A response to Stevan Harnad's reply. Unless I have seriously misunderstood Open Archiving, it entails making a separate copy of a work available for access without charge, and not merely providing a google-type link to the article on the commercial publisher's website (which would be subject to access tolls). It is therefore a form of publication, both legally and in practical terms. That is why commercial publishers are reluctant to allow authors to retain the right to self-archive, especially in an eprint archive which would be fully searchable, and hence would directly compete with their journal. That is why Nature says it would be a breach of their licence (i.e. the rights they require authors to transfer to them) to publish/archive a paper in an institutional eprints archive.
That is why open archiving inevitably comes into conflict with existing commercial publishing models, and there is a debate here and elsewhere about alternative business models. I think a good case can be made that open archiving would not seriously damage commercial publishing, but I can see why commercial publishers are reluctant to take the risk. It is no doubt easier to make a case for open archiving of works for which the author receives no payment, which Stevan characterises as Giveaway, but the publishers merely respond that they bear all the remaining costs, which are substantial. Stevan is wrong to characterise some authors as giveaway and others as non-giveaway. Many academic authors in many fields list among their research publications items for which they have received some form of payment, as well as others where this is not so (both in journals and not infrequently books). I assume we support moves such as the decision by UC Press to make many of its books available online? An important reason open archiving has been slow to take off is that academic authors are generally reluctant to oppose publishers who ask for exclusive publication rights. It would be easier to do this collectively and with institutional support or leadership. That is the importance of the claim by universities to retain the right to authorise free publication in archives. I'm glad that Stevan accepts that this can be done in parallel, but sorry he is so reluctant to concede that it is an important complementary step. cheers sol cheers sol ********************************* Sol Picciotto Lancaster University Law School Lonsdale College Lancaster LA1 4YN direct line (44) (0)1524-592464 fax (44) (0)1524-525212 [email protected] *********************************
