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]