Re: Royal Society Publishing and Open Access

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum_at_GMAIL.COM>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:41:06 -0400

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Jane H Smith wrote:

> Thanks for highlighting this change to the Royal Society policy, I shall
> update RoMEO ASAP.
> After an initial check it looks like they are now Yellow in the RoMEO
> colour scheme.

The SHERPA-Romeo listing for the Royal Society this morning before my
posting was,
as I said, Green. It was updated after my posting (note the update notice) . The
text is now self-contradictory and makes no sense:

Publisher: Royal Society, The
Author's Pre-print: author can archive pre-print (ie pre-refereeing)
Author's Post-print: subject to Restrictions below, author can archive
post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing)
        * 12 months
Publisher's Version/PDF: author cannot archive publisher's version/PDF
General Conditions:
        * May post pre-print on preprint servers or websites
        * Post print on author or institutional website, institutional or not for
profit repository
        * Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
        * Published source must be acknowledged with citation close to title
of article
        * Must link to publisher version close to title of article
        * If funding agency rules apply, authors may post articles in PubMed
Central 12
months after publication
        * Articles in all journals can be made Open Access on payment of additional
        * Eligible UK authors may deposit in The Depot (after 12 months)
Mandated OA: Compliance data is available for 15 funders
Paid open access: EXIS Open Choice
Copyright: Policy
Updated: 22-Jun-2010. Suggest an update for this record

> Regards
> Jane H Smith
> SHERPA Services Development Officer
> Centre for Research Communications
> Tel: 01159514341
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
> Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 22 June 2010 13:31
> Subject: Re: Royal Society Publishing and Open Access
> I have a question about the Royal Society's Open Access policy.
> According to SHERPA Romeo, the RS is green, meaning it has formally
> endorsed the self-archiving of the author's final, refereed draft, in
> the author's institutional repository, immediately upon acceptance for
> publication.
> But in the RS FAQ, the RS misdefines Green OA as follows:
> "Green open access:
> Authors may deposit a pre-print of their article in a repository at any
> time and they may deposit the final, accepted manuscript version of
> their article in a repository from 12 months after publication."
> This needs to be clarified. For whereas one can be agnostic about the
> hybrid gold OA option that the RS and many publishers are offering
> (including the promise of transparency in translating hybrid Gold OA
> uptake increases into subscription price reductions), this takes on an
> entirely different complexion *if the publisher is not green* (as, for
> example, CUP, APS, IOP, AAAS, Springer and Elsevier all are, whereas OUP
> and NPG, and now possibly the RS, are not).
> For if the publisher imposes a 1-year embargo, that is tantamount to a
> constraint -- on any author that needs and wants immediate OA -- to pay
> for the hybrid Gold OA option instead of just providing Green OA.
> Whereas the hybrid gold OA option per se is an innocent enough
> development on the part of green publishers, not only transparency but
> very explicit exposure, naming and shaming will be necessary for those
> non-green publishers who try to use embargoes on Green OA to leverage
> hybrid gold OA options.
> Stevan Harnad
Received on Tue Jun 22 2010 - 16:42:06 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:50:10 GMT