On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Jan Velterop wrote:
> Why I suggest expressing disappointment (or very strong disappointment,
> perhaps) rather than bad faith, is that I believe that allowing it in the
> first place, by mistake, in a message from a very senior member of staff,
> doesn't quite amount to bad faith. Not even their muddled policy does.
> Stupidity or naivety or ignorance maybe. But not bad faith.
Ok, Jan, you are probably right, and I certainly agree that if something
has in reality *not* been done out of bad faith, but simply out of
naivete, then it is neither just nor helpful to characterize it as bad
faith. (In fact, if you re-read your own message, and Mike's, you will I
think find that *you* came rather closer to calling it something like
bad faith, whereas I was defending it as sincere! But I admit that I was
ready to entertain the hypothesis that it might have been bad faith
after all, and so would force them to either fix or 'fess up!).
I can't tell if you wrote this before or after I sent the letter itself.
In that letter I expressed it as disappointment (hypothetical --
contingent, as the outcome is not yet known!). Was the way I put it
there ok?
> Again, I hope that they feel that they have painted themselves in such a
> corner that the only honourable way out is to unequivocally allow open
> self-archiving. Even if they feel that they have to impose an embargo on
> self-archiving for a few months (which is what I expect they might do).
There's already an (inconsistent) implicit embargo, for the license does
not allow self-archiving until the printed version has appeared. You are
right that they may want to extend that a bit (in which case it is not
really a license: "You retain the right... but that right is embargoed
until...").
But I don't care at all about that, for the simple reason that Nature
has dropped the Ingelfinger rule! That means it is a "green" publisher
(allows both preprint and postprint self-archiving) rather than a "blue"
publisher (allowing only one or the other):
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm
Hence, during the postprint "embargo" period (if the author bothers to
honor it at all -- I can't see why an author would, and how it could
possibly be enforced, the interval being so short and the detection and
action being so long!), the preprint would be available all along!
Perhaps *here* would be a sensible place (for a pedantic author) to use
the preprint+corrigenda strategy after all! Append the corrections as
soon as they are available, and a note saying when the postprint will be
posted too! (Apart from this, the P&C strategy is really just meant to
be an intuition pump, so authors can see the *logic* of the legality of
self-archiving: I expect it to persuade worriers that there is no problem
whatsoever with posting the postprint, not to actually bother with the
P&C.)
> Success. I shall refrain from publicly expressing my doubt about the
> intentions of publishers I know, and let sleeping dogs lie!
I will too. Often the best way to get human being to do the right thing
is to assume (and express) the best about them, rather than the worst.
Cheers, Stevan
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> > Sent: 19 February 2003 17:50
> > To: Jan Velterop
> > Cc: Peter Suber
> > Subject: Re: nature
> >
> >
> > > I'm sure a gentle reminder won't be seen as a harassment,
> > particularly
> > > not if done privately and discretely.
> >
> > Hi Jan,
> >
> > Ok, I'll do it right away.
> >
> > > By the way, I'm sending this just to
> > > you and not to the list, because it may help you to know
> > that the lawyer who
> > > drew up the Nature licence is now working for us, and I
> > have it from the
> > > horse's mouth, so to speak, that the intention of the
> > licence was certainly
> > > not to allow open self-archiving.
> >
> > I am responding only to you and branching to Peter.
> >
> > Of course I had guessed that that was what they were thinking
> > already! But
> > I also know that there is no logical, legal or practical difference
> > between "self-archiving on one's own institutional website" and "open
> > self-archiving on one's own institutional website"! So
> > regardless of the
> > intention, the present license has formalized the right to
> > self-archive on
> > one's own institutional website! I was ambivalent about
> > following Mike's
> > and your direct challenges, because I knew that the only outcome could
> > be to unmask the incoherence between what Nature have agreed in the
> > license and what they are hemming and hawing about when they are sent
> > queries about the meaning of the license from those innocents
> > who don't
> > realize that they can now self-archive on their own institutional
> > website as they please. There are no more issues.
> >
> > I would be very disappointed (and in fact it would have been a *huge*
> > strategic error on my part) if the outcome of my public query was that
> > they come to *realise* that self-archiving and open self-archiving are
> > synonymous, and as a result they rescind their licensing
> > policy! I would
> > then indeed be obliged (contrary to my own new policy of
> > nonconfrontation)
> > to make a very big public expose of what has happened, and why.
