Re: Elsevier and IOP Still Fully Green and Onside With the Angels

[Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On 2011-06-27, at 10:38 PM, FrederickFriend wrote:

> Stevan's message brings out the importance of having a clear view
> of what is  meant by the self-archiving by authors of research
> articles. As the FAQ to  the Budapest Open Access Initiative
> makes clear, the original focus was on  the self-archiving of
> preprints.

Slight correction: The focus was always on the refereed draft 
(postprint), before and after refereeing, not just before 
(preprint).

>From the BOAI Self-Archiving FAQ: 
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#What-is-Eprint
What is an Eprint?

Eprints are the digital texts of peer-reviewed research articles, 
before and after refereeing. Before refereeing and publication, 
the draft is called a "preprint." The refereed, accepted final 
draft is called a "postprint." (Note that this need not be the 
publisher's proprietary PDF version!) Eprints include both 
preprints and postprints (as well as any significant drafts in 
between, and any postpublication updates). Researchers are 
encouraged to self-archive them all. The OAI tags keep track of 
all versions. All versions should contain links to the 
publisher's official version of record.

> I cannot remember us using the term  "author's final
> draft" at the Budapest meeting but effectively that is what  we
> meant. Since then some OA advocates (including myself) have been
> less  precise than we should have been in our definition of the
> version to be  deposited in repositories. In an atmosphere of
> lobbying by many publishers  against any form of open access, the
> push was to secure the deposit of any  version that an author
> felt able to place into their home repository. With  hindsight
> the looseness of some definitions for self-archiving beyond the
> original definition may have led to claims from publishers that
> mandates are  unfunded, in that while publishers would have made
> no contribution to the  author's final version, they could claim
> that the deposit of a copy-edited  version did not recognise
> their contribution in copy-editing. Calls for  repository deposit
> of versions beyond the author's final version may also  have
> fuelled publishers' fears of subscription cancellations.

Fred's valid point is an important illustration of the kinds of 
needless, counterproductive over-reaching -- demanding more than 
was reasonable, realistic or necessary -- that have helped to 
hold OA progress back from what it could have been. But it's 
never too late to remedy this and put OA on the fast-forward 
track at last by reaching for what is within the research 
community's grasp -- the author's refereed final draft -- rather 
than over-reaching for what is not, and thereby missing even what 
is within reach.

> Now that some publishers previously opposed to open access are
> taking a more  positive approach, there is an opportunity to
> return to the vision of the  original BOAI definitions of
> self-archiving and open access journals as  complementary, with
> neither being a threat to the future of journal  publishing. If
> (and for some publishers this may still be a barrier)  publishers
> can accept the legitimacy of the self-archiving of the author's
> final manuscript (whether or not mandated by an author's funder
> or  employer), there should be no problem for open access
> advocates in accepting  the legitimacy of treating versions into
> which publishers have invested  resources for copy-editing as
> "gold" rather than "green".

There is certainly no problem for OA advocates in accepting that 
the publisher's proprietary version-of-record is the publisher's, 
and that all that need be self-archived is the author's refereed 
postprint.

But this does not mean treating the publisher's version-of-record 
as "gold"! Gold means the publisher makes it free for all online, 
and most publishers do not do that.

Nor does it mean treating an author self-archived version of the 
publisher's version-of-record (if the publisher agrees to author 
self-archiving of the version of record) as "gold" rather than 
green.

It's gold if the publisher makes it OA; it's green if the author 
makes it OA. And OA means free access to the refereed version 
(whether the author's refereed draft or the publisher's 
version-of-record).

It is not PDF vs non-PDF that distinguishes green and gold OA; it 
is whether the author provides the OA or the publisher does.

> There is a grey  area in respect of
> articles peer-reviewed but not copy-edited, as publishers  will
> have invested in the administration of peer review while the cost
> of  peer review itself has been borne by the academic 
community.

This is a red herring. The author's final draft is the final 
draft, including whatever corrections or updates the author 
elects to put in it.

> There is also  need to clarify the distinction between "libre"
> and "gratis" OA as applied  to the two routes to open access.

The two are completely independent:
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/442-guid.html

Green vs. Gold OA means author self-archived or 
publisher-provided OA (to peer-reviewed research).
Gratis vs. Libre means free online access or free online access 
plus various re-use rights.

In practice, most Green OA is Gratis Green OA and much (though 
not all or most) Gold OA is Libre OA.

