On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Stevan Harnad <[email protected]> wrote:
The issue is the self-contradiction between (1) a formal statement
that a right rests with the author (i.e., does not require seeking
the agreement of the publisher) yet at the same time (2) stipulating
that the right to *exercise* that right requires seeking agreement
from the publisher!
This is exactly the issue. Is self-archiving a right? I think it *should* be but
I have always assumed that many people see it as a hard-won concession from the
publisher.
This is why I keep urging formal definitions and formal procedures. At present
that seems that publisher "agreements" are made with individual organizations or
even individuals. Publisher statements (such as statements of permission to
self-archive) can be rescinded later (as appears here, at least in practice) or
modified without notification.
Meanwhile the actual practices are in secret contracts between N publishers and
M universities - an N*M confusion matrix.
I would feel more positive about Green OA if it was a formalized process as
opposed to resting on fuzzy concepts. For example there seem to many different
definitions of what self-archiving is, and this varies between publishers.
--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
[ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
