In my view the "solution" is legal. I do not, however, *advocate it* for
precisely the reasons that Sally states. There are lots of things that are
not in my view illegal that I do not advocate.
Charles
Professor Charles Oppenheim
Department of Information Science
Loughborough University
Loughborough
Leics LE11 3TU
Tel 01509-223065
Fax 01509-223053
e mail C.Oppenheim_at_lboro.ac.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sally Morris" <chief-exec_at_alpsp.org>
To: <AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: Evolving Publisher Copyright Policies On Self-Archiving
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 Charles Oppenheim wrote:
>
> > I am indeed not a lawyer/attorney, but am regularly used by publishers
as a
> > legal consultant on licensing and copyright matters. To get formal
learned
> > counsel opinion would cost thousands of dollars.
> >
> > My view is that the so-called Harnad-Oppenheim solution is legally sound
> > because
> >
> > (i) the document being self-archived is original to the author and is
> > therefore his/her copyright
> >
> > (ii) the document submitted to the journal is a copy of (i) and it is
> > therefore in the author's gift to send it to the journal
> >
> > (iii) the author then makes appropriate corrections based on referee
> > comments and resubmits the revised article to the journal
> >
> > (iv) the author can then state honestly that the item resubmitted has
not
> > been published before because (iii) differs from (ii), and is also free
to
> > assign copyright to the revised text to the publisher if he/she so
wishes
> >
> > However, if the journal accepts the paper as submitted under (ii)
without
> > any changes, then the solution collapses because it is no longer true
that
> > the article as submitted has not been published before.
>
> Apologies for coming late to this discussion
>
> First of all, I am surprised that Charles Oppenheim is still happy to
> support the so-called Harnad-Oppenheim solution. I well remember Charles
> publicly disowning it in a meeting of PALS (the UK publisher/university
> collaboration) and agreeing that it was contrary to the spirit, even
> if not the letter, of agreements with publishers. Charles, have you
> changed your mind?
>
> Secondly, my own view is that the 'H-O solution' is not only contrary to
> the spirit of agreements with publishers, but also profoundly unhelpful
> to readers. I think that it is far more important that we all work
> together to agree a system of nomenclature for journal versions, metadata
> to express this, and a protocol for forward and backward linking between
> versions. I can think of at least the following versions:
>
> Pre-submission version (may be more than one)
>
> Submission version (may be more than one if returned for amendment
> and resubmission)
>
> Accepted version, after peer review
>
> Edited version, prior to publication
>
> Formatted definitive publication version (e.g. PDF) but without
> functionality
>
> Fully edited, formatted and functional definitive version (i.e. on
> publisher's site)
>
> Post-publication version, with addenda/errata (may be more than one)
>
> In a world where multiple versions may proliferate, I think we all -
> authors, universities and publishers alike - owe it to readers to tell
> them what they are looking at, and where other versions (in particular,
> the definitive version with or without functionality, which is the only
> version which should properly be cited) may be found.
>
> Sally
>
> Sally Morris, Chief Executive
> Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
>
> Phone: +44 (0)1903 871686 Fax: +44 (0)1903 871457
> E-mail: chief-exec_at_alpsp.org <mailto:chief-exec_at_alpsp.org>
> ALPSP Website http://www.alpsp.org <http://www.alpsp.org>
>
> 6 December Seminar, London
> Automated Journal Editorial and Production Workflow
> http://www.alpsp.org/events/s061204.htm
>
Received on Mon Dec 06 2004 - 08:41:38 GMT