×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

For Academic Publishing, Princeton Goes Open Access By Default

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the congratulations-and-kudos dept.

Education 101

First time accepted submitter crazyvas writes "Princeton University will prevent researchers from giving the copyright of scholarly articles to journal publishers (except if a waiver is requested). The new rule is part of an Open Access policy aimed at broadening the reach of their scholarly work and encouraging publishers to adjust standard contracts that commonly require exclusive copyright as a condition of publication. Universities pay millions of dollars a year for academic journal subscriptions. People without subscriptions are often prevented from reading taxpayer funded research. This is a bold first step in changing the face of how research (especially when taxpayer funded) works in the country, and a step towards weakening the current culture of charging increasingly exorbitant prices to view academic research publications."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

101 comments

Pay to read (1)

gringer (252588) | more than 2 years ago | (#37599978)

I've never quite understood how paying to read other people's research encourages good science.

Re:Pay to read (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600118)

I've never quite understood how paying to read other people's research encourages good science.

See, that's where your own research grant comes in - to pay for access to others research.

We may stand upon the shoulders of giants, but only with financial aid, which creates a considerable barrier.

Re:Pay to read (4, Insightful)

vagabond_gr (762469) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600236)

and most importantly, paying not the author of the research, nor the institution that financed the author, but some random publisher who did virtually nothing.

The current publishing system really amazes me (and yes I'm an academic). This is wonderful news, I wish more institutions encouraged their researchers to go open access.

Re:Pay to read (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600858)

I got an email a little while ago saying that it was now a requirement for any papers written on EPSRC grants, meaning most science and engineering papers from UK universities. It always seemed to be more of a problem with individuals than institutions though. Pretty much all journals allow you to put the preprint (same content, just without the journal's formatting) online on your own web site, so it doesn't matter if the journal is open access or not as long as you bother to put the PDF on your web site. For some strange reason, a lot of academics - whose reputation is based largely on how many people read and cite their papers - choose not to do this simple step.

Re:Pay to read (1)

yuna49 (905461) | more than 2 years ago | (#37601912)

Even more surprising is the absence of earlier versions of published articles that have been presented in conferences, distributed to peers, and the like. I keep expecting to find "working papers" versions of published articles on the websites of academics but rarely can find them. (I'm an ex-political-scientist, so my interests tend to that field or to related social sciences like economics. Perhaps it's different in the other sciences?)

sadly.... (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 2 years ago | (#37603126)

Even more surprising is the absence of earlier versions of published articles that have been presented in conferences, distributed to peers, and the like. I keep expecting to find "working papers" versions of published articles on the websites of academics but rarely can find them. (I'm an ex-political-scientist, so my interests tend to that field or to related social sciences like economics. Perhaps it's different in the other sciences?)

It is not :/

The academic web sphere is littered with broken links, links to defunct research projects, themselves also littered with broken links to previous publications at best (and at worst, with no mention of any prior work at all.) In general (purely personal observation of mine), many academic researchers don't give a rat's ass when it comes to making their older research accessible to the masses. The focus is entirely on what they work on right now and on their current funding.

Sad indeed because the later does not preclude the former. It would be nice if universities in general provided some sort of database containing every publication, thesis, dissertation, technical report and presentation, by department. After all, all of that content was created by taxes, and, in general, should be made available to the tax-paying population.

Re:Pay to read (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37602036)

I was just kicking around, looking through NSF grants recently. I noticed that a lot of them had publishing requirements, and it warmed my heart a little.

Where my tax dollars are concerned (what little there is) I like to think that they're being used for everyone's benefit.

I don't know if that's a blanket rule, but I did see it on a lot of them.

Re:Pay to read (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 2 years ago | (#37603152)

I got an email a little while ago saying that it was now a requirement for any papers written on EPSRC grants, meaning most science and engineering papers from UK universities. It always seemed to be more of a problem with individuals than institutions though. Pretty much all journals allow you to put the preprint (same content, just without the journal's formatting) online on your own web site, so it doesn't matter if the journal is open access or not as long as you bother to put the PDF on your web site. For some strange reason, a lot of academics - whose reputation is based largely on how many people read and cite their papers - choose not to do this simple step.

They don't know how to put a PDF file on a server and make a link to it. Seriously, I'm not kidding. This is understandable from non-tech academics, but for CS/CE/EE, this is no exaggeration :/

Obviously, there should be a department web master and a department server and web page in which department research is published. But at the very least, one would expect academics (specially in technical fields) to maintain their university home pages with their current and past research for posterity.

Re:Pay to read (1)

jadavis (473492) | more than 2 years ago | (#37601036)

"but some random publisher who did virtually nothing"

If they provide nothing, then why do researchers use them?

Re:Pay to read (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#37601118)

You're mistakenly conflating "do nothing" with "provide nothing".

The "random publisher" does nothing, true, except publish, and in this age, anyone can publish.

What the "random publisher" provides is prestige.

Self-publication is for nobodies. Anyone who's anyone wants that prestigious imprint to put onto their CV. If that means that none of the unwashed masses can actually read and question the research, all the better.

Re:Pay to read (2)

hubie (108345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37603236)

I think this is overly cynical. Publishers also handle the peer review process (lining up the reviewers, managing the reviews, etc.), which is hard for just anyone to do. Sure, anyone can publish, but what is the value is doing all that work and putting together a paper if nobody will see it? Do you want to write a thoughtful editorial on foreign policy and have it published in the weekly Penny Saver, or in the Sunday New York Times? Effectively disseminating ideas is not as easy as putting it up on a web site or dumping something into arXiv. I would love to see more authors voting with their feet and publishing in more reasonably priced journals with better access policies, because some of the private journals have outrageous price structures.

The American Institute of Physics has done a lot to address these issues, and I think they lay out their position [aip.org] fairly clearly. The legal issues certainly aren't as black and white as you make them out to be.

Re:Pay to read (1)

HuguesT (84078) | more than 2 years ago | (#37604182)

Publishers do none of the work you speak of. Lining up the reviewers and managing the reviews is done by editors, who are all senior scientist volunteers! Again this is driven by prestige.

