Re: Changes in publisher policies on repository deposit?

From: Jeffery, KG (Keith) <"Jeffery,>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 21:33:41 +0100

All -
....and are in pdf which is an awful format for any re-purposing.
Also, well-organised institutional repositories are connected to a
CRIS (Current Research Information System) which (assuming it uses
CERIF - Common Research Information Format - an EU recommendation to
member states) provides contextual (meta)data on such things as
persons, organisational units (groups, departments), projects,
funding, facilities and equipment used, patents, products (including
research datasets and software), publications, events - i.e. the
research 'space' associated with the publication.  More information
Of course all of this information is needed attached to the
publication for most re-purposing and also for research evaluation.

Prof Keith G Jeffery   E:
Director Information Technology & International Strategy
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory          
Harwell Science and Innovation Campus
Didcot, OXON  OX11  0QX   UK
T: +44 1235 44 6103  F:+44 1235 44 5147                             
President ERCIM & STFC Director:
W3C Office at STFC-RAL      
President euroCRIS              
VLDB Trustee Emeritus:       
EDBT Board Member                                                                  

The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
intended recipient only.  If you are not one of the intended
recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it

The STFC telecommunications systems may be monitored in accordance
with the policy available from

Please note that from 20081006 all my email will be sent out from
stfc in the format above.  However, incoming email using other email
addresses for me will work for the forseeable future.  Nonetheless,
you are advised to change any address book entries or typed 'to'
email addresses to the new address provided above.



From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
On Behalf Of Morag Greig
Sent: 02 June 2009 16:45
Subject: Re: Changes in publisher policies on repository

Because the copies on Elsevier's website are NOT freely
Morag Greig
Advocacy Manager (Enlighten)

Direct line: +44(0)141 330 6797
Fax: +44(0)141 330 4952

University of Glasgow
Hillhead Street
Glasgow G12 8QE  

The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401
-----Original Message-----
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
Behalf Of Sally Morris
Sent: 02 June 2009 15:36
Subject: Re: Changes in publisher policies on repository

      Let me be heretical here


      In this interconnected environment, why does it
      matter where the freely accessible version is?





      Sally Morris


      South House, The Street

      Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK


      Tel: +44(0)1903 871286

      Fax: +44(0)8701 202806



From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 02 June 2009 14:32
Subject: Re: Changes in publisher policies on repository


On 2-Jun-09, at 8:05 AM, Peter Suber wrote:

[Forwarding from Fred Friend via the JISC-Repositories
list.  --Peter Suber.]

To all repository managers:
Rumours are spreading that Elsevier staff are approaching
UK Vice-Chancellors persuading them to point to PDF
copies of articles on Elsevier's web-site rather than
have the articles deposited in institutional
repositories. It appears that the argument being used is
that this will be a cheaper option than maintaining
full-text within repositories. If these reports are true,
my guess is that Elsevier are using these arguments to
undermine deposit mandates.


Here is my prediction:


      (1) Yes, Elsevier and other publishers would
      be happier if researchers did not deposit
      their final drafts in their institutional
      repositories, and if their institutions and
      funders did not mandate that they do so.
      Hence it is not at all surprising that they
      may be trying to persuade UK VCs to link to
      PDFs at Elsevier's website instead of having
      their researchers deposit their own final
      drafts in their own institutional

      (2) But UK VCs presumably still have some
      autonomy and judgement of their own. So
      whereas they will understand why it might be
      in publishers' interest if universities'
      research output were held at publishers'
      websites rather than in the university's own
      repository, they will also see quite clearly
      why this would not be in the interest of
      their universities, or their researchers, or
      research assessment, or research itself. 


      (3) So the attempt at persuasion will prove


So please let us not again stir up groundless and
distracting anxieties about this. Let publishers try to
persuade whomever they wish of whatever they wish. The
interested parties will make their own decisions,
according to their own interests.


What UK VCs should be (and are) doing is persuading their
own researchers to provide Open Access to their own
research output, in their own repositories, by adopting
university Open Access self-archiving mandates, as 83
institutions and funders worldwide have already done. UK
has the world's highest concentration of these mandates,
and two more are about to be announced (stay tuned).


Elsevier (and the majority of other publishers), despite
their efforts at VC persuasion, and despite the familiar
doomsday scenarios to the contrary, remain on the side of
the angels insofar as OA self-archiving is concerned,
endorsing authors depositing their final drafts in their
institutional repositories.


Let us concentrate on accelerating OA mandate adoption
and not worry about how publishers might be trying to
decelerate it: The outcome is optimal (for research,
researchers, their institutions, and the tax-paying
public that funds them) -- and inevitable.


      If Vice-Chancellors are persuaded to adopt
      this policy, it would only give repository
      access to an unsatisfactory version (PDFs
      will not enable re-use for research purposes)
      and access on Elsevier's terms. If this is
      Elsevier's strategy it would seem to negate
      their "green" status. Previous correspondence
      on this list has indicated a harder line on
      repository deposit by Wiley-Blackwell, and if
      Elsevier are also hardening their policy,
      mandates for repository deposit could lose
      much of their potential effectiveness in
      increasing access to research content.


There is no hardening of policies, the PDF issue is a red
herring, and green continues to be green. 


      It would be wise for repository managers to
      brief their senior university management on
      this issue. The threat to repository deposit
      also adds to the need for authors to be
      briefed on the use of a licence to publish
      retaining certain rights rather than ceding
      all control over their work to the publisher.


There is no threat to repository deposit; a green light
to deposit a postprint is sufficient for green OA and
green OA mandates, irrespective of whether the postprint
is the author's final draft or the publisher's PDF. 


      Any publishers reading this message should
      understand that dialogue on the issues above
      will be welcome, in particular clarification
      of any change in publisher policies. 


What is needed is not (still more!) dialogue with
publishers but self-archiving of postprints by the
researchers -- and postprint self-archiving mandates by
researchers' institutions and funders.


Repository managers do far more for OA if they focus on
helping their institution to adopt self-archiving
policies rather than if they focus on how publisher may
be trying to maximise their interests by delaying or
distracting from them.


Stevan Harnad


      Fred Friend (not writing on behalf of any
      organisation or institution)  

Scanned by iCritical.
Received on Tue Jun 02 2009 - 22:29:00 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:47 GMT