<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi everyone,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I asked my team because this all sounded a bit odd. My colleague replied:<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">"Yes, OUP consistently offer CC BY across the vast majority of their output. I just checked one at random and yes, it is time-stamped with when we downloaded it, but it's also clearly labelled CC BY and explicitly states that it 'permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited'.</span><br style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><br style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">I wouldn't have thought there was any problem here. In fact, arguably the time-stamp is a useful thing as it provides a confirmation of when the final version was added to the repository, verifying our own reporting on that. OUP are far from the only publisher that do this.</span><br style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><br style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">If people want to go after OUP for something, a more likely candidate would seem to be the fact that they still often include no article information at all on their invoices, making them really hard to tie to commitments.</span>”</div><div class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">I would agree with my colleague - the frankly appalling invoicing practices of many publishers is a serious problem - I am not sure that many invoices are actually legal given there is a requirement to state on an invoice what it is you are paying for.</span></div><div class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">We have a different problem of publishers knowingly offering alternative licences to authors when they are fully and clearly aware that a particular author is funded by an organisation that only has CC-BY as the compliant option. They provide the more restrictive CC-BY-NC-ND first, then the CC-BY as a secondary option using frightening language about what CC-BY means.</span></div><div class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">OUP is not the bad guy here.</span></div><div class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">Danny</span></div><div class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><br class=""></span><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 8 Feb 2016, at 18:37, <a href="mailto:goal-request@eprints.org" class="">goal-request@eprints.org</a> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">Send GOAL mailing list submissions to<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><a href="mailto:goal@eprints.org" class="">goal@eprints.org</a><br class=""><br class="">To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal<br class="">or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>goal-request@eprints.org<br class=""><br class="">You can reach the person managing the list at<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>goal-owner@eprints.org<br class=""><br class="">When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br class="">than "Re: Contents of GOAL digest..."<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Today's Topics:<br class=""><br class=""> 1. Re: Can time-stamped PDF's qualify as OA? (Peter Murray-Rust)<br class=""> 2. Re: Can time-stamped PDF's qualify as OA? (Paul Royster)<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">----------------------------------------------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">Message: 1<br class="">Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 17:37:55 +0000<br class="">From: Peter Murray-Rust <pm286@cam.ac.uk><br class="">Subject: [GOAL] Re: Can time-stamped PDF's qualify as OA?<br class="">To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org><br class="">Message-ID:<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><CAD2k14N6W=fv3mSGqG3nyOE+aujSR6pOKK0SkABYtAfP0FmgfA@mail.gmail.com><br class="">Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br class=""><br class="">The OUP journal Nucleic Acids Research (which has been "Open" for many<br class="">years) uses CC licences: Example:<br class=""><br class="">http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/44/2/524.full.pdf+html<br class=""><br class="">which is CC-BY and the licence is clearly displayed on the PDF . This<br class="">grants rights to any reader to re-publish. (Note that some articles are<br class="">CC-NC). My guess is that this is variable between journals or else simply<br class="">inconsistent (The price we pay for not challenging publishers more<br class="">frequently)<br class="">.<br class="">?The Author(s) 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of<br class="">Nucleic Acids Research.<br class="">This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative<br class="">Commons Attribution License (http:<br class="">//creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which<br class="">permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,<br class="">provided the original work is properly cited.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Walker,Thomas J <tjw@ufl.edu> wrote:<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">In investigating the PDFs of articles in Journal of Medical Entomology<br class="">[JME] published by Oxford University Press [OUP] I?ve found that OUP puts a<br class="">time stamp on every PDF they provide to others. This makes it impossible<br class="">for authors, who have paid a fee or $2000 to $3500 for OA, to make a<br class="">non-time stamped PDF openly accessible on the Web.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">This is because even though OUP has granted copyrights to OA-fee paying<br class="">authors, it requires the corresponding author of each article to sign (for<br class="">himself and for any other authors of the article) OUP?s ?License to<br class="">Publish.? This License<br class=""><http://entnemdept.ifas.ufl.edu/walker/OUP_License_to_Publish.pdf> states<br class="">(in legal language) that OUP has the exclusive right to publish the<br class="">article! That would mean that authors could not legally post their<br class="">copyrighted PDFs on their homepages.