[GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly articles
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Andrew A. Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp wrote: Now, I just archive and be damnedposting the author's final text (not the publisher PDF) in open depot ignoring any embargoes. If any publisher bothered to issue a take-down I'd reset to closed access (and always respond to button requests). None have so far. I agree completely! *Digital Formality Digital Reality* 1. Sixty percent of journals http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php (including Elsevierhttp://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php?id=30fIDnum=|mode=simplela=en) state formally in their copyright agreements that their authors *retain the right to make their final, peer-reviewed, revised and accepted version (Green) Open Access (OA) immediately, without embargo, by self-archiving them in their institutional repositories.* 2. The Elsevier take-down noticeshttp://www.elsevier.com/connect/a-comment-on-takedown-notices did not pertain to the author's final version but to the publisher's version of record http://www.crossref.org/02publishers/glossary.html (and in the case of 3rd party sites like academia.edu https://www.academia.edu/they concerned not only the version but the locationhttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/490-guid.html ). 3. The IDOA (immediate-deposit, optional-access) mandatehttp://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/01/u-of-liege-oa-mandate-now.html is formally immune to take-down notices, because it separates deposit from OA: 4. For articles published in the 60% of journals in which authors formally retain their right to provide immediate, unembargoed Green OA, they can be self-archived immediately in the institutional repository and also made OA immediately. 5. For articles published in the 40% of journals that formally embargo OA, if authors wish to comply with the publisher's embargo, the final, peer-reviewed, revised and accepted version can still be deposited immediately in the institutional repository, with access set as Closed Access (CA) during any embargo: only the title and abstract are accessible to all users; the full text is accessible only to the author. 6. For CA deposits, institutional repositories have an email-eprint-request Button http://wiki.eprints.org/w/RequestEprint with which individual users can launch an automated email request to the author for an individual copy for research purposes, with one click; the author can then decide, on an individual case by case basis, with one click, whether or not the repository software should email a copy to that requestor. 7. It is the IDOA + Button Strategy that is the update of the Harnad-Oppenheim Prepint + Corrigendahttp://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#Harnad/Oppenheim Strategy. 8. But of course even the IDOA + Button Strategy is unnecessary, as is definitively demonstrated by what I would like to dub the Computer Science + Physics Strategy: 9. Computer scientists since the 1980's and Physicists since the 1990's have been making both their preprints and their final drafts freely accessibly online immediately, without embargo (the former in institutional FTP archives and then institutional websiteshttp://csxstatic.ist.psu.edu/about, and the latter in Arxiv http://arxiv.org/stats/monthly_submissions, a 3rd-party website) without any take-down notices (and, after over a quarter century, even the mention of the prospect of author take-down notices for these papers is rightly considered ludicrous). 10. I accordingly recommend the following: Let realistic authors authors practice the Computer Science + Physics Strategy and let formalistic authors practice the IDOA + Button Strategy -- but let them all deposit their their final, peer-reviewed, revised and accepted versions immediately. Sale, A., Couture, M., Rodrigues, E., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2012) Open Access Mandates and the Fair Dealing Buttonhttp://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/. In: *Dynamic Fair Dealing: Creating Canadian Culture Online* (Rosemary J. Coombe Darren Wershler, Eds.) http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1095-Digital-Formality-Digital-Reality.html ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly articles
Interestingly, 2003 converges with the initial years of the open access movement... Paul From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Sally Morris [sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 8:17 AM To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' Subject: [GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly articles I find Andrew's experience surprising. When Cox Cox last looked into this (in 2008), 53% of publishers requested a copyright transfer, 20.8% asked for a licence to publish instead, and 6.6% did not require any written agreement. A further 19.6%, though initially asking for transfer of copyright, would on request provide a licence document instead. There had been a steady move away from transfer of copyright since 2003. Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Andrew A. Adams Sent: 05 February 2014 00:04 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly articles Chris Zielinski ziggytheb...@gmail.com wrote: But even more prudent authors simply shouldn't sign the copyright assignment form - publishers don't need anything more than a licence to publish. Good luck with that if you're anything other than a tenured professor with a track record that means where your recent papers are published won't effect funding decisions (individually or for your univesity). I tried to apply this rule myself a few years ago and after a couple of occasions of getting nowhere with the publishers decided that doing this individually was just harming my career and not having any impact on the journals. Now, I just archive and be damnedposting the author's final text (not the publisher PDF) in open depot ignoring any embargoes. If any publisher bothered to issue a take-down I'd reset to closed access (and always respond to button requests). None have so far. -- Professor Andrew A Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly articles