They do, however, help the review process along by providing web resources for reviewers to use, and they do in fine handle the typesetting of the articles, and the printing, distribution and such.

One of my fairly senior colleague complained recently that as he is advancing in his career, he is asked and expected to provide increasingly boring and stressful work: become associate editor of some journal, area chair of some conference, then somehow general chair of increasingly prestigious conference (where turning a benefit is expected), and eventually main editor of some journal, where he has to manage the associate editors and fix conflicts. You generally don't sign up to research for this.

Re:Pay to read (1)

hubie (108345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37605118)

I don't see prestige as necessarily a bad thing because it is the community that defines what is prestigious. I think things like Open Access will make it easier, and perhaps more desirable, to publish elsewhere and still have your paper seen by your colleagues. I think the idea of everyone as their own publisher won't work in general because there is already a ton of places where you can go to find all sorts of interesting (some would say "crackpot") papers. The journal does some sort of quality cut for you and gives you a single place to find articles of interest. If that went away for some reason, there would still exist the need for a peer review system, and whatever cropped up to fill the void would fall back into a prestige arrangement.

What your colleague complains of is true for many professions. As you advance towards "management" you do less and less real work and more and more administration. Bump up the chain and pretty soon your grad students and postdocs are doing the research, under your guidance of course, but they're the ones doing the dirty work. I just finished Abraham Pais' biography of Neils Bohr: Subtle Is The Lord. Bohr was making the same complaints 80 years ago as your colleague is now.

Re:Pay to read (1)

hubie (108345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37613550)

Aaagh! Not that anyone will see this or care, but Subtle Is The Lord is Pais' biography of Einstein (which I'm just starting and which was why it was the quickest title out of my brain). Neils Bohr's Times is his biography of Bohr.

Re:Pay to read (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#37602130)

Since you're more familiar with this than I'll ever be, I wondered if you could comment on the differences. Does everything published that way go through similar review processes? Or does everything go up, and review happens externally? If so, does that damage the utility of the open access sources?

Or in short, is there some benefit that the traditional outlets bring to the table that'll be lost here? I'm just curious. Because on the surface of it all, I can't see why anyone wouldn't prefer this, aside from the old publishers.

Re:Pay to read (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37604260)

Peer review --while not perfect --would seem to be extremely important. That is why it is very unlikely you will see a weight loss pill touting peer reviewed studies from a prestigious publication. Of course this has been used as a bit of a cash cow by some publishers and the subscriptions to the journals are often tied to membership dues. What is also important to realize is that as far as I know --every journal is distributed by a non-profit organization. So the money may go to an over paid bureaucracy and some waste-- but generally it does not line any particular person or companies pockets.

thanks Princeton! (2)

stephinity (2452006) | more than 2 years ago | (#37599984)

I'm currently applying for grad schools - and nothing is more frustrating than finding all of a professor's research "hidden" behind pay-journals... what a step in the right direction.

Re:thanks Princeton! (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600368)

Researchers are pretty good about sharing their work through alternative channels. Most researchers will host PDFs of their work on their department web page. If not, email them and ask. I've never had a request for a PDF denied after contacting the author.

Sure, it's not legal for them to do this. They usually have signed their copyright over to the journal. But no one enforces it, and if they tried the movement towards open access journals would be greatly accelerated.

Re:thanks Princeton! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37600886)

At least with the journals I've submitted to, it is perfectly legal for them to give out copies of the PDF or post them for free on department websites. Although you give copyright of the final article to the journal, the copyright agreements usually have details saying you are free to post it elsewhere as long as you don't incorporate any of the editing or formatting done by the editors to put the article into its final form.

Re:thanks Princeton! (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37601526)

At least with the journals I've submitted to, it is perfectly legal for them to give out copies of the PDF or post them for free on department websites. Although you give copyright of the final article to the journal, the copyright agreements usually have details saying you are free to post it elsewhere as long as you don't incorporate any of the editing or formatting done by the editors to put the article into its final form.

Yes. Part of the deal usually involves the author being given 50 to 200 reprints of an accepted article just as it will be published. Each reprint comes with nice glossy covers showing the full reference to the article (author, title, journal, date, volume, issue, page range, etc.) in a decent sized font. At least, that's what I always got, but it's a few years since I submitted stuff to journals; mostly, I just publish at conferences nowadays. Whether a journal article or a conference paper, if anyone asks for an electronic copy, I send them the PDF without hesitation.

Re:thanks Princeton! (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600898)

Sure, it's not legal for them to do this

What kind of crappy journal are you publishing in? Almost every one I've even considered submitting a paper to explicitly allows you to place a copy of the preprint on your web page. It's a pretty standard clause in the copyright assignment for any reputable journal. The only exception I've encountered was a journal that asks you to link to their (publicly available) hosted copy of the paper so that they could see how many people were reading it.

Re:thanks Princeton! (1)

cosmicaug (150534) | more than 2 years ago | (#37601182)

Researchers are pretty good about sharing their work through alternative channels. Most researchers will host PDFs of their work on their department web page. If not, email them and ask. I've never had a request for a PDF denied after contacting the author.

I've had a researcher send me an encrypted PDF which I thought was a pretty weird thing to do. It was weak encryption so no biggie. Still, pretty odd.

Re:thanks Princeton! (2)

stranger_to_himself (1132241) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600492)

I'm currently applying for grad schools - and nothing is more frustrating than finding all of a professor's research "hidden" behind pay-journals... what a step in the right direction.

Trinity College Dublin (my institution) also does this in a way. We are obliged to send anything we publish to the college's open access server. A lot of institutions and funding bodies have similar policies or are putting them in place.

Re:thanks Princeton! (1)

Deus.1.01 (946808) | more than 2 years ago | (#37602854)

Well, when you are enrolled, attleast you will get access to loads of stuff through some sort digital publishing alliance.

Spent many hours on ACM through a VPN tunnel.....I still have mile long list of bookmarks to papers i deluded myself into thinking i had time to read.

