From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:00:53 +0000 Library associations are certainly a lot closer to academics than Elsevier... I do not think that Kathleen Shearer claims that libraries represent scholars; she simply notes that parts of academe are reacting to Elsevier. Libraries are part of academe. They also appen to understand, unlike a majority of researchers, what Elsevier and the other big international publishers are up to. As for organisations that would represent academics, two points need to be made: 1. Many librarians are academics, both in spirit and status; 2. If learned societies and scientific associations are implied in this putative set of "truly representative" organisations, then we should ask two questions: a. Which associations have given or sold their journal(s) to Elsevier or another international publisher? b. Which associations are waiting in the wings and observing, just to see whether they should follow suit? Researchers should stop treating librarians as mere service (and, therefore, inferior): librarians are research partners, not servants. Jean-Claude Guédon ________________________________________ From: ANTHONY WATKINSON <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 14:19:09 +0100 I repeat my previous comment. I can see a few universities signing. I can see NO organisation representing academics in any discipline. Does Kathleen Shearer really think that library organisations represent scholars? I am not writing in defence of Elsevier. I am just pointing out that libraries should really stop claiming that they represent the scholarly community. Anthony ----Original message---- From: Kathleen Shearer <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 10:54:36 -0400 (sorry for the cross-posting) In the last two weeks, over 1,600 individuals and organizations from 52 countries around the world have signed a statement opposing Elsevier’s new article sharing and hosting policy, underscoring that many in the scholarly community do not support the new policy. The policy imposes unacceptably long embargo periods for making articles available, the vast majority of which range from 12 months to 4 years after publication. It also requires researchers to apply licenses that restrict the full re-use of articles. Research funders from around the world are adopting policies that ensure fast access, use and impact of research outputs. Most of these funders' require open access to articles within 12 months of publication or less. Elsevier's policy is in direct opposition to the trend towards encouraging greater access to and impact of research results. Since the statement was published on May 20, 2015, public support has continued to grow, demonstrating the deep, global support for open access to research outputs. COAR and SPARC renew our call for Elsevier to revise their policy in order to better align it with the interests of the research community and broader society.