Re: Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting Rights
Since the digital millennium copyright act was passed in the USA, something like a Berne copyright regime has existed there. "Public Domain" is a myth, all published material is copyright. it cannot be renounced. Alas, moral rights in Britain under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act do not etend to individual articles. Iain Stevenson
Re: Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting Rights
This information is slightly out of date - Copyright in the US no longer has to be registered (although many people still recommend registration as an additional safeguard) Sally NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS - PLEASE UPDATE YOUR RECORDS. THANKS! Sally Morris, Chief Executive Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK Phone: +44 (0)1903 871686 Fax: +44 (0)1903 871457 E-mail: chief-e...@alpsp.org ALPSP Website http://www.alpsp.org Our journal, Learned Publishing, is included in the ALPSP Learned Journals Collection, www.alpsp-collection.org - Original Message - From: "Fytton Rowland" To: Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 2:05 PM Subject: Re: Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting Rights > Copyright is, I believe, significantly different in the UK and the USA. In > the UK, as Iain says, copyright exists as soon as a text is written by its > author, whether it is published or not. In the USA, copyright has to be > registered. In Europe there are moral rights (such as the right to be > identified as the author of your work) which remain with the author even if > the copyright is transferred to another. > > If something has been placed in the public domain, anyone may use it for any > purpose whatsoever without reference to the author. Academic authors who > favour Open Access are definitionally happy for anyone to read, download and > print off their scholarly papers free of charge. However, I for one would > be unhappy if a publisher were to take one of my (free) papers off the WWW > and include it in a collection of some sort which is then sold, without any > reference to me. I would not necessarily want any money but I'd like to be > asked! So I think authors are well advised to assert copyright in their > material even if they intend to allow unlimited free access to it. > > Fytton Rowland, Loughborough University, UK
Re: Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting Rights
Here in the United States are various rights one can have as a "copyright," and the people at Creative Commons spell out those differences pretty clearly on their Web site (www.creativecommons.org) for those interested. Although our authors keep the copyright, they do so under a signed agreement with us that the only right they retain is the right of proper attribution, as spelled out in the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/).=20 Rebecca Kennison Public Library of Science -Original Message- From: Fytton Rowland [mailto:j.f.rowl...@lboro.ac.uk]=20 Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 5:05 AM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting Rights Copyright is, I believe, significantly different in the UK and the USA. In the UK, as Iain says, copyright exists as soon as a text is written by its author, whether it is published or not. In the USA, copyright has to be registered. In Europe there are moral rights (such as the right to be identified as the author of your work) which remain with the author even if the copyright is transferred to another. If something has been placed in the public domain, anyone may use it for any purpose whatsoever without reference to the author. Academic authors who favour Open Access are definitionally happy for anyone to read, download and print off their scholarly papers free of charge. However, I for one would be unhappy if a publisher were to take one of my (free) papers off the WWW and include it in a collection of some sort which is then sold, without any reference to me. I would not necessarily want any money but I'd like to be asked! So I think authors are well advised to assert copyright in their material even if they intend to allow unlimited free access to it. Fytton Rowland, Loughborough University, UK
Re: New channel of support for open-access publishing
The charge can be broken down into a submission fee (for all articles) and a publication fee (for those articles published.) The submission fee covers the cost of peer review; the publication fee covers the cost of copy-editing and distribution. Dr. David Goodman Associate Professor, Palmer School of Library and Information Science Long Island University, Brookville, NY dgood...@liu.edu -Original Message- From: Alexander Grimwade [mailto:agrimw...@the-scientist.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 5:34 PM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: New channel of support for open-access publishing Journals with 90% rejection rates, like Nature, Science and Cell have considerably higher editorial costs (per published paper) than those with rejection rates of 40%-60%, which is an average value for middle-of-the-road biomedical journals. Nearly the same effort goes into peer reviewing a rejected paper as an accepted paper. As PLoS charges only those authors whose papers are published, and as they aspire to Nature-like selectivity, their editorial costs will be higher than "average" open-access journals. You might even call their $1,500 a bargain. Alexander M. Grimwade Ph. D. Publisher THE SCIENTIST 3535 Market Street, Suite 200 Philadelphia PA 19104-3385 Phone: (215) 386 9601 x3020 Fax:(215) 387 7542 Email: agrimw...@the-scientist.com Web Site: http://www.the-scientist.com
Re: Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting Rights
Fytton Rowland wrote: Copyright is, I believe, significantly different in the UK and the USA. In the UK, as Iain says, copyright exists as soon as a text is written by its author, whether it is published or not. In the USA, copyright has to be registered. This has not been true for many years now. See p.3 col. 2 of http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf In Europe there are moral rights (such as the right to be identified as the author of your work) which remain with the author even if the copyright is transferred to another. And a very sensible system this is, which the US should adopt. Giving up ownership need not entail giving up authorship. Regards, -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 e-mail: chri...@yorku.ca phone: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164 fax: 416-736-5814 http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ .
