<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>I have no problem with this model, assuming that there is no compulsion
from the RCs to move to the second stage of publishing in a journal. However, if
there is a possibility that many articles will only go to stage 1 and are
deposited in a repository without going on to be published in a journal, I fear
that publishers and the UK Government would have serious objections to the
proposal. Government policy is based upon the reverse of this proposal, i.e.
publishing first in a journal to establish a “version of record” and then as a
second stage (under the RCUK policy) depositing in a repository. I would like to
see HM Government change their policy but what is there in this proposal to make
them change their minds?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Also the fact that the proposal “de-conflates money and cost concerns from
open access and re-use concerns” is exactly what publishers would not want to
agree to. They are not worried about arXiv because – so far at least – they have
been able to maintain their revenues in spite of the text of the arXiv version
being identical to the text of the “version of record” in a journal. They would
be worried if this model spread to other subject areas. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>However, it is good to see this proposal appear as a way of testing out how
the decision-makers will react.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Fred Friend</DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.friendofopenaccess.org.uk">http://www.friendofopenaccess.org.uk</A>
</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=velterop@gmail.com
href="mailto:velterop@gmail.com">Jan Velterop</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:15 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=goal@eprints.org href="mailto:goal@eprints.org">Global
Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> [GOAL] Re: CC-BY in repositories</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">Peter,
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It would simplify things a lot. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So, the norm would be (mandated where needed) to deposit one's final
manuscript, accepted for publication after peer-review, with a CC-BY licence, in
a suitable repository, as soon as possible upon acceptance for publication. This
has many similarities with deposit of preprints in arXiv. Publishers have not
been concerned about arXiv. One reason is that versions of record are not
deposited in arXiv.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Subsequent publication of the 'version of record' takes place in a journal.
In case that journal is a 'gold' journal with CC-BY licences, authors may
replace the manuscript in the repository by the published version. Or not
deposit a manuscript version at all but simply wait until the open, CC-BY
version of record is published and deposit that. Some automated arrangement to
do so may be available for some 'gold' journals and some repositories, as is
already the case here and there (e.g for UKPMC).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You may well be right that this very simple procedure would resolve most,
perhaps all, problems of the Finch Report and RCUK policy plans. It also
'de-conflates' money and cost concerns from open access and reuse
concerns.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The only thing I'm not clear about is who the "we all" are who'd have to
agree to launch this for Open Access week :-)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Jan Velterop</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>On 9 Oct 2012, at 22:28, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Velterop <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:velterop@gmail.com"
target=_blank>velterop@gmail.com</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word">There is an inconsistency here, either
way. We've always heard, from Stevan Harnad, that the author was the one who
intrinsically had copyright on the manuscript version, so could deposit it,
as an open access article, in an open repository irrespective of the
publisher's views. If that is correct, then the author could also attach a
CC-BY licence to the manuscript version. If it is incorrect, the author
can't deposit the manuscript with open access without the explicit
permission of the publisher of his final, published version, and the
argument advanced for more than a decade by Stevan Harnad is invalid. Which
is it? I think Stevan was right, and a manuscript can be deposited with open
access whether or not the publisher likes it. Whence his U-turn, I don't
know. But if he was right at first, and I believe that's the case, that also
means that it can be covered by a CC-BY licence. Repositories can't attach
the licence, but 'gold' OA publishers can't either. It's always the author,
as copyright holder by default. All repositories and OA publishers can do is
require it as a condition of acceptance (to be included in the repository or
to be published). What the publisher can do if he doesn't like the author
making available the manuscript with open access, is apply the Ingelfinger
rule or simply refuse to publish the article.
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>Jan,<BR>I think this is very important.<BR><BR>If we can establish the
idea of Green-CC-BY as the norm for deposition in repositories then I would
embrace it enthusiastically. I can see no downside other than that some
publishers will fight it. But they fight anyway <BR></DIV></DIV><BR>It also
clairfies the difference between the final author ms and the publisher version
of record.<BR><BR>It would resolve all the apparent problems of the Finch
reoprt etc. It is only because Green licences are undefined that we have this
problem at all.<BR><BR>And if we all agreed it could be launched for Open
Access Week<BR><BR>-- <BR>Peter Murray-Rust<BR>Reader in Molecular
Informatics<BR>Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<BR>University of
Cambridge<BR>CB2 1EW,
UK<BR>+44-1223-763069<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>GOAL
mailing list<BR><A
href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</A><BR>http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>GOAL mailing
list<BR>GOAL@eprints.org<BR>http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>