Re:thanks Princeton! (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 2 years ago | (#37605978)

I'm in private research, so I'm completely screwed when it comes to such things; at least at school you'll have access to some. But yes, Thanks Princeton!

It's not a first step (4, Informative)

shoppa (464619) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600006)

The first internet-age era step was (at least in physics publishing) 20 years ago: the LANL Preprint Archive, later known as xxx.lanl.gov, now www.arxiv.org
Previous to that there were paper preprints mailed out for decades and decades.
Now other fields have indeed have a harder time getting out from under the thumb of the publishing houses and will indeed need the kick in the rear that Princeton is giving.
That doesn't mean that refereed journals are going away - just that they are not the bleeding edge anymore, I would argue they never were.

Re:It's not a first step (1)

jofer (946112) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600192)

I completely agree. Scientific publication is an immense racket at present. We pay to submit our articles, review other scientist’s articles for free, and then still get charged to access our own publications and are forbidden from posting them where they're publicly available.

Unfortunately, I think it will still take another generation to "get out from under the thumb of the publishing houses" and move to an open-access model.

The prestige of a publication in Science or Nature is an immense boost to your career. What journal your research gets published in is a very decisive factor in getting a tenure-track position and in getting tenure.

That's why what Princeton is doing is such a great thing. It allows you to still submit and be published in a prestigious journal, but hide behind the university's legal team when it comes to posting your publication where everyone can access it. Google scholar does an amazing job of finding publicly available copies of scientific publications on a researcher's personal website, etc, so this is a big step towards open-access scientific publication without having to sacrifice your career.

Re:It's not a first step (3, Insightful)

stranger_to_himself (1132241) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600588)

That's why what Princeton is doing is such a great thing. It allows you to still submit and be published in a prestigious journal, but hide behind the university's legal team when it comes to posting your publication where everyone can access it. Google scholar does an amazing job of finding publicly available copies of scientific publications on a researcher's personal website, etc, so this is a big step towards open-access scientific publication without having to sacrifice your career.

Depends if the journals will accept this. It would be no great loss to any journal in particular to not accept work from Princeton - it may only (in the short term) harm their own researchers if other universities don't follow (though I see from the summary there is a waiver - will be interesting to see how that works out).

Although I'm in favour of open access I get a bit pissed off with Universities dictating publication policy like this. I got my own grant money so it should be between me and my funders how I spend it (and how I assign my own copyright).

Re:It's not a first step (1)

doru (541245) | more than 2 years ago | (#37601086)

It would be no great loss to any journal in particular to not accept work from Princeton.

It would be very dangerous for any journal to have to acknowledge publicly that they refuse publication based on the institution of the authors, because they must (at least appear to) be fair and objective. They will most likely add another item on the copyright form, to the effect that: "If you belong to institutions A, B or C you do not have to turn over copyright to us".

Re:It's not a first step (1)

innocent_white_lamb (151825) | more than 2 years ago | (#37605478)

I got my own grant money so it should be between me and my funders how I spend it (and how I assign my own copyright).
 
If your grant money is funded, in whole or in part, by the taxpayer then the taxpayer has a right to the fruits of the money he has spent on your research.
 
If it's a privately funded grant, then by all means do as you wish.

Re:It's not a first step (1)

stranger_to_himself (1132241) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610676)

I got my own grant money so it should be between me and my funders how I spend it (and how I assign my own copyright).

If your grant money is funded, in whole or in part, by the taxpayer then the taxpayer has a right to the fruits of the money he has spent on your research.

If it's a privately funded grant, then by all means do as you wish.

I don't quite agree - there's a subtle but important distinction between being employed by the taxpayer and being grant funded by the taxpayer. An employee is being asked by the taxpayer to do something specific that they are interested in, and the government retains control of the direction of the work and the ownership of the results. A grant funded scientist is being enabled by the taxpayer to do work that they (both parties) think is important (it's a charitable donation in a sense) - much like grant funded artists or museums there is no expectation that all of the output is then owned by the taxpayer.

The public do have a right to ensure that the results are disseminated in a way that is useful to them, this does not necessarily mean open access for primary research findings - as in some cases this can do more harm than good (although as I've said earlier I think in most cases open access is a good thing).

Re:It's not a first step (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600692)

The prestige of a publication in Science or Nature is an immense boost to your career. What journal your research gets published in is a very decisive factor in getting a tenure-track position and in getting tenure.

Clearly, this is true, but the question is "why?" What is it about a particular journal that provides it's published authors with such a career boost? Is it a superior review process that reliably selects only the cream for publication? Is it "cultural inertia", a status made up largely from a bygone era when "publishing" meant distributing the work of others printed on dead trees? In either case, Princeton's move is a good step, but let's consider the authors. Distribution is no longer a challenge, so what system might we set in place that would allow for the same (or better) editorial control without the vig for the company that owns the presses?

Re:It's not a first step (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600932)

The first internet-age era step was (at least in physics publishing) 20 years ago: the LANL Preprint Archive, later known as xxx.lanl.gov, now www.arxiv.org

This was one of two famous sites largely implemented by a single person. The other one is the Internet Movie Database. The person responsible for both is now a sheep farmer and has no Internet connection...

Re:It's not a first step (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37602648)

what the hell are you talking about? as far as arxiv goes... it was developed by Paul Ginsparg as the wikipedia entry tells us
and as the following page shows... he is a faculty at cornell...
Is this FUD? I hope the moderators take down this post since it is majorly incorrect...

http://www.physics.cornell.edu/academics/faculty-support/?page=website/faculty&action=show/id=17

Bad summary (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600018)

Taxpayer-funded research - specifically that funded by the NIH (though I heard the NSF has or will follow) - is now required as a term of the grant to have its results written up in journals that are accessible without payment.

This of course applies only to grants that were awarded starting a couple years ago. However renewed grants are subject to this as well, and of course any new grants are automatically subject to this.

Hence contrary to the summary,

People without subscriptions are often prevented from reading taxpayer funded research

Is true for very little current research.