Sally, Percentages, unfortunately, don't always mean much. I haven't read the Cox Cox report, but it would be interesting to know if the four largest publishers – less than half a percent of publishers, yet together having a market share of perhaps as much as two thirds of the scholarly literature – are in the 53% mentioned, or not (or even in the 6.6% not requiring any written agreement, albeit most unlikely). It would make all the difference. Jan On 5 Feb 2014, at 13:17, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: I find Andrew's experience surprising. When Cox Cox last looked into this (in 2008), 53% of publishers requested a copyright transfer, 20.8% asked for a licence to publish instead, and 6.6% did not require any written agreement. A further 19.6%, though initially asking for transfer of copyright, would on request provide a licence document instead. There had been a steady move away from transfer of copyright since 2003. Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Andrew A. Adams Sent: 05 February 2014 00:04 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly articles Chris Zielinski ziggytheb...@gmail.com wrote: But even more prudent authors simply shouldn't sign the copyright assignment form - publishers don't need anything more than a licence to publish. Good luck with that if you're anything other than a tenured professor with a track record that means where your recent papers are published won't effect funding decisions (individually or for your univesity). I tried to apply this rule myself a few years ago and after a couple of occasions of getting nowhere with the publishers decided that doing this individually was just harming my career and not having any impact on the journals. Now, I just archive and be damnedposting the author's final text (not the publisher PDF) in open depot ignoring any embargoes. If any publisher bothered to issue a take-down I'd reset to closed access (and always respond to button requests). None have so far. -- Professor Andrew A Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly articles
Sally Morris wrote: When Cox Cox last looked into this (in 2008), 53% of publishers requested a copyright transfer, 20.8% asked for a licence to publish instead, and 6.6% did not require any written agreement. These figures don't mean much by themselves. When an exclusive licence is used, the author may actually end up with less permissions than what many copyright transfer agreements allow. Unfortunately, as Cox Cox report isn't freely available, I don't know if they distinguished exclusive and non-exclusive licences. In a more recent paper (2013), one of the Coxes, commenting the above mentioned study, makes it clear: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2333context=atg Who owns the copyright is much less important than what the author can do with his or her own work. I found in that short paper another interesting statement, quite well-founded if one remembers the discussions on this list about abstruse or incoherent information on many publisher websites. Publishers have been negligent in making clear to their authors how their copyright policies operate in practise. Well, some (including me, after having recently tried to decipher, not to say to simply find, the copyright section in some publisher websites) are tempted to see more than negligence there. Marc Couture ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly articles
An exclusive license, that prevents an author from exercising their copyright rights, may be as good as a copyright transfer as far as a publisher is concerned. In terms of the statistics you quote, do you know if that covers all types of publishers (for-profit, not-for-profit, societies, etc.), and if so, how does the breakdown correlate with the type of publisher? And how are publishers that publish a variety of closed, open and hybrid journals accounted for? G On 5 February 2014 13:17, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.ukwrote: I find Andrew's experience surprising. When Cox Cox last looked into this (in 2008), 53% of publishers requested a copyright transfer, 20.8% asked for a licence to publish instead, and 6.6% did not require any written agreement. A further 19.6%, though initially asking for transfer of copyright, would on request provide a licence document instead. There had been a steady move away from transfer of copyright since 2003. Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Andrew A. Adams Sent: 05 February 2014 00:04 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly articles Chris Zielinski ziggytheb...@gmail.com wrote: But even more prudent authors simply shouldn't sign the copyright assignment form - publishers don't need anything more than a licence to publish. Good luck with that if you're anything other than a tenured professor with a track record that means where your recent papers are published won't effect funding decisions (individually or for your univesity). I tried to apply this rule myself a few years ago and after a couple of occasions of getting nowhere with the publishers decided that doing this individually was just harming my career and not having any impact on the journals. Now, I just archive and be damnedposting the author's final text (not the publisher PDF) in open depot ignoring any embargoes. If any publisher bothered to issue a take-down I'd reset to closed access (and always respond to button requests). None have so far. -- Professor Andrew A Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarlyarticles
