RE: Information and Computation

["David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>]

I believe that Tony's phrasing that "authors may post the full and final
text of an article" is different and much clearer than the usual
requirement that they may post only the author's final copy after
peer-review, but before copyediting.

It represents a significant advance. It says that authors may change their
text to agree in every detail, as long as they do not post the actual PDF
used by Science Direct. As worded, it means they may even mimic the PDF
used by SD, a practice explicitly prohibited by many publishers. (Though I
myself see no point in copying the appearance, as distinct from making
sure the content is identical.)

I hope the wording was not merely a verbal slip. There has been much
confusion about just what a postprint is intended to be, and this seems
clear It is unknown whether authors generally attempt to decipher the
exact terms, or whether they do understand them in the sense the publisher
meant.

This sets a standard that is relatively clear, relatively easy for authors
to meet, and certain to give the OA copy the exact meaning of the
published text.

Dr. David Goodman
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
dgoodman@liu.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Mcsean, Tony (ELS)
Sent: Tue 8/16/2005 6:03 PM
Subject: Information and Computation

I am writing to make two points to clarify the current position with
regard to Information and Computation.  Firstly, access to all journal
issues back to 1995 is for a limited period available in order to allow
Elsevier to monitor online usage to measure the 'reach' of the journal
within the community. Secondly, this experiment does not signify a change
in our policy that Elsevier authors may post their full and final text of
an article, but not the PDF copy available via ScienceDirect.

Tony McSean
Director of Library Relations