Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy

From: Michael Eisen <mbeisen_at_LBL.GOV>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 21:26:53 -0800

I admire your optimism, and hope you are right.

As for me, I'm reserving my applause until the day when Nature abandons any
effort to control who can read their papers and how they are distributed.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stevan Harnad" <>
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy

> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Michael Eisen wrote:
> > NATURE: "How can I show my article to my colleagues? By sending a link
> > to the paper on your website. You may not distribute the PDF by email,
> > on listservs or on open archives. Please remember that although the
> > content of the article is your copyright, its presentation (i.e. its
> > typographical layout as a printed page) remains our copyright."
> That's just fine! Run the PDF through a PDF-to-HTML converter, reformat it
> trivially, and the layout is yours! (These details are utterly *trivial*,
> Mike, whereas the nontrivial, substantive part -- you may put your
> refereed postprint on the web -- is *all* that was ever needed!)
> But I do believe they must have stopped giving lawyers logic courses any
> more as part of their degree! "You may not distribute the PDF by email.
> Send a link to it on your website instead." Gimme a break!
> And "You may not put it in an 'open archive' but only on a personal
> website?" So my personal website is not allowed to be OAI-compliant?
> This is all papyrophilic juribabble based on defunct anlogies with bygone
> days and ways! It makes no sense. It is as technologically innocent
> as it is blissfully free of logic. How can anyone even pretend to take
> it seriously?
> "Your honour, the defendant's computer transferred this open-access
> through the asynchronous sendmail protocol instead of synchronous
> HTTP: Throw the book at him please." (Not to mention that this level
> of monitoring would require something even more intrusive than the
> Patriot Act!)
> > If somehow authors construe this as a license to self-archive, that's
> > But lets not give Nature credit for something they have not done.
> On the contrary, I think it's a very *good* strategy to give Nature full
> credit for what they have done -- to encourage the other journals to
> hurry up and do likewise!
> Cheers (and cheer up!),
> Stevan
Received on Fri Jan 10 2003 - 05:26:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:46:48 GMT