Research funded by the several states (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600176)

Hence contrary to the summary,

People without subscriptions are often prevented from reading taxpayer funded research

Is true for very little current research.

You make a good point for federally funded research. What about research funded by the several states?

Re:Bad summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37600786)

NSF has definitely not followed NIH and has not made any announcement that it will do so. To my knowledge, nor have other government agencies that support research.

Re:Bad summary (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37601072)

">People without subscriptions are often prevented from reading taxpayer funded research

Is true for very little current research."

You are incorrect. Maybe for certain fields that might be true, but when I browse journals from home >90% of them are not accessible without paying. The only reason it is the other way around at work is that I work at a university and we subscribe. For the general public the majority of research is still trapped behind paywalls. Some journals are eventually open access after a year or two, but they are still the minority.

Most taxpayer-funded research still held 4 ransom (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37601292)

You're correct that NIH requires that articles be freely available. But there's a one-year lag, which is completely unjustified. Why shouldn't the people, who paid for it, get access right away? The journal didn't pay to do the research, so keeping it from the people who DID pay for it is absurd. But the one-year lag, while unjustifiable, is better than we had before and better than many other places, so for the moment I'll give it a pass.

More importantly right now, most US government research is NOT freely available, but is still stuck behind a paywall. The government funds a ton of unclassified research, but you can't see a lot of it precisely because they are held for ransom behind various paywalls. It's an obsolete system, and it's time to abolish it. If the people paid for the research, then they should get the results, without being charged again. They ALREADY paid for it.

Re:Bad summary (1)

zolltron (863074) | more than 2 years ago | (#37601916)

People without subscriptions are often prevented from reading taxpayer funded research

Is true for very little current research.

You're simply wrong about this. True the NIH requires submission to open access journals, and I trust you know what your talking about with the NSF. But these are not the only tax-based sources of research funding. First, there are non-U.S. sources. Even in the U.S. there are the departments of defense, education, and energy which fund huge amounts of research. Defense and energy do a lot in science and technology. On top of that you have state universities that are funded (less and less) by tax dollars from their states. They often support the research of their faculty with that money.

Take a look at the top journals in many fields. We are very, very far from free access to scientific research.

Re:Bad summary (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37602506)

People without subscriptions are often prevented from reading taxpayer funded research

Is true for very little current research.

You're simply wrong about this. True the NIH requires submission to open access journals

The NIH is the largest single funding source for scientific research from the US government.

there are non-U.S. sources

If the money comes from outside the US then how is it taxpayer funded?

Even in the U.S. there are the departments of defense, education, and energy which fund huge amounts of research

And they will likely end up following the NIH lead on the matter. It may take some time, but they will most likely go the same way. Regardless, the total research budget for ED and DoE is small in comparison to the NIH. Department of Defense is a different animal altogether, and often does research that doesn't end in publication anyways.

On top of that you have state universities that are funded (less and less) by tax dollars from their states. They often support the research of their faculty with that money

Which doesn't really counter my point. As you stated the state universities are constantly finding themselves with less and less state money. On top of that many state universities first fund the labs for startup and basic expenses; the money is often paying more to keep the lights on and the lab supplied with basic consumables than to do actual research.

Take a look at the top journals in many fields. We are very, very far from free access to scientific research.

That is a different problem as well. The article is discussing what Princeton University is doing with regards to copyright and publication access. My point is that they have just done what the NIH did back in '09. Really, what they have just done is redundant for many of their research faculty.

However, copyright being what it is, we can't do much of anything about older research. We can, however, take action about ongoing work, which is what the NIH already did, and what Princeton is now copying.

Re:Bad summary (1)

HuguesT (84078) | more than 2 years ago | (#37604804)

If the money comes from outside the US then how is it taxpayer funded?

Obviously, there are taxpayers outside the USA. They pay taxes for other countries, as well.

Re:Bad summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37602062)

Perhaps that's true of medical research, where the NIH is a major player, but to say that the argument is true of "very little current research" doesn't make sense. So far as I know other public agencies have not yet followed suit. Furthermore we ought to consider public funding more broadly than just those monies that come from grants. Most academic papers are the product of research that is not supported by grant money. Many of the authors (and reviewers) of that research are supported by their salaries as public employees (at public universities). Most high impact journals in most fields are NOT open access. The dominant model is still for public institutions to pay large sums of money for access to content that their employees created, while the broader public, who themselves fund those institutions, get no access at all.

Today when 99% of journal access occurs via the internet, what purpose do academic publishing houses even serve (other than to collect rents as gatekeepers of prestigious brand names)?

Re:Bad summary (1)

Beetle B. (516615) | more than 2 years ago | (#37607976)

NIH is probably the exception. I think as of yet, most DARPA and NSF grants don't require open access. If they do, they must not enforce it because most people I know get their funding from them and not one of their papers is open access.

Re:Bad summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37608610)

Not true. First, there is non-federal taxpayer funding. Second, a research project that has been received co-funding by non-governmental entities (businesses) might have exceptions. Also, note that there are a lot of other agencies other than NIH. NSF for one, but more importantly, you missed out DARPA.

Either way, right now, a vast majority of current government-funded (partially or whole) research is *not* available without payment.

Definitely good news (2)

ironjaw33 (1645357) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600076)

I've had to sign over the copyright for each of the papers I've published. Fortunately, I'm usually allowed to disseminate my work for educational purposes, so I can post my papers on my personal webpage. However, there are plenty of publications that do not allow this and you've got to fork over the big bucks just to read a single article. While my university has the resources to maintain subscriptions to all the big journals and conference proceedings in my field, plenty of others aren't so lucky.

If other schools follow Princeton, this will certainly level the playing field. Maybe it will get more people interested in research since they won't have to be associated with a major university to read the state of the art.

Harvard (1)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600462)

From the fine article, it looks like Harvard [eprints.org] is already among those supporting Open Access. So it's not just Princeton. I think there are quite a few others now. It's time for a list to be made, to show which universities are the leaders.

However, open access may be going more discipline by discipline rather than institution by institution. Arxiv and PLoS have been big for years for certain fields.

