Re: The definitive answer from Wiley-Blackwell

From: Stevan Harnad <>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 11:58:09 -0400

    [ The following text is in the "WINDOWS-1252" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

On 8-Jun-09, at 11:07 AM, C.J.Smith wrote:

      While I acknowledge that the Author Rights page on the
      Wiley-Blackwell website states that authors can deposit
      their final accepted manuscripts in institutional
      repositories, I remain concerned by the communication I
      received direct from their permissions department:
?The [submitted] version is the only version we allow to be
placed into institutional repositories. We do not allow the
post-peer-review[ed] article, the author?s final draft, or any
other version to be deposited.?

Colin, with all due respect, I think you may be making a big and
needless strategic and practical mistake here. 

If a publisher has publicly posted a statement,  "All authors may do
X"  and seems to have contradicted it elsewhere -- "All authors may
not do X" -- (whether orally or in writing), it is definitely not the
author's or the repository manager's responsibility to resolve which
of the publisher's mixed messages to heed: Heed the one that is more
favorable to whatever you want to do. If it is X, then do X.

      This seems to me to be a pretty clear and unambiguous
      statement, and it leaves me wondering why I was told this
      if their policy really is as stated on their Author
      Rights page. I could of course have had the misfortune of
      speaking to a misinformed Wiley-Blackwell employee.

I cannot understand why one would want to give the same weight to a
verbal opinion by a single employee over a written policy statement,
visible to all.

      However, I also remain concerned by the terms in their
      (most widely used) copyright assignment
      Under C.1.a (Submitted Version), mention is made of the
      right to self-archive in an institutional repository.
      However, under C.2 (Accepted Version), no mention of this
      is made. Indeed, it states that ?re-use of the accepted
      and peer-reviewed (but not final) version of the
      Contribution shall be by separate agreement with
      Wiley-Blackwell?. This does not appear to reflect the
      notion that all Wiley-Blackwell authors can automatically
      deposit their accepted versions in their institutional

Again. If there is a formal statement "Authors may do X," with no
mention that they have to pay to do it, or beg to do it, then go
ahead and do X rather than seeking or heeding  at contradictory
statements elsewhere.

Let us not forget that all that is at issue is whether or not the
author one day receives a take-down request from the publisher -- at
which time he can decide whether or not to honor it. But all this
advance anxiety to actively solicit unanimity when when there is at
least one formal affirmative is hard to fathom/
      I would certainly echo SHERPA?s advice that, where
      possible, it is best to consult individual journal

No one has suggested that it is SHERPA's statement that one should go
by!  If the publisher states that its blanket policy does not cover
all of its individual journals then by all means consult the policy
of the individual journal. (But that does not appear to have been
what was at issue above: It was not publisher's general policy vs. an
individual journal policy, but one (published) statement of the
publisher's policy vs. another one contradicting it.)

      This is particularly relevant in the case of
      Wiley-Blackwell, which publishes a lot of journals on
      behalf of learned societies, who may have their own
      policies on open access archiving built into their
      publishing agreements.

It is fine to consult the formal, published statement of individual
journals if the publisher's blanket statement does not apply to all
of its individual journals. (But once you have the journal's written
statement, don't then go on and phone their permissions
phone-answerer to ask if it's true!)

Stevan Harnad

      Colin Smith
Research Repository Manager
Open Research Online (ORO)
Open University Library
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes
Tel: +44(0)1908 332971
-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list
Sent: 28 May 2009 16:11
Subject: Re: The definitive answer from Wiley-Blackwell
While reviewing all of the recent comments regarding the
Wiley-Blackwell policies, I came across the following under
Author Rights and Benefits>important Author
This appears to be a re-branding of the pervious Blackwell
Publishing policy, but it does clearly state that it applies to
'All Wiley-Blackwell Journals' albeit taking into account that
policies vary between journals.
In summary, in general you can deposit the following (including
in an institutional repository)
- authors version prior to acceptance
- authors final version
- but not the final published version
Of course because of the variation between journals on policy
and embargoes, the best information is still going to come from
each journals own policy.
SHERPA are now actively working on the changes needed to RoMEO
for it to hold and display journal level policies, which will
be of the greatest benefit for publishers such as
Wiley-Blackwell, where the policy varies so much.
Jane H Smith B.Sc (Hons) M.Sc MCLIP
SHERPA Services Development Officer
OpenDOAR -
Juliet -
Nottingham E-Prints -
Greenfield Medical Library
University of Nottingham,
Queens Medical Centre
Phone: 0115 951 4341
Fax: 0115 823 0549
This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of
an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your
computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted
by UK legislation.

The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC
000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity
registered in Scotland (SC 038302).
Received on Mon Jun 08 2009 - 17:03:56 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:47 GMT