Saturday, June 13. 2009
See also:Colin Smith [CS], Repository Manager, Open University, wrote, in JISC-Repositories:
CS: "[D]espite what is written on [Wiley/Blackwell's] website, I remain concerned by some other information I received, and by the wording on their copyright form, which appears to contradict the information on their website."Colin, please let me preface my reply with a reaffirmation of the fact that I think your efforts on behalf of OA and filling OU's IRs with OA's target content are extremely valuable, timely and welcome, both for OU and for OA.
If I venture to offer some practical advice, it is in no way intended to imply that your work is less than precious. I am merely suggesting ways in which it can be made ever more effective. And one of those ways is to reassure authors by putting their (largely naive and groundless) worries about copyright at ease, rather than reinforcing them.
The default explanation and advice to OU's authors regarding their right to deposit their refereed, accepted final drafts in OU's repository should (in my judgment) be the following:
That, I think, is the only advice an institution and its repository should be giving its authors, to inform and reassure them about (1) their right to deposit and (2) their right to set access to their deposit as OA.(1) Every final draft can and should be deposited in OU's IR immediately upon acceptance for publication. There is absolutely no legal obstacle to doing this, without exception; publisher policy and copyright are completely irrelevant to making this deposit.
But none of this advice will have much effect one way or the other until and unless OU adopts an OA mandate:
The best institutional reassurance to its authors is an official institutional deposit mandate. The correct and complete advice (in my view) is (1) - (4) above. More (e.g., fretting about contradictory formal statements by publishers) would be just reinforcing author worries rather than reducing them.[T]he principal purpose of mandates themselves is to reinforce researchers' already-existing inclination to maximise access and usage for their give-away articles, not to force researchers to do something they don't already want to do.CS: "By posting on this issue, I am simply sharing information with the repository community to help us make informed decisions on behalf of our depositors. One of the biggest selling points when advocating open access self-archiving is to reassure our academics that we know what we are doing when it comes to checking publishers’ copyright and self-archiving policies. Depositors are placing their faith in our knowledge and expertise, and therefore I certainly do not think it is a mistake to be thorough."
Nor do authors need to resort to "faith." In cases where they have any "reasonable doubts" they should simply set access provisionally as "Closed Access," rather than not depositing at all -- or depositing only after any embargo has elapsed.
CS: "For green OA to be successful, it must be sustainable. For it to be sustainable, it needs to offer a good service."For green OA to be sustainable, it has to be mandated. Otherwise there is nothing to sustain. Repository managers and library staff trying to beg, borrow or appeal deposits through reassurances about legality will never come anywhere near filling an IR with its target OA content. What is needed is an official institutional deposit mandate.
CS: "If academics think (rightly or wrongly) that we are placing them at risk by making decisions based on cherry-picked statements that suit us, I think most would not see this as providing a good service. Therefore, is it not a strategic mistake to not consider carefully any publisher mixed messages?"I think that there might be an underlying premise here to the effect that: the way to fill an IR is to provide unmandated authors with a proxy deposit service together with reassuring legal advice.
My own view, for what it's worth, is that this premise is profoundly erroneous: that (1) - (4) is all that repository managers and librarians need to do for authors (though if for some reason they really wish to, they can do their keystrokes for them too).
Any further effort and energy (apart from the technical maintenance of the IR, including the all-important incentive: IRstats) will be most fruitful if directed toward persuading the university (as well as its individual faculties, schools, departments and labs) of the necessity, feasibility and benefits of adopting a Green OA deposit mandate, rather than fussing about publishers' self-contradictory policy statements. We have to keep reminding ourselves that self-archiving is entirely in the hands of the research community, not the publishing community -- but those hands (or rather their fingertips) need to be mandated into movement:
It is useful for the research community to keep reminding itself that the only thing that stands between them and universal OA is keystrokes.
