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

Wed Feb 10 15:37:38 GMT 2016

There are a few issues here and I think it is important to separate them
out.

*Date stamping articles*
The rationale for this is to ensure that the article is properly cited -
and because digital content can be updated it ensures that the users can
justify their use/citation of content by the date on which they obtained it
[for example if I download and cite an article that is later retracted I
can validate my use of the article because I downloaded and cited it before
I was made aware of the retraction.]  Date-stamping an article has
absolutely no effect on whether it is OA or not  - the footnote on these
PDFs make it clear that it is OA. I cannot see why a date stamp makes
anything "less OA" - and I very much doubt whether it contradicts any NIH
guidelines - ?

*$400 for course packs*
OUP allows authors who want open access to select whether they want to
restrict reuse of their article - to prevent commercial or derivative
reuses. It is the authors that select the licence they want to use - unless
their funder forces them to use a particular licence.

The CC BY licence allows anyone (including OUP) to reuse content for
commercial reasons - i.e. to sell the articles. CC BY means that if I want
to use the articles to create a coursepack then I do not have to ask
permission - the CC BY licence allows me to do this. It also allows me to
sell my coursepacks (even if they comprise only CC BY articles). However if
I "want" to pay then there is nothing to stop someone making a charge.
[Example - someone has downloaded a series of OA CC BY articles published
in PLOS Medicine and is selling them as a book on Amazon - this is entirely
legitimate under CC BY].

If an author wants to publish under a CC BY-non-commercial licence, then
they must grant OUP commercial rights - otherwise OUP could not publish
their work in this (commercial) journal.

*Exclusive right to publish*
I agree that the licence wording is not as clear as it could be - but the
requirement for "exclusive" publication refers to "first" publication -
usually journals do not want to publish something that has already been
published elsewhere (they want original content), and they also want to
ensure that authors are not submitting to several journals at the same
time.

*Copyright:*
I defer to your knowledge of whether authors actually assigned copyright to
ESA back to 1908. However there is a second "layer" of copyright which is
copyright in the collection - so, for example, it is perfectly correct to
reuse a CC BY article for any purpose, but to reproduce an entire journal
issue or volume requires permission as there is copyright in the collection
- and this is almost always retained by the journal owner - this is nothing
to do with publishers, this is the law. The situation regarding copyright
was very muddy until about the early 1990s as many journals assumed
copyright assignment (many wrote it into their guidelines) and did not
require the authors to assert transfer (which legally they are required to
do in most countries).

Pippa

*****
Pippa Smart
Research Communication and Publishing Consultant
PSP Consulting
Oxford, UK
Tel: +44 1865 864255 or +44 7775 627688
email: pippa.smart at gmail.com
Web: www.pspconsulting.org
@LearnedPublish
****
Editor-in-Chief of Learned Publishing:
http://www.alpsp.org/Learned-Publishing
Editor of the ALPSP Alert: http://www.alpsp.org/ALPSP-Alert
****

On 10 February 2016 at 14:51, Walker,Thomas J <tjw at ufl.edu> wrote:

> Peter Murray-Rust’s posting about $400 study packs based on articles
> published with CC-BY rights statements opened my eyes to a part of
> OUP/ESA’s business plan I had missed—the use of time-stamped PDFs to make
> money from students of the teachers who use study packs that include
> articles by ESA authors in any of ESA’s four principal journals. OUP has
> slapped time stamps and notices of an ESA copyright on all articles in the
> four journals going back to 1908 for Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. and  J. Econ.
> Ent, and to 1972 and 1965 for J. Med. Ent. and  Envir. Ent.
>
>
>
> This should be illegal, as well as ethically and morally unacceptable.
> This is because ESA has no valid claim of copyright to articles published
> in its journals before it started requiring authors to sign over their
> copyrights to ESA in 1978.  Furthermore, JME, for its entire run of being
> published by Honolulu’s Bishop Museum (1964-1986), never required authors
> to sign copyright releases.  The handover of J. Med. Ent. to ESA resulted
> in the run from 1987-date being copyrighted by ESA.
>
> The magnitude of the deception of OUP claiming an ESA copyright on all
> articles that ever appeared in ESA’s four journals is that of ESA’s *271*
> “journal-years” of publication (through 2015 and including the first 22
> journal-years of JME), ESA could fairly claim copyright to only *103* (
> *103/271=38%*).
>
>
>
> That ought to be illegal, but is it? (The evidence is clear cut and
> online.)
>
>
>
> 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      Phone: 352-273-3920
>
> Web: http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/walker/
>
> ====================================
>
>
>
> *From:* goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Peter Murray-Rust
> *Sent:* Monday, February 08, 2016 2:08 PM
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Can time-stamped PDF's qualify as OA?
>
>
>
> Following up,
>
> I have checked the reuse permissions on OUP's Nucleic Acids Research (see
> previous mail) and they are charging large prices for re-use of CC-BY
> articles (e.g. 400 USD for use in an academic course pack for 100 students.
>
> I hope this is a "glitch" (though I am getting very very tired of
> publisher glitches in their favour). If it is deliberate then although it
> is possibly legal - they can argue that a consumer can ignore their reprint
> permission charges - it is morally and ethically unacceptable.
>
> I continue to point out such unacceptable practices. They will continue
> until the community also regards them as unacceptable and takes decisive
> action against unacceptable publishers.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Paul Royster <proyster2 at unl.edu> wrote:
>
> Dear Dr Walker,
>
>
>
> I infer that you are talking about the stamp: “Downloaded from
> http://jme.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on February 8, 2016” or
> equivalent that OUP pastes on every PDF it sends out? In practice, that
> stamp can be removed by Adobe Acrobat, though it takes a bit of practice
> and a delicate touch. (I won’t speak to whether such removal is within the
> bounds of any specific license agreement.) Those time stamps are an ugly
> imposition marring the pages of many content sources, including JSTOR,
> Hathi Trust, and others, and I deplore them. They remind me of dogs marking
> their territories.
>
>
>
> Oxford’s website for the JME says <
> http://jme.oxfordjournals.org/for_authors/charges-licenses-and-self-archiving.html>
> that authors paying for Open Access under Oxford Open have a choice of
> CC-BY-NC (no commercial re-use) or CC-BY-NC-ND (no commercial, no
> derivatives) licenses. Under either of these, authors (who pay) have
> immediate license to post the Oxford (or ESA) pdf versions in their
> institutional repositories (or any other non-commercial uses). (Whether
> CC-BY-NC counts as “real” OA is a matter for discussion with the
> purists—most people would say it is, some more extreme advocates would not.
> It’s not clear to me whether it meets the strict BOAI standard or not; or
> even if that matters.)
>
>
>
> Authors who do not pay for Oxford Open still “may upload their *accepted
> manuscript PDF* to an institutional and/or centrally organized
> repository, provided that public availability is delayed until *12 months
> after first online publication *in the journal.” <
> http://www.oxfordjournals.org/en/access-purchase/rights-and-permissions/self-archiving-policyb.html
> > So authors may still take the “Green OA” route—though whether Green OA
> counts as “real” OA is another murky or muddled question for some.
>
>
>
> Your article in *Learned Publishing *(2002)*15*, 279–284 <
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1087/095315102760319242/abstract > [though
> ironically not OA] made a clear and bold appeal for immediate free web
> access. I wish we had all been sooner to demand this of publishers and
> societies.
>
>
>
> It is unfortunate the ESA has cast its lot with OUP. I hope its members
> will realize the impact and reconsider the arrangement. Meanwhile, we do a
> lot of entomology for our repository (including *Insecta Mundi*), and I
> would be happy to help you get your JME papers online, if you wish to
> contact me off-list. Best regards.
>
>
>
> Paul Royster
>
> Coordinator of Scholarly Communications
>
> University of Nebraska–Lincoln Libraries
>
> proyster at unl.edu
>
> http://digitalcommons.unl.edu
>
>
>
> *From:* goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Walker,Thomas J
> *Sent:* Monday, February 8, 2016 7:04 AM
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal at eprints.org>
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Can time-stamped PDF's qualify as OA?
>
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20160210/1508ee87/attachment-0001.html 