Re: Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting Rights
Hmmm. The moderator is right: I have never suggested that copyright should be disregarded, let alone the law. Just that the author should keep his/her copyright and use it to effectuate maximum dissemination and use. I also can't recall ever having been with CUP. I've been forgetting ever since I can remember, I admit, but this I surely would not have forgotten. Maybe reports about the two are related in the sense that they are both nonsense. Jan > -Original Message- > From: Iain Stevenson [mailto:v...@soi.city.ac.uk] > Sent: 16 January 2004 14:53 > To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org > Subject: Re: Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting > Rights > > > [Moderator's Note: I have prepended Jan Velterop's message to which > Iain Stevenson seems to be replying below. Iain may have been > replying to something else as I see nothing in Jan's message to > suggest he is recommending that anyone should disregard copyright: > He is just recommending that authors retain it. -- SH] > > Jan Velterop wrote: > > > There is nothing against copyright. There is everything against > > copyright (or exclusive distribution rights) on research articles > > being transferred to the kind of publishers who subsequently use it > > to restrict - severely restrict - their dissemination and optimal > > use. Authors of research articles should keep their copyright and if > > they use it properly, they use it to ensure maximum dissemination, > > which is where their real interest lies. > > Gosh, Jan, you've changed your tune since you were at CUP! People can't > just disregard copyright. it exists and is a good thing. I happen to > agree that authors should retain copyright and used to practise this > when I ran journals. I seem to remember you telling me I was dangerously > liberal then! You can't just disregard a law because it doesn't fit your > view of the world. > > Iain Stevenson
Re: Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting Rights
[Moderator's Note: I have prepended Jan Velterop's message to which Iain Stevenson seems to be replying below. Iain may have been replying to something else as I see nothing in Jan's message to suggest he is recommending that anyone should disregard copyright: He is just recommending that authors retain it. -- SH] Jan Velterop wrote: > There is nothing against copyright. There is everything against > copyright (or exclusive distribution rights) on research articles > being transferred to the kind of publishers who subsequently use it > to restrict - severely restrict - their dissemination and optimal > use. Authors of research articles should keep their copyright and if > they use it properly, they use it to ensure maximum dissemination, > which is where their real interest lies. Gosh, Jan, you've changed your tune since you were at CUP! People can't just disregard copyright. it exists and is a good thing. I happen to agree that authors should retain copyright and used to practise this when I ran journals. I seem to remember you telling me I was dangerously liberal then! You can't just disregard a law because it doesn't fit your view of the world. Iain Stevenson
Re: Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting Rights
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Jan Velterop wrote:
> There is nothing against copyright. There is everything against copyright
> (or exclusive distribution rights) on research articles being transferred to
> the kind of publishers who subsequently use it to restrict - severely
> restrict - their dissemination and optimal use. Authors of research articles
> should keep their copyright and if they use it properly, they use it to
> ensure maximum dissemination, which is where their real interest lies.
Authors should keep their copyright whenever they can -- and whenever
that is not an obstacle to getting their work published in the journal
of their choice. But to advise them to retain copyright at all costs
would be both bad advice and counterproductive for the cause of OA.
Authors' real interest lies in providing Open Access (OA) to their
articles. This can be done in two ways, only *one* of which (sometimes)
requires copyright retention by the author: Publishing in *certain kinds*
of Open Access (OA, "gold") journals.
