sentence in COAR’s Statement Against Elsevier’s Sharing Policy (
) stands out to me in particular:

“Any delay in the open availability of research articles curtails
scientific progress and places unnecessary constraints on delivering
the benefits of research back to the public.”

This is quite a remarkable statement — what’s it saying is that any
access model that involves anything less than a) immediate and
universal free access under b) any terms other than CC BY is
unacceptable. In practice, this would seem to be a call for the
abolishment of toll access entirely. If so, that’s fine, but it seems
like we shouldn’t be coy about it — can anyone from COAR clarify
whether this was the intent of the language in question? And if not,
then was this language included by accident?

---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections
Marriott Library, University of Utah
[log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options



Archives

December 2017
November 2017
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