Shared publicly  - 

More and more researchers have hit their boiling points as they fail to access their own articles, read new publications, and obtain dated original articles without substantial financial fees. This has not been a new trend, but recent developments have sparked a fire fueled by over 8,000 researchers banning together to boycott Elsevier. This sudden backlash was more directly targeted to Elsevier’s support of the Research Works Act (RWA) which, like current highly publicized bills such as SOPA and PIPA, seeks to retract open access to certain information. RWA particularly targets open access to research articles funded specifically by the National Institutes of Health. Opposition sites the origin of the funding, believing that the tax dollars collected from the masses make the research property of all. No one can attest to research’s dependence of funding, but is the money falling into the wrong hands? Through wrong means? What do you think? Should information be available to everybody? Does anyone reserve the right to access anyone’s published work?
martin stobbs's profile photo
I think this is great news but to quote the +Singularity Hub article "...the fight for open access is just getting started."

Many academics already have the right to self-archive (ie. publish on their website) the full versions of their papers but most do there something else at play that prevents this from happening?

A blog post from SHERPA (link at end) which tracks the publishing policies of about 19000 journals says:
"60% of journals allow the final peer-reviewed version of an article to be archived immediately, with a further 27% permitting the submitted version (pre-print) to be archived immediately."
"a remarkable 94% of journals allow archiving of peer-reviewed articles after any embargo period has expired [_my comment: most commonly 12 months_] and any additional restrictions have been complied with"

UPDATE: the link is:

#elsevier #research #openaccess #SHERPA #journals
Add a comment...