All this detail is contained in the report (Scholarly Publishing Practice 3, ALPSP, 2008 - http://www.alpsp.org/Ebusiness/ProductCatalog/Product.aspx?ID=44). It's free to ALPSP members, but others have to pay to access it. Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk _ From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Graham Triggs Sent: 05 February 2014 15:11 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarlyarticles An exclusive license, that prevents an author from exercising their copyright rights, may be as good as a copyright transfer as far as a publisher is concerned. In terms of the statistics you quote, do you know if that covers all types of publishers (for-profit, not-for-profit, societies, etc.), and if so, how does the breakdown correlate with the type of publisher? And how are publishers that publish a variety of closed, open and hybrid journals accounted for? G On 5 February 2014 13:17, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: I find Andrew's experience surprising. When Cox Cox last looked into this (in 2008), 53% of publishers requested a copyright transfer, 20.8% asked for a licence to publish instead, and 6.6% did not require any written agreement. A further 19.6%, though initially asking for transfer of copyright, would on request provide a licence document instead. There had been a steady move away from transfer of copyright since 2003. Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 tel:%2B44%20%280%291903%20871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Andrew A. Adams Sent: 05 February 2014 00:04 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly articles Chris Zielinski ziggytheb...@gmail.com wrote: But even more prudent authors simply shouldn't sign the copyright assignment form - publishers don't need anything more than a licence to publish. Good luck with that if you're anything other than a tenured professor with a track record that means where your recent papers are published won't effect funding decisions (individually or for your univesity). I tried to apply this rule myself a few years ago and after a couple of occasions of getting nowhere with the publishers decided that doing this individually was just harming my career and not having any impact on the journals. Now, I just archive and be damnedposting the author's final text (not the publisher PDF) in open depot ignoring any embargoes. If any publisher bothered to issue a take-down I'd reset to closed access (and always respond to button requests). None have so far. -- Professor Andrew A Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly articles
Hi all, This is an old issue. Kevin Smith is correct. Here's my version of why from 2006. http://carrollogos.blogspot.com/2006/05/copyright-in-pre-prints-and-post.htm l. The way to understand this is to forget about the sequence by which an article is produced and think only about the rights that a copyright owner has. On Professor Oppenheim's view, the copyright owner's exclusive right of reproduction would be limited to controlling only verbatim copies. If that were true, I would be free to republish the entire corpus of Elsevier publications if I make only small changes to the articles similar to the differences between a final draft and the final publication. Needless to say, if this were the law, some clever publisher would have done just as I suggest. But, this is not the law in the US or in the UK. So even if the publisher were to be assigned rights only in the final version of an article and most publication agreements are not this limited the scope of those rights would preclude posting of substantially similar versions whether those versions were created before or after the published version is produced. (US law uses the term substantially similar whereas UK law asks whether the copyright work has been copied in substantial part but it effectively means the same thing in this context. See http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about/c-economic.htm) Now, Steven Harnad is quite correct that in a majority of publication agreements, the publisher receives exclusive rights either by assignment or by exclusive license and then grants back to the author the non-exclusive rights to post some earlier version of the article. And, he is quite correct that not enough authors exercise the rights they have under their existing publication agreements. He is also right that they may (and should!) deposit copies of their final manuscripts in institutional or disciplinary repositories because the act of deposit is covered by the exceptions and limitations to copyright such as fair use or fair dealing in a substantial number of countries around the world. Best, Mike Michael W. Carroll Professor of Law and Director, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property American University Washington College of Law 4801 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20016 Office: 202.274.4047 Faculty page: http://www.wcl.american.edu/faculty/mcarroll/ Blog: http://carrollogos.blogspot.com Creative Commons: http://creativecommons.org Public Library of Science: http://www.plos.org From: Richard Poynder richard.poyn...