American Scientist Open Access Forum
Thursday, May 21. 2009
On 21-May-09, at 6:58 AM, in the American Scientist Open Access Forum, C.J.Smith posted "The definitive answer from Wiley-Blackwell":
I don't think anything like a definitive answer has been reached through this proxy permission-seeking, insofar as Wiley's Green-status is concerned: All we have is coyness and self-contradiction from Wiley, about whether or not it endorses immediate author Open Access Self-Archiving of the final, refereed draft (postprint).In the Wiley-Blackwell copyright assignment form, which most authors publishing in this company’s journals will sign, it states (under item ‘C.2. Permitted Uses by Contributor > Accepted Version’) that:
First, there appear to be three Wileys:
Second, the three Wileys have inconsistent self-archiving policy statements -- inconsistent among the three of them, and inconsistent within each.John Wiley & Sons (GREEN)
Wiley-Blackwell says this :
Wiley-VCH says this (sample from one of its journals): John Wiley & Sons says this (sample from one of its journals):Wiley-Blackwell journal authors can use their accepted article in a number of ways, including in publications of their own work and course packs in their institution. An electronic copy of the article (with a link to the online version) can be posted on their own website, employer's website/repository and on free public servers in the subject area. For full details see authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/faqs_copyright.asp .
(1) Under all circumstances, deposit the final, refereed, accepted draft of your journal article (postprint) in your Institutional Repository (IR), immediately upon acceptance for publication. There is no need whatsoever to make a single exception.And above all, reflect that if the millions of articles that have been made OA (by computer scientists, physicists, economists, and all other disciplines) since the 1980's had waited (or asked) for a clear, unambiguous green light in advance from each publisher, we would have virtually none of those millions of articles accessed, used and built-upon across those decades by the many users worldwide whose institutions could not afford access to the publisher's subscription edition.
A word to the wise...
American Scientist Open Access Forum
Thursday, April 30. 2009
An update of Harvard computer scientist Michael Merzinich's "The ACM Does NOT Support Open Access" (discussed here yesterday) reports that ACM has made it clear it is fully Green on OA self-archiving, but that discussions with Harvard are still underway for the extra re-use rights stipulated in the Author's Addendum.
The nuances here are about the differences between "gratis" OA (free online access) and "libre" OA (free online access plus certain further re-use rights).
I will make no secret of what my own view on this is -- and I've been at this for a very, very long time: Free online access ("gratis OA") is all you need in order to make all the rest happen. The rest will come with the territory, eventually; but the territory must come first. Gratis OA can be and is being mandated by universities and funders (but so far there are only 77 mandates, out of a potential worldwide total of 10,000 or more).
Libre OA asks for more, and entails more complications. Hence it is both harder to agree on adopting a Libre OA mandate, and harder to get compliance (rather than opt-out). The right strategy is hence to stick to mandating Gratis OA for now. Gratis OA is urgent; addenda can wait. The "Green" journals that have already formally endorsed providing immediate Gratis OA (63%) are on the side of the angels. It is foolish and counterproductive to demonize them. If one wants to rant at journals, rant at the pale-green ones, that only endorse self-archiving unrefereed preprints, and that embargo Gratis OA to the refereed postprints (34%); or the gray journals, that don't endorse any form of self-archiving at all (3%).
Libre OA will come, as surely as day follows night, once we have reached universal Green Gratis OA. To insist on over-reaching instead for Libre OA now (by insisting on Libre OA author addenda), instead of grasping the Green Gratis OA that is already within our reach (yet still not being grasped by 99.937% of the universities and funders on the planet) is just one of a long litany of gratuitous mistakes we keeping making over and over, needlessly delaying the optimal, inevitable, obvious and long overdue outcome, year upon year.
The "over-reaching" list is long, and includes the sublime and the ridiculous: Libre OA (re-publishing and re-use rights for refereed journal articles, when Green Gratis OA would already have them online free for any user webwide, 24/7), Gold OA publishing, central (rather than institutional) self-archiving, the publisher's PDF (rather than just the author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft), peer-review reform, publishing reform, copyright reform, freeing all "knowledge" (rather than just freeing all of refereed research first), solving "the" digital preservation problem, solving "the" online search problem, etc. etc.
Mark my words. We will no doubt continue this fruitless frenzy of over-reaching in all directions for some time to come (world hunger may be next on the OA agenda) instead of doing the immediately doable (which is the mandating of universal Green Gratis OA by all universities and all funders), but in the end it will become clear that in order to have all the good things worth having among the things that can be nontrivially linked to OA, all we ever had to do was those those simple 99,937 GG mandates (plus the distributed volley of keystrokes they entail).