See the rest of the ongoing discussion to learn why it is only *certain
kinds* of OA journals that do not require copyright transfer. There are
also OA journals that do: See the Directory of Open Access Journals
for examples of OA journals that still require copyright transfer --
but that nevertheless commit to providing a (permanent, ungerrymandred)
OA version online).
This is again related to the definition of OA: Neither copyright
retention by the author, nor any particular creative-commons license,
nor placing the work in the public domain, is a necessary condition for
or part of the definition of OA. Copyright retention and creative-commons
licensing are
highly desirable, recommended where possible, and, as noted, part of the
mechanism by which some forms of OA provision manage to provide OA. But it
is neither the same thing as nor a necessary condition for providing OA.
The only *necessary* condition for OA is that the full-text should be
immediately and permanently accessible to everyone, webwide, toll-free
(and with access and downloading not gerrymandered in any way).
Copyright retention is part of some of the means for attaining that end,
and it is always desirable where possible. But it would be a great mistake
-- and would be a great retardant to OA provision if not corrected -- to
suggest that copyright retention by the author is a necessary condition
for OA provision.
By way of example, OA (with all the capabilities listed above) can
be provided (and has been provided for well over a decade, by tens of
thousands of authors) by authors self-archiving their own full-texts
-- lately in OAI-compliant eprint archives. This practise has been
increasing, but it needs to be increased much faster and much more. This
increase is not encouraged by the incorrect suggestion that copyright
retention is a necessary precondition for providing OA to one's own
articles by self-archiving them.
The only *necessary* condition for *self*-archiving is that the articles
be written by your*self*. It is helpful (but not necessary) if the article's
publisher is "green" -- i.e., explicitly supports author self-archiving, as
55% of journals sampled already do:
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm
But it is definitely not necessary (only desirable) that the author
retain copyright. The incorrect advice that the author must successfully
negotiate copyright retention in order to self-archive would be
misinformation and (if believed) it would be yet another groundless
retardant on OA provision: http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#31-worries
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#10.Copyright
Self-archiving authors can definitely provide open access to their
articles without having to go through the extra hurdle of trying to
negotiate the retention of copyright (or republishing/reprinting rights)
with their journals. To suggest that they must would be either to send
them on a fool's errand or (more likely) to discourage them from bothering
to self-archive at all.
It does not serve the cause of OA provision to imply that one's own OA
shoe size must fit all.
Stevan Harnad
NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open
access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2004)
is available at the American Scientist Open Access Forum:
To join the Forum:
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
Post discussion to:
american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org
Hypermail Archive:
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html
Unified Dual Open-Access-Provision Policy:
BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access
journal whenever one exists.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#journals
BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable
toll-access journal and also self-
Re: Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting Rights
Copyright is, I believe, significantly different in the UK and the USA. In the UK, as Iain says, copyright exists as soon as a text is written by its author, whether it is published or not. In the USA, copyright has to be registered. In Europe there are moral rights (such as the right to be identified as the author of your work) which remain with the author even if the copyright is transferred to another. If something has been placed in the public domain, anyone may use it for any purpose whatsoever without reference to the author. Academic authors who favour Open Access are definitionally happy for anyone to read, download and print off their scholarly papers free of charge. However, I for one would be unhappy if a publisher were to take one of my (free) papers off the WWW and include it in a collection of some sort which is then sold, without any reference to me. I would not necessarily want any money but I'd like to be asked! So I think authors are well advised to assert copyright in their material even if they intend to allow unlimited free access to it. Fytton Rowland, Loughborough University, UK - Original Message - From: "Iain Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 11:42 AM Subject: Re: Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting Rights > Seth Johnson wrote: > > > The difference for public domain in terms of flexible access to the > > scientific literature, is only that the original expression of the > > document, of substantive portions which exhibit originality, is no > > longer covered by copyright. > > > > Other options provide this level of access by means of permissions, > > the most effective being the copyleft formulation. > > I'm sorry Seth but that is nonsense and pernicious nonsense too. There > is no such thing as "public domain" except for material out of copyright > after the end of the legal term (70 years pma). Copyright applies to > all original work created (not even necessarily published): Copyright > is an essential bastion of academic freedom and the only people who > benefit from its abuse are pirates, charlatans and crooks. It's the > missing debate in the open access question. How are creators' rights > protected, particularly in e-environments? Doubtless Stevan will have > an answer with which I will doubtless disagree. The Bush administration > may disregard Kyoto but I don't think even they disregard Berne! > > Iain Stevenson, > Publishing Studies, > City University, UK.
