Re: Rights Reductio Ad Absurdum

[Sandy Thatcher <sandy.thatcher@alumni.princeton.edu>]

I'm afraid I don't see what is incoherent about Elsevier's 
policy. It certainly does NOT have the meaning attributed to it 
by "Dixit," who seems to be the one confused here.

Sandy Thatcher


At 8:44 PM -0500 1/10/11, Stevan Harnad wrote:

>** Cross-posted **
>
>The following query came up on the UKCORR mailing list:
>
>>  I was surprised to read the paragraph below under author's
>>  rights
>>  (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/copyright##rights)
>>  "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 web
>>  site 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- see
>>  http://www.elsevier.com/fundingbody agreements for further
>>  information]);"
>
>You can't blame Elsevier's Perplexed Permissions Personnel for 
>trying: After all, if researchers -- clueless and cowed about 
>copyright -- have already lost nearly two decades of research 
>access and impact for no reason at all, making it clear that 
>only if/(when they are required (mandated) by their institutions 
>and funders will they dare to do what is manifestly in their own 
>best interests and already fully within their reach, then it's 
>only natural that those who perceive their own interests to be 
>in conflict with those of research and researchers will attempt 
>to see whether they cannot capitalize on researchers' guileless 
>gullibility, yet again.
>
>In three words, the above "restrictions" on the green light to 
>make author's final drafts OA are (1) arbitrary, (2) incoherent, 
>and (3) unenforceable. They are the rough equivalent of saying: 
>You have "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 web 
>site or server for scholarly purposes -- but not if you are 
>required to do so by your institution or funder."
>
>They might as well have added "or if you have a blue-eyed uncle 
>who prefers tea to toast on alternate Tuesdays."
>
>My own inclination is to say that if researchers prove to be 
>stupid enough to fall for that, then they deserve everything 
>that is coming to them (or rather, withheld from them).
>
>But even I, seasoned cynic that the last 20 years have made me, 
>don't believe that researchers are quite that stupid -- though I 
>wouldn't put it past SHERPA/Romeo to go ahead and solemnly 
>enshrine this latest bit of double-talk in one of its slavish 
>lists of "General Conditions" on a publisher's otherwise "green" 
>self-archiving policy, thereby helpfully furnishing an effective 
>pseudo-official megaphone for every such piece of optimistic 
>gibberish, no matter how absurd.
>
>My advice to authors (if, unlike what the sensible computer 
>scientists and physicists have been doing all along -- namely, 
>self-archiving without first seeking anyone's blessing for two 
>decades -- they only durst self-archive if their publishers have 
>first given them their green light to do so) is that they take 
>their publishers at their word when they do give them their 
>green light to do so, and ignore any SHERPA/Romeo tommy-rot they 
>may try to append to that green light to make it seem as if 
>there is any rational line that can be drawn between "yes, you 
>may make your refereed final draft OA" and "no, you may not make 
>your refereed final draft OA."
>
>For those who are interested in knowing what is actually 
>happening, worldwide, insofar as OA self-archiving is concerned, 
>I recommend reading Peter Suber's stirring 2010 Summary of real 
>progress rather than the sort of pseudo-legalistic 
>smoke-screening periodically emitted by Permissions Department 
>Pundits (whether or not not they are canonized by SHERPA-Romeo): 
>http://www.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/fos/newsletter/01-02-11.htm#2010
>
>Dixit,
>
>Your Weary and Wizened Archivangelist