> The re-use rights embodied in "libre" are  vital for research and
> teaching, and it can be argued that these rights can  be applied
> to the author's final draft in the repository without permission
> from the publisher. However, the actual implementation of re-use
> rights may  be more applicable to "gold" versions.

I think this would again be a big strategic mistake, yet another 
instance of unnecessary and counterproductive over-reaching.

Yes, in some cases, having various re-use rights is better than 
having just free online access.

But we don't even have free online access to at least 70% of 
yearly refereed research.

And when Green publishers endorse OA self-archiving of the 
author's final draft, they are not endorsing any 3rd-party re-use 
rights.

And Gold OA is premature because there is not the money to pay 
for it and it cannot be mandated, whereas Green Gratis OA can be 
mandated and costs no extra money.

So, please, let us focus first on grasping what is within 
immediate reach -- mandating Green Gratis OA -- rather than 
over-reaching for publishers' proprietary versions of record, 
Libre OA or Gold OA, and thereby continuing to miss what is 
within our grasp.

Stevan Harnad

> I am sending this message as a contribution to the dialogue
> between  publishers and the academic and library communities on
> future developments.  Clearly open access is here to stay. It may
> be that some in every  stakeholder community will disagree with
> the approach outlined above, but  agreement on what we are all
> trying to achieve would enable open access to  be successful for
> all stakeholders.
>
> Fred Friend
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stevan Harnad
> Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 2:11 AM
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: Elsevier and IOP Still Fully Green and Onside With
> the Angels
>
> On 2011-06-24, at 6:52 AM, Wise, Alicia (Elsevier) wrote:
>
>> Our journal authors... can...  post voluntarily the accepted
> manuscript version on a personal or institutional web site or
> server for scholarly purposes...
>
> As noted, Elsevier is still fully green and on the side of the
> angels regarding author self-archiving. This endorsement of
> immediate (unembargoed) posting is all this means.
>
>> We believe the voluntary posting of manuscripts is an
> acceptable practice for authors, and that both institutions and
> publishers should respect their choices.
>
> And I'm confident that Elsevier also believes that publishers
> should and will respect institutions' voluntary policy choices 
--
> for example, if institutions mandate posting by their employees.
> (In any case, publishers have no choice but to respect
> institutional policy.)
>
> Elsevier authors are free to post, and their institutions are
> free to mandate that their employees post. That's all there is to
> it.
>
> A contractual agreement cannot be contingent on whether a right
> that is retained by the author is exercised "voluntarily":
> Everything an author chooses to do is voluntary, including
> complying with his employer's policies.
>
> ***
>
> ASIDE: There is, however, a possible basis for genuine
> misunderstanding here, and, on one construal, Elsevier would
> definitely have a valid point (but that point has nothing to do
> with Green OA self-archiving):
>
> Most institutional mandates are simply mandates to post, i.e., to
> make the author's final draft freely accessible to all users on
> the web immediately upon acceptance for publication.
>
> But there are a few other kinds of institutional mandates,
> needlessly demanding ones, that would require authors to retain
> further rights, over and above the right to post the author's
> final draft free for all on the web immediately upon acceptance
> for publication (in other words, over and above Green OA), for
> example, the right to post the publisher's version of record, or
> the right to allow users to re-use or republish the posted
> article (e.g., by adopting various Creative Commons licenses that
> may not be compatible with the copyright agreement with the
> publisher): in general, the right to provide not just "gratis" OA
> (free online access) but also "libre" OA (gratis OA plus various
> other permissions).
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/442-guid.html
>
> This kind of needless over-reaching by some institutions and
> funders is not only extremely unfortunate and counterproductive,
> because it predictably induces even angelic Green publishers like
> Elsevier and IOP to balk at going that far, but it also weakens
> mandates, because such strong demands in turn require allowing
> authors to opt out of the mandate if they cannot get their
> publisher to agree. That's as bad as the pseudo-mandates that say
> "you are required to self-archive -- if your publisher agrees."
> (There is a far better mandate and strategy --
> Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access  (IDOA) & the eprint-request
> Button -- for dealing with articles published in non-Green
> journals.)
>
> ***
>
> But we are not talking here about such gratuitously
> over-demanding mandates, but only about Green Gratis OA
> self-archiving mandates that merely require authors to do what
> Green publishers have already endorsed: immediate posting of the
> author's final draft, free for all.
>
>> The systematic posting of manuscripts, for example because of a
