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