It would simplify things a lot. 

So, the norm would be (mandated where needed) to deposit one's final 
manuscript, accepted for publication after peer-review, with a CC-BY licence, 
in a suitable repository, as soon as possible upon acceptance for publication. 
This has many similarities with deposit of preprints in arXiv. Publishers have 
not been concerned about arXiv. One reason is that versions of record are not 
deposited in arXiv.

Subsequent publication of the 'version of record' takes place in a journal. In 
case that journal is a 'gold' journal with CC-BY licences, authors may replace 
the manuscript in the repository by the published version. Or not deposit a 
manuscript version at all but simply wait until the open, CC-BY version of 
record is published and deposit that. Some automated arrangement to do so may 
be available for some 'gold' journals and some repositories, as is already the 
case here and there (e.g for UKPMC).

You may well be right that this very simple procedure would resolve most, 
perhaps all, problems of the Finch Report and RCUK policy plans. It also 
'de-conflates' money and cost concerns from open access and reuse concerns.

The only thing I'm not clear about is who the "we all" are who'd have to agree 
to launch this for Open Access week :-)

Jan Velterop

On 9 Oct 2012, at 22:28, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop <> wrote:
> There is an inconsistency here, either way. We've always heard, from Stevan 
> Harnad, that the author was the one who intrinsically had copyright on the 
> manuscript version, so could deposit it, as an open access article, in an 
> open repository irrespective of the publisher's views. If that is correct, 
> then the author could also attach a CC-BY licence to the manuscript version. 
> If it is incorrect, the author can't deposit the manuscript with open access 
> without the explicit permission of the publisher of his final, published 
> version, and the argument advanced for more than a decade by Stevan Harnad is 
> invalid. Which is it? I think Stevan was right, and a manuscript can be 
> deposited with open access whether or not the publisher likes it. Whence his 
> U-turn, I don't know. But if he was right at first, and I believe that's the 
> case, that also means that it can be covered by a CC-BY licence. Repositories 
> can't attach the licence, but 'gold' OA publishers can't either. It's always 
> the author, as copyright holder by default. All repositories and OA 
> publishers can do is require it as a condition of acceptance (to be included 
> in the repository or to be published). What the publisher can do if he 
> doesn't like the author making available the manuscript with open access, is 
> apply the Ingelfinger rule or simply refuse to publish the article.
> Jan,
> I think this is very important.
> If we can establish the idea of Green-CC-BY as the norm for deposition in 
> repositories then I would embrace it enthusiastically. I can see no downside 
> other than that some publishers will fight it. But they fight anyway 
> It also clairfies the difference between the final author ms and the 
> publisher version of record.
> It would resolve all the apparent problems of the Finch reoprt etc. It is 
> only because Green licences are undefined that we have this problem at all.
> And if we all agreed it could be launched for Open Access Week
> -- 
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list

GOAL mailing list

Reply via email to