Re:Harvard (1)

SETIGuy (33768) | more than 2 years ago | (#37601736)

This is standard for people at Princeton. They need to think they're first, and that it's a big step. From the looks of eprints.org it looks like Princeton is the 50th university in the United States to adopt an open access policy. Case Western Reserve's open access policy dates back to June of 2005.

Re:Harvard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37603840)

but they are the only Harvard that has taken that step...hARVARDSCHNARVARD

Re:Harvard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37613584)

Still feeling the sting of that rejection letter from a few years back? Don't worry, you can still be a meaningful & contributing member of society.

Excellent (5, Insightful)

Saunalainen (627977) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600090)

Researchers and peer reviewers are not paid for their work but academic publishers have said such a business model is required to maintain quality.

The publishers are lying here to protect their cash cow. What maintains quality is the peer review system (which the journals do not pay for). The transfer of copyright to the publisher allows them to hold Universities to ransom - universities cannot function without access to the literature (present and past), and the costs of online access to journals have been spiraling over the past few years at a time when the publishers' actual costs are going down. After all, they don't pay for the research to be carried out, nor do they pay the academic editors or the reviewers, nor do they even need to typeset the document now that everyone submits a machine-readable copy.

Re:Excellent (1)

symes (835608) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600948)

What maintains quality is the peer review system (which the journals do not pay for).

Very much definitely this. And what is strange is that reviewers give their time freely (although I have been offered payment a few times, it is pretty unusual). It is pretty obvious that if academics find themselves unable to distribute their work fairly then publishers might find it increasingly hard to find people to review submissions.

Re:Excellent (1)

sam_nead (607057) | more than 2 years ago | (#37604264)

This is basically correct - in mathematics (my field) referees and academic editors work for free. However, the journals do provide services: coordination, typesetting, and archiving come to mind. How much these services are worth is another story. The fact that high quality, low cost journals can spring into existence (eg Geometry and Topology) suggests that journals are overpriced.

Re:Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37614822)

nor do they even need to typeset the document now that everyone submits a machine-readable copy.

And yet they do that anyway, much to my chagrin as they always screw something up in the process.

Excellent news (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600092)

For all we know, Princeton may have studied the Wasabi Fire Alarm, years before that chap who got the igNoble for it.

This is really good stuff (4, Informative)

Baldrake (776287) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600094)

Private academic publishers do extremely little for the exclusive copyright that they demand. Academics write the papers. Other academics peer-review them. Academics volunteer as editors and publicists. In most cases, none of these people are paid by the publisher for their work.

Increasingly, academic publications are digital only, meaning that literally the only service being provided by the publishers is to put the papers on a web site, behind a paywall.

Many academics that I know engage in "civil disobediance" and post their papers publicly anyway. Some publishers (notably the ACM) actually permit this. But most do not.

Princeton on its own won't be enough to change the system, but hopefully a few other big names will follow, and tip the balance.

Re:This is really good stuff (but most MS ain't) (1)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600614)

Right, because every scientific paper, written up in Microsoft Word, w/ inconsistent formatting and font usage, never edited or corrected by anyone but the author, and low-res RGB graphics is instantly and automatically ready to print on a printing press, or to convert to a nice ePub which will re-flow and be readable.

Also, no publisher has ever even considered something like ``The Article of the Future'' --- http://www.articleofthefuture.com/ [articleofthefuture.com]

While there are exceptions (arxiv.org comes to mind), for the most part, raw author manuscripts are _not_ pleasant to read or work w/.

Re:This is really good stuff (but most MS ain't) (1)

gilleain (1310105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37601020)

Right, because every scientific paper, written up in Microsoft Word, w/ inconsistent formatting and font usage, never edited or corrected by anyone but the author, and low-res RGB graphics is instantly and automatically ready to print on a printing press, or to convert to a nice ePub which will re-flow and be readable.

Also, no publisher has ever even considered something like ``The Article of the Future'' --- http://www.articleofthefuture.com/ [articleofthefuture.com]

While there are exceptions (arxiv.org comes to mind), for the most part, raw author manuscripts are _not_ pleasant to read or work w/.

Fair point, but I'm guessing that authors who provide well formatted papers to a journal don't get discounts...

Re:This is really good stuff (but most MS ain't) (1)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37602114)

You wrote:
>Fair point, but I'm guessing that authors who provide well formatted papers to a journal don't get discounts...

No, but authors who create nice, clean manuscripts get invited to write follow-on papers more frequently.

Re:This is really good stuff (but most MS ain't) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37603412)

This varies from discipline to discipline of course. In general, I provide "camera-ready" proofs. The page layout, incidentally, is usually contracted out to third parties to do, and this cannot account for the cost of academic publishing, either OA or toll access. More over, we have to ask about why articles are being prepared for the "printing press" or pointless formats like epub, when they should be prepared web ready. If we take the latter approach, you discover that, actually, it takes around 15 minutes to get an article written in Word to the point where Word will translate to HTML or publish to a CMS.

I know this because I have actually done it, and timed it.

Re:This is really good stuff (but most MS ain't) (1)

Overunderrated (1518503) | more than 2 years ago | (#37605138)

I'm a Princeton graduate student (and somewhat shocked I got this news via slashdot.) My scientific papers are in LaTeX, properly formatted using custom journal templates, use high quality vector graphics, and are well edited and corrected.

Thanks.

Re:This is really good stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37600738)

How much work the editors put in all depends on the journal. Big names (Nature, Science, ...) put in a huge amount of work into their journals, provide editing, type-setting (easily forgotten) and graphics. So it's not like all journals do nothing, they do provide extra services that are not handled by the volunteer reviewers or editors. That being said, one can easily argue that signing away your copyright for that extra service is a ridiculous idea and I'd agree with that - just with the caveat that most functions of a publishing house are indeed essential to great articles.

Re:This is really good stuff (1)

doomsday_device (1063146) | more than 2 years ago | (#37602768)

Big name publishers may be essential for great _looking_ articles.

A great article, though is usually not a matter of beauty.