Test What Already Comes with the Gratis Green OA Territory:
"Re-use rights for teaching" are as good example as any of how people are simply not thinking through what really comes with the territory with Gratis Green OA:
If you deposit your article, free for all, in Harvard's Institutional Repository (IR), every teacher and every student webwide has 24/7 access to it -- can link to it, read it on-screen, download it, print it off, data-crunch it.
The days of permissions and "course packs" (for refereed journal articles) would be over -- completely over -- if all universities and funders mandated that all their employees' and fundees' refereed journal articles (the authors' final refereed drafts) were deposited in their IRs, thereby making them Gratis Green OA (the kind ACM endorses).
Now try that out as an intuition pump with some of the other things you thought you desperately needed the Author's Addendum for, over and above GG OA...
There will be a few -- a very few. But none of them will be remotely as important and urgent as Gratis Green OA itself. Yet here we are, holding up GG OA because we are holding for and haggling over needless Author's Addenda instead of working to universalize vanilla GG OA.
And even the very few uses that don't come immediately with the GG OA territory will follow soon after, once we have reached or neared universal GG OA.
First things first... Or, Let not the Best stand in the way of the (immeasurably) Better...
Now back to the soothing fulminations against ACM for not immediately conceding the re-use rights that the author-addendum mandates are needlessly insisting upon...
American Scientist Open Access Forum
Tuesday, November 25. 2008
Comment on EU Green Paper:I am commenting only on the bearing of EC policy on one specific body of content: The 2.5 million articles per year published in the world's 25,000 peer-reviewed research journals in all fields of science and scholarship.
The authors of all these articles neither receive nor seek royalty or fees from access-tolls to their users or their users' institutions. These authors only seek that these research findings should be accessed and used as fully and widely and possible, to the benefit of research progress and applications, and hence to the benefit of the society that funds their research and their institutions.
Making this specific body of research accessible free for all on the Web ("Open Access") will maximise its usage and impact. It does not require a major or even minor reform in copyright law. All it requires is that the authors of these 2.5 million annual peer-reviewed research articles make them open access by depositing them in their own institution's/university's Repository. Sixty-three percent of journals already formally endorse depositing the author's final, revised, peer-reviewed draft in their institutional repository immediately upon acceptance for publication, and immediately making that deposited draft accessible free for all.
For that 63% of articles, it should be evident that no copyright reform whatsoever is needed. What is needed is that the authors' institutions and funders mandate (require) that they deposit and make them Open Access immediately upon acceptance by those journals.
The remaining 37% of articles can also be deposited in the author's institutional repository immediately upon acceptance for publication, but unless their publisher endorses making them immediately Open Access, the deposit has to be set initially as Closed Access (accessible only institution-internally, to the author and his employer).
It is here that legislation can help, although it is not certain that even that is necessary: A Europe-wide law requiring that publicly-funded research and research produced by employees of publicly funded universities must be made openly accessible will exert the requisite pressure on the remaining 37% journals so that they too should endorse that the deposited articles are immediately made Open Access rather than Closed Access.
Note that peer-reviewed research is fundamentally unlike books, textbooks, software, music, and videos. It is in its very essence author give-away content, written only to be used, applied and built-upon. Unlike the creators of the other kinds of content, all the authors of the annual 2.5 million peer-reviewed journal articles want them to be free to all would-be users.
Hence, whatever rationale there may be for changing copyright law for all the other kinds of digital content, in the case of the target content of the Open Access movement, no change is necessary other than a formal publisher endorsement of making the author's final draft freely accessible online.
Free online access provides for the following forms of usage: Being able to find online, link, view online, download, store, print-off (for individual use) and data-mine. These uses all come automatically all come automatically with free online access. Open Access content is also harvested by search engines like google.
But there are further uses, over and above these, that some fields of research feel they need, including modification and republication. It is likely that free online access will moot the need for copyright modification to guarantee these further uses, but there is no harm in trying to stipulate them formally in advance, as long as it is not treated as a prerequisite for Open Access, of for Open Access Mandates.
