From: "Friend, Fred" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 09:23:09 +0000 It is good that Stevan keeps an eye on publisher policies for us, and it is also good that Peter reminds us that universities do have the power to say "no" to publishers. Stevan is correct that the distinction Elsevier and other publishers attempt to draw between mandated and non-mandated self-archiving is nonsense, and their policy should be resisted. Peter's complaint that libraries do not challenge use or re-use clauses in contracts is not absolutely true, but libraries certainly do not push such issues as strongly as they could or should. When I was involved in "big deal" negotiations I regularly said that we should say "no" to an unsatisfactory deal but nobody else was willing to go that far. And yet a very senior publisher once told me that librarians have much more power than they realise. However, librarians cannot bear all of the blame for giving in too easily. My hard stance received no backing from senior academics, and no librarian can refuse to sign an unsatisfactory contract unless they know that they have solid support from within their university. Of course Elsevier and other publishers know this and that is why they want to conclude deals with senior university management, who will probably agree to unsatisfactory clauses even more readily than the librarians. I am sorry to be cynical, but the academic community gets the contracts it deserves. We have to learn to say "no" and really mean it. Fred Friend Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL ________________________________ On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Laurent Romary <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> With all respect, Stevan, I am not sure it is worth answering publishers' policy tricks with deposit hacks. The core question is: does Elsevier fulfills, by making such statements, its duties as service provider in the domain of scholarly communication. If not, we, as institutions, have to be clear as to what we want, enforce the corresponding policy (i.e. we determine what and in which way we want our publications to be disseminated) and inform the communities accordingly. I agree with Laurent. We should assert our rights and - if we could act coherently - we would be able to get them implemented. There is no legal reason why we cannot assert a zero-month embargo - we are just afraid of the publishers rather than believers in our own power. (It wouldn't hurt the publishers as repositories are not yet a credible resource for bulk readership). Libraries (including Cambridge) seem to sign any contract the publisher puts in front of them - they only challenge price, not use and re-use. In a recent mail on OA the process on Green (paraphrased) was "we'll see what embargo periods the publishers mandate" [and then enforce them]. whereas it should have been "we - the world - demand access to knowledge and will not accept embargos". That's a clear starting point. I could believe in Green OA if it were boldly carried out and repositories actually worked for readers (including machines). As it is we have "nearly OA" - i.e. not visible. And "OA/ID" - visible at some unspecified time in the future. If the OA community could get a single clear goal then it might start to be effective for the #scholarlypoor, such as Jack Andraka whose parents buy him pay per view for medical papers. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK