[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories
I would definitely support this. Laurent Le 9 oct. 2012 à 23:28, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit : On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com 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@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal Laurent Romary INRIA HUB-IDSL laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories
Me to - this is the fundamental blocker when we try to explore full text content exchange between repositories. Jo On Oct 10, 2012, at 8:02 AM, Laurent Romary laurent.rom...@inria.fr wrote: I would definitely support this. Laurent Le 9 oct. 2012 à 23:28, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit : On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com 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@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal Laurent Romary INRIA HUB-IDSL laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ 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: CC-BY in repositories
Peter, 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 velte...@gmail.com 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@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: CC-BY in repositories
Maybe some publication repositories who would be ready to play the game, at institutional, national or thematic level, backed up by eminent and open (!) champions of the cause. Laurent Le 10 oct. 2012 à 13:15, Jan Velterop a écrit : 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 :-) Laurent Romary INRIA HUB-IDSL laurent.rom...@inria.fr ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories
Hopefully germane to this (developing) position, I've pushed for a CC-BY use licence on all content exposed through the soon to be launched Research Portal/IR at QUB. The leverage provided by RCUK's strong position on this is at least one positive during what has been a difficult summer for policy alignments. What we hope to achieve is a cascading licensing arrangement flagged to the item record with the top level as open as we can make it. Garret McMahon Queen's University Belfast On 10 October 2012 12:15, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, 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 velte...@gmail.com 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@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: CC-BY in repositories
Jan, What similarities with arXiv are you referring to? Arxiv allows an author to attach specific CC licences (two are allowable); EPrints presents the author with this option at deposit. But it is not mandated, and how commonly is this option taken by authors, in arXiv or any other repository? http://arxiv.org/help/license (note section: Licenses granted are irrevocable) http://publishing.mathforge.org/discussion/74/voluntary-posting-of-accepted-manuscripts-in-the-arxiv-subject-repository-is-permitted/ Everyone loves arXiv, but I'm not sure it provides any precedent or lead in this respect. Steve On 10 Oct 2012, at 12:15, Jan Velterop wrote: Peter, 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 velte...@gmail.com 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@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: CC-BY in repositories
I have no problem with this model, assuming that there is no compulsion from the RCs to move to the second stage of publishing in a journal. However, if there is a possibility that many articles will only go to stage 1 and are deposited in a repository without going on to be published in a journal, I fear that publishers and the UK Government would have serious objections to the proposal. Government policy is based upon the reverse of this proposal, i.e. publishing first in a journal to establish a “version of record” and then as a second stage (under the RCUK policy) depositing in a repository. I would like to see HM Government change their policy but what is there in this proposal to make them change their minds? Also the fact that the proposal “de-conflates money and cost concerns from open access and re-use concerns” is exactly what publishers would not want to agree to. They are not worried about arXiv because – so far at least – they have been able to maintain their revenues in spite of the text of the arXiv version being identical to the text of the “version of record” in a journal. They would be worried if this model spread to other subject areas. However, it is good to see this proposal appear as a way of testing out how the decision-makers will react. Fred Friend http://www.friendofopenaccess.org.uk From: Jan Velterop Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:15 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories Peter, 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 velte...@gmail.com 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
[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories
Steve, I wasn't clear. The 'similarity' refers to the idea of a repository for depositing preprints, as opposed to the published version of record. That's all. Don't read too much in the example. ArXiv allows CC-BY-NC-SA, which I don't advocate. But arXiv is just an example I had in mind. If Eprints is a clearer example, then fine. The essence is this: Deposit final manuscripts, accepted for publication after peer-review, with a CC-BY licence, in a suitable repository, as soon as possible upon acceptance for publication. It was called 'self-archiving' in the BOAI. Why we spent the last decade straying from the straightforward and conceptually simple path laid out in the BOAI, I don't know. The same thing happened with the definition of open access. Human — and especially academic — need and desire to complexify, I guess. Not everyone is born in Ockham. Jan On 10 Oct 2012, at 13:35, Steve Hitchcock wrote: Jan, What similarities with arXiv are you referring to? Arxiv allows an author to attach specific CC licences (two are allowable); EPrints presents the author with this option at deposit. But it is not mandated, and how commonly is this option taken by authors, in arXiv or any other repository? http://arxiv.org/help/license (note section: Licenses granted are irrevocable) http://publishing.mathforge.org/discussion/74/voluntary-posting-of-accepted-manuscripts-in-the-arxiv-subject-repository-is-permitted/ Everyone loves arXiv, but I'm not sure it provides any precedent or lead in this respect. Steve On 10 Oct 2012, at 12:15, Jan Velterop wrote: Peter, 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 velte...@gmail.com 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
[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories
