[open-science] Elsevier are telling "mis-truths" about the extent of paywalled open access

Cameron Neylon cn at cameronneylon.net
Wed Feb 22 02:31:45 UTC 2017

Hi All

I've been following along but not wishing to stick an oar in, but given
that I think I'm in pretty close to full agreement with Heather – which
doesn't happen that often – it seemed worth dropping in at this point.

I've (I think) always argued that for OA publishing that CC BY is
necessary, but not sufficient. In part that was driven by precisely the
same concerns; to ensure that the rights are in place to allow for public
archiving, repurposing and dissemination so as to avoid the risks of
enclosure that leaving discovery/dissemination purely in the hands of a
contracted publisher creates.

FWIW my view on the minimum provision for arrangements for OA are:

   1. A license to publish between authors and publishers that:
      1. Is non-exclusive
      2. Does not transfer copyright
      3. Obliges the publisher to make a digital online version (ideally in
      specified format) available in perpetuity (i.e. to include an
archival plan
      in the even to publisher failure)
      4. Requires publication under a CC BY license (and grants the right
      to release under future versions) but is not itself a CC BY license
      5. Requires publisher-mediated deposition in a robust repository (eg
   2. That the author/institution in addition have archival level systems
   in place to preserve their outputs and that the final published version is
   deposited in such a repository (this doesn't address the needs of either
   poorer institutions or non-university based scholars of course but there's
   a good argument for the possibilities of shared provision as demonstrated
   by eg SciELO etc)

The lack of clarity on good practice in the "license to publish" area
remains something that bothers me a great deal. It's a horrendous mess but
I ran out of energy to complain about that long ago. A lot would be solved
if there was a standard contract that institutions and funders put in place
as the basis for agreeing to pay for anything (in whatever form, whether
thats APCs, membership style schemes, or internal support for

Wellcome have gone the closest to this but haven't quite taken that final
step. Gates foundation are also pushing on this, but not currently drawing
in others to share contract conditions.



On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 8:01 AM Heather Morrison <
Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca> wrote:

> Thank you for your comments, Puneet. This advances the discussion last.
> We seem to be approaching consensus on one point I consider crucial to
> planning for long-term OA sustainability: that is, CC licensing by itself
> is not enough to ensure OA.
> At this point I would like to know if there is consensus on this point. Do
> any list members wish to argue the point that simply applying a CC license
> is sufficient to ensure OA?
> The reason this is crucial is because if we agree that more is needed then
> we can start discussing strategies on what else is needed.
> Ross' work in tracking down articles that should be OA but are not is a
> very valuable contribution. Elsevier should not be accepting money for OA
> articles then paywalling them. Agreed. Whether this is a situation one
> wishes to repeat indefinitely is another question that I suggest we set
> aside for now as I would like to confirm (or not) consensus on the point
> that CC licenses on their own are not sufficient to guarantee OA. I will
> interpret silence as agreement.
> Best,
> Heather Morrison
> -------- Original message --------
> From: P Kishor <punk.kish at gmail.com>
> Date: 2017-02-21 6:16 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: Heather Morrison <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>
> Cc: Tom Morris <tfmorris at gmail.com>, open-science at lists.okfn.org
> Subject: Re: [open-science] Elsevier are telling "mis-truths" about the
> extent of paywalled open access
> > On Feb 21, 2017, at 5:19 PM, Heather Morrison <
> Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca> wrote:
> >
> > The reason why CC licensing is relevant is because there is an
> assumption that if funder policy demands CC-BY, this is sufficient to
> ensure open access. This case is a good one to reflect on the wisdom of
> this approach.
> That may be your assumption but that is not my assumption. CC licenses are
> necessary but not a sufficient condition for open access. But they never
> were, and no one who understands CC licenses and their role correctly will
> make that assumption. If I apply CC license to my work but never put that
> work on a website that is freely and openly accessible to everyone, I will
> not make my work open access. Please don't conflate these unrelated issues
> that are also irrelevant to the topic of the current thread. Elsevier took
> money and made a promise; Elsevier broke that promise. The community is
> trying to and can hold Elsevier accountable without having to take them to
> a court of law.
> If you don’t want to use CC licenses, fine, then don't. No one is being
> compelled to use CC licenses. But if you want to call your work open in the
> same meaning that accorded to the word open by the general community, as
> defined by Open Definition, among other norms, then *one* of the things you
> will have to do is to apply a CC (or a similarly open) license to your work.
> --
> Puneet Kishor
> Just Another Creative Commoner
> http://punkish.org/About
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
Professor Cameron Neylon
Professor of Research Communications - President, FORCE11
Centre for Culture and Technology
Curtin University, Western Australia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20170222/25709b5a/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the open-science mailing list