<font size="2"><font face="trebuchet ms,sans-serif">The word "bans" in the headline below is deeply misleading. See my comment on Google+ (which I'm using as a blog substitute nowadays).</font></font><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'trebuchet ms', sans-serif"><a href="https://plus.google.com/109377556796183035206/posts/FUoCHXVJHSg">https://plus.google.com/109377556796183035206/posts/FUoCHXVJHSg</a></font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'trebuchet ms', sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'trebuchet ms', sans-serif">Also see the better coverage by Andrew Appel at Princeton's Center for Information Technology Policy.</font></div>
<div><a href="https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/appel/open-access-scholarly-publications-princeton"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'trebuchet ms', sans-serif">https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/appel/open-access-scholarly-publications-princeton</font></a></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'trebuchet ms', sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'trebuchet ms', sans-serif"> Best,</font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'trebuchet ms', sans-serif"> Peter</font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'trebuchet ms', sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'trebuchet ms', sans-serif">Peter Suber</font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'trebuchet ms', sans-serif">Berkman Fellow, Harvard University</font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'trebuchet ms', sans-serif">Senior Researcher, SPARC</font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'trebuchet ms', sans-serif"><a href="http://bit.ly/suber-gplus">bit.ly/suber-gplus</a> </font></div>
<div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'trebuchet ms', sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'trebuchet ms', sans-serif"><br></font><div class="gmail_quote"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'trebuchet ms', sans-serif">On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Carolina Rossini <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:carolina.rossini@gmail.com">carolina.rossini@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</font><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'trebuchet ms', sans-serif"><br>
> 28 September 2011<br>
> Princeton bans academics from handing all copyright to journal publishers<br>
> Sunanda Creagh<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://theconversation.edu.au/princeton-bans-academics-from-handing-all-copyright-to-journal-publishers-3596" target="_blank">http://theconversation.edu.au/princeton-bans-academics-from-handing-all-copyright-to-journal-publishers-3596</a><br>
><br>
> Prestigious US academic institution Princeton University has banned<br>
> researchers from giving the copyright of scholarly articles to journal<br>
> publishers, except in certain cases where a waiver may be granted. The<br>
> new rule is part of an Open Access policy aimed at broadening the<br>
> reach of their scholarly…<br>
><br>
> Princeton Princeton University hopes its new Open Access policy will<br>
> pressure academic publishers to stop requiring the copyright to the<br>
> papers they publish. Flickr/Yakinodi<br>
><br>
> Prestigious US academic institution Princeton University has banned<br>
> researchers from giving the copyright of scholarly articles to journal<br>
> publishers, except in certain cases where a waiver may be granted.<br>
><br>
> The new rule is part of an Open Access policy aimed at broadening the<br>
> reach of their scholarly work and encouraging publishers to adjust<br>
> standard contracts that commonly require exclusive copyright as a<br>
> condition of publication.<br>
><br>
> Universities pay millions of dollars a year for academic journal<br>
> subscriptions. People without subscriptions, which can cost up to<br>
> $25,000 a year for some journals or hundreds of dollars for a single<br>
> issue, are often prevented from reading taxpayer funded research.<br>
> Individual articles are also commonly locked behind pay walls.<br>
><br>
> Researchers and peer reviewers are not paid for their work but<br>
> academic publishers have said such a business model is required to<br>
> maintain quality.<br>
><br>
> At a September 19 meeting, Princeton’s Faculty Advisory Committee on<br>
> Policy adopted a new open access policy that gives the university the<br>
> “nonexclusive right to make available copies of scholarly articles<br>
> written by its faculty, unless a professor specifically requests a<br>
> waiver for particular articles.”<br>
><br>
> “The University authorizes professors to post copies of their articles<br>
> on their own web sites or on University web sites, or in other<br>
> not-for-a-fee venues,” the policy said.<br>
><br>
> “The main effect of this new policy is to prevent them from giving<br>
> away all their rights when they publish in a journal.”<br>
><br>
> Under the policy, academic staff will grant to The Trustees of<br>
> Princeton University “a nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license<br>
> to exercise any and all copyrights in his or her scholarly articles<br>
> published in any medium, whether now known or later invented, provided<br>
> the articles are not sold by the University for a profit, and to<br>
> authorise others to do the same.”<br>
><br>
> In cases where the journal refuses to publish their article without<br>
> the academic handing all copyright to the publisher, the academic can<br>
> seek a waiver from the open access policy from the University.<br>
><br>
> The policy authors acknowledged that this may make the rule toothless<br>
> in practice but said open access policies can be used “to lean on the<br>
> journals to adjust their standard contracts so that waivers are not<br>
> required, or with a limited waiver that simply delays open access for<br>
> a few months.”<br>
><br>
> Academics will also be encouraged to place their work in open access<br>
> data stores such as Arxiv or campus-run data repositories.<br>
> A step forward<br>
><br>
> Having prestigious universities such as Princeton and Harvard fly the<br>
> open access flag represented a step forward, said open access advocate<br>
> Professor Simon Marginson from the University of Melbourne’s Centre<br>
> for the Study of Higher Education.<br>
><br>
> “The achievement of free knowledge flows, and installation of open<br>
> access publishing on the web as the primary form of publishing rather<br>
> than oligopolistic journal publishing subject to price barriers, now<br>
> depends on whether this movement spreads further among the peak<br>
> research and scholarly institutions,” he said.<br>
><br>
> “Essentially, this approach – if it becomes general – normalises an<br>
> open access regime and offers authors the option of opting out of that<br>
> regime. This is a large improvement on the present position whereby<br>
> copyright restrictions and price barriers are normal and authors have<br>
> to attempt to opt in to open access publishing, or risk prosecution by<br>
> posting their work in breach of copyright.”<br>
><br>
> “The only interests that lose out under the Princeton proposal are the<br>
> big journal publishers. Everyone else gains.”<br>
><br>
> Professor Tom Cochrane, Deputy Vice-Chancellor Technology, Information<br>
> and Learning Support at the Queensland University of Technology, who<br>
> has also led an Open Access policy mandate at QUT welcomed Princeton’s<br>
> new rule but warned that the waiver must not be used too regularly,<br>
> lest the policy be undermined.<br>
><br>
> If all universities and research institutions globally had policies<br>
> similar to Princeton’s, the ultimate owner of published academic work<br>
> would be universities and their research communities collectively,<br>
> Professor Cochrane said.<br>
><br>
> “They are the source of all the content that publishers absolutely<br>
> require to run their business model,” he said.<br>
><br>
> Dr Danny Kingsley, an open access expert and Manager of Scholarly<br>
> Communication and ePublishing at Australian National University said<br>
> the move was a positive step and that the push for open access should<br>
> come from the academic community.<br>
><br>
> In practice, however, the new policy requires staff have a good<br>
> understanding of the copyright arrangements they currently have with<br>
> journal publishers in their field.<br>
><br>
> They will need to ensure future publisher’s agreements accommodate the<br>
> new position and if not, obtain a waiver from the University.<br>
><br>
> “This sounds easy but in reality might be a challenge for some<br>
> academics. There is considerable evidence to show that academics often<br>
> have very little understanding of the copyright situation of their<br>
> published work,” she said.<br>
><br>
> “What will be most telling will be the publishers' response over the<br>
> next year or so. If they start providing amended agreements to<br>
> Princeton academics then the door will be open for other universities<br>
> to follow this lead. I suspect however they will not, as generally the<br>
> trend seems for publishers to make the open access path a complex and<br>
> difficult one.”<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:<br>
<a href="http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f" target="_blank">http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f</a><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div></div>