On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Leslie Chan wrote:
> I see the HHMI-Elsevier deal as a major set back for institutional
> self-archiving as it muddies the green landscape, which I am sure is one of
> the underlying intents of Elsevier and other publishers in the STM group. I
> suspect more publishers may follow suit and reverse their stand on green if
> they think there is money to be made. Something needs to happen quickly.
> The Trojan Horse has proved to work, unfortunately. What should we do???
I know *exactly* what needs to be done, and it has been obvious all along:
The mandates have to be taken completely out of the hands of publishers and
out of the reach of embargoes, and there is a sure-fire way to do it:
The mandates must be Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) mandates.
Let the *access* to the deposit be provisionally set as Closed Access
wherever there is the slightest doubt. Just so publishers have no say
whatsoever in whether or when the deposit itself is done. And let the
EMAIL EPRINT REQUEST button -- and human nature, and the optimality of
OA -- take care of the rest of its own accord, as it will. If only we
have the sense to rally behind ID/OA.
Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where? When? Why? How?
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html
Generic Rationale and Model for University Open Access Self-Archiving Mandate:
Immediate-Deposit/Optional Access (ID/OA)
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html
It is as simple as that. But *we* have to unite behind ID/OA, and give a
clear consistent message (and for that we have to first clearly
understand ID/OA!)
If we keep flirting with embargoes and Gold and publishing reform and
funding instead of univocally rallying behind the ID/OA mandate that will
immunise us from publisher policies and further embargoes, we will get
nowhere, and indeed we will lose ground.
It is as simple as that.
Stevan Harnad
Received on Sat Mar 10 2007 - 04:10:08 GMT