Re: Evolving Publisher Copyright Policies On Self-Archiving

From: Stevan Harnad <>
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:08:21 +0000

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Sally Morris (ALPSP) wrote:

> the so-called Harnad-Oppenheim [H-O] solution [is]
> contrary to the spirit, even if not the letter,
> of agreements with publishers.

I should hope so! For denying research access to any would-be
users who cannot afford to pay for access is contrary to the spirit of
research, contrary to the interests of researchers, their employers and
their funders, and, since the advent of the Web, no longer necessary.

Moreover, since today (in 2004) 92% of journals have already
revised their agreements to make author self-archiving consonant
with both their spirit *and* their letter

 -- (partly, I like to think, as a consequence of
the explicit formulation of the H-O strategy (2000)
which was intended more as a reductio-ad-absurdum than as an actual
practice, and was already implicit in the 1994 "Subversive Proposal"
as well as in the don't-ask/don't-tell de-facto self-archiving practice
that had already been going on spontaneously since the late 1980's) --

the H-O is by now mostly moot, its mostly-conceptual job done.

Stevan Harnad

A complete Hypermail archive of the ongoing discussion of providing
open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2004)
is available at:
        To join or leave the Forum or change your subscription address:
        Post discussion to:

UNIVERSITIES: If you have adopted or plan to adopt an institutional
policy of providing Open Access to your own research article output,
please describe your policy at:

    BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access
            journal whenever one exists.
    BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable
            toll-access journal and also self-archive it.
Received on Sat Dec 04 2004 - 19:08:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:47:42 GMT