> mandate to post, is only agreeable if done in ways that are
> sustainable for the underlying journal.
>
> Authors post individually, and publisher copyright agreements are
> agreements with authors.
>
> It is not clear what "systematic posting" means, but if it means
> that an institution systematically requires its employees to
> post, then, with all due respect, this is absolutely none of the
> business of the publisher!
>
> The publisher sets policy for its authors; the institution sets
> policy for its employees.
>
> The author's (retained) rights agreement with the publisher has
> nothing whatsoever to do with what the author's institution's
> policy might or might not be.
>
> To put it another way: Retained rights are not contingent on 
the
> author's reasons for exercising them. If you have a license to
> drive, it cannot state: "You only have the right to drive
> voluntarily; you may not drive if driving is a condition of 
your
> employment"...
>
>> Our first systematic posting agreements have been with funding
> bodies and date back to 2005.  Authors funded by organizations
> such as Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) and NIH could not
> have complied with the systematic posting policies of these
> funding bodies under the terms of our voluntary posting policy,
> so we created agreements or arrangements with those funders to
> enable authors to comply in ways that we believed would be
> sustainable.
>
> I think it is perfectly fair that funders that needlessly demand
> more than Green Gratis OA should have to pay for it, or have it
> embargoed, or both.
>
> But (most) institutions and funders are only mandating Green
> Gratis OA, not asking for more; hence no further arrangements are
> necessary (with Green publishers -- and IDOA & the Button takes
> care of non-Green publishers).
>
>> Embargo periods are a feature of these agreements or
> arrangements.  The embargo periods are journal specific and
> differ according to the varied usage patterns that exist across
> science and social science areas. A high percentage of these are
> for a 12 month period, predominantly in life and health sciences,
> but in other areas such as mathematics and social sciences longer
> embargo periods of typically 24 or 36 months are necessary to
> ensure the sustainability of the underlying journals.
>
> Green publishers, by definition, have no embargo on Green Gratis
> OA.
>
> For Libre OA my own feeling is that the fees and embargoes are a
> fair punishment for those institutions and funders that were to
> short-sighted to see that they were needlessly over-reaching and
> hence gratuitously inviting publisher opposition -- especially
> because the confusion it is causing to disentangle publisher
> reactions to that over-reaching from their acceptance of Green
> Gratis OA is causing confusion even for those institutions and
> funders that are only mandating Green Gratis OA, or contemplating
> doing so.
>
> But fortunately, a clear-headed reading of the new clauses in the
> Green publishers' self-archiving policies shows that nothing has
> changed: authors may provide immediate Green Gratis OA (and
> institutional or funder mandates to do so have absolutely no
> bearing on the matter).
>
>> During the period when the embargo period would apply to posted
> manuscripts there is wide availability of articles.  93% of
> researchers surveyed in academic institutions reported that they
> are satisfied with access to research information in journal
> articles (Access vs. Importance, A global study assessing the
> importance of and ease of access to professional and academic
> information Phase I Results, Publishing Research Consortium,
> October 2010 ? 4,109 respondents).  However we are not complacent
> with even this great result, and systematically identify and
> close access gaps in sustainable ways through programmes such as
> Research4Life which provides free and very low cost access to
> researchers in the world?s poorest countries.  We also have an
> extremely active program of pilots to provide innovative access
> services to members of the public, patients and their families,
> people working in small and medium sized businesses, students,
> etc.
>
> Yes, yes, that's all well and good. To the extent that there is
> enough access already, supplementary access to the author's final
> draft well not make a bit of difference.
>
> But to the extent that there are would-be users who lack
> subscription access, it will make a world of difference.
>
>> Please note that as our early systematic posting agreements
> have been with funding bodies, we are still in test-and-learn
> mode for institutional agreements.
>
> With institutional Green Gratis OA self-archiving mandates there
> is nothing further to be said or done. All is in order.
>
> With institutional Green Libre OA mandates, all bets are off.
> Green Publishers do not become one bit less green of angelic if
> they elect to charge for and/or embargo Libre OA.
>
> (Note that I have nothing at all against Libre OA or CC licenses.
> They are simply premature, at a time when we do not yet even have
> Green Gratis OA, and they are clearly getting in the way of it.
> Perhaps publisher constraints on anything over and above
> immediate Green Gratis OA self-archiving will help to clear the
> air so we can move forward toward universal Green Gratis OA
> mandates from all the planet's institutions and funders -- and
> thereby to universal OA, at long last.)
>