> >
> > I am still hopeful it will not be necessary. I will branch to you and
> > the closed BOAI list the letter I now send Phil & Jayne.
> >
> > > The guy has now been brought across to the
> > > right side of the divide, as it were, but obviously, I'd like this
> > > information to be reasonably discrete. It's not secret, of
> > course, but
> > > there's no reason to have this inside information all over
> > various lists, as
> > > I'm sure you will agree.
> >
> > I will not mention it. I don't need to. It is transparent. The lawyers
> > haven't the *faintest* idea what web self-archiving means, nor what it
> > entails, and they are accordingly advising their clients to make
> > distinctions on paper that have as much value as "you may do this with
> > your left hand but not your non-right one"...
> >
> > Let me see whether I am a good enough psychologist (I am one by
> > profession, but obviously a very *bad* one!) to put this to
> > Phil & Jayne
> > in a form that makes them *more* inclined to do the sensible
> > thing, rather
> > than *less.*
> >
> > > I agree with you that it is clarity we're after. That said,
> > though, you
> > > 'promised' Nature that if it looked like intentionally
> > confusing the issue,
> > > you'd openly accuse them of bad faith. Perhaps you want to
> > reconsider that
> > > and publicly just express disappointment once they respond
> > to your open
> > > question.
> >
> > I'm not sure why you make that recommendation. Perhaps you mean that a
> > threat of exposing bad faith is a bad strategy for trying to
> > induce them
> > to act in good faith (in which case I agree). But do you really mean
> > that if they continue to use untenable distinctions, refusing to
> > clarify, or they actually rescind the license policy, that I should
> > merely say I am disappointed, rather than mapping out exactly what
> > happened, and why?
> >
> > You may be right, if there is a strategy behind that, but I
> > need to know
> > what the strategy is! On the fase of it, a mere expression of
> > disappointment -- of course there are many very revealing ways to
> > express disappoinment! -- would make it seem as if this sort of
> > double-talk and double-dealing is acceptable!
> >
> > I really hope that is not the outcome, though, and if it is, I greatly
> > regret not having let sleeping dogs lie (i.e., leave the perfectly
> > adequate licensing policy alone, and not bothering with the fog that
> > their advice office was trying in vain to obscure it with).
> >
> > > Unless they surprise me and do agree to open self-archiving, of
> > > course. I'm ready to be surprised and I'll buy you a nice
> > dinner whenever we
> > > meet next if that happens. You need to know that the girl
> > who originally
> > > said that self-archiving was ok is very junior (she just
> > made a mistake, and
> > > I feel sorry for her), unlike Jayne Marks, who is equal to
> > Phil Campbell in
> > > the Von Holtzbrinck Verlag hierarchy and her words do count.
> >
> > But the fact is that the junior girl made a coherent, tenable
> > interpretation, whereas Jayne merely reiterated the very fog I was
> > trying to dispel!
> >
> > Well, on to the art of drafting my letter to Phil & Jayne...
> >
> > Chrs, S
> >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Jan
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> > > > Sent: 19 February 2003 15:38
> > > > To: 'bmanifesto_at_yahoogroups.com'
> > > > Subject: Re: [Manifesto] Re: STM Talk in Amsterdam
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Jan, the last two replies are below. I didn't want to
> > rush them,
> > > > but do you think I should send a follow-up reminder? Remember, my
> > > > goal is to induce a clear, logically tenable and benign outcome
> > > > rather than to harass them into thinking they're better off
> > > > withdrawing their new policy! Cheers, Stevan
> > > >
> > > > (1)
> > > > From: Philip Campbell <P.Campbell_at_nature.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: Open Letter to Philip Campbell, Editor, Nature
> > > > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11:04:00 -0000
> > > >
> > > > Stevan - I am just back from travel abroad. Either I or a
> > publishing
> > > > colleague will get back to you before long.
> > > > Phil
> > > >
> > > > (2)
> > > > From: Marks Jayne <j.marks_at_nature.com>
> > > > To: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> > > > Cc: "Campbell, Philip" <P.Campbell_at_nature.com>,
> > > > "Ratner, Howard" <h.ratner_at_NATURENY.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: Nature's author licence (corrected text)
> > > > Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:39:25 -0000
> > > >
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > > This is proving to be a much more complex issue than we had
> > > > first thought
> > > > and some new perspectives on this were raised at a
> > meeting that some
> > > > of my colleagues attended on Wednesday. I would therefore
> > > > like to take
> > > > some more time to think through our options rather than
> > > > jumping to a quick
> > > > conclusion either way on this issue. I am sorry that you
> > > > have had to wait
> > > > so long for our reply but I want to make sure that this
> > is considered.