@btinternet.com Reply-To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) goal@eprints.org Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 5:17 AM To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' goal@eprints.org Subject: [GOAL] Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly articles The recent decision by Elsevier to start sending take down notices to sites like Academia.edu, and to individual universities, demanding that they remove self-archived papers from their web sites has sparked a debate about the copyright status of different versions of a scholarly paper. Last week, the Scholarly Communications Officer at Duke University in the US, Kevin Smith, published a blog post challenging a widely held assumption amongst OA advocates that when scholars transfer copyright in their papers they transfer only the final version of the article. This is not true, Smith argued. If correct, this would seem to have important implications for Green OA, not least because it would mean that publishers have greater control over self-archiving than OA advocates assume. However Charles Oppenheim, a UK-based copyright specialist, believes that OA advocates are correct in thinking that when an author signs a copyright assignment only the rights in the final version of the paper are transferred, and so authors retain the rights to all earlier versions of their work, certainly under UK and EU law. As such, they are free to post earlier versions of their papers on the Web. Charles Oppenheim explains his thinking here: http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/guest-post-charles-oppenheim-on-who.ht ml Richard Poynder ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] OA mandate in Italy for young researchers
Hi, sorry for the cross-posting. I'd like to share with you this piece of news, which is still quite recent. The Italian Ministry of Education University and Research (MIUR) launched the first 2014 call for young researchers on Jan.23rd 2014. The call is named SIR (Scientific Independence of young Researchers) includes a clause mandating OA for publications and data based on the Horizon 2020 grant agreement clause (29.2) on OA to scientific publications and also 29.3 on OA to data http://attiministeriali.miur.it/anno-2014/gennaio/dd-23012014.aspx http://attiministeriali.miur.it/anno-2014/gennaio/dd-23012014.aspx (article 9) (in Italian- only ) It is a first step. It is worth remarking this is the first concrete action on OA by the Ministry as a funding institution. Regards, Paola PS Follows a rough translation into English *Article 9* Each Principal investigator (PI) must ensure open access (free of charge, online access for any user) to all peer-reviewed scientific publications relating to the results achieved in the project. In particular, PI must - as soon as possible and at the latest on publication, deposit a machine-readable electronic copy of the published version or final peer-reviewed manuscript accepted for publication in a repository for scientific publications; Moreover, PI must aim to deposit at the same time the research data needed to validate the results presented in the deposited scientific publications. - ensure open access to the deposited publication --- via the repository --- at the latest: on publication, if an electronic version is available for free via the publisher, or within six months of publication (twelve months for publications in the social sciences and humanities) in any other case. - ensure open access --- via the repository --- to the bibliographic metadata that identify the deposited publication. The bibliographic metadata must be in a standard format and must include all of the following: - the terms [Open Access MIUR ]; - the name of the programme, acronym and contract number; - the publication date, and length of embargo period if applicable, and - a persistent identifier -what is contemplated in the provisions of Article 4 of the Decree Law of 8 August 2013, converted with amendments by Law 91 of October 7, 2013 , 112 and , in particular, a project sheet listing the names of the individuals who contributed to its realization. 2 What isindicated above with respect to the publication of the research data does not affect any obligation of confidentiality , as well as requirements regarding the protection of personal data, both remain unaffected. 3 . As an exception, PIs are also exempted to ensure open access to specific parts of their research data, if open access to such data would compromise the achievement of the main objective of the research. In this case, the PI must depositin the repository,along with the publication, including a note explaining the reasons for not making available parts of the esearch data . -- Paola Gargiulo tel. +39-0226995-218 mobile +39 -328-9507128/ CINECA (Inter-University Computing Center) Via R.Sanzio, 4 E-mail: p.gargi...@cineca.it I-20090 Segrate (MI) - Italy skype account: Paola Gargiulo Progetto OpenAire e OpenAireplus - National Open Access Desk http://www.openaire.eu ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly articles
