[ The following text is in the "WINDOWS-1252" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
On 22-May-09, at 5:10 AM, C.J.Smith wrote:
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.
Dear Colin, and all:
In the blogged version of the conclusions I drew from all of this,
and the advice I gave on its basis, I added a fifth point that I
should have added to my posting too. See (5) below:
(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.
(5) Meanwhile, if there are multiple, self-contradictory
statements of the publisher's policy, act on the most
positive one and don't give it another thought until and
unless you ever receive a take-down notice.
I also added:
And above all, reflect 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 in advance from each publisher, we would have
virtually none of those millions of articles accessed,
used and built-upon across those decades by the many
users worldwide whose institutions could not afford
access to the publisher's subscription edition.
In other words, I think it is both unnecessary and counterproductive
for individual authors (or Institutional Repository managers) to
assume the pre-emptive burden of trying to sort out the double-talk
that the publisher posts, or that their individual permissions grunts
say in response to individual permissions queries.
For the specific question of the distinction between the
"institutional repository" and the "author's own website": that
distinction is such utter, unmitigated nonsense that I find it
difficult to believe anyone (other than a wishful-thinking
publisher's permissions grunt or permissions double-talk text
drafter) would give it a nanosecond of thought. There is no
difference between an "institutional repository" and an "author's own
website"! They are just names for disk sector's on the author's
institutional webserver:
if there are multiple, self-contradictory statements of
the publisher's policy, act on the most positive one and
don't give it another thought
That includes contradictory statements from the same publisher,
posted at different URLs, and under slightly different names! (A
number of IRs have since explicitly, and wearily, declared that their
authors' sector on the IR server is now officially baptized their
"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.
My advice: don't click through to the 'full details' link! This is
all just double-talk and FUD. Pick the most favorable version,
screen-grab it for your records, and then go ahead and post your
accepted article on your employer's website/repository and forget
about it.
(By the way, I am fully aware of the illusion that this self-serving
double-talk is trying to create in this instance: to make the
publisher appear to be Green on immediate OA self-archiving -- but,
if you click-through, you realize that it is only at the price of
paying them for Gold OA! This is shameful, misleading nonsense -- but
you need not "click through": just take "Wiley-Blackwell journal
authors can use their accepted article in a number of ways... An
electronic copy... can be posted on their... employer's
website/repository..." at face value and do not give it another
thought until and unless someone from "Wiley-Blackwell" ever ventures
to send you a take-down notice.
And let the "you" be the author, to whom this message about how
"Wiley-Blackkwell journal authors can use their accepted article" is
addressed. Please don't get any 3rd-party intermediaries involved in
it -- except in the form of a blanket institutional Green OA
self-archiving mandate for its employees.
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 made no particular mention of the SHERPA/ROMEO site in my posting
and advice. I simply quoted three published online excerpts of each
"Wiley's" public words to their authors. Consider the Romeos to just
be short-cuts to publishers' own expressed policies, and summaries of
them.
(And I can only repeat, yet again, that it is an enormous strategic
error to ask when there already exists a suitable public green light
from the publisher -- and even worse to have a 3rd party ask: The
only thing the institution should do is require immediate deposit,
without exception, in all cases, and also to strongly recommend
immediately setting access to that deposit as Open Access. But no
chasing after permissions on the author's behalf, and especially not
in advance, and in the absence of any take-down notice.)
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.
I see a very clear and far better choice, with publicly documented
support for it from "Wiley-Blackwell": "Wiley-Blackwell journal
authors can use their accepted article in a number of ways... An
electronic copy... can be posted on their... employer's
website/repository..."
Let the author "post" his accepted draft to his IR immediately upon
acceptance, set access immediately as OA, and then forget about it,
as millions of authors have been doing since the 1980's, followed by
virtually no take-down challenges from their publishers. (Most
journals, on the contrary, have since officially given immediate OA
self-archiving their green light. If and when the author ever does
get a take-down notice, he can decide whether or not to honor it at
that time. But pre-emptive obstacles should not be needlessly
created, in advance, by having 3rd parties contact publishers'
permission grunts -- even if their portfolio is "W/B Associate
Permissions Manager."
(It is the author who is doing the depositing and the access-setting,
not a 3rd party. Except where an exception has been negotiated by the
author (as recommended, for example, by the Harvard policy), the
Copyright transfer agreement is between the author and the publisher,
not a 3rd party.)
The OU should adopt an ID/OA mandate. OU should not doom you, Colin,
to having to contact a publisher's permissions grunt for every new OU
article written, nor to have to do the hermeneutics to sort out
incoherent versions of publishers' official policy. Let authors pick
a grammatical English sentence, posted publicly by the publisher, to
the effect that authors can post their final drafts on their
websites, and take that to be a green light, regardless of whether
the publisher goes on to contradict it elsewhere. It's publishers'
copy-editors who are supposed to vet incoherent author prose, not
authors (or Repository Managers) vetting incoherent publisher
prose...
A second word to the wise,
Stevan
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):
<image003.gif>
and John Wiley & Sons says this (sample from one of its
journals):
<image004.gif>
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).
Received on Sat May 23 2009 - 00:13:35 BST