Stevan,
The John Wiley & Sons entry on SHERPA RoMEO describes the policy of
John Wiley & Sons before they merged with Blackwell. Even so, one of
the conditions of their `green' status is `not allowed on
institutional repository'. They only permit the use of the
`post-print' on the author's own website.
Your quote from the Wiley-Blackwell Author Services page is
interesting. It does indeed say the following:
"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."
However, when you click through to the `full details' link, there is
no further mention of what authors can do with their accepted
manuscripts.
I asked the Wiley-Blackwell person with whom I have been in touch to
update their policy on SHERPA RoMEO. Part of his response to me was
as follows:
"We have no connection with the SHERPA/RoMEO site and we do not
sanction the service or verify the information held there. The
SHERPA/RoMEO site should therefore not be taken as an accurate
reflection of our policies."
I will now challenge him based on the quote you found above, but his
answer to me in writing still seems very clear:
""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."
Based on this, and on your "sensible practical advice to authors and
Repository Managers alike", I can see no other choice than to deposit
Wiley-Blackwell post-prints under permanent closed access.
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
____________________________________________________________________________
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG]
On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 21 May 2009 21:18
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Re: The definitive answer from Wiley-Blackwell
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).
---------------------------------
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, "image003.gif" Image/GIF 55KB. ]
[ Unable to print this part. ]
[ Part 3, "image004.gif" Image/GIF 46KB. ]
[ Unable to print this part. ]
Received on Fri May 22 2009 - 17:11:27 BST