The Loon is horrified. JISC should know better than this. It is thoroughly misleading, damagingly so.
SHERPA/RoMEO does not cover the entirety of the journal universe; JISC’s blog post is therefore subject to serious selection bias. Moreover, even for that portion SHERPA does cover, it’s easy to find weasel words, usually in blanket publisher listings, that render statistical analysis meaningless, such as “individual journals may have their own policies”. (Try Wiley-Blackwell’s default policy for an example.) SHERPA knows this; they’ve even started trumpeting it in bright red type (on green, ouch) all over the place. It’s wholly unclear to the Loon whether (much less how) JISC’s counts corrected for this.
Even this leaves out the publishers who present one face to SHERPA and another to authors. The Loon is already seeing a fair bit of this, and expects rather more of it over the coming year or so. Self-archiving was all right as long as no one actually did it. Now that permissions mandates are clearing the decks, publishers suddenly find self-archiving much less acceptable.
The ancient and cynical Loon is not surprised by this. She is, however, surprised that JISC would let a blog post escape it that so misrepresents on-the-ground realities around self-archiving. JISC is smarter and more grounded than that.
- Ease-of-use and egoboo: library disrupters
- Not a magic bullet, but perhaps a bullet