In my opinion, you definitely should not do it without the author's
permission - and in each case checking whether the publisher allows the
author to deposit the peer-reviewed, published version or not
Sally
Sally Morris, Secretary-General
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
Phone: 01903 871686 Fax: 01903 871457 E-mail: sec-gen_at_alpsp.org
ALPSP Website
http://www.alpsp.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kathleen Shearer" <mkshearer_at_sprint.ca>
To: <AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
> We have also discussed this option as one strategy for accumulating a
> baseline of content in our repositories. However, it was assumed that
> one would have to seek permission first from each author, and this could
> become very time consuming...
>
> Does anyone know whether author permission would be required for this?
>
> It does seem like a good way to get some content into the repository in
> the initial stages. The idea being that one could then showcase a
> "working" repository to the faculty members when encouraging them to
> begin self-archiving.
>
> Kathleen
>
> Kathleen Shearer
> Research Associate
> Canadian Association of Research Libraries
> mkshearer_at_sprint.ca
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stevan Harnad
> To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 11:05 PM
> Subject: Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access Status: R
>
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, [Identity Deleted] wrote:
>
> > Stevan,
> >
> > [Identity Deleted], our electronic resources coordinator, was
> inspired by
> > your quote of 55% of journals allowing self-archiving to ask why we
> don't
> > just go back and retrospectively add that 55% to a University
> archive.
> > [ http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2995.html ]
> >
> > I have been pushing [Ivy League University, identity deleted] to
> establish
> > such an archive. I thought it was a great idea to get a collection
> of
> > content immediately. Do you know of other Universities that are
> doing
> > this and if not, why not?
>
> Thanks for your message.
>
> (1) The 55% figure comes from the Romeo sample of 7000+ journals, of
> which 55% already officially support author/institution
> self-archiving.
> (Many more journals will agree if asked.)
>
> http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher=
> %20Policies.htm
>
> (2) In most cases the support probably extends to the retrospective
> legacy
> literature as this is not a great source of potential revenue and many
> more journals (e.g., Science) already support self-archiving after an
> interval -- from 6 months to three years -- after the publication
> date.
>
> (3) Although making a university's past research output openly
> accessible is very valuable and desirable (and doing it is to be
> strongly encouraged), making its *current* research output openly
> accessible is even more valuable and desirable (and even more strongly
> to be encouraged!).
>
> (4) The 55% figure is actually an estimate of the *minimum* amount of
> *current* research output that universities can already self-archive
> immediately, without the need to make any further request of the
> publisher, or any change in the copyright transfer of licensing
> agreement. http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#copyright1
>
> (5) The challenge with self-archiving (whether current or legacy
> research
> output) is not, and has never been, publishers or copyright.
> Publishers
> will cooperate, in the interests of science and scholarship.
> http://www.stm-assoc.org/infosharing/springconference-prog.html
>
> (6) The real challenge is establishing a systematic institutional
> self-archiving policy that will ensure the speedy self-archiving of
> research output. The library can help
> http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#libraries-do
> especially by offering a proxy self-archiving service
> e.g. http://eprints.st-andrews.ac.uk/proxy_archive.html
> but it is the university and its departments that need to strongly
> encourage or even mandate self-archiving by its researchers
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html
> their policy backed up by the research funding agencies
> http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/
>
> But going after retrospective research is a good idea too. I hope
> universities that have been implementing this will reply and share
> their
> experience.
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
> NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open
> access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at
> the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 & 03):
>
> http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
> or
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html
>
> Discussion can be posted to: american-scientist-open-access-forum_at_amsci.org
Received on Sun Sep 14 2003 - 13:25:44 BST