Re: copyright protection paper

["Anthony Watkinson" <anthony.watkinson@btopenworld.com>]

This is an example of how dangerous many surveys are unless one delves
into the way they are conducted. The headline information, much spread
about, is clearly putting out statistical information based on some forms
sent in by publishers rather than an analysis of what publishers actually
do. It also seems that some publishers at least sent in their basic forms
and did not send in variants. My experience is that publishers do have
variants and they will have to use variants for government employees or
they will not have permission to publish. In the UK most JISC financed
studies have an advisory panel, which includes people who know the
context, but in this case it does not look as if the advisory panel
explained.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Elizabeth Gadd" <E.A.Gadd@lboro.ac.uk>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: copyright protection paper

> The RoMEO analysis reported only on what was explicitly written in the
> publishers' agreements.  Thus if they did not have or mention a US Gov
> option then it wasn't counted.  About 50% of the agreements were non-US.
> Similarly, if a publisher did not explicitly permit self-archiving, even
> if they would allow it after individual negotiation, it was not considered
> a true usage right.  This is all reported in the article at
>
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/RoMEO%20Studies%204.
pdf
>
> Best
>
> Elizabeth Gadd, Academic Librarian (Engineering)
> e.a.gadd@lboro.ac.uk