This report is welcome for strongly confirming what was already known from the <a href="http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php">Romeo </a> directory of publisher self-archiving policies (SHERPA/Nottingham, with an author-oriented rendering at EPrints/Southampton): The majority of journals (over 90%) endorse the immediate, unembargoed author self-archiving of some version of the article (63% for the refereed version).<div>
<br></div><div>It is also quite correct that:</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;">(1) Most publishers endorse only the immediate, unembargoed self-archiving of the author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft, <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">not the publisher's proprietary PDF</span>.<br>
<br>(2) Most publishers endorse immediate, unembargoed self-archiving only on the author's institutional website, <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">not on a 3rd-party website, such as a central or subject-based repository</span>.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Both of these limitations are just fine and in no way limit or compromise the provision of (Green, gratis) Open Access. What would-be users worldwide who do not have subscription access to the publisher's proprietary PDF urgently need today is a<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">ccess to the refereed research</span> itself, and that is what depositing it into the author's Institutional repository provides.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Although the word "print" is somewhat misleading in the online era, because most eprints are not printed out at all, but consulted only in their online version, the preprint/postprint distinction is perfectly coherent: a <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">preprint</span> is any draft preceding the author's final, accepted, refereed version, and a <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">postprint</span> is any draft from the author's final, accepted refereed version onward (including the publisher's PDF). <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">Preprint/postprint marks the essential OA distinction: There is no need to use the complicated NISO terminology instead. </span></div>
<div><br></div><div>The PRC Report is quite right that authors are still greatly under-informed about Open Access, Self-Archiving, and Rights. Universities need to master the essential information and then convey it to their researchers.</div>
<div><br></div><div>See: </div><blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;">"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; "><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/460-guid.html">Too Much Ado About PDF</a></span>"<br>
"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; "><a href="http://blogsearch.google.ca/blogsearch?hl=en&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active&ie=UTF-8&q=locus+of+deposit++blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&btnG=Search+Blogs">Waking OA's Slumbering Giant: Why Locus-of-Deposit Matters for Open Access and Open Access Mandates</a></span>"<br>
"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; "><a href="http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#What-is-Eprint">What is an Eprint?</a></span>"<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div>
<div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Publishing Research Consortium <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:info@publishingresearch.net">info@publishingresearch.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p><b><font size="3" color="navy" face="Times New Roman"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;color:navy;font-weight:bold">Publishers’
agreements are more liberal than journal authors think, but do not allow
self-archiving of the published PDF</span></font></b></p>
<p><font size="1" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:6.0pt"> </span></font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">The Publishing Research Consortium has published another in its series
of reports: <i><span style="font-style:italic">Journal Authors’
Rights: perception and reality</span></i> (Summary Paper 5).</span></font></p>
<p><font size="1" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:6.0pt"> </span></font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Using re-analysis of the recently published ALPSP report <i><span style="font-style:italic">Scholarly Publishing Practice 3</span></i> (which
looks at the practice of 181 publishers, representing 75% of all articles), and
a new survey of 1163 authors, the report compares what publishers actually
allow authors to do with the different versions of their manuscript, and what
they want to do and believe they are permitted to do.</span></font></p>
<p><font size="1" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:6.0pt"> </span></font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">For both the submitted and the accepted version of their manuscript,
the majority of publishers’ agreements (as calculated by the number of
articles they publish) allow authors to provide copies to colleagues, to
incorporate into their own works, to post to a personal or departmental website
or to an institutional repository, and to use in course packs; just under
50% also permit posting to a subject repository. However, far fewer
authors think they can do any of these than are in fact allowed to do so.</span></font></p>
<p><font size="1" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:6.0pt"> </span></font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">The published PDF version is the version that authors would prefer to
use for all the above purposes; again, publishers’ agreements
exceed authors’ expectations for providing copies to colleagues,
incorporating in subsequent work, and use in course packs. However, the
picture is turned on its head when it comes to self-archiving; more than
half of authors think that publishers allow them to deposit the final PDF,
whereas under 10% of publishers actually permit this – probably because
of serious concerns about the long-term impact on subscriptions.</span></font></p>
<p><font size="1" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:6.0pt"> </span></font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Why do authors have such a poor understanding of publishers’
agreements? The PRC concludes that publishers need to do much more to
make sure that their terms are crystal clear, but also suggests that the
ambiguous term ‘preprint’ may mislead authors, and should be
dropped in favour of the recommended NISO terminology.</span></font></p>
<p><font size="1" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:6.0pt"> </span></font></p>
<p style="margin-left:18.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt"><font size="3" face="Symbol"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<font size="1" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></font></span></span></font>Full report: Sally Morris, <i><span style="font-style:italic">Journal Authors’ Rights: perception and
reality</span></i> (PRC Summary Paper 5), PRC 2009 (PDF) <a href="http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/JournalAuthorsRights.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/JournalAuthorsRights.pdf</a></p>
<p style="margin-left:18.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt"><font size="3" face="Symbol"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<font size="1" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></font></span></span></font>Summary of findings: <i><span style="font-style:italic">Journal Authors’ Rights: perception and
reality – a preliminary report</span></i>, PRC 2009 (PPT) <a href="http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/SummaryforAPE-final.ppt" target="_blank">http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/SummaryforAPE-final.ppt</a></p>
<p style="margin-left:18.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt"><font size="3" face="Symbol"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<font size="1" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></font></span></span></font>Author survey summary: <i><span style="font-style:italic">Author Rights Copyright Project</span></i>, GfK
Business 2008 (PPT) <a href="http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/PRC2008v2.ppt" target="_blank">http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/PRC2008v2.ppt</a></p>
<p style="margin-left:18.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt"><font size="3" face="Symbol"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<font size="1" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></font></span></span></font>John & Laura Cox, <i><span style="font-style:italic">Publishing Practice 3</span></i>, ALPSP 2008 (PDF) <a href="http://www.alpsp.org/ngen_public/article.asp?id=200&did=47&aid=24781&st=&oaid=-1" target="_blank">http://www.alpsp.org/ngen_public/article.asp?id=200&did=47&aid=24781&st=&oaid=-1</a></p>
<p style="margin-left:18.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;text-autospace:none"><font size="3" face="Symbol"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<font size="1" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></font></span></span></font><i><span style="font-style:italic">Journal
Article Versions (JAV): Recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working
Group</span></i>, NISO l 2008 (PDF) <span lang="EN-US"><a href="http://www.niso.org/publications/rp/RP-8-2008.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.niso.org/publications/rp/RP-8-2008.pdf</a></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:21.85pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span><b><i><font size="2" color="#006666" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:normal;font-style:italic"> </span></font></i></b></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:21.85pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span><b><i><font size="2" color="#006666" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:normal;font-style:italic">The Publishing Research Consortium (<a href="http://www.publishingresearch.net/" target="_blank"><font size="3"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">http://www.publishingresearch.net</span></font></a>) is a group of
associations and publishers, which supports global research into scholarly
communication in order to enable evidence-based discussion. Our objective
is to support work that is scientific and pro-scholarship. Overall, we aim to
promote an understanding of the role of publishing and its impact on research
and teaching.</span></font></i></b></span></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Arial"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Arial"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></font></p>
<div>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></font></p>
</div>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>