Journal's reply to a request to allow deposit of a post-print copy of an article to an institutional repository:
"Our experience has been that most university libraries have access to [Project MUSE or JSTOR] so our target audience usually has access"
This, despite pointing out SSHRC (amongst many other funders) "open access within one year" publication requirements.
My response: "This is indeed unfortunate, as it means that our faculty and students cannot comply with open access mandates from funding sources such as the Social Sciences Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). Non-compliance would render them ineligible for future grants. I will therefore have to recommend that they choose a different venue for publishing their work."
O-ho, and the editor's reply: "The biggest issue on our end is that we rely on the royalty payments we receive from MUSE and JSTOR to run the journal and our contracts require exclusivity."
$$$, and a possibly overly conservative reading of those contracts? I can't imagine every journal on MUSE/JSTOR is blocked from offering OA options.
@dbs You can't do the accepted version as a workaround?
@mplouffe No, I explicitly asked for that option on behalf of the faculty member and was told no.
Not even a pre-print fer crissakes!
@dbs That's really lame. Out of curiosity, what's the journal/publisher?
@dbs Good response. The publishers who do not keep up will end up lost. But it is a hassle for students and new faculty establishing themselves in research communities.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!