Re: Green Angels and OA Extremists

From: (wrong string) édon <jean.claude.guedon_at_umontreal.ca>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:30:38 -0500

    [ The following text is in the "utf-8" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

I support Michael's analysis.

Commercial presses will do all they can to keep self-archiving at
some artisanal, confusing level while lobbying like mad wherever they
can (this means governmental agencies such as NIH and other similar
agencies). The artisanal dimension I am talking about refers to
constraints such as preventing the use of the publisher's pdf. Making
it difficult for libraries to stock their own IR's with the articles
of their faculty in some bulk fashion is another way to slow down
archiving. When publishers impose their own particular constraints on
self-archiving, they make things more confusing for the researchers,
and this slows down progress. In short, they act in such a way that
they cannot be directly and clearly faulted for opposing OA, but they
make sure progress will be slow, difficult, reversible and temporary.
While allowing self-archiving is indeed a step forward, it is
accompanied by so many side issues that the step is small, hesitant,
and not always pointed in the right direction.

Of course, one can always invent some work around, add yet another
button, or whatever, but this ends up making things only a little
more complex and a little more confusing for the average researcher
and it only reinforces the elements of confusion sought by at least
some of the publishers.

In short, it is a very clever strategy.

To achieve OA, we do need self-archiving, all the difficulties thrown
into its path by publishers notwithstanding, including the devious
strategies I just referred to. But we also need OA publishing. Not to
say that OA publishing should come before self-archiving, but to
point out a very simple fact: a pincer strategy on the scientific
communication system is better than a strategy based on a single
method. OA needs self-archiving, but it also needs some reform in
scientific publishing. Rather than opposing green and gold
strategies, it is better to see how they can support each other.

Jean-Claude Guédon




Le mardi 02 décembre 2008 à 07:47 -0800, Michael Eisen a écrit :

 Les Carr wrote:

>
> HAVING SAID THAT, the library is in no way adverse to finding
> mechanisms that assist individuals and ease their tasks, and I guess
> that Elsevier can have no objections to that either! How about a
> notification email to be sent to authors of "In Press" papers that
> contains a "Deposit this paper" button that initiates the user's
> deposit workflow on the ScienceDirect Submitted Manuscript PDF.
>

You guys are such suckers. OF COURSE Elsevier can have objections to
libraries assisting individuals in self-archiving their work, because
Elsevier does not want self archiving to succeed! What do they have to
do to actually prove this to you? Stevan, Les and others seem to think
that Karen Hunter's recent email was some kind of bureaucratic error,
rather than realize it for what it clearly is - a direct statement
from Elsevier that they do not want self-archiving to actually take
off. It's a ploy (an apparently successful ploy) on their part to
diffuse moves towards effective universal open access by a) making
them seem like good guys and b) fostering the illusion that we can
have universal green OA without altering the economics of publishing.

And Stevan, rather than the typical retort about how green OA can be
achieved now, with a few keystrokes, can you please instead explain
how the policy statement from your friends at Elsevier does not
indicate that they are really opposed to real OA.

Jean-Claude Guédon
Université de Montréal
Received on Wed Dec 03 2008 - 01:53:40 GMT