> Stevan Harnad wrote: > > Government researchers are contractually forbidden to transfer > copyright for their research reports, so they simply license the > right to publish and sell to the publisher, as in the Nature license: > http://npg.nature.com/pdf/05_news.pdf > > There is no reason all authors of refereed research > articles should not do the same; but there is also no need. If > they retain the self-archiving right, that is sufficient; > http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20 Policies.htm
I would beg to differ here. Retaining copyright is far superior to assigning it, even with a self-archiving concession. The reason being: if academics retain their copyright they are in a position to state how end-users may use their work (e.g. multiple copies, print, save, as long as author is attributed, etc). If academics assign their copyright, even if the publisher allows them to self-archive, end-users may only *legally* use that work under the restrictive constraints of copyright law (one copy for research and private study in the UK). Elizabeth Gadd ************************************************* Elizabeth Gadd, Research Associate & Editor, Library and Information Research Department of Information Science Loughborough University Loughborough, Leics, LE11 3TU Tel: +44 (0)1509 222178 Fax: +44 (0)1509 223053 Email: [email protected] ************************************************
