On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, C.Oppenheim wrote:
> I am with David on this one. There are some publishers who are still very
> aggressive on copyright and Stevan's approach is close to incitement to
> infringe their copyright, which is an offence in many jurisdictions.
>
> Sorry Stevan, I know this is a bore, but a more softly, softly approach is
> necessary - such as the Oppenheim-Harnad solution (so-called).
Here is the algorithm, written out long-hand:
(1) Author looks up the journal's self-archiving policy in
http://romeo.eprints.org/
(2) If journal is (postprint) green, self-archive final refereed draft
(postprint).
(3) If journal is (preprint) pale-green, use the so-called Oppenheim-Harnad
strategy (preprint + corrigenda)
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#copyright1
(4a) If the journal is gray (8%), self-archive preprint + corrigenda
and inform the journal.
(4b) If the journal responds to (4a) with an objection, negotiate or remove.
(Peter [Suber], if my memory does not fail me, you too have recommended
something along the lines of 4a/4b: Is there a URL?)
Compare this algorithm with the "Subversive Proposal" of 10 years ago (and
actual journal-author practice, since the dawn of the Internet):
"If every esoteric [read: refereed-journal-article] author in the
world this very day established a globally accessible local ftp
archive for every piece of esoteric [read: author give-away] writing
from this day forward... [and hence]
"If all scholars' preprints were universally available to all
scholars by anonymous ftp (and gopher, and World-Wide Web, and
the search/retrieval wonders of the future), NO scholar would ever
consent to WITHDRAW any preprint of his from the public eye after
the refereed version was accepted for paper "PUBLICation." Instead,
everyone would, quite naturally, substitute the refereed, published
reprint for the unrefereed preprint."
Harnad, Stevan (1995) Universal FTP Archives for Esoteric Science and
Scholarship: A Subversive Proposal. In: Ann Okerson & James O'Donnell
(Eds.) Scholarly Journals at the Crossroads; A Subversive Proposal
for Electronic Publishing. Washington, DC., Association of Research
Libraries, June 1995.
http://www.arl.org/sc/subversive/
The only refinement since has been "add the corrigenda" in place of
"swap the reprint" (a good practice in any case, because it is better
for the scholarly record not to remove but to add).
(Note: The "don't-ask/don't-tell" strategy was not being *recommended* but simply
described as the de-facto practice of many authors for over a decade and a half.
No incitement-to-infringe here...)
Stevan Harnad
Received on Wed Nov 03 2004 - 12:17:51 GMT