IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Evolving Publisher Copyright Policies On Self-Archiving

Stevan Harnad harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Sat Dec 4 10:53:12 EST 2004


On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Sally Morris wrote:

> my own view is that the 'H-O solution' is not only contrary to
> the spirit of agreements with publishers, but also profoundly unhelpful
> to readers. I think that it is far more important that we all work
> together to agree a system of nomenclature for journal versions, metadata
> to express this, and a protocol for forward and backward linking between
> versions. I can think of at least the following versions:

The two are not mutually exclusive. We definitely can and should all

    "work together to agree a system of nomenclature for journal versions,
    metadata to express this, and a protocol for forward and backward
    linking between versions. I can think of at least the following
    versions"

but, in addition to that, authors definitely can and should provide a
supplementary self-archived open-acces version for all those would-be users who
cannot afford access to the toll-access version.

>     Pre-submission version (may be more than one)
>     Submission version (may be more than one if returned for amendment
> and resubmission)
>     Accepted version, after peer review
>     Edited version, prior to publication
>     Formatted definitive publication version (e.g. PDF) but without
>     functionality
>     Fully edited, formatted and functional definitive version (i.e. on
>     publisher's site)
>     Post-publication version, with addenda/errata (may be more than one)

The most important version for would-be users, is the text, with all substantive
corrections and updates: That is what the author should self-archive. (*Of course*
it should identify itself as what it is, and link to all the other versions,
especially the definitive publisher's version. Good scholarly practice alone would
already dictate that!)

    http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#23.Version

> In a world where multiple versions may proliferate, I think we all -
> authors, universities and publishers alike - owe it to readers to tell
> them what they are looking at, and where other versions (in particular,
> the definitive version with or without functionality, which is the only
> version which should properly be cited) may be found.

I agree completely! But the other thing that authors and their unversities
(but not necessarily publishers) owe to both their readers and themselves
(and research productivity and progress itself), is a supplementary OA
version for all those would-be readers who cannot afford to access the
definitive version.

Stevan Harnad

AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:
A complete Hypermail archive of the ongoing discussion of providing
open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2004)
is available at:
    http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html
        To join or leave the Forum or change your subscription address:
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
        Post discussion to:
    american-scientist-open-access-forum at amsci.org

UNIVERSITIES: If you have adopted or plan to adopt an institutional
policy of providing Open Access to your own research article output,
please describe your policy at:
        http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php

UNIFIED DUAL OPEN-ACCESS-PROVISION POLICY:
    BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access
            journal whenever one exists.
            http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#journals
    BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable
            toll-access journal and also self-archive it.
            http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
    http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml






More information about the Jrnlnote mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net