Re: Elsevier Again Confirms Its Position on the Side of the Green OA Angels

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum_at_GMAIL.COM>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 00:20:02 -0500

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Klaus Graf
<> wrote:

> Harnadian nonsense as usual.
> If there is no IR for the author there is no OA in this case,
> depositing on the author's website (the only other possibility
> by Elsevier) doesn't fall under OA according the Berlin

So much the worse for the Berlin Declaration (if so)!

Download some free OAI-compliant software and make your website
OAI-compliant. (Till then, google and google scholar will do.)

So just go ahead and self-archive.

> If the author deposits the eprint or the IR manager in behalf of
> author is the same.

We are not talking about who deposits but what they deposit: The
author's final draft or a file from the publisher's proprietary

> The best way for users is to have publisher's PDF OA, not
> draft nor author's draft. This is the position of most scholars in
> humanities, I believe.

(1) The "best way" for users is to have open access to all
peer-reviewed research.

(2) The best way for authors to provide open access for users is by
self-archiving their peer-reviewed, accepted final drafts.

(3) The best way for authors' institutions and funders to ensure that
authors provide open ccess for users is to mandate self-archiving.

(4) This is true for all peer-reviewed research articles, scholarly
and scientific, including the humanities.

> See also

SHERPA Romeo does provide an awful lot of superfluous and confusing
detail, doesn't it?

This peekaboo page prominently lists those Green publishers that
happen to endorse the immediate OA self-archiving of their published
PDF, plus those non-Green publishers that impose embargoes of various
lengths (form 6 months to 5 years), plus the publishers that charge
fees for depositing their PDF. Curiously omitted from this spuriously
detailed itemized list are all the Green publishers that endorse
immediate self-archiving of the author's peer-reviewed final draft:
That not only excludes the lion's share of the Green journals (which,
by the way, is the right unit of measurement, for authors looking up
such information) but also excludes the lion's share of the specified
target of all 58 OA self-archiving mandates, all of which pertain to
the author's final peer-reviewed draft, and not one of which insists
on the publisher's PDF.

> Taking the high Elsevier profit into account Elsevier bashing is
only fair.

OA is about research access, not journal profit. Those who are
interested in Elsevier-bashing on the subject of journal pricing
should please direct their complaints to a serials pricing list. This
Forum is on OA.

Stevan Harnad

Moderator's Note: I recently posted a notice about AmSci Forum
Netiquette in response to the following from this poster:

> > " seems to use a rabulistic discussion style... Do you
think I am an idiot..."
> Fair warning: Further postings in this vein will not be approved.
This Forum
> is not for flaming. The messages will either be kept courteous and
> nonpersonal, or they will not appear.

That particular posting was directed at another member of the Forum.
Now he writes:

> > Harnadian nonsense as usual.

Last notice: Any further postings in this vein will be sent back to
the poster to remove the personal flamings or they will not appear.

Stevan Harnad
Moderator,American Scientist Open Access Forum
Received on Thu Nov 27 2008 - 05:20:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:35 GMT