**Cross-Posted**
El 11/05/2012 11:19, Wise, Alicia (Elsevier) asked:
[W]hat positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized?
Dr Alicia Wise
Director of Universal Access
Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB
Twitter: @wisealic
On 2012-05-11, at 6:13 AM, Reme Melero wrote:
I would recommend the following change in one
clause of the What rights do I retain as a journal author*?
stated in Elsevier's portal, which says
"the right to
post a revised personal version of the text of the final journal
article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your
personal or institutional website or server for scholarly purposes*,
incorporating the complete citation and with a link to the Digital
Object Identifier (DOI) of the article (but not in
subject-oriented or centralized repositories or institutional
repositories with mandates for systematic postings
unless there is a specific agreement with the publisher. <externalLink_3.gif>Click
here for further information);"
By this one:
"the
right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final
journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on
your personal, institutional website, subject-oriented
or centralized repositories or institutional repositories or server for
scholarly purposes, incorporating the complete citation and with a link
to the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the article "
I think this could be something to be
encouraged, celebrated and recognized!
That would be fine. Or even this simpler one would be fine:
"the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your personal, institutional website or institutional repositories or server for scholarly purposes, incorporating the complete citation and with a link to the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the article "
The metadata and link can be harvested from the
institutional repositories by institution-external
repositories or search services, and the shameful,
cynical, self-serving and incoherent clause about
"mandates for systematic postings" ("you may
post if you wish but not if you must"), which attempts
to take it all back, is dropped.
That clause -- added when Elsevier realized that
Green Gratis OA mandates were catching on -- is a
paradigmatic example of the publisher FUD and
double-talk that Andrew Adams and others were
referring to on GOAL.
Dropping it would be a great cause for encouragement,
celebration and recognition, and would put Elsevier
irreversibly on the side of the angels.
Stevan Harnad