Stevan has misread my blog posting.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_04_03_fosblogarchive.html#a111279844149784380
I wasn't talking about the PNAS policy on self-archiving in institutional
repositories but the PNAS policy on depositing to PubMed Central as part of
the NIH public-access policy. PNAS is telling its authors that they may
not authorize PubMed Central to release their work earlier than six months
after publication unless they pay the PNAS processing fee. This does not
affect the PNAS self-archiving policy, and indeed, I encourage PNAS authors
(with or without NIH funding) to self-archive their articles in their
institutional repositories immediately upon publication.
Peter
Peter Suber
Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge
Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College
Author, SPARC Open Access Newsletter
Editor, Open Access News blog
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/
peter.suber_at_earlham.edu
At 04:42 PM 4/6/2005, you wrote:
>I believe that Peter Suber may have made an inadvertent but rather
>fundamental misinterpretation below. He infers that PNAS does not allow
>public self-archiving by the author until six months after publication
>except if the author plays the publication fee, but this is incorrect:
>
>PNAS is one of the 92% of journals that have given their authors the
>green light for *immediate* self-archiving upon publication (i.e., making
>*publicly accessible immediately*): http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php
>(80% of them full-green for the final refereed draft -- the postprint --
>12% pale-green for the pre-acceptance preprint: PNAS is among the 80%
>postprint full-green journals).
[...]
Received on Thu Apr 07 2005 - 03:19:01 BST