If license norms are broken down by discipline, I suspect they are very different for some disciplines. If I'm looking at publications for the correct Andrew A. Adams, I see engineering and computer science journals (IEEE and ACM publications). Maybe those fields tend towards more publisher control. -Wilhelmina Randtke On Feb 5, 2014 8:30 AM, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: I find Andrew's experience surprising. When Cox Cox last looked into this (in 2008), 53% of publishers requested a copyright transfer, 20.8% asked for a licence to publish instead, and 6.6% did not require any written agreement. A further 19.6%, though initially asking for transfer of copyright, would on request provide a licence document instead. There had been a steady move away from transfer of copyright since 2003. Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Andrew A. Adams Sent: 05 February 2014 00:04 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly articles Chris Zielinski ziggytheb...@gmail.com wrote: But even more prudent authors simply shouldn't sign the copyright assignment form - publishers don't need anything more than a licence to publish. Good luck with that if you're anything other than a tenured professor with a track record that means where your recent papers are published won't effect funding decisions (individually or for your univesity). I tried to apply this rule myself a few years ago and after a couple of occasions of getting nowhere with the publishers decided that doing this individually was just harming my career and not having any impact on the journals. Now, I just archive and be damnedposting the author's final text (not the publisher PDF) in open depot ignoring any embargoes. If any publisher bothered to issue a take-down I'd reset to closed access (and always respond to button requests). None have so far. -- Professor Andrew A Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: OA mandate in Italy for young researchers
Bravo Italy On Feb 5, 2014 1:17 PM, p.gargiulo p.gargi...@cineca.it wrote: Hi, sorry for the cross-posting. I'd like to share with you this piece of news, which is still quite recent. The Italian Ministry of Education University and Research (MIUR) launched the first 2014 call for young researchers on Jan.23rd 2014. The call is named SIR (Scientific Independence of young Researchers) includes a clause mandating OA for publications and data based on the Horizon 2020 grant agreement clause (29.2) on OA to scientific publications and also 29.3 on OA to data http://attiministeriali.miur.it/anno-2014/gennaio/dd-23012014.aspx(article 9) (in Italian- only ) It is a first step. It is worth remarking this is the first concrete action on OA by the Ministry as a funding institution. Regards, Paola PS Follows a rough translation into English *Article 9* Each Principal investigator (PI) must ensure open access (free of charge, online access for any user) to all peer-reviewed scientific publications relating to the results achieved in the project. In particular, PI must - as soon as possible and at the latest on publication, deposit a machine-readable electronic copy of the published version or final peer-reviewed manuscript accepted for publication in a repository for scientific publications; Moreover, PI must aim to deposit at the same time the research data needed to validate the results presented in the deposited scientific publications. - ensure open access to the deposited publication -- via the repository -- at the latest: on publication, if an electronic version is available for free via the publisher, or within six months of publication (twelve months for publications in the social sciences and humanities) in any other case. - ensure open access -- via the repository -- to the bibliographic metadata that identify the deposited publication. The bibliographic metadata must be in a standard format and must include all of the following: - the terms [Open Access MIUR ]; - the name of the programme, acronym and contract number; - the publication date, and length of embargo period if applicable, and - a persistent identifier - what is contemplated in the provisions of Article 4 of the Decree Law of 8 August 2013, converted with amendments by Law 91 of October 7, 2013 , 112 and , in particular, a project sheet listing the names of the individuals who contributed to its realization. 2 What is indicated above with respect to the publication of the research data does not affect any obligation of confidentiality , as well as requirements regarding the protection of personal data, both remain unaffected. 3 . As an exception, PIs are also exempted to ensure open access to specific parts of their research data, if open access to such data would compromise the achievement of the main objective of the research. In this case, the PI must deposit in the repository, along with the publication, including a note explaining the reasons for not making available parts of the esearch data . -- Paola Gargiulo tel. +39-0226995-218 mobile +39 -328-9507128/ CINECA (Inter-University Computing Center) Via R.Sanzio, 4 E-mail: p.gargi...@cineca.it I-20090 Segrate (MI) - Italy skype account: Paola Gargiulo Progetto OpenAire e OpenAireplus - National Open Access Deskhttp://www.openaire.eu ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Public (Library) Access: A Predictable Publish Sop/Swap for Open Access