Re:This is really good stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37600826)

The thing that I think is lacking emphasis so far in the summary and comments is just how much the current academic journals stifle private contributions to academic knowledge. Last year I took a class at a university and did a somewhat notable project (e.g., post-docs from labs most of us have heard of later asked me to contribute to their paper), and I really enjoyed it and would like to work on similar but more advanced projects in my off-time. Given that I'm no longer taking a class, though, I no longer have access to the academic journals. There's no way for me to know what new insights have been made or what open problems are still left in the area I was working in, and so rather than risk doing redundant work I'm spending that time studying (which is fine, but not as rewarding as doing novel research).

Re:This is really good stuff (1)

rmstar (114746) | more than 2 years ago | (#37601026)

Many academics that I know engage in "civil disobediance" and post their papers publicly anyway. Some publishers (notably the ACM) actually permit this. But most do not.

I don't know what proportion of publishers does what, but the matter of fact is that many journals that matter allow self-archiving of preprints, and even of the revised version that is essentially identical with the version that goes into print, perhaps up to special fonts.They do not want the final publisher pdf to be public, though, (here is an example [sherpa.ac.uk]) and are quite emphatic about that. I don't understand why, but that's the way it is. A notable example of such a publisher is Springer. I like them a lot for that.

Btw, there is a central database for finding the policies of journals here. [sherpa.ac.uk]

I know, however, researchers that do not use this feature, and are happy to bury their work behind paywalls. Believe it or not, not all researchers are happy to have other people be able to access their work. For them, paywalls are a feature.

Re:This is really good stuff (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 2 years ago | (#37607662)

I think that a condition of government funding should be:

1. All research results are in the public domain and discoveries cannot be patented.
2. Researchers are required to publish all results (positive and negative) within n days of discovery. This includes sequences, coordinates, raw data, you name it.
3. Researchers must place their publications in the public domain.
4. Fail to do any of the above, and you go on the government funding blacklist for n years for the first offense, and permanently for subsequent offenses.

If I as a taxpayer pay for research, then I as a taxpayer should be able to read/use it without paying further for the privilege. And, the purpose of the funding is to improve the state of knowledge, not to give some PI information to horde to dribble out across 14 articles over 7 years.

About time (2)

15Bit (940730) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600106)

Definitely time someone with a bit of clout stood up to the scientific publishers. Their business model made a bit of sense in the days when things had to be typeset, printed and distributed, but with modern electronic distribution it is little better than a Mafia-style extortion racket. I'd love to know what they actually do for their money - researchers do the research, write the paper, review the paper and (at least in my field) act as journal editors. And they do these at no cost to the publisher because they are either publically or industrially funded. That the publisher is able to take the copyright and then charge the people who actually funded it to read it, is an ongoing disgrace and (i think) should be an embarrassment to an industry/community which generally prides itself on its open-ness and its "freedom".

about time (1)

statsone (1981504) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600160)

what so long to do this? Next, self publish without the journals in the way.

Re:about time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37603966)

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I would like to sign up for your newsletter.

Great! (4, Interesting)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600182)

As someone working in academia who knows the journal business well and is also a frequent anonymous peer-reviewer for an A-tier journal, I wholeheartedly welcome this decision. The publishers earn insane amounts of money for journals, yet practically all the work is done by unpaid volunteers. It's like a money milking machine and tremendously hinders research -- especially in poorer countries, because research institutions very often cannot pay for all subscriptions and have to make tough choices. At my working place in a not so rich country we cannot get access to many important journals and I frequently have to ask colleagues to send me some manuscript (which is embarasing, to say the least).

Before someone starts ranting about high-risk business, low volumes, they don't really make money etc. let me assure you that the majority of journals require authors to typeset the manuscript themselves, practically never pay for linguistic editing and do no editing in addition to what the voluntary peer-reviewers suggest to the author, and the rest of the typesetting is done as cheaply as possible (e.g. Springer commonly outsources to India -- fine for me, I like Indians and their country). Basically, the publishers do nothing - no proof reading, sometimes they don't even run a spell-checker, and make shitloads of money. One journal article USD $35 -- you get the picture!

Wrongly assigned credit (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600200)

The summary claims

This is a bold first step in changing the face of how research (especially when taxpayer funded) works in the country, and a step towards weakening the current culture of charging increasingly exorbitant prices to view academic research publications.

However for some time now all work funded by new and renewed grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are required to be published in publicly accessible journals [nih.gov]. It has been this way now for over two years, and the National Science Foundation (NSF) has implemented a similar policy for work they fund.

So while it is nice to see Princeton, as an academic institution, take a similar stance, it is mostly redundant as the vast majority of taxpayer-funded research - at least that funded by US taxpayers - is already covered by the policies of the two largest funding agencies.

Re:Wrongly assigned credit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37601242)

I don't know if I the NIH and NSF constitute the vast majority of tax funded federal research money. The DOE, NIST, NASA, and NOAA's research budgets together are several times larger than NSF's and on par with NIH's. I'm not familiar with what other agencies there might be too, as I'm mostly familiar with physics research.

What they said... (1)

swan5566 (1771176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600270)

Yeah, I am in complete agreement with the above posters. I've had the same experience as well with my research as well, and it's very frustrating to be subjected to this sort of system. To be honest I'm waiting for the nail in the coffin to come for ALL taxpayer research and completely do away with this system. Those journals are just leaches on the academic system, and nothing more. Since the government has oversight of which research ideas are worthy of funding, I don't see why they can't be in charge of determining whether the results from that funding is worthy of publication.

What about IEEE and ACM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37600470)

Long before the internet, the IEEE and ACM were publishing journals at far lower prices (e.g. $30-$40/year in today's dollars for an individual subscription) than the for-profit publishers, and in many areas these journals were of higher quality than the corresponding for-profit ones. The same distinction in ease of access and quality continues to this day; in fact, the increased digital access to articles in journals published by non-profit societies seems to have made them more competitive (for high-quality submissions) vis-a-vis for-profit ones, rather than less. This would seem to poke holes in a number of the arguments advanced by the for-profit publishers to justify their business model.