Re: Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting Rights
There is nothing against copyright. There is everything against copyright (or exclusive distribution rights) on research articles being transferred to the kind of publishers who subsequently use it to restrict - severely restrict - their dissemination and optimal use. Authors of research articles should keep their copyright and if they use it properly, they use it to ensure maximum dissemination, which is where their real interest lies. Jan Velterop > -Original Message- > From: Iain Stevenson [mailto:v...@soi.city.ac.uk] > Sent: 16 January 2004 11:42 > To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org > Subject: Re: Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting > Rights > > Seth Johnson wrote: > > > The difference for public domain in terms of flexible access to the > > scientific literature, is only that the original expression of the > > document, of substantive portions which exhibit originality, is no > > longer covered by copyright. > > > > Other options provide this level of access by means of permissions, > > the most effective being the copyleft formulation. > > I'm sorry Seth but that is nonsense and pernicious nonsense too. There > is no such thing as "public domain" except for material out > of copyright > after the end of the legal term (70 years pma). Copyright applies to > all original work created (not even necessarily published): Copyright > is an essential bastion of academic freedom and the only people who > benefit from its abuse are pirates, charlatans and crooks. It's the > missing debate in the open access question. How are creators' rights > protected, particularly in e-environments? Doubtless Stevan will have > an answer with which I will doubtless disagree. The Bush > administration > may disregard Kyoto but I don't think even they disregard Berne! > > Iain Stevenson, > Publishing Studies, > City University, UK. > > net Messaging Program. >
Re: Directory of Open Access Journals
Of course, if anyone can sell the very same stuff that's also freely
available in open access, then good luck to him/her. I'd call that
'soliciting for donations', and it goes without saying that that's
permitted. No need to say it.
Jan
> -Original Message-
> From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> Sent: 15 January 2004 14:52
> To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
> Subject: Re: Directory of Open Access Journals
>
>
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Jan Velterop wrote:
>
> > My suggestion:
> > "Journals that charge anybody for access to the online
> > version of research articles, or erects other access barriers
> > such as compulsory registration, anytime, anywhere, are not
> > included. (Charging only for the parallel print edition is
> > acceptable.)"
>
> Jan's version is definitely better than mine. (I had forgotten about
> tricks like compulsory registration!) But the wording still does not
> quite work. We need to exclude any access-charge and any gerrymandered
> access but I believe (strongly) that we need not and should
> not exclude
> the following:
>
> You are a journal publisher. You commit to making the full-text
> contents of all your articles accessible online immediately,
> permanently
> and directly (i.e., no registration barrier, no gerrymandered
> ebrary-style
> interface or download) to all web-users, no strings attached
> AND (not BUT, AND)
> you also sell another edition, either on paper or online, for tolls,
> to those who can and do pay them.
>
> I see no reason (nothing to be gained) for denying such a publisher
> the golden "OA" label! Whereas I do see the loss of many potential OA
> publishers who are deterred by the fact that we declare that
> committing
> to providing permanent OA to all their contents is not
> enough: they must
> also renounce all parallel efforts to recover costs through tolls!
>
> I strongly urge that it be made clear that (ungerrymandered) OA
> provision to all of its articles by the journal is all that
> is required
> to make a journal an OA journal. The journal's cost-recovery model and
> methods are not part of the definition of either OA or OA publishing.
> Only OA provision is.
>
> We are trying to effect a transition here, as soon as possible.
> Arbitrary ideological barriers are not a practical help in this.
> The endstate will be what we all desire, but let us not get needlessly
> restrictive while the cupboard"s still bare!
