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
