To which does Wiley Interscience belong? Wiley and Sons?
Thanks,
Steve Berry
I don't think anything like a definitive answer has been
reached, insofar as Wiley's Green-status is concerned
(i.e., whether or not Wiley endorses immediate author
self-archiving of the final, refereed draft (postprint).
First, there appear to be three Wileys:
John Wiley & Sons (GREEN)
Wiley-VCH Verlag Berlin (GREEN)
Wiley-Blackwell (GRAY)
Second, the three Wileys have inconsistent self-archiving
policy statements -- inconsistent among the three of
them, and inconsistent within each.
Wiley-Blackwell says this:
Wiley-Blackwell journal authors can use their accepted
article in a number of ways, including in publications of
their own work and course packs in their institution. An
electronic copy of the article (with a link to the online
version) can be posted on their own website, employer's
website/repository and on free public servers in the
subject area. For full details see
authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/faqs_copyright.asp.
Wiley-VCH says this (sample from one of its journals):
and John Wiley & Sons says this (sample from one of its
journals):
Now let me give some sensible practical advice to authors
and Repository Managers alike:
(1) Under all circumstances, deposit the final, refereed,
accepted draft of your journal article (postprint) in
your Institutional Repository (IR), immediately upon
acceptance for publication. There is no need whatsoever
to make a single exception.
(2) Unless you are certain that you have reason not to,
set access to that deposited draft as Open Access (OA)
immediately upon deposit. (Otherwise, you can set access
as Closed Access, for the duration of any publisher
embargo you wish to honor.)
(3) The only thing even remotely at issue is whether or
not, if you deposit a document in your IR and make it OA,
you receive a take-down notice from the publisher.
(4) If you receive a take-down notice and you wish to
honor it, set access as Closed Access for the duration of
any publisher embargo you wish to honor.
And remember that if the millions of articles that have
been made OA (by computer scientists, physicists,
economists, and all other disciplines) since the 1980's
had waited (or asked) for a clear, unambiguous green
light from each publisher, we would have virtually none
of those millions articles accessed, used and built upon
across those decades by the many users whose institutions
could not afford access to the publisher's subscription
edition.
A word to the wise,
Stevan Harnad
On 21-May-09, at 6:58 AM, C.J.Smith wrote:
[Apologies for cross-posting]
In the Wiley-Blackwell copyright assignment
form, which most authors publishing in this
company's journals will sign, it states
(under item 'C.2. Permitted Uses by
Contributor > Accepted Version') that:
"Re-use of the accepted and peer-reviewed
(but not final) version of the Contribution
shall be by separate agreement with
Wiley-Blackwell"
I took this to mean that authors can, if they
want to, approach Wiley-Blackwell on an
article-by-article basis for permission to
deposit their final draft manuscripts in
their institutional repository.
However, having chased up permission with
Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of an author here
at the Open University, I received (after a
number of email exchanges) the following
(apparently definitive) answer from their
Associate Permissions Manager:
"The submission version is the only version
we allow to be placed into institutional
repositories. We do not allow the post-peer
review article, the author's final draft, or
any other version to be deposited. Therefore,
I can confirm that permission is hereby
refused in this case."
So, unfortunately, given the size of
Wiley-Blackwell (fourth largest academic
journals publisher?), it seems we have a
disappointing barrier to Green OA. Of course,
Wiley has always not permitted final draft
self-archiving, but it now appears that in
merging with Blackwell they have stuck with
this policy rather than embracing
Blackwell's.
Although Wiley-Blackwell do offer compliance
with the 'major' funder mandates (e.g. NIH),
it leaves me wondering how they intend to
serve their authors who are mandated (for
example) by one of the UK Research Councils.
Have they thought this through? Are they
prepared to lose authors who (in theory at
least) could not possibly publish with them
because they are not permitted to
self-archive?
Colin Smith
Research Repository Manager
Open Research Online (ORO)
Open University Library
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes
MK7 6AA
Tel: +44(0)1908 332971
Email: c.j.smith_at_open.ac.uk
Web:
http://oro.open.ac.uk
Blog:
http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/oro
Twitter:
http://www.twitter.com/smithcolin
---------------------------------
The Open University is incorporated by Royal
Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in
England & Wales and a charity registered in
Scotland (SC 038302).