COPYRIGHT REFORM SHOULD NOT BE MADE A PRECONDITION FOR MANDATING OPEN ACCESS
American Scientist Open Access Forum
Thursday, November 13. 2008
Copyright Regulation in Europe – An Enabling or Disabling Factor for Science Communication
Urheberrechtsregulierung als Ermöglichungs-bzw. als Verhinderungsfaktor für Wissenschaftskommunikation
European Network for Copyright in Support of Education
European Workshop Program
Nov. 14-15, 2008
Location: Heinrich-Böll-Foundation, Schumannstr. 8, Berlin-Mitte, Germany
Thursday – Nov. 13, 2008
21:00 – 22:30 Chimney talk : Jerzy Montag, MP,spokesman for law politics, BÜNDNIS90/DIE GRÜNEN (Green Party) in the German Parliament
Friday - Nov. 14, 2008
9:00 – 9:15 Ralf Fücks, Andreas Poltermann, Heinrich-Böll-Foundation
Welcome addresses, Introduction to the conference
9:15 – 9:30 All participants Introduction
Session 1: Copyright and science – Demands and objectives
Moderation: Rainer Kuhlen
9:30 – 10:15 Rainer Kuhlen, University of Konstanz (Germany)
Copyright and science – Demands and objectives
10:15 – 10:45 Gerhard Fröhlich, University of Linz (Austria)
Free copying or plagiarism?
10:30 – 11:00 Panel discussion:
Rainer Kuhlen, Gerhard Fröhlich, Stuart Taylor, The Royal Society (United Kingdom), Florin Filip, Academy of Romania (Romania), Agnès Ponsati, CSIC Library Network, Spanish National Research Council (Spain)
Session 2: Exceptions and limitations or a copyright blanket clause for science
Moderation: Wolf-Dieter Sepp
11:30 – 12:00 Lucie Guibault, University of Amsterdam (Netherlands)
A framework for an obligatory system of exceptions and limitations
12:00 – 12:30 Séverine Dusollier, University of Namur (Belgium)
A systematic approach to exceptions in the European Union
12:30 – 13:00 Panel discussion:
Lucie Guibault, Séverine Dusollier, María J. Iglesias, University of Namur (Belgium), Jaak Järv, Estonian Academy of Sciences (Estonia), Benjamin Bajon, Max-Planck-Institut für Geistiges Eigentum, Wettbewerbs-und Steuerrecht (Germany)
Session 3: Open Access – An alternative to or a replacement for copyright
Moderation: Lucie Guibault
14:00 – 14:30 Stevan Harnad, UQAM (Canada) & University of Southampton (United Kingdom) (via teleconference)
Copyright Reform Should Not Be Made A Precondition For Mandating Open Access
14:30 – 15:00 Hélène Bosc, Euroscience Open Access Working (France)
Open access to the scientific literature: a peer commons open to the public
15:00 – 15:30 Panel discussion:
Stevan Harnad, Hélène Bosc, Rainer Kuhlen, Ji•i Rákosník, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (Czech Republic), Jaak Järv, Estonian Academy of Sciences (Estonia)
Session 4: The Green Paper "Copyright in the Knowledge Economy"
Moderation: Gerald Spindler, University of Göttingen (Germany)
16:00 – 16:30 Rainer Kuhlen, Information Science, University of Konstanz (Germany)
Introduction to Green Paper
16:30 – 18:00 Workshop:
Green Paper on "Copyright in the Knowledge Economy"; elaboration of a common statement
Saturday – Nov 15, 2008
Session 5: Science communication and collaboration
Moderation: Michael Seadle, Institute for Library and Information Science, HU Berlin
9:30 – 10:00 Paul Ayris (UK), UNICA Scholarly Communications Group
The future of scholarly publication
10:00 – 10:30 Panel discussion:
Paul Ayris, Gerhard Fröhlich, University of Linz (Austria), Ágnes Téglási, Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Hungary), Rosa Nyárády, UNESCO chair in communication (Hungary), Ján Bako•, Slovak Academy of Sciences (Slovakia)
Session 6: Founding of the ENCES network: European Network for Copyright in support of Education and Science
Moderation: Rainer Kuhlen, University of Konstanz (Germany)
11:00 – 12:00 Workshop:
Green Paper "Copyright in the Knowledge Economy"; common statement and forming of ENCES ( = European Network for Copyright in support of Education and Science)
Tuesday, September 30. 2008
See this letter from 46 law professors and specialists in copyright law for a brilliant defense of the NIH Green OA Self-Archiving Mandate against the absurd charges of the publisher's lobby and its attorneys in the Conyers Bill.