Sounds expensive (2)

FiveTenMatt (943867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600552)

While open access journals do encourage the dissemination of ideas, they are by no means without a cost to the researcher who produces the work. While open-access journals may be free to read, they are not free to publish in. On average, open access journals cost around $1500 per article. That's $1500 the researcher has to pay out of their grant and the taxpayer is paying for out of their pocket. While I'm all for open access journals, as a researcher myself, I know how difficult it can be to pay these exorbitant fees from the grant money I was awarded to do research. It comes down to whether or not I want to do an experiment or publish a paper, and I shouldn't have to make that choice. Having the option to publish in a traditional journal frees up much of my research funds for doing what it was intended for: research. These journals have good intentions, but the tax payer is paying for them in the end. Personally, I have very mixed feeling when it comes to open access journals. I publish in them when I can, but if it means sacrificing an experiment, you can bet I'll pay. Until the publication fees drop, I don't see widespread adoption.

Re:Sounds expensive (1)

Vegemeister (1259976) | more than 2 years ago | (#37602152)

VPS for a year: $50.
~$ pdflatex article.tex: a few micro-cents of CPU time.

Where are you getting the extra $1450?

Re:Sounds expensive (1)

sam_nead (607057) | more than 2 years ago | (#37604352)

I'd guess typesetting costs per page and admin overhead. Coordination of author, editor, referee, typesetter is not free.

Re:Sounds expensive (1)

HuguesT (84078) | more than 2 years ago | (#37604860)

Mostly the salary of staff who still have to manage the review process (the secretaries, the general editor, etc), people who manage the journal issues, the typesetters, the webmasters, etc, plus bills and incidentals. It adds up quickly.

Re:Sounds expensive (1)

FiveTenMatt (943867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37605762)

It sure does. But the question is, who should pay for it? The researcher or the reader? Either way, it's the tax payer...

Re:Sounds expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37603198)

This is a case where it is very important to look at the "big picture" and long-term effects of the system. For closed journals with expensive subscriptions, researchers are also paying huge amounts out of their taxpayer-funded grants, though indirectly through the pooled university "overhead" costs (that claim 30-50% from everyone's grants). Given that many journals have institutional subscription costs in the tens to hundred-thousand dollar range, a total cost of $1500/article (with free access afterwards) is a huge savings to the system as a whole, allowing universities to spend their overhead budget much more effectively than shoveling millions of dollars into the pockets of scumbag publishers. Though researchers will be "directly" paying $1500 more from their grants for publications, they will be (on average) getting far more than that in improved facilities support (or maybe even lower overhead costs) as the money is channeled to better causes, and the overall results will be more productive use of taxpayer money.

Re:Sounds expensive (1)

FiveTenMatt (943867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37605728)

It important to keep in mind that while many established researchers at Princeton are well funded and can likely pay publication fees without an impact on their science, to many new researchers (like myself) and researchers with small labs, this is not an insubstantial sum of money. It really can make a difference in the quantity and quality of work done in these labs. For Princeton to force investigators to pay to publish, they're in effect punishing new investigators and those in underfunded labs. Having the choice to publish where you want is VERY important. What if a University said you could only publish in journals with an impact factor of 10 or greater? What would the repercussions of that be? It's only a small step beyond what Princeton has done. Both restrict the freedom of the investigator, and both are wrong in my opinion. As far as the discussion of indirects goes (the 30-50% that departments and universities take from every federal grant), I'd be hard pressed to find a fellow researcher who can point to something in his/her lab that was paid for by their department or university. Every time I've made a request to my department for new equipment or facilities, I've been told to "write a grant to pay for it". I know our library is funded by state funds and by their own federal grants. I seriously doubt any of my indirects make it to the library. I would expect that endowments get used in lieu of state funds at private universities. To think that the indirects we pay get back to researchers is, in my opinion, naive.

Re:Sounds expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37608648)

I know it's too much to ask for, but RTFA, darn it!

They're not going to all switch over to open access journals! They're simply changing the copyright model. This doesn't prevent current non-open-access journals from continuing to do what they do. The only difference is, Princeton will be able to put their publications on their website as well, for instance.

Keep that crap under lock and key! (1)

Moof123 (1292134) | more than 2 years ago | (#37600650)

Frankly speaking, the quality of published papers out of academia is just awful. It is better to keep most of that badly written make-work grad student drivel out of search results for those of us with actual work to do. Our academic system has become so overrun with the need to simply output ever increasing amounts of paper, paper that NOBODY will ever read, and that NOBODY should even try to read.

The university system is sick, and stuck in the past. At least keep all these crap papers and crap thesis' out of the public's way, they are a net negative value more times than now. Better yet, keep all your puppy mill PhD's out of my lab. These morons can't even hold the soldering iron by the right end... Worse yet, management still hires and feels obligates to respect their opinion, leading to more messes for real engineers to fix.

End rant...

Re:Keep that crap under lock and key! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37601590)

I tried to search for what academic wrote a paper on pissing in your cheerios. But it looks like you might be right, there are too many results to search through to find what I was looking for.

Princeton University Press (1)

SETIGuy (33768) | more than 2 years ago | (#37601432)

Is a waver to that rule going to be granted to any conference proceeding published by Princeton University Press [princeton.edu]? Or are they going to make all their conference proceedings open access as well?

Is it really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37601870)

The new rule is part of an Open Access policy aimed at broadening the reach of their scholarly work

Is it really, or is it an IP grab in disguise?

I've worked at universities before. They typically claim a share in any discovery made using university resources (50-50 is the usual contractual split, the upside is they also have to pay for the patent lawyers). I don't hear anything about dropping these clauses from contracts. Is this really about open access, or is it a way for the university to hang on to that IP for itself?

