RoMEO Studies 4: An analysis of Journal publishers' Copyright Agreements

4846 2 1540 1 4585 document 1540 RoMEO Studies 4.pdf application/pdf c63ba35d0cd97f8a42183186510aa71b MD5 225121 2012-12-14 18:02:16 https://eprints.rclis.org/4846/1/RoMEO%20Studies%204.pdf 4846 1 1 application/pdf en public

RoMEO Studies 4.pdf

202575 2 209136 document 202575 lightbox.jpg image/png 5ddfab9078cd30aa389c370061241034 MD5 91231 2012-12-21 17:16:14 https://eprints.rclis.org/4846/7/lightbox.jpg 4846 7 7 image/png other Thumbnails conversion from application/pdf to thumbnail_lightbox en public

lightbox.jpg

preview.jpg

medium.jpg

small.jpg

indexcodes.txt

http://eprints.org/relation/isVersionOf https://eprints.rclis.org/id/document/1540 http://eprints.org/relation/isVolatileVersionOf https://eprints.rclis.org/id/document/1540 http://eprints.org/relation/isIndexCodesVersionOf https://eprints.rclis.org/id/document/1540 archive 46 disk0/00/00/48/46 2004-05-27 2014-10-02 11:58:35 2012-12-14 18:02:16 preprint show Gadd Elizabeth Oppenheim Charles Probets Steve RoMEO Studies 4: An analysis of Journal publishers' Copyright Agreements pub E. Romeo Project, copyright, Open archive This article is the fourth in a series of six emanating from the UK JISC-funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open archiving). It describes an analysis of 80 scholarly journal publishers’ copyright agreements with a particular view to their effect on author self-archiving. 90% of agreements asked for copyright transfer and 69% asked for it prior to refereeing the paper. 75% asked authors to warrant that their work had not been previously published although only two explicitly stated that they viewed self-archiving as prior publication. 28.5% of agreements provided authors with no usage rights over their own paper. Although 42.5% allowed self-archiving in some format, there was no consensus on the conditions under which self-archiving could take place. The article concludes that author-publisher copyright agreements should be reconsidered by a working party representing the needs of both parties 2003 en FALSE GB- http://hdl.handle.net/10760/4846 public FALSE 1 Bammel, J. (1999). "The publisher-author relationship: principles of good practice in scholarly journal publishing." Learned Publishing 12(2): 75-78. 2 Oliver, R. (1999). "Copyright assignment: some considerations." Learned Publishing 11(1): 4-7. 3 (1999). What authors want :the ALPSP research study on the motivations and concerns of contributors to learn. West Sussex, Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers. 4 Gadd, Elizabeth., Charles Oppenheim and Steve Probets. RoMEO Studies 1: The impact of copyright ownership on author self-archiving. Journal of Documentation 59(3), 243-277. 5 Swan, A. (2002). Authors and electronic publishing: the ALPSP research study on authors' and readers' views of electronic research communication. West Sussex, ALPSP. 6 Project RoMEO. (2003) URL: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/dis/disresearch/romeo/index.html 7 Jaffe, S. (2002). "The next Research Assessment Exercise will probably include citation analysis." The Scientist 16(22): 54. 8 The market for scientific, technical and medical journals: A statement by the OFT. (2002). London, Office of Fair Trading: 27 URL: http://www.oft.gov.uk/News/Press+releases/2002/PN+55-02+Can+the+scientific+journals+market+work+better%3f.htm. 9 Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers. URL: http://www.alpsp.org/ 10 Society for Scholarly Publishing. URL: http://www.sspnet.org/ 11 Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory Database. Accessed 14 January 2003. 12 Morris, S. (2000). "Guest Editorial. Authors and copyright." Learned Publishing 13(2): 75-76. 13 ALPSP (1999). Model Grant of Licence. URL: http://www.alpsp.org/grantli.pdf. 14 See the September-98-Forum list. Threads entitled: “Learned Society Publisher's Comment on PLoS/Sabo” and “Detecting Plagiarism”. 22-23 July, 2003. URL: http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/september98-forum.html 15 Lawrence, S. (2001). "Online or invisible?" Nature 411(6837): 521 http://www.neci.nec.com/~lawrence/papers/online-nature01/. 