[Irtalk] Fwd: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier Take-down to Institutions
hilton.gibson at gmail.com
Wed Dec 18 09:29:09 SAST 2013
Ubuntu Linux Systems Administrator
JS Gericke Library
Private Bag X5036
Tel: +27 21 808 4100 | Cell: +27 84 646 4758
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com>
Date: 17 December 2013 22:41
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Elsevier Take-down to Institutions
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal at eprints.org>
Everybody calm down…
If Elsevier sends a take-down notice to a university, you have two simple
*(1) Leave it up, and send the notice back to Elsevier with a copy of
Elsevier's policy on self-archiving
*(2) Re-set access as Closed Access and rely on the repository's
(If the take-down notice was because you deposited the publisher's PDF,
make the publisher's PDF Closed Access and deposit the author's final draft
instead, and make that OA.)
And fix your mandate to make sure it specifies that the author's final
draft should be deposited immediately upon acceptance for publication, not
the publisher's PDF.
I'm braced for the cacophony of uninformed, self-important nonsense that
will now be confidently catapulted back and forth across the airwaves over
this simple matter for the next few weeks...
(Calgary could have saved us all a lot of time and energy if it had
responded pragmatically to this latest round of Elsevier FUD and
but, after all, this is exactly what FUD's for, isn't it?)
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> In a blog post
> Mike Taylor reports that
> The University of Calgary <http://www.ucalgary.com/> has just sent this
> notice to all staff:
> The University of Calgary has been contacted by a company representing the
> publisher, Elsevier Reed, regarding certain Elsevier journal articles
> posted on our publicly accessible university web pages. We have been
> provided with examples of these articles and reviewed the situation.
> Elsevier has put the University of Calgary on notice that these publicly
> posted Elsevier journal articles are an infringement of Elsevier Reed’s
> copyright and must be taken down.
> We are now in the position - which many of us foresaw many years ago -
> that if Green Open Access started to hurt publishers they would arbitrarily
> close it down or otherwise make it difficult.
> Green OA is not a right, nor a contractual agreement and can be withdrawn
> at any time. The danger for the publisher is bad publicity but this seems
> to be a weak constraint.
> Others may debate why Elsevier has done this - maybe the papers aren't on
> the right web pages, maybe the University has a mandate (which invalidates
> Green OA as far as Elsevier is concerned), maybe it's a foulup , maybe...
> The simple truth is that this is the end of the road for many of us. We
> are not working with publishers, we are fighting them.
> Open Access is about justice.
> This is not.
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
GOAL mailing list
GOAL at eprints.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Irtalk