From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 06:13:03 +0000 I feel contractually obliged (and I know I’m boring everybody) to point out that the evidence that links journal usage patterns to library purchasing patterns is pretty much non-existent. Setting embargoes based on usage patterns is faith-based, not evidence-based. David On 19 Jun 2015, at 00:46, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > From: "Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)" <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 17:54:19 +0000 > > Hi Ann, > > Thank you, and Rick, for drawing attention to the What's Changed slide > (http://www.slideshare.net/aliciawise/whats-changed-in-sharing-policy). > It's been viewed 581 times, c. 125 of these when I first distributed > the link and a further 200 times in the last couple of days. > > You ask several questions about embargos: their length, how they are > set, and whether we would like to rationalize or normalize the embargo > periods. > > First, the length of our embargo periods, and particularly how many > journals have 48 month embargo periods. The answer is that only 25, > or 1.1%, of our journals have 48 month embargo periods. 54.7% of our > journals have embargo periods of 12 months. We are using a shorter > embargo list in the UK, and in that case 83.7% of our journals have > embargo periods of 12 months. Longer embargo periods are typically > used for social science and some physical science titles where there > is a longer usage half-life. > > (For us, and for other publishers, see: > http://publishers.org/sites/default/files/uploads/PSP/journalusagehalflife.pdf). > > We are reviewing our embargo periods in 2015, and while I cannot > pre-judge the outcome of this review, we are very conscious of the > many new funding body policies that have emerged in the last year with > 12 month embargo periods. We obviously want embargo periods that > support authors, funders and journals. > > Second, you ask about how we set embargo periods. These are largely > based on underlying usage patterns, but following review of usage data > we do sense-check the suggested embargo period with publishers and > consult with Society publishing partners. This sense-check factors > in: feedback from researchers, analysis of researcher sharing > behaviors, what our competitors are doing, and funder policies and > mandates that might influence author submission decisions. As I > explained above, we want embargo periods that support authors, funders > and journals, but there will be occasions where the requirements of > funders for short embargo periods, for example of six months, won’t > align with our need to protect journals. If a funder insists on 6 > month embargo periods and we can’t see a way for that to be > sustainable for a journal, then we have gold OA options available. > Most funders with such policies provide funding for gold OA > publishing. > > Third, you ask if we would like to rationalize or normalize the > embargo periods. We do understand the administration and > communication benefits for us all of increased simplicity, and we do > see more coherence in embargo periods over time. However it is likely > there will always be some exceptions and that it will not be possible > to get 100% alignment for all our journals on one specific embargo > period. > > With kind wishes, > Alicia > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:45:55 -0400 > > Alicia Wise also linked to this chart in her posting of 4 June, and I > happen to agree that the clarifications are more crisp and thus are > useful -- and in some cases actually increase share-ability. > > In the extensive liblicense-l discussion on this whole matter, Rick is > the one commentator who references the chart. Others haven't > commented - perhaps they haven't yet looked at it? > > The largest amount of heat has been generated over the length of > embargoes, some (?) being as long as 48 months, presumably. Now, I've > assumed that Elsevier (like Springer, Wiley, and others) distributes > (or publishes, if you will) a number of journals that it doesn't own > or control. These are likely produced by societies and research > organizations and contracted with Elsevier. > > What I next assumed is that the owners of those journals are > responsible for their policies about revenue, access, editorial, etc. > And so, it would be up to them to decide about the length of the > embargo period, not necessarily Elsevier. Since Alicia noted that the > length of embargo is an ongoing topic of conversation at Elsevier, I > also assumed that as much as possible Elsevier would like to > rationalize or normalize the embargo period, but is not always able to > do that. So I've not laid the responsibility for longer embargo > periods squarely at Elsevier's door. > > Is this correct (Alicia, please!) or am I wrong here (possibly many > readers will tell me that I am. > > Regards, Ann Okerson