On Sat, 26 Feb 2005, Donat Agosti wrote: >sh> 92% of journals give [author self-archiving' the green light, and for >sh> the other 8% there is the solution of self-archiving the preprints plus >sh> corrections. >sh> [ http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#copyright-transfer-forbids ] >sh> >sh> (Of the 13 journals with "systematic" in their titles that I found >sh> in the Eprints Directory of Journal Self-Archiving policies, 12/13 >sh> were full (postprint) green and the last was pale (preprint) green!: >sh> http://romeo.eprints.org/search.php?t=systematic .) >sh> >sh> Hence if an author publishes in a Systematics journal that has given him >sh> the green light to self-archive, yet the author doesn't bother to do the >sh> few keystrokes it takes to self-archive, *don't blame the publisher* for >sh> the fact that we lack open access to that article or those biodiversity >sh> data! We must blame *ourselves* for that! >sh> >sh> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4367.html
> This is, where we seem to be different. The print (Figure 1) in my > publications refers to those, which do neither allow open access nor > self archiving. That prevents neither the self-archiving of the data nor the self-archiving of the preprint-plus-corrections. > I agree though, for at least the green journals, the authors should do > their work. Not just for the 92% of journals that are green: for all journals! For the gray journals: data self-archiving, plus preprint-plus-corrections. Stevan Harnad
