Stevan Harnad sent a message to SERIALST last night regarding Elsevier and open access self-archiving. The text of that message is included in the extended copy. I am surprised that Elsevier is permitting open access self-archiving. My impression of them so far is that they are completely out of touch with the needs of libraries and authors.
Stevan Harnad sent a message to SERIALST last night regarding Elsevier and open access self-archiving. The text of that message is included in the extended copy. I am surprised that Elsevier is permitting open access self-archiving. My impression of them so far is that they are completely out of touch with the needs of libraries and authors.Stevan’s message:
Elsevier has just gone from being a Romeo “Pale-Green” publisher to a full Romeo Green publisher: Authors have the publisher’s official green light to self-archive both their pre-refereeing preprints and their refereed postprints.
Elsevier has thereby demonstrated that — whatever its pricing policy may be — it is a publisher that has heeded the need and the expressed desire of the research community for Open Access (OA) and its benefits to research productivity and progress. http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/21.html
There will be the predictable cavils from the pedants and those who have never understood the real meaning and nature of OA: “It’s only the final refereed draft, not the publisher’s PDF,” “It does not include republishing rights,” “Elsevier is still not an OA publisher.”
I, for one, am prepared to stoutly defend Elsevier on all these counts, and to say that one could not have asked for more, and that the full benefits of OA require not one bit more — from the publisher.
For now it’s down to you, Dear Researchers! Elsevier (and History) is hereafter fully within its rights to say:
“If Open Access is truly as important to researchers as they claim it is — indeed as 30,000+ signatories to the PLoS Open Letter attested that it was http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org/cgi-bin/plosSign.pl — then if researchers are not now ready to *provide* that Open Access, even when given the publisher’s official green light to do so, then there is every reason to doubt that they mean (or even know) what they are saying when they clamour for Open Access.”
Elsevier publishes 1,700+ journals. That means at least 200,000 articles a year. Eprints.org will be carefully quantifying and tracking what proportion of those 200,000 articles is made OA by their authors through self-archiving across the next few months and years. Indeed we will be monitoring all of the over 80% of journals sampled by Romeo that are already green.
(The following Romeo summary stats are already out of date, because 1700 pale-green journals have now become bright green! http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/Romeo/romeosum.html
but we will soon catch up at: http://romeo.eprints.org/ [which is under construction, waiting for full journal lists from each of the 93 publishers sampled so far].)
The OA ball is now clearly in the research community’s court (not the publishing community’s, not the library community’s). Let researchers and their employers and funders now all rise to the occasion by adopting and implementing institutional OA provision policies. Don’t just sign petitions for publishers to provide OA, but commit your own institution to providing it:
Recent Comments