On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Dr.Vinod Scaria wrote:
> It is possible (this factor has not been monitored to date) that
> many researchers (those who are aware of the open access movement)
> are troubled by the possible copyright implications of open archives
> and access
Fact: It is not only possible but certain that "many researchers are troubled
by the possible copyright implications of open archives and access". They are
troubled by this as well as by at least 27 other equally groundless worries
(see end of message).
Fact: 55% of journals already support self-archiving.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/rcoptable.gif
Concerning those journals, the worries are not just groundless but
perverse. There is hence no reason whatsoever why 55% of the 2.5 million
research articles published yearly should not already be self-archived and hence
open-access. (Of the remaining 45% "white" journals, many will agree to author
self-archiving if asked; and even for the remaining minority who do not agree,
there is still a way to self-archive one's articles in them without any
copyright implications:
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#copyright1 ).
Fact ("Los Alamos Lemma"): Physicists -- far more sensible than the rest
of us -- have been self-archiving since 1991 without worrying for a single
microsecond about "copyright implications." Across the ensuing years,
they have made over a quarter million articles open-access without a
single copyright challenge for a single publisher. Meanwhile, we are
still sitting in a state of Zeno's Paralysis, worrying.
"The 'Los Alamos Lemma'"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0469.html
"Zeno's Paradox and the Road to the Optimal/Inevitable"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0819.html
> It is possible... that many researchers... are troubled by the [possible
> impact of] possible copyright implications... on the visibility of
> their work as compared to the traditional publishing mechanism they are
> familiar with.
This worry sounds to me worse than groundless: it sounds incoherent. There
is no second-guessing what people who are minded to worry may worry about,
but I suspect the above one is based on not one but two conflations:
(1) Conflating copyright matters with the "Ingelfinger Rule" (not a
copyright matter but merely a journal policy matter) and (2) conflating
the Green Road to open access (BOAI-1: open-access self-archiving of
one's own toll-access journal publications) with the Golden Road (BOAI-2:
publishing one's articles in alternative open-access journals).
So, as I cannot disambiguate the above into a coherent worry to address,
all I can suggest is some information on (1) the Ingelfinger Rule (a journal
policy of refusing to even consider for publication findings that have been
previously publicised in any way (whether via the popular press or
the Web). The Ingelfinger Rule (which is vanishing fast) is neither
a copyright (hence legal) matter nor is it enforceable.
(Publishers may like the Ingelfinger Rule, to boost sales, but editors
and referees have no interest in it whatsoever. No referee will recommend
or condone the rejection of an important, sound, new finding simply
because the author has divulged it to the press or posted it on the
Web -- and he will rightly regard his freely donated refereeing time as
having been abused if he takes the trouble to review and evaluate the paper,
and his recommendations are over-ruled because of the Ingelfinger Rule!
Researchers are quite capable and experienced in distinguishing unrefereed
preprints from refereed, journal-certified postprints in deciding when
something is safe to use and try to build upon.) The best advice one can
give to authors about the Ingelfinger Rules is to ignore it completely.
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#publisher-forbids
As to (2) (the green/gold conflation), open access maximises visibility
and impact, but the effect is only additive (i.e., adds visbility and
impact to what the article would have had otherwise) in BOAI-1 (the
green road of self-archiving toll-access articles). With new journals,
whether open-access (BOAI-2) or toll-access, there is always the risk that
the new journal, lacking the track-record of the established journal,
may have lower visibility and impact. An extreme example might be the
choice between publishing in Nature (a high-impact toll-access journal)
and publishing in Psycoloquy
http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk (a
moderate-impact open-access journal that I founded in 1990).
No contest! The author should publish in Nature if he can (and then get the
added visibility/impact provided by open-access by self-archiving it). (For the
pedants: Nature is a "green" publisher, supporting self-archiving:
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm
> They could probably contribute positively by submitting to Open
> Access Journals.DOAJ www.doaj.org maintains an almost exclusive list of
> such Journals.
This is a non-sequitur.
> How can we dissipate these fears?
By tirelessly countering them with the facts:
"I-worry-about..." FAQs"
1. Preservation
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#1.Preservation
2. Authentication
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#2.Authentication
3. Corruption
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#3.Corruption
4. Navigation (info-glut)
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#4.Navigation
5. Certification
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#5.Certification
6. Evaluation
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#6.Evaluation
7. Peer review
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#7.Peer
8. Paying the piper
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#8.Paying
9. Downsizing
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#9.Downsizing
10. Copyright
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#10.Copyright
11. Plagiarism
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#11. Plagiarism
12. Priority
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#12.Priority
13. Censorship
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#13.Censorship
14. Capitalism
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#14.Capitalism
15. Readability
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#5.Readability
16. Graphics
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#16.Graphics
17. Publishers' future
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#17 Publishers
18. Libraries'/Librarians' future
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#18.Libraries
19. Learned Societies' future
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#19.Learned
20. University conspiracy
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#20.University
21. Serendipity
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#21.Serendipity
22. Tenure/Promotion
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#22.Tenure
23. Version control
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#23.Version
24. Napster
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#24.Napster
25. Mark-up
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#25.Mark-Up
26. Classification
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#26.Classification
27. Secrecy
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#27.Secrecy
28. Affordability
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#28.Affordability
Stevan Harnad
NOTE: Complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open
access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at
the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 & 03):
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html
Posted discussion to: american-scientist-open-access-forum_at_amsci.org
Dual Open-Access Strategy:
BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access
journal whenever one exists.
BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable
toll-access journal and also self-archive it.
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml
http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0026.gif
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0021.gif
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0024.gif
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0028.gif
Received on Sat Nov 15 2003 - 18:27:34 GMT
