[GOAL] Re: Can time-stamped PDF's qualify as OA?

[Peter Murray-Rust]

The OUP journal Nucleic Acids Research (which has been "Open" for many
years) uses CC licences: Example:

http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/44/2/524.full.pdf+html

which is CC-BY and the licence is clearly displayed on the PDF . This
grants rights to any reader to re-publish. (Note that some articles are
CC-NC). My guess is that this is variable between journals or else simply
inconsistent (The price we pay for not challenging publishers more
frequently)
.
©The Author(s) 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of
Nucleic Acids Research.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http:
//creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which
permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.






On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Walker,Thomas J <tjw at ufl.edu> wrote:

> In investigating the PDFs of articles in Journal of Medical Entomology
> [JME] published by Oxford University Press [OUP] I’ve found that OUP puts a
> time stamp on every PDF they provide to others.  This makes it impossible
> for authors, who have paid a fee or $2000 to $3500 for OA, to make a
> non-time stamped PDF openly accessible on the Web.
>
>
>
> This is because even though OUP has granted copyrights to OA-fee paying
> authors, it requires the corresponding author of each article to sign (for
> himself and for any other authors of the article) OUP’s “License to
> Publish.”  This License
> <http://entnemdept.ifas.ufl.edu/walker/OUP_License_to_Publish.pdf> states
> (in legal language) that OUP has the exclusive right to publish the
> article!  That would mean that authors could not legally post their
> copyrighted PDFs on their homepages.
>
>
>
> In a draft of a paper about this practice, I’ve argued that OUP’s
> time-stamped PDFs should not qualify as OA:
>
>
>
> All the meanings of OA that I am aware of would exclude PDF files that
> have been altered to prevent their being an unaltered copy of the printed
> pages of the version of record.  None of the PDF files in OUP’s archive are
> unaltered.  I challenge anyone to find one PDF that is a true electronic
> version of the printed version of that article [which is the “version of
> record”].   Yet PDF files of journal articles are valued *because* they
> are unaltered scans of the pages of the paper version of the article.
>
>
>
> But am I wrong and OUP’s PDFs meet current NIH standards for OA?
>
>
>
> Tom
>
> ============================================
>
> Thomas J. Walker
> Department of Entomology & Nematology
> PO Box 110620 (or Natural Area Drive)
> University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0620
>
> E-mail: tjw at ufl.edu     FAX: (352)392-0190
>
> Web: http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/walker/
>
> ============================================
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>


-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20160208/69a19e3f/attachment-0001.html