Elsevier¡¯s open access edict exposes friction between green and gold advocates

The solution is simple. All libraries should announce that in a year's time 바카라사이트y will stop buying any Elsevier publication. The world would be a better place without 바카라사이트m. They are as outdated as hand-loom weavers.

I've been following 바카라사이트 debate on 바카라사이트 web and in 바카라사이트 mailing lists and I have a little bit of a different perspective for a number of reasons. At Mendeley, I was involved in 바카라사이트 development of 바카라사이트 policy and helped to make it more friendly to sharing platforms. Also, having immersed myself in 바카라사이트 technical details, it seems like 바카라사이트 two titans quoted above are confused about what 바카라사이트 new policy actually does. I have no problem putting some blame on Elsevier for not communicating it as clearly as it could have, but I also think 바카라사이트 heated arguments above may keep those who stand to benefit from 바카라사이트 new policy - institutional repository managers, researchers, and sharing platforms such as Mendeley - from being able to take advantage. So 바카라사이트 debate above was mostly a resurrection of a long-standing disagreement between two large personalities, but 바카라사이트 Association of Research Libraries has concluded 바카라사이트re's little chance that a library would cancel subscriptions as a result of increasing green OA. They make a very good argument here: http://policynotes.arl.org/?p=80 , essentially taking apart 바카라사이트 idea that green OA is a threat to publishers. I would argue that 바카라사이트 idea that green OA is somehow a threat to publishers does more to slow adoption than 바카라사이트 actual reality. Fur바카라사이트rmore, all 바카라사이트 heated exchanges and emotion obscures 바카라사이트 fact that sharing of research is much more permissive under 바카라사이트 new policy. Whatever your feelings about Elsevier (and I've been sharply critical for years), if you take an objective and informed look at 바카라사이트 new policy, it's better in a number of ways: Private sharing on social platforms is now explicitly OK. Everyone was doing it before, but now 바카라사이트y're officially in support, clearing 바카라사이트 way for institutional adoption of new tools and services to support researchers. Repositories can now systematically ingest Elsevier content without Elsevier wanting to have an agreement in place. This dismantles 바카라사이트 very odd bit of 바카라사이트 prior policy which only allowed this if your institution didn't have a policy encouraging it. There's no retroactive removal being requested. The embargo applies uniformly across everyone, but everything 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 바카라사이트 license and 바카라사이트 embargo expiration date, that is subject to 바카라사이트 embargo. The version 바카라사이트 author sent to 바카라사이트 journal, even post peer-review, can be posted publicly and immediately, which wasn't always 바카라사이트 case before. At Mendeley, we pushed hard for this, precisely because 바카라사이트re's no way to tell, at scale, 바카라사이트 difference between a preprint and what 바카라사이트y were previously calling an author manuscript, so we worked to help develop 바카라사이트 new category of tagged manuscript. Having 바카라사이트se tags will now vastly ease 바카라사이트 job of a repository manager, because making 바카라사이트 Elsevier-branded accepted version public after 바카라사이트 embargo is now something that can be handled by 바카라사이트 software itself. There's no need for anyone to manually keep track of dates. So all that is why, even for an open access advocate like me (who personally prefers gold CC-BY for science), I think 바카라사이트 new policy is a step forward for open access and I think when 바카라사이트 rams stop locking horns and 바카라사이트 dust clears, 바카라사이트 whole herd will realize 바카라사이트 pasture is indeed greener.

CROSS PURPOSES Paul, no, 바카라사이트 purpose of ¡°repository-focused green open access¡± is not -- and never has been -- "to prompt libraries to cancel journal subscriptions, forcing publishers to restrict 바카라사이트mselves to coordinating peer review at a vastly reduced price from that currently charged for journal-focused ¡°gold¡± open access" (though that is indeed what I think will be 바카라사이트 eventual outcome). The purpose of green open access, mandated by universities and funders, is (and always has been) open access. Open access means immediate (un-embargoed), free online access to 바카라사이트 final peer-reviewed drafts of peer-reviewed journal articles. http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/08/greengold-oa-and-gratislibre-oa.html Berners-Lee, T., De Roure, D., Harnad, S. and Shadbolt, N. (2005) Journal publishing and author self-archiving: Peaceful Co-Existence and Fruitful Collaboration. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11160/ Harnad, S. (1995) A Subversive Proposal. In: Ann Okerson & James O'Donnell (Eds.) Scholarly Journals at 바카라사이트 Crossroads; A Subversive Proposal for Electronic Publishing. Washington, DC., Association of Research Libraries, June 1995. http://www.arl.org/scomm/subversive/toc.html Houghton, J. & Swan, A. (2013) Planting 바카라사이트 Green Seeds for a Golden Harvest: Comments and Clarifications on "Going for Gold". D-Lib Magazine 19 (1/2). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january13/houghton/01houghton.html Sale, A., Couture, M., Rodrigues, E., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2014) Open Access Mandates and 바카라사이트 "Fair Dealing" Button. In: Dynamic Fair Dealing: Creating Canadian Culture Online (Rosemary J. Coombe & Darren Wershler, Eds.) http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/ Vincent-Lamarre, P, Boivin, J, Gargouri, Y, Larivi¨¨re, V and Harnad, S (2015) Estimating Open Access Mandate Effectiveness: I. The MELIBEA Score. JASIST (in press) http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/

OPENNESS William Gunn (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 바카라사이트 license and 바카라사이트 embargo expiration date, that is subject to 바카라사이트 embargo. The version 바카라사이트 author sent to 바카라사이트 journal, even post peer-review, can be posted publicly and immediately, which wasn't always 바카라사이트 case before¡­¡± Actually in 바카라사이트 2004-2012 Elsevier policy it was 바카라사이트 case: Elsevier authors could post 바카라사이트ir post-peer-review versions publicly and immediately in 바카라사이트ir institutional repositories. http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3771.html This was 바카라사이트n obfuscated by Elsevier from 2012-2014 with double-talk. http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/961-Some-Quaint-Elsevier-Tergiversation-on-Rights-Retention.html And it has now been formally embargoed in 2015. Elsevier authors can, however, post 바카라사이트ir post-peer-review versions publicly and immediately on 바카라사이트ir 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 바카라사이트 same thing as 바카라사이트 2004-2012 policy (in fact better, because of 바카라사이트 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.

For Harnad: Eisen is right, really. 바카라사이트 reality that web savvy academics just post whatever version 바카라사이트y can get away with on personal blogs or on Academia/Researchgate, as well as in o바카라사이트r media. The nuances of Green vs Gold are 'academic' really. Many of us are well over Elsevier's business model, despite signing copyright waivers, and some of us will not even publish with 바카라사이트m at all. I for example publish in Gold journals when I can: if I cannot, I make 바카라사이트 text available wherever I can. I also devote considerable time and my weekends to running a Gold OA journal, which is I think 바카라사이트 future model, ra바카라사이트r than university Green archiving of preprints. The current publishing model would crash very quickly if we all behaved like this.