[Sender identity not posted as permission not requested or granted] > Congratulations on your award! It's great news, not only for you but for > the scientific enterprise in general. I'm for open publication any day. > > I would certainly like to archive my work in CogPrints, but I'm unclear > about the copyright issues. Are APA and Psychonomic journals giving > permission to post articles that were published a while back? Would posting > a manuscript jeopardise later publication in one of these journals?
Thanks for the kind words. Journals vary in their current copyright and embargo policies, but they are changing in these rapidly changing times, and I believe that the ultimate outcome is inevitable, which is that providing the SERVICE of Quality Control/Certification (QC/C) (peer review) will be dissociated from providing the PRODUCT in the form of a text (whether paper or online). The QC/C service will be paid for by author-institutions out of a small portion of their vast savings from cancelling the payment for the text/product (through Subscription/Site-License/Pay-Per-View [S/L/P]) -- and the texts will instead all be self-archived, free for all, by the author-institution in the Open Archives (such as CogPrints). That is the optimal and inevitable outcome, but we are not there yet. Do individual authors need to wait? I strongly believe they do not, and should not, and I sketch the obvious ways around the status quo below. There are progressive publishers and there are more regressive ones. The American Physical Society, publisher of the highest impact and most prestigious refereed journals in Physics, is one of the most progressive of publishers -- but their policies have been well "prepared" by almost a decade of de facto self-archiving on the part physicists worldwide. Our APA happens to be one of the most regressive of publishers at the moment, but they are still a Learned Society, and they will see the light -- but we must first take the initiative by actually doing the self-archiving, as the physicists did. If we wait for the APA's advance blessing, we will have a long, long wait! With that, I draw your attention to the strategies recommended below. Best wishes, Stevan --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Stevan Harnad p...@pucc.princeton.edu Editor, Psycoloquy phone: +44 23-80 592-582 Department of Electronics & fax: +44 23-80 593-281 Computer Science http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/psyc University of Southampton http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/psyc.html Highfield, Southampton ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM news:sci.psychology.journals.psycoloquy Sponsored by the American Psychological Association (APA) --------------------------------------------------------------------- List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 20:46:49 +0000 From: Stevan Harnad <har...@coglit.ecs.soton.ac.uk> To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org > Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 16:17:52 +0000 (GMT) > From: Clifford B. Saper <csa...@caregroup.harvard.edu> > > Clifford B. Saper, MD, PhD > James Jackson Putnam Professor of Neurology and Neuroscience > Harvard Medical School > Chairman, Department of Neurology > Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center > 330 Brookline Avenue, Boston, MA 02215 USA > Phone: 617-667-2622 Fax: 617-975-5161 > > I hope you will also make clear to those on your mailing list that the > Journal of Comparative Neurology (and most currently published > journals) will not consider papers for publication that have already > been published (which posting on a website is). Dear Professor Saper, The CogPrints copyright FAQ <http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/help/copyright.html> does point out that journals differ in their copyright policies; and in an excerpt below, differences in journal embargo policies ("The Ingelfinger Rule") are discussed. But I must also point out that these policies never had any scientific justification, and now (in the PostGutenberg era) they no longer have any economic justification either. And that although Journals like Science, New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of the American Medical Association, still have such policies, they have counterparts, like Nature, Lancet, and British Medical Journal, that do not. And it is only a matter of time before good sense -- and good science -- prevails, and these arbitrary access barriers, which exist only to protect current journal revenue streams (once justified, but now no longer necessary) will all fade away. I have written critiques of Floyd Bloom's position (on behalf of Science) in Science: Harnad, S. (1999) Advancing Science By Self-Archiving Refereed Research. Science dEbates [online] 31 July 1999. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/285/5425/197#EL12 As well as in the American Scientist Forum: Harnad, S. (1998) For whom the gate tolls? Free the on-line-only refereed journal literature http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/amlet.html In D-Lib I describe an interim alternative strategy for authors: Harnad, S. (1999) Free at Last: The Future of Peer-Reviewed Journals. D-Lib Magazine 5(12) December 1999 http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december99/12harnad.html "So authors should transfer to their publishers all the rights to sell their papers, in paper or online, but they should retain the right to self-archive them online for free for all. Many publishers will agree (the American Physical Society <ftp://aps.org/pub/jrnls/copy_trnsfr.asc> being a model in this respect) because their scholarly/scientific goals are in harmony with those of their authors and readers. But with those publishers whose copyright agreement explicitly forbids the public self-archiving of the peer-reviewed final draft, the solution is to self-archive the preprint at the time it is first submitted for publication, and then once it is accepted, simply to archive a list of the changes that went into the revised final draft; alternatively, a further revised, enhanced draft, going substantively beyond the accepted, final draft, with a fuller reference list, Hyperlinks, more data and figures added, etc., can be self-archived, together with a list of what in this new edition was not in the final accepted draft. Either way, the handwriting (or rather the skywriting) is on the wall. "This gets around copyright restrictions (note that analogies with online piracy of text, music and software are irrelevant because we are speaking of "self-piracy" here). A further potential obstacle is an embargo policy like the one the New England Journal of Medicine (see < http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/ Hypermail/Author.Eprint.Archives/0019.html>) practises under the name of the "Ingelfinger Rule" (see <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/ Author.Eprint.Archives/0020.html>) and that journals like Science, <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/285/5425/197#EL12>, likewise practise. I don't think I need to spell out for Web-savvy authors how easily arbitrary and self-serving policies like this can be gotten around by suitable cosmetic measures on one's self-archived preprint. In any case, I doubt that journal editors and referees (who, after all, are us), will long collaborate with policies that are no longer either justified or necessary, being now so clearly designed solely in the interest of protecting current S/L/P revenue streams rather than in the interest of disseminating research. Besides, journal embargo policies, unlike copyright agreements, are not even legal matters." Regarding alternative economic models for refereed journal publishing, see, in Nature: Harnad, S. (1998) On-Line Journals and Financial Fire-Walls. Nature 395(6698): 127-128. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/nature.html Harnad, S. (1998g) The invisible hand of peer review. Nature [online] ( 5 Nov. 1998) http://helix.nature.com/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html Longer version: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/nature2.html The New England Journal of Medicine declined to publish my reply to Arnold Relman (URL in exceerpt above) but it will shortly appear in a Law journal. I invite you to consider the question of embargo policy and exclusive copyright policy, and if you can think of any non-economic justification for them, I would be very grateful to hear it. Sincerely, Stevan Harnad har...@cogsci.soton.ac.uk Professor of Cognitive Science har...@princeton.edu Department of Electronics and phone: +44 23-80 592-582 Computer Science fax: +44 23-80 592-865 University of Southampton http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/ Highfield, Southampton http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/ SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM NOTE: A complete archive of this ongoing discussion of "Freeing the Refereed Journal Literature Through Online Self-Archiving" is available at the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99): http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html