Hello Dr. Harnad,
I agree entirely, that public-self archiving would solve many of
the problems referred to in the study. However, when copyright has
already been assigned to a publishing house (as a precondition of paper
journal publication), the publishing house may prefer to have its own
archive and refuse permission for self-archiving.
How many contributors to Cell, for example, know that now the
journal has been taken over by Elsevier, they will no longer be given
free permission to publicly self-archive (as was the previous policy of
This is unfortunate, since self-archiving allows the use of
colour, space and emphasis, which often is not possible in a paper
journal (and is too complex for the publishing house electronic
archivists to carry out). The work can then be much easier to
assimilate, even if downloaded to a paper version.
Sincerely, Donald Forsdyke. Discussion Leader. Bionet.journals.note
Stevan Harnad wrote:
>> > Date sent: Thu, 27 May 1999 08:01:16 +0100
> > Subject: Research study on academic journal authors
> > From: "ALPSP" <alpsp at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>
> > WHAT AUTHORS WANT:
> > the ALPSP research study on the motivations and concerns of
> > contributors to learned journals
> > The Association of Learned and Society Publishers has recently carried out
> > a large-scale survey of contributors to learned journals. The aim was to
> > discover what motivated researchers to publish in journals, and how they
> > decided where to publish, as well as their concerns about the current
> > system, and what changes they wanted or expected to see in the future.
>> Here's a hypothesis: I bet this ALPSP survey never asked the authors the
> following pointed question:
>> If there is a choice between making your papers, which you give to
> journals for free, accessible to all your potential readers for free,
> rather than for fee, would you prefer that?
>> This problem is COMPLETELY solved by public self-archiving.
> Stevan Harnad harnad at cogsci.soton.ac.uk