The most widespread misunderstanding about Open Access (OA) is that OA just means OA journal publishing.

OA journals make all their articles free for all online, often for a fee. This is called OA publishing (or “Gold OA”).

But publishing in a Gold OA journal is not the only way for authors to provide OA to their articles, nor is it the surest or fastest way.

The other way for authors to provide OA to their published articles is to publish in any suitable journal, and to self-archive the final, peer-reviewed draft in their institutional repositories immediately upon acceptance for publication, to make it free for all online. This is called OA self-archiving or “Green OA.”

What the EU is currently mandating (requiring) for about 20% of the research it funds, and what it is now contemplating extending to 100% of the research it funds, is Green OA self-archiving, not Gold OA publishing.

Conflating the two, and constantly using “OA” as if it meant only Gold OA is the single biggest factor retarding the growth, progress and understanding of OA.

Elsevier’s Authors’ Rights & Responsibilities, “What rights do I retain as a journal author?” states:

— “…the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your personal or institutional website or server for scholarly purposes… (but not in… institutional repositories with mandates for systematic postings unless there is a specificagreement with the publisher)…” —
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/rights

Along with the majority of refereed journal publishers today, Elsevier is a “Green” publisher, meaning Elsevier has formally endorsed immediate (unembargoed) institutional Green OA self-archiving by its authors ever since 27 May 2004.
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3771.html

Recently, however, a new clause has been added to “Authors’ Rights and Responsibilities,” the document in which Elsevier formally recognizes its authors’ right to make their final, peer-reviewed drafts Open Access immediately upon publication (no embargo) by posting them on their institutional website (Green Gratis OA). The new clause is:

—- “but not in institutional repositories with mandates for systematic postings.” —-

The distinction between an institutional website and an institutional repository is bogus.

The distinction between nonmandatory posting (allowed) and mandatory posting (not allowed) is arbitrary nonsense. (“You retain the right to post if you wish but not if you must!”)

The “systematic” criterion is also nonsense. (Systematic posting would be the institutional posting of all the articles in the journal; but any single institution only contributes a tiny, arbitrary fraction of the articles in any journal, just as any single author does; so the mandating institution is not a 3rd-party “free-rider” on the journal’s content: its researchers are simply making their own articles OA, by posting them on their institutional website, exactly as described.)

This “systematic” clause is hence pure FUD, designed to scare or bully or confuse institutions into not mandating posting, and to scare or bully or confuse authors into not complying with their institutional mandates. (There are also rumours that in confidential licensing negotiations with institutions, Elsevier has been trying to link bigger and better pricing deals to the institution’s agreeing not to adopt a Green OA mandate.)

Elsevier’s public image is so bad today that rescinding its Green light to self-archive after almost a decade of mounting demand for OA is hardly a very attractive or viable option.
http://cdn.anonfiles.com/1334923359479.pdf
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#32.Poisoned

And double-talk, smoke-screens and FUD are even less attractive or viable.
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/822-.html

It will hence very helpful in helping researchers to provide — and their institutions and funders to mandate — Open Access if Elsevier drops its “you may if you wish but not if you must” clause.

It will also help to improve Elsevier’s public image.

Stevan Harnad
http://openaccess.eprints.org/