From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:11:32 +0000 Thanks for this, Annaig — I confess that I’m having a hard time following the complexities of both the two versions of the policies and your analysis of the changes, so I hope Alicia will chime in to clarify. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections Marriott Library, University of Utah [log in to unmask] On 6/23/15, 4:23 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >From: Annaig Mahe <[log in to unmask]> >Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:10:05 +0200 > >From what I have understood, this matrix does not fully tell the story >and the new policy is both simplier (or tries to be) and more >restricted than the old one : > >1- What is missing on the matrix, is the fact that the accepted >manuscript can be immediately deposited to update a preprint on ArXiv >and RePec (only). >A second kind of information is also missing: that is, which >commercial social sharing platforms are having (or will have) an >agreement with Elsevier. On its website, Elsevier gives this list : >http://www.elsevier.com/about/open-science/open-access/agreements - >but I must admit this is not what I had understood with "commercial >social sharing platform". I was more thinking about such platforms as >Academia.edu or ResearchGate... This list seems more to be the list of >agreements between Elsevier and institutions using "accepted >manuscripts for internal purposes and private sharing". > >2 - The new policy is somewhat simplier and more restricted because >the difference between voluntary and mandated deposit on institutional >repositories does not exist anymore. Under the old policy, authors >could voluntarily deposit their accepted manuscript without embargo, >and where a mandate existed, an agreement was necessary between >Elsevier and the mandating institution (+ an embargo) before a deposit >could be made. Now, the accepted manuscript can be immediately >"ingested" by the institutional repositories but, if I have understood >clearly, without being made immediately publicly available (= visible, >open access), only after a period of embargo. > >And where institutions wish to use accepted mansucripts for "internal >purposes and private sharing", an agreement with Elsevier is needed >(see the list above). > >So this seems to me to amount to a more restricted policy, as the >immediate availability of voluntary deposit is not possible anymore >(only on personal website, ArXiv and RePec): immediate ingesting does >not mean immediate open access (or have I mistaken the meaning of >"ingesting" ?). Even when self-archiving is now allowed on subject >repositories (or commercial social sharing platforms with an >agreement), this is with an embargo. > >Annaïg Mahé >Lecturer in information science >Urfist de Paris / Ecole nationale des chartes >http://urfist.enc.sorbonne.fr/