[Duraspace] Fwd: [GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly articles

[Hilton Gibson]

FYI.

*Hilton Gibson*
Ubuntu Linux Systems Administrator
JS Gericke Library
Room 1025D
Stellenbosch University
Private Bag X5036
Stellenbosch
7599
South Africa

Tel: +27 21 808 4100 | Cell: +27 84 646 4758
http://scholar.sun.ac.za
http://bit.ly/goodir
http://library.sun.ac.za
http://za.linkedin.com/in/hiltongibson


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com>
Date: 5 February 2014 15:19
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Charles Oppenheim on who owns the rights to scholarly
articles
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal at eprints.org>


On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Andrew A. Adams <aaa at meiji.ac.jp> wrote:

Now, I just "archive and be damned"posting 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 Elsevier<http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php?id=30&fIDnum=%7C&mode=simple&la=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
notices<http://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
location<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/490-guid.html>
).

3. The IDOA (immediate-deposit, optional-access)
mandate<http://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 + Corrigenda<http://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
websites<http://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"
Button<http://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 at eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lib.sun.ac.za/pipermail/duraspace/attachments/20140218/31957f45/attachment.html>