Il 19/09/21 13:10, Peter Patel-Schneider ha scritto:
"In accordance with funding body requirements, Elsevier does offer alternative open access publishing options. Visit our open access page for full information."
I did read it, and it says "This journal has an embargo period of 24 months". Of course one can just ignore such abusive requests and archive anyway under a cc-by license the so-called preprint, which will be 99 % the same thing, but authors may not know that. Advertising such journals on this mailing list might be appropriate if the poster explains how to ignore abusive requests from the publisher.
In the specific case, some exceptions are admitted by the publisher for Plan S compliance but only to certain authors funded by certain funders. The result is a very complicated situation https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/id/publication/14154 and a very low open access rate of some 20 % https://link.lens.org/y11mtZdDtHg. I don't mean to single out JWS as particularly egregious: this is typical of most venues controlled by closed access publishers (including ACM, IEEE etc.). I only mentioned JWS because it was recently advertised on this list (and Wiktionary-l).
I don't see any benefit in using Wikimedia properties to advertise for-profit endeavours which are clearly incompatible with the Wikimedia mission and values, as well as Wikidata's very reason of existence. The anti-OA venues usually have enough marketing power to get known without our help.
Il 19/09/21 13:24, Dan Brickley ha scritto:
I guess refining policing wiki rules is what some folks do for fun around here, so maybe I should switch to listening mode at this point…
Personally I found everyone's contributions to this discussion useful so far. The most effective policy will be one which enjoys consensus among researchers and wiki contributors alike.
Federico