> > > >
> > > > I will get back to you as soon as I possibly can.
> > > >
> > > > Jayne
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Jan Velterop wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This reminds me. Have we ever heard back from Nature
> > yet about their
> > > > > copyright statement?
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> > > > > > Sent: 17 February 2003 20:21
> > > > > > To: Bob Parks
> > > > > > Subject: [Manifesto] Re: STM Talk in Amsterdam
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Bob Parks wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agreed to present the 'Faustian Grip' or a version of it.
> > > > > > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/parks.pdf
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If this is the lead session, we are preaching to
> > the unconverted
> > > > > > > in SPADES, no?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I guess your opening will be Peaceful Evolution and
> > then I can
> > > > > > > attempt to trash that (because the actors don't have the
> > > > > > incentives).
> > > > > > > Of course whenever I even think about the 'Grip' paper, I
> > > > > > get depressed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bob,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, we are preaching to the unconverted here, but it's
> > > > important that
> > > > > > we don't give them a needless picture of discord.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since the 1997 paper that you extensively quote in that paper
> > > > > > I have changed my position in one important respect that
> > > > is critical
> > > > > > to this STM meeting and to the connection between your
> > > > paper and mine:
> > > > > > I have of course remained unswervingly for open access
> > > > throughout, but
> > > > > > only lately have I become clearer on who/what is to blame and
> > > > > > who needs
> > > > > > to do what to remedy it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the 1997 paper of mine from which you quote
> > extensively in your
> > > > > > "Faustian Grip" paper, I still imagined (as did many
> > > > others) that the
> > > > > > access problem was with the publishers, and that its remedy
> > > > > > was with them
> > > > > > too: That we, the research community, must somwhow force them
> > > > > > to become
> > > > > > open-access publishers. But I now realize that this is
> > > > not necessary.
> > > > > > The only thing that necessary is *open access* -- open
> > > > access to the
> > > > > > entire refereed joural literature. And this outcome is 100%
> > > > > > in the hands
> > > > > > of the research community provide. It does not depend on
> > > > > > publishers and
> > > > > > it does not require their all converting to open-access
> > > > > > publishing, now,
> > > > > > or perhaps ever.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hence you and I are now in almost complete agreement.
> > I am neither
> > > > > > recommending nor predicting that journal publishers will
> > > > convert to
> > > > > > open-access publishing. *I don't care, and I don't need to
> > > > > > predict!* What
> > > > > > I -- along with the entire research community -- care
> > > > about is open
> > > > > > access, open access now, and open access to *all* of the
> > > > > > refereed research
> > > > > > literature -- all annual 20,000 journals-worth.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You write:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "we can (and in my belief will) have an
> > equilibrium in which
> > > > > > 'preprints' and 'working papers' are available to all
> > > > for free,
> > > > > > and journal articles are restricted to subscription,
> > > > site license,
> > > > > > or pay-per-view restrictions (S/SL/PPV)"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have no problem with a permanent or long-term
> > > > co-existence between
> > > > > > the open-access and toll-access versions of papers, and I see
> > > > > > no reason
> > > > > > to make a prediction or a commitment to open-access
> > supplanting
> > > > > > toll-access, eventually or ever (though I of course still
> > > > believe that
> > > > > > open-access publishing will eventually prevail). Once the
> > > > > > entire refereed
> > > > > > literature is openly accessible to any potential user whose
> > > > > > institution
> > > > > > cannot afford the toll-access version, who cares how long
> > > > > > those who can
> > > > > > afford it elect to continue paying?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But there is one substantive point on which it is *very*
> > > > > > important that we
> > > > > > not be seen as diverging or disagreeing:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You see the future equilibrium as being between self-archived,
> > > > > > open-access preprints and toll access journal articles.
