From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 02:19:41 +0000 Thanks for clarifying that, Kathleen. That¹s what I thought you guys were saying but I wanted to be sure. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections Marriott Library, University of Utah [log in to unmask] On 6/1/15, 6:03 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >From: Kathleen Shearer <[log in to unmask]> >Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 17:12:55 -0400 > >Hi Rick, > >Of course, the ultimate goal is to have 100% immediate open access. >This will maximum use, impact and (therefore) benefits of our >collective investments in research. > >As you know, many OA policies have employed the use of embargo periods >to help protect publishers¹ subscription revenue as they shift to new >business models. We consider the use of embargo periods as an >acceptable transitional mechanism to help facilitate a wholesale shift >towards Open Access. > >That said, embargo periods dilute the benefits of open access policies >and we believe that, if they are adopted, they should be no more than >6 months for the life and physical sciences, 12 months for social >sciences and humanities. We further believe that mechanisms for >reducing or eliminating embargo periods should be included in Open >Access policies. > >Best, Kathleen > >Kathleen Shearer >Executive Director, Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) >[log in to unmask] >Skype: kathleenshearer2 - twitter: @KathleeShearer > > > >On May 30, 2015, at 11:34 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> >Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 13:17:13 +0000 > >One sentence in COAR¹s Statement Against Elsevier¹s Sharing Policy ( >) stands out to me in particular: > >³Any delay in the open availability of research articles curtails >scientific progress and places unnecessary constraints on delivering >the benefits of research back to the public.² > >This is quite a remarkable statement ‹ what¹s it saying is that any >access model that involves anything less than a) immediate and >universal free access under b) any terms other than CC BY is >unacceptable. In practice, this would seem to be a call for the >abolishment of toll access entirely. If so, that¹s fine, but it seems >like we shouldn¹t be coy about it ‹ can anyone from COAR clarify >whether this was the intent of the language in question? And if not, >then was this language included by accident? > >--- >Rick Anderson >Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections >Marriott Library, University of Utah >[log in to unmask]