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

From: Jim Till <till_at_UHNRES.UTORONTO.CA>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:11:09 -0500

My own conclusion is that Nature's policy continues to be less
restrictive than that of Science. Science's policy (Sp):

[Sp]> What about manuscripts that have been posted online
[Sp]> before submission?
[Sp]> We do not consider manuscripts that have been previously
[Sp]> published elsewhere, including those published on the Web.
[Sp]> Posting of a paper on the Internet may be considered prior
[Sp]> publication that could compromise the originality of the
[Sp]> Science submission. Thus, if you are planning to submit
[Sp]> your paper to Science, it should not be posted online.
[Sp]> We allow posting of manuscript copies of papers at
[Sp]> not-for-profit publicly funded World Wide Web archives
[Sp]> immediately upon publication. We also provide a free
[Sp]> electronic reprint service to authors that allows access
[Sp]> to their formatted and proofed paper on Science Online.

Perhaps Nature, a high-impact, for-profit journal, has gone about
as far as it's willing to go? But, what about Science? What
additional pressures be exerted on an Association (one that's
supposed to be fostering the advancement of science) in order for
it to accept an embargo policy similar to that of Nature?

Perhaps both Science and Nature need to be subjected to
head-to-head competition from an open access journal that
has an analogously broad scope (such as a "PLoS Research"

Jim Till
University of Toronto
Received on Fri Jan 10 2003 - 13:11:09 GMT

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