I understand Heather Morrison's concern ... but the only way public libraries will be funded to provide additional computer/internet connections is thru additional use and complaints to local authorities. However, I strongly suspect that any increase in the use of public library computers by researchers from institutions that cannot afford subscription access will be miniscule ... Dana L. Roth Caltech Library 1-32 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540 dzr...@library.caltech.edu http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 6:30 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Public (Library) Access: A Predictable Publish Sop/Swap for Open Access Some questions and comments from the perspective of a librarian and information studies professor: If UK libraries are able to provide computers and internet access to members of the public, that's a good thing. However, if the UK is anything like Canada, then I would argue that there are more basic needs that public libraries need to meet. While as some of my colleagues are pointing out, many scholars have home computers and internet access, this is not true of everyone in the public. Here in Canada, line-ups at public libraries for computer and internet access and time limitations are quite common. Many people rely on these services in order to search and apply for employment and/or government services, to look up basic information needed for everyday life such as how to manage an illness, or for children or seniors, an opportunity to develop computer and internet skills that may be otherwise hard to come by. For me this is a more important question than the convenience of scholars not having to bother going to the public library: is locating this service in public libraries likely to make it even harder for people without computers and internet at home to search for books, for K-12 students to do their homework, for seniors to connect with family? I am also wondering whether public libraries have the staffing to provide these services. Outside of large urban centers the kind of specialized expertise one finds in an academic or special library is not common. In a small to medium-sized branch library, staff typically have to be generalists, to manage everything from preschool storytime to engaging teenagers in learning activities to helping seniors and the disabled to managing facilities issues. These issues might be addressed by increasing funding to public libraries. I am completely in favor of increasing funding to public libraries, but would providing open access to scholars who have home computers really be a priority if further funding is available? If public libraries are looking at this as a means to enhance their profile and standing, I argue that this is the wrong approach. Public libraries provide important services that can draw people to the library now and into the future. Forcing people to go to the library by taking on a gatekeeper role would not bode well for libraries. Aside from the library perspective, this concerns me as a fiscal conservative. Forcing people to rely on public resources when not really needed is not a good use of tax dollars. I am not a member of THE so regret that I am not allowed to comment on their site. If someone else is a member and would be willing to point to or copy this post that would be appreciated. my two bits, Heather Morrison On 2014-02-04, at 12:38 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote: [Re: Publishers launch free journal access for libraries (Paul Jump, THE)] The primary intended beneficiaries of research are the public that funds the research. The primary way in which the public benefits from the research it funds is if all researchers can access, use, build upon and apply it. Research is pubished in journals to which researchers' publicly funded institutions (mostly universities) subscribe. But institutions can only afford to subscribe to a small fraction of those journals. because of the high price of journals and the scarcity of research funds. That means that researchers are denied access to a large fraction of publicly funded research. That means the public is losing a large fraction of the potential returns on its investment in the research in has funded. Publishers not only overcharge for access to the publicly funded research that researchers give them for free and that researchers peer-review for them for free. Publishers also deny (embargo) non-subscriber access for 6 months, a year, 2 years, or even longer to the researchers who can use, build upon and apply it if their institutions cannot afford to subscribe to the journal in which it is published. And what do publishers
[GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly articles
Thanks to Michael Carroll for contributing to the discussion. Comments: Altering a work after publication by someone with no rights to claim copyright (e.g. re-publishing the Elsevier corpus with minor changes) is a very situation than the author's own prior versions of the work. In scholarship it is very common for authors to produce a number of versions of a work both before and after formal publication. I argue that only the formal published version is automatically covered by copyright (although with a really bad contract an author can sign away anything). Here is an example of a common series of versions of a work: a scholar might give an early version of a work-in-progress at a grad student conference, then include a more mature version in a thesis and possibly another conference presentation, then submit an article for publication. After publication, in my country and I suspect elsewhere knowledge dissemination is an expectation, and so an author is likely to create more versions of the same work, without sharing the specific version of the publisher. I doubt that scholarship is unique in this regard. If a story is published in an anthology that was previously published in a magazine or on a blog, the copyright in the original work does not disappear. This argument assumes a black-and-white single copyright owner approach. I would argue that this is not common in scholarship, but that rather rights sharing is far more common. As Sally Morris pointed out today on this list, the trend in scholarly publishing for the past decade has been away