Hopefully germane to this (developing) position, I've pushed for a CC-BY use licence on all content exposed through the soon to be launched Research Portal/IR at QUB. The leverage provided by RCUK's strong position on this is at least one positive during what has been a difficult summer for policy alignments. What we hope to achieve is a cascading licensing arrangement flagged to the item record with the top level as open as we can make it.
Garret McMahon Queen's University Belfast On 10 October 2012 12:15, Jan Velterop <velte...@gmail.com> wrote: > Peter, > > It would simplify things a lot. > > So, the norm would be (mandated where needed) to deposit one's final > manuscript, accepted for publication after peer-review, with a CC-BY > licence, in a suitable repository, as soon as possible upon acceptance for > publication. This has many similarities with deposit of preprints in arXiv. > Publishers have not been concerned about arXiv. One reason is that versions > of record are not deposited in arXiv. > > Subsequent publication of the 'version of record' takes place in a > journal. In case that journal is a 'gold' journal with CC-BY licences, > authors may replace the manuscript in the repository by the published > version. Or not deposit a manuscript version at all but simply wait until > the open, CC-BY version of record is published and deposit that. Some > automated arrangement to do so may be available for some 'gold' journals > and some repositories, as is already the case here and there (e.g for > UKPMC). > > You may well be right that this very simple procedure would resolve most, > perhaps all, problems of the Finch Report and RCUK policy plans. It also > 'de-conflates' money and cost concerns from open access and reuse concerns. > > The only thing I'm not clear about is who the "we all" are who'd have to > agree to launch this for Open Access week :-) > > Jan Velterop > > > On 9 Oct 2012, at 22:28, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop <velte...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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, > I think this is very important. > > If we can establish the idea of Green-CC-BY as the norm for deposition in > repositories then I would embrace it enthusiastically. I can see no > downside other than that some publishers will fight it. But they fight > anyway > > It also clairfies the difference between the final author ms and the > publisher version of record. > > It would resolve all the apparent problems of the Finch reoprt etc. It is > only because Green licences are undefined that we have this problem at all. > > And if we all agreed it could be launched for Open Access Week > > -- > Peter Murray-Rust > Reader in Molecular Informatics > Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry > University of Cambridge > CB2 1EW, UK > +44-1223-763069 > _______________________________________________ > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