I generally avoid the legal aspects of OA because I can see so clearly that 100% Green OA can be quickly and easily achieved without having to waste a single minute on legal obstacles (via the IDOA Mandate). But this is such an articulate and rigorous set of legal arguments that I could not resist posting them further just for the delight of the ineluctable logic alone.
Read, enjoy, admire, and rest assured that whether via the legalisticroute or just good, practical sense, OA will prevail. It is optimal, inevitable, and irresistible. The anti-OA lobby is wasting its money in trying to invoke law or laws to stop it; at best, they can just buy a bit more time. (But if universities and funders opt directly for IDOA mandates, that will deny the anti-OA lobby even that.)
American Scientist Open Access Forum
PS Unless I am mistaken, one detects the unseen legal hand and mind of Peter Suber, plus a goodly dose of the seen hand and mind of Michael Carroll in the drafting of this legal and logical masterpiece.
Wednesday, July 2. 2008
From the OAK Law Project, an OA Guide for Authors written by Kylie Pappalardo (with the assistance of Professor Brian Fitzgerald, Professor Anne Fitzgerald, Scott Kiel-Chisholm, Jenny Georgiades and Anthony Austin):
"Understanding Open Access in the Academic Environment: A Guide for Authors [by Kylie Pappalardo (with the assistance of Professor Brian Fitzgerald, Professor Anne Fitzgerald, Scott Kiel-Chisholm, Jenny Georgiades and Anthony Austin)] aims to provide practical guidance for academic authors interested in making their work more openly accessible to readers and other researchers. The guide provides authors with an overview of the concept of and rationale for open access to research outputs and how they may be involved in its implementation and with what effect. In doing so it considers the central role of copyright law and publishing agreements in structuring an open access framework as well as the increasing involvement of funders and academic institutions. The guide also explains different methods available to authors for making their outputs openly accessible, such as publishing in an open access journal or depositing work into an open access repository. Importantly, the guide addresses how open access goals can affect an author’s relationship with their commercial publisher and provides guidance on how to negotiate a proper allocation of copyright interests between an author and publisher. A Copyright Toolkit is provided to further assist authors in managing their copyright."
Monday, May 19. 2008
Peter Murray-Rust is quite right that ACS is likely to be the very last of all publishers to go Green on OA self-archiving, but he is mistaken about most of the others on his list:Peter Murray-Rust: “Most chemistry publishing is closed access, not even allowing Green self-archiving (unless paid for). There is no sign that any of the major closed publishers (ACS, RSC, Wiley, Springer, Elsevier, Nature) are likely to change in the immediate future.”
(1) Pale-green means the publisher endorses the self-archiving of the author’s draft but not the final refereed postprint (though often what the publisher really means by the postprint is the publisher’s PDF).
The difference between the author’s penultimate draft and the final, refereed draft is of course a purely notional one, and no faintly coherent case for the distinction could ever be made in a court of law. So although some superstitious authors make a distinction between pale-green publishers and green publishers, of course there is in reality no substantive difference: Both have given their blessing to the self-archiving of the author’s final draft.
(Gray does indeed mean neither Gold nor Green. But Gold OA publishers are of course, a fortiori, also Green. So the only relevant distinction at issue is Green vs. not-Green.)
(2) The RSC has some right royal double-talk in its contracts. They say they endorse self-archiving on the author’s “personal website”, but not the author’s “institutional repository”:
“When the author signs the exclusive Licence to Publish for a journal article, he/she retains certain rights that may be exercised without reference to the RSC. He/she may…This is of course arbitrary gibberish, and again only for the credulous and the superstitious. All RSC authors can self-archive their final drafts in their own IRs with perfect impunity. A “personal website” is merely a disk sector label. For the pedant, the university can (as Southampton ECS has done since 2002) formally declare an author’s IR disk sector to be the author’s “personal website”:
“3e. Copyright agreements may state that eprints can be archived on your personal homepage. As far as publishers are concerned, the EPrint Archive is a part of the Department’s infrastructure for your personal homepage.”In a few years we will be giggling shame-facedly at the stuff and nonsense that kept (most of) us from going ahead and doing the optimal, inevitable and obvious for so long.