16 Copyright Law of the United States of America and related laws contained in title 17 of the United States Code. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf. (2001) Washington, D.C., Library of Congress: US Copyright Office. 17 BioMed Central’s Publishing Model. (2003) URL:http://www.biomedcentral.com/download/advocacy/lib_advocacy.ppt 18 Harnad, S. (2001). For Whom the Gate Tolls? How and Why to Free the Refereed Research Literature Online Through Author/Institution Self-Archiving, Now. URL:http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/documents/disk0/00/00/16/39/index.html. 19 Kahin, B. (1994). The Copyright law: how it works and new issues in electronic settings. New scholarship: new serials. Proceedings of the North American Serials Interest Group. 8th Annual Conference, June 10-13, 1993. Brown University, Providence, RI. G. McMillan, and Marilyn Norstedt. New York, Haworth Press: 163-172. 20 Rosenblatt, B. (1998). Moral rights basics, Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html. 2002. 21 Relman, A. S. (1981). "The Ingelfinger Rule." New England Journal of Medicine 305(Oct 1, 1981): 824-826. 22 Angell, M., J.P. Kassirer (1991). "The Ingelfinger rule revisited." New England Journal of Medicine 325(Nov.7, 1991): 1371-1373. 23 See for example, the September-98-Forum list. Thread entitled: Garfield: "Acknowledged Self-Archiving is Not Prior Publication". 31 August – 13 September, 2002. URL: http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/september98-forum.html 24 Hanks, Patrick (ed.) Collins dictionary of the English language. (2nd ed.) London : Collins, 1986. 25 Swan, A. (2002). Authors and electronic publishing: the ALPSP research study on authors' and readers' views of electronic research communication. West Sussex, ALPSP: 83pp. Pp. 24-25. 26 Pinfield, S. (2001). "How Do Physicists Use an E-Print Archive? Implications for Institutional E-Print Services." D-Lib Magazine 7(12): http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december01/pinfield/12pinfield.html. 27 Day, M. (2003). Prospects for institutional e-print repositories in the United Kingdom: ePrints UK supporting study, no. 1. Bath, UKOLN. URL: http://www.rdn.ac.uk/projects/eprints-uk/docs/studies/impact/. 28 (1999). What authors want :the ALPSP research study on the motivations and concerns of contributors to learn. London, Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers. 29 Maly, K., Mohammad Zubair and Xiaoming Liu (2001). "Kepler - An OAI Data/Service Provider for the Individual." D-Lib Magazine 7(4): http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april01/maly/04maly.html. 30 Le Hunte Ward, F. (2003). Metadata and copyright. Post to the metadata@creativecommons.org discussion list. Monday 10 March, 2003 31 Bammel, J. (1999). "The publisher-author relationship: principles of good practice in scholarly journal publishing." Learned Publishing 12(2): 75-78. 32 Frankel, Mark S. et al. (2000). "Defining and Certifying Electronic Publication in Science: A Proposal to the International Association of STM Publishers." Learned Publishing 13(4): 251-258. 33 Gadd, E., Charles Oppenheim and Steve Probets (2003). "RoMEO Studies 2: How academics want to protect their open-access research papers." Journal of Information Science [In Press] 34 Gadd, E., Charles Oppenheim and Steve Probets (2003). "RoMEO Studies 3: How academics expect to use open-access research papers." Submitted to Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 35 Gadd, Elizabeth., Charles Oppenheim and Steve Probets. RoMEO Studies 1: The impact of copyright ownership on author self-archiving. Journal of Documentation 59(3), 243-277 36 Zwolle Group. (2003). The Zwolle approach: balancing stakeholders' interests in scholarship-friendly copyright practices. Report of working conference on Copyright and Universities: from principles to practices, Zwolle, 6 and 7 December 2002. URL: http://www.surf.nl/copyright/zwolle/2002dec/index.php. info:eu-repo/semantics/other