from copyright transfer to a license to publish approach. I would note that there is overlap between the actual rights of authors and publishers in license to publish and copyright transfer; it is possible for an author to have less rights with a license to publish than with full copyright transfer Open access policy relies on arguments that others besides authors and publishers have rights in scholarly works (taxpayers, funding agencies, universities). My perspective is that these arguments do not go far enough, but should include everyone who contributed to a work, including research subjects, and that ultimately the collective knowledge of humankind belongs to all. It is important to distinguish between what might technically be the law of today, and what we might envision as the best law for the future. Copyright law is by no means settled anywhere, but rather the subject of ongoing debate and discussion at WIPO, in trade treaty negotiations, the World Summit on the Information Society, through court cases and elsewhere. For this reason I would argue that we should not restrict discussion on this important topic to technical interpretations of copyright law today. best, Heather Morrison On 2014-02-05, at 11:28 AM, Michael Carroll wrote: Hi all, This is an old issue. Kevin Smith is correct. Here's my version of why from 2006. http://carrollogos.blogspot.com/2006/05/copyright-in-pre-prints-and-post.html. The way to understand this is to forget about the sequence by which an article is produced and think only about the rights that a copyright owner has. On Professor Oppenheim's view, the copyright owner's exclusive right of reproduction would be limited to controlling only verbatim copies. If that were true, I would be free to republish the entire corpus of Elsevier publications if I make only small changes to the articles similar to the differences between a final draft and the final publication. Needless to say, if this were the law, some clever publisher would have done just as I suggest. But, this is not the law in the US or in the UK. So even if the publisher were to be assigned rights only in the final version of an article – and most publication agreements are not this limited – the scope of those rights would preclude posting of substantially similar versions whether those versions were created before or after the published version is produced. (US law uses the term substantially similar whereas UK law asks whether the copyright work has been copied in substantial part but it effectively means the same thing in this context. See http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about/c-economic.htm) Now, Steven Harnad is quite correct that in a majority of publication agreements, the publisher receives exclusive rights either by assignment or by exclusive license and then grants back to the author the non-exclusive rights to post some earlier version of the article. And, he is quite correct that not enough authors exercise the rights they have under their existing publication agreements. He is also right that they may (and should!) deposit copies of their final manuscripts in institutional or disciplinary repositories because the act of deposit is covered by the exceptions and limitations to copyright – such as fair use or fair
[GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly articles
Sally Morris wrote: I find Andrew's experience surprising. When Cox Cox last looked into this (in 2008), 53% of publishers requested a copyright transfer, 20.8% asked for a licence to publish instead, and 6.6% did not require any written agreement. A further 19.6%, though initially asking for transfer of copyright, would on request provide a licence document instead. There had been a steady move away from transfer of copyright since 2003. What's surprising about the fact that if 50% or so of publishers require a copyright transfer that a personal policy of not transferring copyright would be a problem? In my first case there was a special issue call that was perfect for a paper I was in the process of writing. I asked the editor about anexclusive license to publish instead of a copyright transfer. The (academic) special issue editor passed me to the (academic) main editor who passed me to the (publishing house) production staff who said an unequivocal no. I passed on the special issue then had to go through three journals to find a suitable publication locus. Particularly when one's work is unusual and interdisciplinary, putting the extra burden of not transferring copyright on oneself limits one's choice of journals significantly and may well require publication in a far less prestigious place. The move may have been away fom copyright transfer, as it should be, but as I said for junior staff or those for whom publication locus is used by anyone as a quality proxy, it's not something one should do individually. -- Professor Andrew A Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Public (Library) Access: A Predictable Publish Sop/Swap for Open Access
I'm a subcriber and occasional columnist for the THE and I've found their OA coverage to be almost universally poor. Most of the feature articles are written by people who oppose OA for some reason (either publisher [including scholarly assocition] representatives mroe concerned with their publishing profits [surpluses] than academic communication; or academics who've not properly looked at the proposals and who conflate OA with removing peer review, or with Author-pays Gold OA only). Their staff articles are usually just as wrong-headed. -- Professor Andrew A Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