Publishing isn't cheap (1)

lfp98 (740073) | more than 2 years ago | (#37602764)

The publishing industry is an easy target but those who have attempted to create a better model are now finding that it costs real money to publish a journal. When Open Access publishing first emerged at the turn of the millenium, it was estimated that it would cost perhaps $1000 to peer-review, format and archive an average article, and then make it freely available online, theoretically in perpetuity. Since computer servers are dirt-cheap, there are no printing presses, postage or paywalls to pay for, and most peer reviewers are volunteers, it certainly seemed to make sense, and scientists were mostly enthusiastic about the prospect. But it turned out to be more costly than expected. The Public Library of Science (PLoS) journals were launched with much fanfare on such an open-access model in 2003. But now their charges are approaching $3000 per article, and instead of it coming out of University overhead (via library subscriptions) it is coming straight out of the grants of individual scientists. Where all that money goes I can't say, but the journals claim that it still doesn't cover their full editorial and technical costs. It's great that taxpayers can freely access online the work they paid for, but for scientists the old days of print journal subscriptions suddenly don't look so bad.

Re:Publishing isn't cheap (1)

HuguesT (84078) | more than 2 years ago | (#37605024)

We now are in a situation where we have to pay both library subscriptions and publication fees, but hopefully more and more journals will become free access, and so library subscription fees will become lower. Meanwhile having to pay for publication will probably even out the two costs, with the added benefit that researchers will now think twice about sending a paper for publication for the mere sake of it. Less drivel, more content (one can hope).

Also, for the most part papers are based on PhDs work. An average PhD student might put out one journal paper per year. The 1-3k publication fees are peanuts compared to their salaries. It is cheaper than sending them out to some conference. Anyway, the publication fees are written in the grant proposals now.

Of course, no grant => no publication, but that was always the case.

Re:Publishing isn't cheap (1)

thePuck77 (1311533) | more than 2 years ago | (#37606222)

That's primarily because everyone who is a part of the process feels they should still be making the same inflated amounts for each part of the process. Everyone has to get their cut, and they are used to getting a certain cut and feel entitled to it.

You know what doesn't cost much? Getting a domain, some hosting, and publishing it yourself online. Groups of researchers could easily form peer-reviewing groups, which is the only meaningful benefit the journals grant (I didn't say helpful to your career...I said meaningful, as in adding to the knowledge in the world). Sidestep their process enough and they will come up with a new process.

Government Sponsor == Public Domain (1)

xwwt (2475904) | more than 2 years ago | (#37604154)

If it is a government supported institution the professor got paid for it and it should be in the public domain. If the institution is private, then the policy of the institution should hold the rights to anything created by the professor - just like the rest of the private sector. This nonsense of private publishers taking ownership of publicly created works is upside down. It just makes sense that if the work was funded with public monies, even in salary, then it should be open for all. The fact that other public institutions have to pay an outrageous sum to get access through the publishers for this data is crazy. Some of these publishers are even asking for upwards of 50% (or more) royalty on the works. And the author sometimes gets the same amount - so they are effectively double dipping into the cost of goods! (Pay me a salary and pay me for my content.) Good for Princeton.

How do they enforce this? (1)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 2 years ago | (#37604718)

I was a graduate student at Princeton, and our group submitted several papers to various journals. At no time did we need nor did we seek permission from the University to submit these papers. Once all the authors agreed, someone in the group e-mailed the article to the editor for the journal in question, and all further correspondence was between the journal and the authors; the University was not involved at all, and pretty much all correspondence was done by e-mail. So how, exactly, does enforcement work? Does the administration read through all journals and look for professors with a Princeton address and then check to see if they signed the copyright over to the journal, and fire them if they broke the rules? Seriously, I don't know how this would be workable.

Re:How do they enforce this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611802)

I believe the idea is that signing over the copyright to a pay only journal is now invalid so Princeton can go after the journal as well as profs that act contrary to responsibilities under the concept of agency. Making this policy public informs publishers such that no pay only publisher can claim the submitter is acting in good faith if there is no waiver. No good faith, no contract, no right to publish. IANAL

rfo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37607546)

right
forkin'
on
!

LIKE HARVARD, PRINCETON NEEDS DEPOSIT REQUIREMENT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37618270)

LIKE ITS HARVARD MODEL, PRINCETON'S OPEN ACCESS POLICY NEEDS TO ADD AN IMMEDIATE-DEPOSIT REQUIREMENT, WITH NO WAIVER OPTION

http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/844-guid.html

1. First, congratulations to Princeton University (my graduate alma mater!) for adopting an open access mandate: a copyright-reservation policy, adopted by unanimous faculty vote.

2. Princeton is following in the footsteps of Harvard in adopting the copyright-reservation policy pioneered by Stuart Shieber and Peter Suber.

4. I hope that Princeton will now also follow in the footsteps of Harvard by adding an immediate-deposit requirement with no waiver option to its copyright-reservation mandate, as Harvard has done.

5. The Princeton copyright-reservation policy, like the Harvard copyright-reservation policy, can be waived if the author wishes: This is to allow authors to retain the freedom to choose where to publish, even if the journal does not agree to the copyright-reservation.

6. Adding an immediate-deposit clause, with no opt-out waiver option, retains all the properties and benefits of the copyright-reservation policy while ensuring that all articles are nevertheless deposited in the institutional repository upon publication, with no exceptions: Access to the deposited article can be embargoed, but deposit itself cannot; access is a copyright matter, deposit is not.

7. Depositing all articles upon publication, without exception, is crucial to reaching 100% open access with certainty, and as soon as possible; hence it is the right example to set for the many other universities worldwide that are now contemplating emulating Harvard and Princeton by adopting open access policies of their own; copyright reservation alone, with opt-out, is not.

8. The reason it is imperative that the deposit clause must be immediate and without a waiver option is that, without that, both when and whether articles are deposited at all is indeterminate: With the added deposit requirement the policy is a mandate; without it, it is just a gentleman/scholar's agreement.

[Footnote: Princeton's open access policy is also unusual in having been adopted before Princeton has created an open access repository for its authors to deposit in: It might be a good idea to create the repository as soon as possible so Princeton authors can get into the habit of practising what they pledge from the outset...]

Stevan Harnad
EnablingOpenScholarship

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...