[Duraspace] Fwd: [GOAL] Openness

[Hilton Gibson]

FYI.

*Hilton Gibson*
Ubuntu Linux Systems Administrator
Stellenbosch University Library
http://staff.lib.sun.ac.za/~hgibson/docs/cv/cv.html


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com>
Date: 5 June 2015 at 19:15
Subject: [GOAL] Openness
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal at eprints.org>
Cc: jisc-repositories <JISC-REPOSITORIES at jiscmail.ac.uk>


*William Gunn*
<https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/-/2008076.publicprofile> (Mendeley)
wrote:

“[*E]verything you could post publicly and immediately before, you can do
so now. There's a NEW category of author manuscript, one which now comes
with Elsevier-supplied metadata specifying the license and the embargo
expiration date, that is subject to the embargo. The version the author
sent to the journal, even post peer-review, can be posted publicly and
immediately, which wasn't always the case before…*”

Actually in the 2004-2012
<http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3771.html> Elsevier
policy it *was* the case: Elsevier authors could post their
post-peer-review versions publicly and immediately in their institutional
repositories. This was then obfuscated by Elsevier from 2012-2014
<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/961-Some-Quaint-Elsevier-Tergiversation-on-Rights-Retention.html>
with
double-talk, and now has been formally embargoed in 2015.

Elsevier authors can, however, post their post-peer-review versions
publicly and immediately on their institutional home page or blog, as well
as on Arxiv or RePeC, with an immediate CC-BY-NC-ND license. That does in
fact amount to the same thing as the 2004-2012 policy (in fact better,
because of the license
<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1155-In-Defence-of-Elsevier.html>),
but it is embedded in such a smoke-screen of double-talk and ambiguity that
most authors and institutional OA policy-makers and repository-managers
will be unable to understand and implement it.

My main objection is to Elsevier’s smokescreen. This could all be stated
and implemented so simply if Elsevier were acting in good faith. But to
avoid any risk to itself, Elsevier prefers to keep research access at risk
with complicated, confusing edicts.


_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL at eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lib.sun.ac.za/pipermail/duraspace/attachments/20150605/3639499f/attachment.html>