皆様
さらなる出版社側の巻き返しの動きとして、Emeraldという出版社が2年間の
エンバーゴを設定したという話と、Springer社がやはり1年のエンバーゴを
設定したというニュースが流れてきましたね。
ハーナッド等が心配していたRCUKポリシーの副作用がいよいよ現れてきたと
いうことでしょうか。
The Empire Strikes Back! (古い(^^;)?
栗山 正光
常磐大学人間科学部現代社会学科
〒310-8585 水戸市見和1-430-1
#ああっ、原稿の締切が。。。
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Is Green Open Access in the process of fading away?
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:42:26 +0200
From: didier.pelaprat @ xxxxxxxxx
Reply-To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal @ xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal @ xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Heather Morrison <hgmorris @ xxxxxx>
CC: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal @ xxxxxxxxxxx>,
SPARC Open Access Forum <SPARC-OAForum @ xxxxxxx>
Hello,
Many thanks to all of you.
You are probably aware of that:
Springer, which defined itself some months ago as a "green publisher"
in a advertisement meeting they invited us(they call that
"information" meeting) and did not ask any embargo for institutional
open repositories (there was only an embargo for the repositories of
funders with a mandate), now changed its policy (they call that a "new
wording") with a 12-month embargo for all Open repositories.
It is now displayed in Sherpa/Romeo.
I was sais that this new policy was settled "in reaction to the US,
Europe and RCUK policy".
I figured out that this would make some "buzz", but for the moment I
did not see any reaction. Did you hear from one?
Best regards
Didier Pélaprat
Heather Morrison <hgmorris @ xxxxxx> a écrit :
Thanks for the alert, Richard.
Would the Compact on Open Access Publishing Equity would consider
making a statement / recommendation concerning this practice? My
suggestion is that this is incompatible with COPE's commitment to
establish "durable mechanisms for underwriting reasonable
publication charges" as it will force scholars to pay APCs where
before green open access would have sufficed. For this reason, I
think it would be reasonable for COPE members to refuse to pay open
access APCs for any publisher implementing such a policy (extending
green open access embargoes for scholarly works covered by an open
access mandate).
my two bits,
Heather Morrison
For my call for librarians to withdraw their work as editors,
authors, and reviewers from Emerald in light of this practice, see
my blogpost LIS Publisher Emerald: profit, not knowledge-sharing?
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2013/06/lis-publisher-emerald-profit-not.html
On 2013-06-17, at 5:48 AM, Richard Poynder wrote:
When last July Research Councils UK (RCUK) announced its new Open
Access (OA) policy it sparked considerable controversy, not least
because the policy required researchers to "prefer" Gold OA (OA
publishing) over Green OA (self-archiving). The controversy was
such that earlier this year the House of Lords Science & Technology
Committee launched an inquiry into the implementation of the
policy and the subsequent report was highly critical of RCUK.
As a result of the criticism, RCUK published two clarifications.
Amongst other things, this has seen Green OA reinstated as a viable
alternative to Gold. At the same time, however, RCUK extended the
permissible maximum embargo before papers can be self-archived from
12 to 24 months. OA advocates -- who maintain that a six-month
embargo is entirely adequate -- responded by arguing that this
would simply encourage publishers who did not have an embargo to
introduce one, and those that did have one to lengthen it. As a
result, they added, many research papers would be kept behind
publishers' paywalls unnecessarily.
It has begun to appear that these warnings may have been right.
Evidence that publishers have indeed begun to respond to RCUK's
policy in this way was presented during a second inquiry into OA --
this time by the House of Commons Business, Innovation & Skills
(BIS) Committee. The Committee cited the case of a UK publisher who
recently introduced a 24-month embargo where previously it did not
have one. The publisher was not named, but it turns out to be a
UK-based company called Emerald.
Why did Emerald decide that an embargo is now necessary where
previously it was not? Why do the details of the embargo on
Emerald's web site differ from the details sent to the publisher's
journal editors? And what does Emerald's decision to introduce a
two-year embargo presage for the development of Open Access? To my
surprise, obtaining answers to the first two questions proved more
difficult than I had anticipated.
More here:
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/open-access-emeralds-green-starts-to.html
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL @ xxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
(2013/06/18 8:57), 加藤 信哉 wrote:
みなさま
鈴木さんの訳文を手直ししました。ご参考までに送付します。
加藤信哉(筑波大学附属図書館)
------------------------------ここから-------------------------------
ブーイングのコーラス:出版社がパブリックアクセスに対する「解決法」を提案
マイケル エイゼン (2013年6月4日)
案の定、購読モデルジャーナルの出版社の連合が、ホワイトハウスの義務化(連
邦政府関係機関が助成した研究成果をパブリックアクセスにするシステムを開発
し、その実現のため実装を提案すること)に反応した。
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf
──────────────────☆────────
月刊DRF http://drf.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/gekkandrf/
2013年6月号(41号)を発行しました!
DRF(Digital Repository Federation)
http://drf.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/drf/
─────★─────────────────────