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
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:
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
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,
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.),
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
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
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
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
Hi all,
As in all things legal, only a court decision could really settle this issue.
In the meanwhile, legal commentators can weight the various arguments, drawing
upon similar court decisions and legal principles.
Unfortunately, neither Charles Oppenheimer nor Kevin Smith go much farther
This will surely depend on on the wording of the copyright assignment
notice.
Prudent authors should only sign away the rights to the final version of
their paper (in this case, as edited and modified by Elsevier).
This was the subversiveness in the original Harnad subversive proposal to
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