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
> NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open
> access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2004)
> is available at the American Scientist Open Access Forum:
> To join the Forum:
> http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-
Access-Forum.html
Post discussion to:
american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org
Hypermail Archive:
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html
Unified Dual Open-Access-Provision Policy:
BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access
journal whenever one exists.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#journals
BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable
toll-access journal and also self-archive it.
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml
http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System. For more information on a proactive email security
service working around the clock, around the globe, visit
http://www.messagelabs.com
Re: Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Iain Stevenson wrote: > I'm sorry Seth but that is nonsense and pernicious nonsense too. There > is no such thing as "public domain" except for material out of copyright > after the end of the legal term (70 years pma). Copyright applies to > all original work created (not even necessarily published): Copyright > is an essential bastion of academic freedom and the only people who > benefit from its abuse are pirates, charlatans and crooks. It's the > missing debate in the open access question. How are creators' rights > protected, particularly in e-environments? > > Doubtless Stevan will have an answer with which I will doubtless disagree. I doubt it. I invoked cloture on the public domain debate in this Forum in 2001. I believe putting one's work into the public domain is irrelevant to the open-access problem (and a fortiori not the solution). I am willing to re-open it if something new and relevant can be said (e.g., in connection with the Sabo Bill, or NIH government researchers' retention of copyright) but not in order to debate the legal status or history of public domain or the general ideology of intellectual property. This Forum is specifically about providing open access to the 2.5 million articles published annually in the 24,000 peer-reviewed journals, a special and anomalous subset of the written corpus. Discussion bearing only on public domain or copyright in general should be redirected to one of the copyright lists such as digital-copyri...@lists.umuc.edu or cni-copyri...@cni.org "Cloture on public-domain solution" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1713.html "Public Access to Science Act (Sabo Bill, H.R. 2613)" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2977.html Stevan Harnad
Re: Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting Rights
Seth Johnson wrote: > The difference for public domain in terms of flexible access to the > scientific literature, is only that the original expression of the > document, of substantive portions which exhibit originality, is no > longer covered by copyright. > > Other options provide this level of access by means of permissions, > the most effective being the copyleft formulation. I'm sorry Seth but that is nonsense and pernicious nonsense too. There is no such thing as "public domain" except for material out of copyright after the end of the legal term (70 years pma). Copyright applies to all original work created (not even necessarily published): Copyright is an essential bastion of academic freedom and the only people who benefit from its abuse are pirates, charlatans and crooks. It's the missing debate in the open access question. How are creators' rights protected, particularly in e-environments? Doubtless Stevan will have an answer with which I will doubtless disagree. The Bush administration may disregard Kyoto but I don't think even they disregard Berne! Iain Stevenson, Publishing Studies, City University, UK. net Messaging Program.
Re: Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting Rights
It might be possible to take this distinction into account in our data analysis - thanks for the suggestion Sally NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS - PLEASE UPDATE YOUR RECORDS. THANKS! Sally Morris, Chief Executive Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK Phone: +44 (0)1903 871686 Fax: +44 (0)1903 871457 E-mail: chief-e...@alpsp.org ALPSP Website http://www.alpsp.org Our journal, Learned Publishing, is included in the ALPSP Learned Journals Collection, www.alpsp-collection.org - Original Message - From: "Leslie Chan" To: Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 12:01 AM Subject: Re: Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting Rights > If we agree that the goal of open access is to maximize research impact, > then are you suggesting that the two definitions of open access will have > differential results on research impact? Clearly we need some empirical data > and it is simply too early to tell. For now, I prefer to see the BMC and > PLOS definition as the deluxe model, while the one clearly enunciated by > Stevan as the economy model. Both will get us from point A to point B, but > not everyone could travel in first class. For low impact journals, > particularly those originating from developing countries, the economy mode > will do fine.
Re: Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting
Michael Eisen wrote:
> True open access is not an obstacle or a distraction from achieving free
> access - it is our quickest path to achieving it.
I would be extremely interested to hear exactly how telling (currently
sluggish) authors who are contemplating self-archiving in order to provide
"it" (we must not equivocate on whether "it" is OA or just FA!) for their
articles that self-archiving them is not enough -- not even finding
a green publisher (who supports self-archiving) is enough; they must
also negotiate republishing/reprinting rights; or find a gold journal --
how having to do any of that extra stuff makes for the quickest path to
achieving it.