On 9 Oct 2012, at 15:50, Ross Mounce wrote: [snip] Repositories cannot attach CC-BY licenses because most publishers still insist on copyright transfer. (Global Green OA will put an end to this, but not if it waits for CC-BY first.) I agree with the first half of the sentence BUT the second half your assertion: most publishers still insist on copyright transfer - where's the evidence for this? I want hard numbers. If there are ~25 or ~28 thousand active peer-reviewed journals (figures regularly touted, I won't vouch for their accuracy it'll do) and vastly fewer publishers of these, data can be sought to test this claim. For now I'm very unconvinced. I know of many many publishers that allow the author to retain copyright. It is unclear to me what the predominate system is with respect to this contra your assertion. 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 Velterop Finally: Green mandates don't exclude Gold: they simply allow but do not require Gold, nor paying for Gold. Likewise RCUK policy as I understand it does not exclude Green, nor paying for the associated costs of Green OA like institutional repositories, staff, repo development and maintenance costs. Gold is preferred but Green is allowed. Glad we've made that clear... Jinha, A. E. 2010. Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing 23:258-263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20100308 Kell, D. 2009. Iron behaving badly: inappropriate iron chelation as a major contributor to the aetiology of vascular and other progressive inflammatory and degenerative diseases. BMC Medical Genomics 2:2+. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1755-8794-2-2 McDonald, D Kelly, U 2012. The Value and Benefits of Text Mining. JISC Report http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2012/value-and-benefits-of-text-mining.aspx -- -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/- Ross Mounce PhD Student Panton Fellow Fossils, Phylogeny and Macroevolution Research Group University of Bath, 4 South Building, Lab 1.07 http://about.me/rossmounce -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/- ___ 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: CC-BY in repositories
Jan Velterop wrote: 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. First, let's point out that Stevan always made a difference between the preprint (eventually posted before any submission, thus any copyright agreement with a publisher) and the post-peer-review manuscript (or postprint). Stevan (and others) believe that the author retains the copyright on the preprint even after having transferred the copyright on the postprint, so that the preprint may be posted or remain in the repository at any time. As to the postprint, he suggests either the posting of a corrigenda describing the changes made to the submitted version or (more recently) the use of the email eprint request button. See http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#self-archiving-legal The problem I've got with his interpretation is that, except in the case of a major rewriting of the article, there is not enough difference between preprint and postprint to consider them as two different works with each its own copyright owner. But I think the issue here is posting the postprint, not the preprint, so that doesn't make any difference. Repositories can't attach the licence, but 'gold' OA publishers can't either. It's always the author, as copyright holder by default. But many publishers - even some gold OA publishers - still require transfer of copyright. In that case, they can attach any licence to the articles. And if a publisher requires a licence instead of copyright transfer (as it's more and more the case), the author, even if he or she remains the copyright holder of the published version, can't attach to it say, a CC-BY user licence, as it would most probably violate the terms of the publisher-author licence. Marc Couture ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories
[Continuing the cross-posting as I think this is very impotrtant.] On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com 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. I think this is really important. The problem has arisen in large part because the need for licenses was not clear and the technology to support them was not available when Open Access started. We now have a clear mechanism for describing the final state of a manuscript using CC-* licences. These are simple and extremely powerful. First a comment on Green. Green is defined as self-archiving - i.e a process. Howeve SH has agreed on this list that Green is a state of the final document. We can make statements such as: this manuscript M is available as a Green OA document in repository M. From thepoint of view of the accessor (user) of the document it is irrelevant how it got there. It may have been single-clicked by a user in Soton or through a much more arduous process in some other repositories. It may have been deposited by Elsevier as part of their agreement with NIH. These are all equivalent to the final user - the document is there. However the document does not, per se indicate that it is Green and without a licence there is no way of knowing definitively. If it is removed from the repo (e.g. downloaded onto a desktop all the metadata in the repo is lost. In conttast documents published with Gold publishers such as BMC or PLoS or IUCr or EGU or many others are carefully labelled with copyright and licence (they are formally separate). This means that any relocation of the document preserves the copyright owner and the licence. The problem with Green and I suspect many hybrid Gold (Ross do we have evidence on this?) is that the documents may not carry the copyright and the licence. I think it is critical that all documents - whether Green or Gold - are now labelled with both copyright owner and licence. It is technically simple to add to the productions process and it should be possible to add to the deposition in a repository. The problem with many publishers terms and conditions are that they are badly written and often self-contradictory. It is impossible for a reader to determine what their rights are. In an industry which takes about 15 Billion from the academic sector it is surely possible to create a quality approach to labelling and licensing. I will comment on the idea of authors adding CC-BY licences separately. I think it has great potential. I cannot see why all members of this list should not support it. -- 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@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com 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@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