American Scientist Open Access Forum
Thursday, April 10. 2008
Robert Kiley [Wellcome Trust] wrote:
"Conscious that this licence only extends to "gold" OA articles, the Trust is continuing to work with publishers to explore the possibility of developing a similar licence for author manuscripts."
It's important that everyone understand clearly what is at issue here:
(1) The Wellcome Trust, the world's first research funder to mandate OA, has not only mandated Green OA self-archiving, but has also made funds available to authors to pay their publishers to make their articles Gold OA, in order to make them not just price-barrier-free (Green OA) but also permissions-barrier-free.
(2) This means that non-OA publishers, while continuing to receive full subscription revenue, are paid extra fees by Wellcome in exchange for the extra usage rights.
(3) There is no question that these extra usage rights are welcome and useful.
(4) The question is whether they are worth the extra money at this time.
(5) The problem is not only that the extra money is being diverted from research funds (at a time when research funds are getting ever scarcer and harder to come by).
(6) The problem is also that paying the publishers extra money is not a solution that scales: Wellcome may be able to afford it, but what about all the rest of the world's research output, unfunded by Wellcome?
(7) Can all funders afford (and do they wish) to divert scarce research funds to pay for extra publisher costs?
(8) And what about unfunded research?
(9) Can universities afford (and do they wish) to adopt OA mandates that also entail paying publishers extra fees? Should they want to?
(10) Perhaps most important: Are these extra (welcome, useful) usage rights worth making a fuss about just now, when we do not yet even have universal Green OA, or universal Green OA mandates?
(11) Will fussing about "fair use is not enough" at this time increase or decrease the probability that the world's research institutions and funders converge on a scaleable strategy that will at least deliver universal Green OA (at long last)?
(12) To repeat: It is not that the extra usage rights are not useful, desirable and welcome, nor that a large private research funder like Wellcome is not to be commended for being willing to put both their efforts and their money behind securing them.
(13) It is that this is not the time to focus on what universal Green OA mandates will not deliver.
(14) It is the time to put our full collective weight behind the solution that will scale up to deliver universal Green OA.
(15) (It is virtually certain that universal Green OA itself will then go on to usher in the extra usage rights -- at no extra charge.)
American Scientist Open Access Forum
Wednesday, April 9. 2008
I think it would be a big strategic mistake if today, when the cupboards are still 85% bare, we were to start insisting that deposits must all be Cordon Bleu ****.
OA just means free online access to the full-text of refereed journal articles. Please let's not risk getting less by needlessly insisting on more. The rest will come in due time, but what is urgently needed today, and what is still 85% overdue by more than 10 years today, is free online access. Let the Green OA mandates provide that, and the rest will all come naturally with the territory soon enough of its own accord.
But over-reach gratuitously now, and we will just delay the optimal and inevitable, already within our reach, still longer.
Ceterum Censeo: The BBB "definitions" (which were not brought down to us by Moses from On High, but puttered together by muddled mortals, including myself) are not etched in stone, and need some tweaking to get them right.
The further "rights" for 3rd-party databases to data-mine and re-publish will come after universal Green OA mandates generate universal OA (free online access). But you'll never get universal Green OA mandates if you insist in advance that the 3rd-party re-use rights must be part of the mandate! (Notice that the Harvard mandate has an opt-out, which means it's not a mandate.)
American Scientist Open Access Forum
Syndicate This Blog
Materials You Are Invited To Use To Promote OA Self-Archiving:
The American Scientist Open Access Forum has been chronicling and often directing the course of progress in providing Open Access to Universities' Peer-Reviewed Research Articles since its inception in the US in 1998 by the American Scientist, published by the Sigma Xi Society.
The Forum is largely for policy-makers at universities, research institutions and research funding agencies worldwide who are interested in institutional Open Acess Provision policy. (It is not a general discussion group for serials, pricing or publishing issues: it is specifically focussed on institutional Open Acess policy.)
You can sign on to the Forum here.
Last entry: 2017-03-27 13:12
1125 entries written
238 comments have been made