Re: "Copyleft" article in New Scientist

From: Stevan Harnad <>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 23:00:27 +0000

On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Chris Zielinski wrote:

> In preprint archives... the
> author's original is the canonical version and this is the version to
> which the integrity right applies. When the postprint is placed on the
> server, this replaces the preprint as the new "integral", canonical
> version. I'm not sure how this can apply to the "corrigendum" option of
> Stevan's self-archiving methodology. Does the author assert the
> integrity right to the preprint and to the corrigenda?

Yes, the author asserts the integrity right to the preprint and to the
corrigenda. And of course also to the final draft (postprint) that has
appeared in the journal.

All three texts are the author's intellectual property. The author
retains full copyright (right to make, distribute, sell copies to
others) in the first two (preprints and corrigenda), and the postprint
remains his intellectual property too (no one else may claim to have
authored it), but the right to sell (exact!) copies has been transfered
to the publisher (in the case of some, but by no means all journals).


> More vexing is the question of how any form of integrity right can fit
> in with copyleft - or any of the other moral rights
> (attribution/misattribution). If you feel that the identity of the
> "original" (?) author is of any importance, then surely the idea of
> releasing text under copyleft is to be resisted?

Anything that allows theft-of-authorship (plagiarism) or distortion
of text is not acceptable.

> Stevan Harnad wrote:
> >
> > [. . .] Apart from wanting to be
> > properly credited for its authorship (i.e., protected from plagiarism)
> > and to be ensured that the text is not altered or corrupted in any
> I have to confess that I have no real idea what this latter
> condition really means. Misattribution of authorship for
> subsequent revisions and work is certainly an issue, but
> just what does it mean for the author to assert that the
> text is not to be altered or corrupted?

It means that copies must be verbatim, and the authorship and original
locus of publication must be clearly stated. It also means that, apart
from explicit quoting or excerpting (where the source and locus must
again be explicitly specified) there mayt be no alteration in
reproducing the text.

Stevan Harnad

NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing free
access to the refereed journal literature online is available at the
American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01):

You may join the list at the amsci site.

Discussion can be posted to:
Received on Fri Feb 15 2002 - 23:00:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:46:25 GMT