Alicia Wise Profile
Alicia Wise Profi le
Part of the Library and Information Science Commons Recommended Citation
Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/atg
Interview — Alicia Wise
from page 46
AW: Yes, it is all a bit confusing, but there are some basic elements
of the criticism that are incorrect. Here is precisely how our policy
free to share their articles in any way that they would like to and that it
is no business at all of publishers. The way full-text articles are shared
impacts, however, on the ability of publishers to sell subscriptions to
articles the authors have chosen to publish under this business model.
This is of course a deep and important strategic topic for all
stakeholders to discuss, particularly with reference to subscription content, and
perhaps this discussion is not most constructively done in the context
of one publisher’s policies.
ATG: In a recent interview in Research Information , you said that
Green OA depended on the subscription model continuing to operate.
How so? What is the relationship between the two?
AW: Right now there are two times in the lifecycle that payment for
publishing services occurs: on the author-side OR on the reader-side.
When publishers are paid on the author-side — for example through an
APC for gold open access publishing, or because the publishing costs of
an issue or journal are subsidized by a sponsor of some kind — then open
access is easy: the final version of the article can be made freely available
right away. When publishers are paid on the reader-side — for example,
when an article is published under the subscription model — then open
access is more challenging, and this is the case with the green model. In
green open access, a version of the peer-review full-text article is made
freely available, and so this needs to be done in a way that enables the
subscription model to continue to operate or else the whole system just
tumbles down. (I understand that some OA advocates relish the idea of
the entire scholarly communication system tumbling down, but most
stakeholders instead want an orderly transition to an open access world.)
ATG: In that same interview you said that Elsevier not only has
more than 100 fully OA journals and more than 1,600 hybrid titles,
you also have more than 100 OA partnerships with development
partners. Can you tell us more about those partnerships? Who are
these partners? What is the nature of your relationship with them?
continued on page 50
What’s changed in our sharing and hosting policy can be accessed and
downloaded online by visiting http://www.slideshare.net/aliciawise/
To highlight a change that is of benefit to institutional repositories:
all institutional repositories can now host manuscripts and use these on
campus during the embargo period and publicly
This is also a good opportunity to reiterate
a message that hasn’t been broadcast widely
enough: we don’t expect non-commercial
platforms like institutional repositories to
retrospectively implement these policies.
We’ve heard that the length of our embargo
periods is a concern. Journal embargoes are
neither new, nor unique, to Elsevier.
Confusion has arisen because we didn’t always
enforce our embargos, preferring to work
with Institutional Repositories directly to
develop institution-specific agreements. Those
agreements are no longer necessary; instead
we are now communicating our embargoes
more clearly. What is important to note is that
authors may still post their manuscripts on their
personal Websites, so there remains a method
for immediate posting.
Our embargo periods are typically between
12 and 24 months, with some longer or shorter
exceptions. We are hearing that it is the length
of our embargo periods that is of concern rather
than the fact of their existence. Generally
embargos should be set on a title-by-title basis
by publishers; however we recognize that
other stakeholders seek influence over embargo
lengths too, and this is reasonable. We had
already been planning a review of our embargo
periods in 2015. While I cannot pre-judge the
outcome of this review, we are very conscious
of the many new funding body policies that
have emerged in the last year with 12-month
embargo periods, all of which we will factor in.
More recently, we’ve begun to hear (from some, certainly not all) librarians that their concerns stem from a belief that scholars should be
Against the Grain / November 2015
against the grain
Born and lived: Born in Florida, have lived all over the U.S. and now in the UK.
early life: Yes, I had one.
in my spare time i like: Gardening, reading, walking.
professional career and activities: Ph.D. in Anthropology/Archaeology from
Wunc -chapel hill. After leaving archaeology, I worked at the ijsc , publishers l icensing
society, the publishers association, and now elsevier.
i f amily: Husband and two sons and two cats, plus a ginormous extended family in
ic Florida and Ohio.
pet peeves: Anti-publisher sentiment from librarians, or anti-librarian sentiment from
philosophy: I’m not so fancy as to have a philosophy, but try very hard to listen well,
be pragmatic, and work hard and in collaboration with others.
most memoraBle career achievement: Hopefully still to come in information
provision. In archaeology it was perhaps discovering the northernmost amphitheatre in
the Roman Empire.
goal i hope to achieve five years from now: It would be terrific to help create
a world in which any blind or dyslexic person could confidently walk into any bookshop
or library (or access those services online), in confidence that they will find any book they
want in a format entirely accessible to them.
how/where do i see the industry in five years: Still changing very rapidly,
driven by technological changes, and much more collaborative and social and open.