I don't think anything like a definitive answer has been
reached, insofar as Wiley's Green-status is concerned
(i.e., whether or not Wiley endorses immediate author
self-archiving of the final, refereed draft (postprint).
First, there appear to be three Wileys:
John Wiley & Sons (GREEN)
Wiley-VCH Verlag Berlin (GREEN)
Wiley-Blackwell (GRAY)
Second, the three Wileys have inconsistent self-archiving
policy statements -- inconsistent among the three of
them, and inconsistent within each.
Wiley-Blackwell says this:
Wiley-Blackwell journal authors can use their
accepted article in a number of ways,
including in publications of their own work
and course packs in their institution. An
electronic copy of the article (with a link
to the online version) can be posted on their
own website, employer's website/repository
and on free public servers in the subject
area. For full details see
authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/faqs_copyright.asp.
Wiley-VCH says this (sample from one of its journals):
[IMAGE]
and John Wiley & Sons says this (sample from one of its
journals):
[IMAGE]
Now let me give some sensible practical advice to authors
and Repository Managers alike:
(1) Under all circumstances, deposit the
final, refereed, accepted draft of your
journal article (postprint) in your
Institutional Repository (IR), immediately
upon acceptance for publication. There is no
need whatsoever to make a single exception.
(2) Unless you are certain that you have
reason not to, set access to that deposited
draft as Open Access (OA) immediately upon
deposit. (Otherwise, you can set access
as Closed Access, for the duration of any
publisher embargo you wish to honor.)
(3) The only thing even remotely at issue is
whether or not, if you deposit a document in
your IR and make it OA, you receive a
take-down notice from the publisher.
(4) If you receive a take-down notice and you
wish to honor it, set access as Closed Access
for the duration of any publisher embargo you
wish to honor.
And remember that if the millions of articles that have
been made OA (by computer scientists, physicists,
economists, and all other disciplines) since the 1980's
had waited (or asked) for a clear, unambiguous green
light from each publisher, we would have virtually none
of those millions articles accessed, used and built upon
across those decades by the many users whose institutions
could not afford access to the publisher's subscription
edition.
A word to the wise,
Stevan Harnad
On 21-May-09, at 6:58 AM, C.J.Smith wrote:
[Apologies for cross-posting]
In the Wiley-Blackwell copyright assignment
form, which most authors publishing in this
company's journals will sign, it states
(under item 'C.2. Permitted Uses by
Contributor > Accepted Version') that:
"Re-use of the accepted and peer-reviewed
(but not final) version of the Contribution
shall be by separate agreement with
Wiley-Blackwell"
I took this to mean that authors can, if they
want to, approach Wiley-Blackwell on an
article-by-article basis for permission to
deposit their final draft manuscripts in
their institutional repository.
However, having chased up permission with
Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of an author here
at the Open University, I received (after a
number of email exchanges) the following
(apparently definitive) answer from their
Associate Permissions Manager:
"The submission version is the only version
we allow to be placed into institutional
repositories. We do not allow the post-peer
review article, the author's final draft, or
any other version to be deposited. Therefore,
I can confirm that permission is hereby
refused in this case."
So, unfortunately, given the size of
Wiley-Blackwell (fourth largest academic
journals publisher?), it seems we have a
disappointing barrier to Green OA. Of course,
Wiley has always not permitted final draft
self-archiving, but it now appears that in
merging with Blackwell they have stuck with
this policy rather than embracing
Blackwell's.
Although Wiley-Blackwell do offer compliance
with the 'major' funder mandates (e.g. NIH),
it leaves me wondering how they intend to
serve their authors who are mandated (for
example) by one of the UK Research Councils.
Have they thought this through? Are they
prepared to lose authors who (in theory at
least) could not possibly publish with them
because they are not permitted to
self-archive?
Colin Smith
Research Repository Manager
Open Research Online (ORO)
Open University Library
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes
MK7 6AA
Tel: +44(0)1908 332971
Email: c.j.smith_at_open.ac.uk
Web:
http://oro.open.ac.uk
Blog:
http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/oro
Twitter:
http://www.twitter.com/smithcolin
---------------------------------
The Open University is incorporated by Royal
Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in
England & Wales and a charity registered in
Scotland (SC 038302).
[ Part 2, Image/TIFF 92KB. ]
[ Unable to print this part. ]
[ Part 3, Image/TIFF 76KB. ]
[ Unable to print this part. ]
Received on Thu May 21 2009 - 23:33:55 BST