> > > > Can I ask you
> > > > > > please not to put it that way? Just as I cannot, and need
> > > > not, predict
> > > > > > whether open-access will supplant toll-access rather than
> > > > > > just exist in
> > > > > > equilibrium with it, you cannot, and need not, and should
> > > > not, predict
> > > > > > what proportion of the self-archived, open-access
> > corpus will be
> > > > > > unrefereed preprints (plus corrigenda) and what
> > proportion will be
> > > > > > refereed postprints. All I ask is that you amend that and
> > > > call it an
> > > > > > equilibrium between open-access eprints and toll-access
> > > > > > journal article
> > > > > > (without any prediction as to whether the eprints
> > will be mostly
> > > > > > preprints+corrigenda or postprints/reprints).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Publisher policy on this is evolving in a very favorable
> > > > > > and progressive direction, and we should do everything to
> > > > > > encourage it, rather than the reverse (by making
> > needless gloomy
> > > > > > [depressed] predictions! The statistics are getting
> > > > better and better:
> > > > > > http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%
> > > > > > 20Publisher%20Policies.htm
> > > > > > and the objective is to help them keep improving
> > rather than to
> > > > > > inadvertently do the opposite by voicing needless pessimistic
> > > > > > predictions!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since I wrote following passage that you quote from way
> > > > back in 1997:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > HARNAD: "The scenario branches here for those
> > > > publishers who do
> > > > > > elect to change and those who don't: Those publishers
> > > > who do not
> > > > > > restructure themselves, who persist in trying to use the
> > > > > > subscription
> > > > > > or site license or pay-per-view model (S/SL/PPV) for cost
> > > > > > recovery,
> > > > > > especially if they attempt to use submission policy
> > > > and copyright
> > > > > > as a way of preventing their authors from publicly
> > > > archiving their
> > > > > > preprints and reprints, respectively (as many are
> > > > doing now), they
> > > > > > will simply lose their Editorial Boards, who will
> > > > emigrate to the
> > > > > > Web on their own, under user pressure (after all,
> > > > they are us!),
> > > > > > and will reconstitute themselves as electronic-only
> > > > journals, with
> > > > > > or without the old brand name, so as to recover the much
> > > > > > lower page
> > > > > > costs through author-end page charges, instead of
> > > > S/SL/PPV, all of
> > > > > > which block access to the reader."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have changed (or rather dropped) such predictions. I
> > > > instead merely
> > > > > > describe the possible contingencies, without any particular
> > > > > > prediction (or
> > > > > > interest) in which of them well eventually prevail:
> > > > > > See:
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1
> > > > > > Or:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hence it is no longer necessary for you to write:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PARKS: "I certainly would like to agree with this
> > > > scenario but for
> > > > > > reasons presented below, it will not happen. Publishers
> > > > > > who persist
> > > > > > in using the S/SL/PPV model will persist. Preprints,
> > > > > > working papers,
> > > > > > and even reprints which are dated may be available to all
> > > > > > for free,
> > > > > > but the current institution of academic review/journals
> > > > > > will remain,
> > > > > > as it has for physics."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is just fine. In fact, it is probably the most
> > positive and
> > > > > > reassuring thing we can both say to the STM publishers:
> > > > An equilibrium
> > > > > > will persist indefinitely. So let open-access evolve
> > > > naturally through
> > > > > > self-archiving! No need to fear it. No need to try to
> > > > block it through
> > > > > > restrictive copyright policies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But please don't do the opposite, namely, needlessly
> > reinforce any
> > > > > > residual publisher resistance to progressive copyright
> > > > policies. Yes,
> > > > > > the preprint+corrigenda strategy can get around those too,
> > > > > > but why even
> > > > > > imply that authors will need to resort to it? None of the
> > > > > > authors of the
> > > > > > 200,000+ papers in the Physics ArXiv ever did; nor did any of
> > > > > > the authors in
> > > > > > CogPrints, nor the other growing number of institutional
> > > > > > Eprint Archives:
> > > > > > See
> > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/tim-oai.htm especially
> > > > > > "New Archives"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please let me know whether we see eye to eye on this. If
> > > > we do, the
> > > > > > "unconverted" will be able not only to see the light, but to
> > > > > > welcome it!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stevan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > > > > > ---------------------~-->
> > > > > > Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
> > > > > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/FpY02D/vN2EAA/xGHJAA/IHFolB/TM
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > -------~->
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > bmanifesto-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > > __________
> > > > > This email has been scanned for all viruses by the
> > > > MessageLabs SkyScan
> > > > > service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus
> > > > service working
> > > > > around the clock, around the globe, visit
> http://www.messagelabs.com
> > > >
> > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > __________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > bmanifesto-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > > ---------------------~-->
> > > Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
> > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/FpY02D/vN2EAA/xGHJAA/IHFolB/TM
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > -------~->
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > bmanifesto-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
> > service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working
> > around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
> service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working
> around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
Received on Thu Feb 20 2003 - 12:01:26 GMT