I think the quickest path to achieving "it" is to just go ahead and
self-archive, right now.
Stevan Harnad
NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open
access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2004)
is available at the American Scientist Open Access Forum:
To join the Forum:
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
Post discussion to:
american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org
Hypermail Archive:
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html
Unified Dual Open-Access-Provision Policy:
BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access
journal whenever one exists.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#journals
BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable
toll-access journal and also self-archive it.
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml
http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
Re: Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting Rights
I'm not sure what you mean my maximizing research impact. To me, the goal of open access is to ensure that the scientific literature are made freely and openly available to maximize the value of scientific research to scientists and the public, and to ensure that everyone in the world can benefit from this research to the maximal extent. Ensuring free access to all of the literature is a primary goal of open acces. Stevan constantly dismisses support for this stronger version of open access as sacrificing the good in pursuit of the ideal. This misses the point - I believe that the freedoms available under true open access are essential to making the open access literature more useful, and therefore more attractive to authors. True open access is not an obstacle or a distraction from achieving free access - it is our quickest path to achieving it. - Original Message - From: "Leslie Chan" To: Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 3:01 PM Subject: Re: Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting Rights > If we agree that the goal of open access is to maximize research impact, > then are you suggesting that the two definitions of open access will have > differential results on research impact? Clearly we need some empirical data > and it is simply too early to tell. For now, I prefer to see the BMC and > PLOS definition as the deluxe model, while the one clearly enunciated by > Stevan as the economy model. Both will get us from point A to point B, but > not everyone could travel in first class. For low impact journals, > particularly those originating from developing countries, the economy mode > will do fine. > > Leslie > > > on 1/15/04 4:49 PM, Michael Eisen at mbei...@lbl.gov wrote: > > > While D-Lib Magazine allows free access to their articles, and grants > > limited rights to non-commercial users (all good things), their articles are > > not open access, at least not by any of the widely accepted definitions. > > > > The D-Lib Magazine Access Terms and Conditions read: > > > > Materials contained in D-Lib and D-Lib Magazine are subject to copyright > > claims and other proprietary rights. Permission is hereby given for the > > material in D-Lib and D-Lib Magazine to be used for research purposes or > > more general non-commercial purposes. We ask that you observe the following > > conditions: > > a.. Please cite individual author and D-Lib or D-Lib Magazine when using > > the materials. > > b.. Please do not abridge, alter, or edit material in any way that alters > > the author's intentions. > > Any commercial use of these materials requires explicit, prior authorization > > from CNRI. > > > > While acknowledging that "there are many degrees and kinds of wider and > > easier access to" the literature, the BOAI definition of open access could > > not be clearer: > > > > By "open access" to this literature, we mean its free availability on the > > public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, > > print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for > > indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful > > purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those > > inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint > > on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this > > domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work > > and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited. > > > > Stevan seems intent on grossly diluting this definition: > > > >> > >> This also happens to be what a user can normally do with everything else > >> he finds on the web (that is not behind a toll-barrier). He may do all > >> the above, but he may not (1) republish it (or an altered version of it), > >> either in a paper edition or online on the web or an email list and (2) > >> may not pass it off as his own. He may, however, insert links to its > >> URL in other published materials. > >> > >> That's the default option on the web; it's what comes with the territory > >> when one can access digital material with a click. More requires > >> permissions. > >> > >> It is also the default condition for Open Access. > >> > > > > So everything that is on a website anywhere is open access so long as its > > not behind a toll barrier? That's absurd. > > > > The default condition for open access is not simply being able to access > > digital material with a click. The term open access was coined specifically > > to describe a higher form of freedom - one that went beyond the default > > rights granted to users of web content by explicitly permiting > > redistribution and reuse without the need to get permission. While YOU may > > think these rights are superfluous, many supporters of open access disagree, > > it only confuses things and damages our common cause if we conflate posting > > something on the web with open access. > > > > - Original Me