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">In a draft of a paper about this practice, I?ve argued that OUP?s<br class="">time-stamped PDFs should not qualify as OA:<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">All the meanings of OA that I am aware of would exclude PDF files that<br class="">have been altered to prevent their being an unaltered copy of the printed<br class="">pages of the version of record. None of the PDF files in OUP?s archive are<br class="">unaltered. I challenge anyone to find one PDF that is a true electronic<br class="">version of the printed version of that article [which is the ?version of<br class="">record?]. Yet PDF files of journal articles are valued *because* they<br class="">are unaltered scans of the pages of the paper version of the article.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">But am I wrong and OUP?s PDFs meet current NIH standards for OA?<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Tom<br class=""><br class="">============================================<br class=""><br class="">Thomas J. Walker<br class="">Department of Entomology & Nematology<br class="">PO Box 110620 (or Natural Area Drive)<br class="">University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0620<br class=""><br class="">E-mail: tjw@ufl.edu FAX: (352)392-0190<br class=""><br class="">Web: http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/walker/<br class=""><br class="">============================================<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">GOAL mailing list<br class="">GOAL@eprints.org<br class="">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""></blockquote><br class=""><br class="">-- <br class="">Peter Murray-Rust<br class="">Reader in Molecular Informatics<br class="">Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br class="">University of Cambridge<br class="">CB2 1EW, UK<br class="">+44-1223-763069<br class="">-------------- next part --------------<br class="">An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br class="">URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20160208/69a19e3f/attachment.html <br class=""><br class="">------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">Message: 2<br class="">Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 17:39:43 +0000<br class="">From: Paul Royster <proyster2@unl.edu><br class="">Subject: [GOAL] Re: Can time-stamped PDF's qualify as OA?<br class="">To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org><br class="">Message-ID:<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><SN1PR0801MB15837A6641A80D74DDAC20CFE1D50@SN1PR0801MB1583.namprd08.prod.outlook.com><br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><br class="">Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br class=""><br class="">Dear Dr Walker,<br class=""><br class="">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.<br class=""><br class="">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.)<br class=""><br class="">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.<br class=""><br class="">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.<br class=""><br class="">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.<br class=""><br class="">Paul Royster<br class="">Coordinator of Scholarly Communications<br class="">University of Nebraska?Lincoln Libraries<br class="">proyster@unl.edu<mailto:proyster@unl.edu><br class="">http://digitalcommons.unl.edu<http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/><br class=""><br class="">From: goal-bounces@eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Walker,Thomas J<br class="">Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 7:04 AM<br class="">To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org><br class="">Subject: [GOAL] Can time-stamped PDF's qualify as OA?<br class=""><br class="">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.<br class=""><br class="">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.<br class=""><br class="">In a draft of a paper about this practice, I?ve argued that OUP?s time-stamped PDFs should not qualify as OA:<br class=""><br class="">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.<br class=""><br class="">But am I wrong and OUP?s PDFs meet current NIH standards for OA?<br class=""><br class="">Tom<br class="">============================================<br class="">Thomas J. Walker<br class="">Department of Entomology & Nematology<br class="">PO Box 110620 (or Natural Area Drive)<br class="">University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0620<br class="">E-mail: tjw@ufl.edu<mailto:tjw@ufl.edu> FAX: (352)392-0190<br class="">Web: http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/walker/<br class="">============================================<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">-------------- next part --------------<br class="">An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br class="">URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20160208/2fd43d88/attachment.html <br class=""><br class="">------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">GOAL mailing list<br class="">GOAL@eprints.org<br class="">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">End of GOAL Digest, Vol 51, Issue 5<br class="">***********************************<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div apple-content-edited="true" class="">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Dr Danny Kingsley<br class="">Head of Scholarly Communications<br class="">Cambridge University Library<br class="">West Road, Cambridge CB39DR<br class="">P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437<br class="">M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564<br class="">E: <a href="mailto:dak45@cam.ac.uk" class="">dak45@cam.ac.uk</a><br class="">T: @dannykay68<br class="">ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939</div></div><span><img height="316" width="1250" apple-inline="yes" id="2BE9EA18-6744-412A-A842-BC7A1B711544" apple-width="yes" apple-height="yes" src="cid:part1.07060208.04010102@cam.ac.uk" class=""></span>
</div>
<br class=""></div></div></body></html>