Re: Open access: a must for Wellcome Trust researchers [responseto comments from ALPSP]

[Heather Morrison <heatherm@eln.bc.ca>]

The vast majority of publishers and journals do allow self-archiving - see
the Sherpa copyright policies & self-archiving site at:
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php

Therefore, self-archiving of the vast majority of existing literature is
perfectly compatible with existing copyright agreements.

In other words, the NIH repository could be filled with thousands or
perhaps millions of existing articles, within existing copyright
agreements.

Errors are certainly not impossible.  Some authors' agreements are
lengthy, and perhaps not every author has completely read or understood
every agreement.

How concerned publishers should be with the possibility of a few articles
placed in error is an interesting question.  Most of the society
publishers, I understand, are making their articles freely available after
a delay period at any rate.  Even if the delay period has not yet passed,
the NIH repository is fairly new and people are not likely to be looking
here all that much yet. The NIH is definitely not a commercial entity. If
there is any possibility of harm to the publisher, this is quite low.

Considering the investment the NIH has made into the important
intellectual value of the work - the research itself - it would be foolish
for publishers to make much of a small possibility of error.

The Wellcome Trust is deliberately pursuing a phased in approach, to allow
both authors and publishers time to adjust.  With a year's lead time until
the policy takes effect, the odds that an author and a publisher would
have a contract in place which could not be wrapped up before this date
seem rather remote. The only way this could be common is if publishers are
in the habit of offering contracts to authors before research is anywhere
near complete.  If this is the case, and the publisher is on the list,
please do speak up.  It is difficult to see how this practice could
conceivably be compatible with a peer review system, or any other
meaningful system of quality control.  If, on the other hand, there are
unusual situations where a contract over such a long term does make sense,
perhaps the author should contact the Wellcome Trust, rather than the
publisher using a public forum to complain?

There is a simple solution to this in the long run - academic authors
should retain their copyright, and only sign over such limited rights to
publishers as are absolutely necessary to make it possible to publish the
work.

hope this helps,

Heather Morrison
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:59:59 EDT liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu wrote:
> Wellcome isn't the only funder with a troublesome disregard for existing
> copyright agreements. NIH seems also be stumbling into copyright
> infringement.
> 
> Out of 522 author manuscripts now posted in PMC, 151 were actually
> published in 2004. While many publishers have modified copyright
> agreements to permit the deposit of author manuscripts accepted after May
> 2, the date of implementation of the NIH plan, some of the papers
> publisher prior to May 2 were accepted under copyright agreements that do
> not allow posting of author manuscripts in repositories.
> 
> Nothing in the NIH plan permits the deposit of pre-May 2 papers unless
> permitted by copyright agreements, yet NIH does not seem to be exhibiting
> the care a publisher normally would to ensure that what it posts does not
> infringe on existing copyright agreements. Perhaps somewhere in its
> documents it is requring grantees to warrant that they have the right to
> submit materials to which they do not hold copyright--but I doubt it. Any
> publisher who did what NIH is doing would be receiving some hearty crease
> and desist letters by now.
> 
> Peter Banks
> Acting Vice President for Publications/Publisher
> American Diabetes Association
> Email: pbanks@diabetes.org