On Sat, 26 Feb 2005, Donat Agosti wrote:
>sh> 92% of journals give [author self-archiving' the green light, and for
>sh> the other 8% there is the solution of self-archiving the preprints plus
>sh> corrections.
>sh> [ http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#copyright-transfer-forbids ]
>sh>
>sh> (Of the 13 journals with "systematic" in their titles that I found
>sh> in the Eprints Directory of Journal Self-Archiving policies, 12/13
>sh> were full (postprint) green and the last was pale (preprint) green!:
>sh> http://romeo.eprints.org/search.php?t=systematic .)
>sh>
>sh> Hence if an author publishes in a Systematics journal that has given him
>sh> the green light to self-archive, yet the author doesn't bother to do the
>sh> few keystrokes it takes to self-archive, *don't blame the publisher* for
>sh> the fact that we lack open access to that article or those biodiversity
>sh> data! We must blame *ourselves* for that!
>sh>
>sh> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4367.html
> This is, where we seem to be different. The print (Figure 1) in my
> publications refers to those, which do neither allow open access nor
> self archiving.
That prevents neither the self-archiving of the data nor the self-archiving
of the preprint-plus-corrections.
> I agree though, for at least the green journals, the authors should do
> their work.
Not just for the 92% of journals that are green: for all journals!
For the gray journals: data self-archiving, plus preprint-plus-corrections.
Stevan Harnad
Received on Sat Feb 26 2005 - 15:46:07 GMT