Elsevier has adopted a policy for authors whose research is funded by the Wellcome Trust. The key piece of background, of course, is that Wellcome mandates OA for Wellcome-funded research. Excerpt from Elsevier's new policy:
...Elsevier has made an agreement with the Wellcome Trust that will allow authors who publish in Elsevier journals to comply with [Wellcome's] requirements. This new agreement is intended to support the needs of Elsevier authors, editors, and society publishing partners, and protect the quality and integrity of the peer review process.
Wellcome Trust funded authors publishing in Elsevier journals can comply with the Wellcome Trust policy by paying a subsidy fee to the journal to help offset the cost of peer review and other publishing costs. Wellcome Trust will reimburse authors who have paid the subsidy fee. The fee has initially been set at $3,000 per article for all Elsevier journals except those published by Cell Press, which have a $5,000 per article subsidy fee, and The Lancet, which will have a fee of £400 per page. The difference in fees for The Lancet and Cell Press reflects higher associated costs.
Upon final publication, Elsevier will send to PMC the Wellcome Trust Subsidised Manuscript (a version of the accepted manuscript that reflects all author-agreed changes that arise from the peer-review, copy-editing and proofing processes) and will authorize its public posting on PMC, and PMC mirror sites, immediately. The Wellcome Trust Subsidised Manuscript on PMC and PMC mirror sites will also link directly to the final published journal article, which will continue to reside only on Elsevier’s websites and which Elsevier will make freely available to both non-subscribers and subscribers.
There is no change to Elsevier’s author posting policy that allows authors to post revised personal versions of manuscripts (those that reflect changes made in the peer review) on their own web sites and the sites of their institutions, provided a link to the journal is included. Posting directly to PMC or other sites outside an author’s institution continue to be prohibited, as does any further republishing or redistribution of Elsevier copyright-protected content and Society copyright-protected content published by Elsevier. This new agreement enables Wellcome Trust-funded authors to comply with the Wellcome Trust Policy without having to violate their publishing agreements with Elsevier....
Comment. I've criticized publishers who charge authors for the right to comply with their own funding contracts. ("Authors shouldn't have to pay their publisher in order to live up to a contract with their funder.") But the circumstances change when the funder is willing to pay the fee charged by the publisher.
As long as funders like Wellcome are willing to do this, and as long as the publisher fees are reasonably tied to the actual costs of an efficient operation, then this can be a win-win-win. Authors and funders get OA to their research; publishers get their expenses covered for providing it; and authors pay nothing out of pocket. There's a fourth party in the wings --subscribers-- who will win too if the publisher reduces subscription prices in proportion to author uptake of its OA option.
There are still ways in which the deal can be improved. Elsevier could make the OA edition the same as the published edition. It could let participating authors retain copyright and use CC licenses (or equivalents) on the OA editions. It could let participating authors deposit their articles in any OA repository, not just their own IR. (For more background, see my June article on Elsevier's hybrid journal program, where I pointed out that the Elsevier terms conflicted with the Wellcome Trust's requirements.)
If we conceive the funder-grantee contract to be independent of the author-publisher contract, then it looks like publisher fees are meddling in contracts to which publishers are not a party. But the Wellcome-Elsevier agreement suggests that these previously separate contracts are merging and that we will have to recognize a new kind of tripartite contract among authors, funders, and publishers. If so, publishers who enter these agreements can't complain when public policies to regulate access to publicly-funded research have the side-effect of regulating publishers, something they have been very touchy about in the past.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 9/29/2006 09:35:00 AM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
