Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
[BOAI] SHERPA will take over the Romeo Publisher Policy Table
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Elizabeth Gadd wrote: > [T]he RoMEO > Publisher Policy listing is to be taken over, updated and maintained by ↵ the > SHERPA Project in a few weeks. A number of people have already submitted > updates. You may wish to contact the SHERPA Project Manager, Bill Hubbard > (bill.hubbard AT nottingham.ac.uk) with your suggestions for clarifying ↵ the > meaning of preprint and postprint. It would seem like this is a good time > to do it. I know there is also some talk of making it into a database as > opposed to a simple listing which will increase its usefulness. Dear Bill & Lizzie, It's splendid news that SHERPA is going to take over and perpetuate the Romeo publisher self-archiving policy table! http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/index.html This will be especially useful now with the Berlin Declaration and its sequel (soon there will be a similar statement from France, and, I hope, UK and US will not be far behind too): The official national and international encouragement (and I hope soon the mandating) of open access for all refereed research output by the research's funders and by the researchers' employers will have a very beneficial causal consequence for research, researchers, and the tax-payers who fund it: It is neither open-access publishing nor open-access self-archiving that is stipulated, but *open access* itself. That means either (1) publishing in an open-access journal -- let us call those "gold" journals -- whenever a suitable one exists ( <5% ↵ currently), or (2) publishing in a toll-access journal *and* self-archiving the article whenever a suitable gold journal does *not* exist ( >95% currently). http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/dual-strategy.htm Non-gold come in two colors (and one of the colors has two shades): (1) Blue/green journals already officially support author/institution self-archiving (the "blue" journals support "preprint" ↵ self-archiving and the "green" journals support "postprint" ↵ self-archiving). In the present Romeo sample of 7000+ journals, 55% are blue/green. (I will call them all "green," for simplicity in what follows. The difference in shade does not make much difference, but it's important to make it clear to authors, and it is in this connection what I will make some suggestions below.) (2) The remaining 45% are "white," which means that they do not yet officially support author/institution self-archiving (though many of them will support it if the author asks). The effect of the Berlin Declaration and its sequelae will be that authors will favor the gold and green journals. This will put pressure on the white journals to become officially green, and it *may* eventually encourage green journals to go gold -- but it would be a *big* strategic mistake to insist on their going immediately gold now, and it would hold up open access for another decade. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3061.html http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3089.html The joint strategy of either (1) publishing gold or (2) publishing green and self-archiving accomplishes open access quickly, gently, and non-coercively (for publishers), and gives publishers time to make any adjustments that might be needed if and when the open access versions ever turn out to generate toll-cancellation pressure. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#4.2 http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1 What SHERPA needs to make clear to everyone -- authors as well as publishers -- is what it means by "preprint" and ↵ "postprint," so that authors will know what to self-archive: http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#What-is-Eprint Pre- and Post- is with respect to *peer-review*, not with respect to "print," as the words might suggest. An eprint is merely a digital draft. It can be a pre-refereeing draft, in which case it is a preprint; or it can be a revised, refereed, accepted final draft, in which case it is a postprint. That postprint may still undergo copy-editing, mark-up, reference-linking, formatting, and all kinds of other publisher enhancements that the publisher may or may not allow the author to self-archive. *It does not matter!* The only thing that matters is that the author should *know* exactly what the publisher allows. If the publisher only allows the self-archiving of the unrefereed preprint, then the author can do that, and can attach a list of corrigenda, to indicate exactly what was changed in response to peer review, and how. (My prediction is that most publishers will *not* want to support the self-archiving of only the preprint and corrigenda in this sense [blue]. They will want to support the self-archiving of the postprint: the final, revised, accepted draft [green], though they may very well balk at allowing the author to self-archive the publisher's own proprietary enhanced draft, which includes the copy-editing, markup, linking, etc.: the publisher's PDF, in other words, and its XML source. Publishers who allowed that too would be as good as gold!) But all of this will also make it clear that the only thing all publishers can be expected to do in support of open access at this time (short of going gold on command, at their own risk!) is to go green. It is up to the authors then to take the few steps it takes to provide for themselves and all their would-be users the open access that all researchers at last recognise that they want and need. So my suggestion is that you go back to the already-sampled publishers (white, blue and green) and clarify what we mean by "preprint" and "postprint". I also suggest that open-access journals not just be listed as green, as they are now, but as gold. I also recommend that the categories be collapsed in a different way from the one they are collapsed in now. The categories of interest are: white, vs. blue (preprint only) vs. green (preprint or postprint). There is no need for a separate "postprint-only" category. See: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/rcoptable.gif Please note in the questionnaire that postprint already logically presupposes preprint. If you are green on postprints then you are a fortiori green on preprints too. And separate the issue of timing: A publisher is definitely *not* green if they only allow self-archiving after a delay after publication. Some journals allow it after 6 months or a year. This is not green, and would not count as providing immediate open access, in conformity with the Berlin Declaration. I would not even bother creating a category for the various delayed-archiving publishers. All publishers know that after sufficient time there is no significant sales potential, so if a publisher with a 6-month embargo could be called green, they'd all be green, and we would not have open access but a six-month embargo. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/291/5512/2318b The preprint is another story, and needs to be queried very specifically: I am certain that those who say "no preprint self-archiving until publication" really mean "no postprint self-archiving until ↵ publication" (where by "postprint" they mean the publisher's PDF). Clarify this, and then don't call those preprints but postprints (green). Those journals that really do mean "no self-archiving until ↵ publication" are probably the few journals who are still trying to apply the Ingefinger Rule to protect their priority. I don't think we should bother getting into this issue, because the Ingelfinger Rule is not a copyright matter, and is also unenforcable: How early (and how different) a prior draft counts as really being the same as the accepted paper? Authors who want to self-archive their early drafts can do so without any need to worry if they wish (as this is not, repeat, a copyright matter). No editor or referee will refuse a paper because a prior draft has been self-archived. But it is not worth making an issue of any of this in the open-access context, because the heart of open-access is the refereed, accepted draft, not the author's early drafts, before even being submitted to the journal. http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00001703/ So count any support of self-archiving as blue (preprint) or green (postprint), even if it is not allowed until the date of publication. No point making any separate category for a prepublication embargo: Authors who want to, will be able to ignore it, if they are interested in establishing early priority or in encouraging the early uptake of unrefereed results, and they will not care otherwise, as long as the results can be self-archived as soon as they are published. (No editor or referee will be interested in watching the clocks either.) Cheers, Stevan Stevan Harnad
[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
E-mail: email@example.com .