Beta

×

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!

Nature Publisher Requires Authors To Waive "Moral Rights" To Works

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the your-aesthetic-and-gustatory-rights-are-next dept.

The Media 82

cranky_chemist (1592441) writes "Megan O'Neil has published a story on the Chronicle of Higher Education's website noting some unusual language in the license agreement between authors and Nature Publishing Group. 'Faculty authors who contract to write for the publisher of Nature, Scientific American, and many other journals should know that they could be signing away more than just the economic rights to their work, according to the director of the Office of Copyright and Scholarly Communication at Duke University. Kevin Smith, the Duke official, said he stumbled across a clause in the Nature Publishing Group's license agreement last week that states that authors waive or agree not to assert "any and all moral rights they may now or in the future hold" related to their work. In the context of scholarly publishing, "moral rights" include the right of the author always to have his or her name associated with the work and the right to have the integrity of the work protected such that it is not changed in a way that could result in reputational harm.'

Nature Publishing Group claims the waivers are required to ensure the journal's ability to publish formal retractions and/or corrections. However, the story further notes that Nature Publishing Group is requiring authors at institutions with open-access policies to sign waivers that exempt their work from such policies."

cancel ×

82 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Just so long ... (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about 4 months ago | (#46629643)

as I still maintain immoral rights.

2014/04/01 (3, Insightful)

rossdee (243626) | about 4 months ago | (#46629697)

Yeah yeah April Fools...

Re:2014/04/01 (0)

eyepeepackets (33477) | about 4 months ago | (#46629725)

I was kinda hoping for the pink OMG, PONIES!

Re:2014/04/01 (1)

Enry (630) | about 4 months ago | (#46629767)

Maybe that's over on beta?

Pnoies on Beta? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46630017)

Nope...

Re:2014/04/01 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46629783)

And this one is terrible even by April fools standards.

Re:2014/04/01 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46629951)

That's what I thought, but this one looks real.

FACT: STRANGER THAN FICTION

Re:2014/04/01 (1)

Azmodan (572615) | about 4 months ago | (#46630057)

Certainly not real, this is not a robotic overload but someone using a mic.

Re:2014/04/01 (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 4 months ago | (#46630099)

It's A, she's turning the voice back on us -- outside of the stream!!. The end is nigh!!

b+down+start9

Re:2014/04/01 (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#46630185)

2014 divided by 4 divided by 1 equals 503.5

If you're going to write dates in the ISO format, you might as well write them properly: 2014-04-01

Re:2014/04/01 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46630755)

2014 minus 04 minus 01 equals 2009. It's so clear to me now. Thanks ISO.

Re:2014/04/01 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46630981)

Ever tried posting with UTF8 characters on Slashdot? Most of the time it doesn't work and characters just dissapear.

Re:2014/04/01 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46631213)

Fair enough. Although, I actually prefer using ascii punctuation. It just works eighteen jillion times better.

Re:2014/04/01 (1)

alexo (9335) | about 4 months ago | (#46644927)

Slashdot uses the WTF8 standard.

Re:2014/04/01 (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 4 months ago | (#46631181)

This isn't sufficiently implausible for me to discount it actually happening, which I would call a failure of april fooling.

Satire falls down when the thing can totally plausibly happen.

Re: 2014/04/01 (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#46631461)

I read about this elsewhere several days ago, so I'm leaning towards it being real (or at least not a 4/1 prank)

You know, I'm starting to really hate April 1st online. Pranking your friends and associates is funny, but complete strangers online whose reaction you don't even get to see? What's the point? All it does is spread even more misinformation than usual. On that note I think I'll log off and see you all tomorrow - nothing online can be trusted today anyway.

Re: 2014/04/01 (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 4 months ago | (#46631541)

Hey, at least it's not like past years on Slashdot where every story is clearly bogus. That got pretty old.

There are many journals (1)

pmontra (738736) | about 4 months ago | (#46629715)

How bad it could be not writing for Nature or SciAm until they change their policy to something more moral?

Re:There are many journals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46629795)

it could end your career

Re:There are many journals (1)

postbigbang (761081) | about 4 months ago | (#46629827)

I'm sorry, you're out of character, pmontra, and we now have to usurp you. Please wait in the queue on your left to be assimilated. You signed away the rights, and we saw you there, in the restroom, tapping your foot. Now your works are ours.

Re:There are many journals (1)

Trepidity (597) | about 4 months ago | (#46629867)

Not with quite the same profile, though. For just the "academic game" part there are indeed plenty of alternatives, journals with high impact factors and other such metrics, well-respected within a field. What Nature and Science mainly have going for them is a bunch of media and science-popularizer attention as well, which is useful for people who want to build up a high profile for themselves. If you get your paper on evolutionary robotics into a robotics journal, you can get prestige, but if you get it into Nature you can be on CNN talking about our future robot overlords.

Re:There are many journals (0)

NewWorldDan (899800) | about 4 months ago | (#46630807)

This sounds like a bit of much ado about nothing. US law, as I understand it, doesn't really provide for "moral rights" to a work. That's more of a European way of thinking. This is more of a boilerplate, if we publish this, don't sue us ever kind of thing. Moral rights to a work are idiotic anyway. In the European way of things, there's a period of time where you're not allowed to offend the work (like, say, making a porn version of Star Wars) after the main copyright period ends. The US workaround for this to comply with treaty obligations is just to extend copyright until the period of moral rights would expire. Which as luck would have it also keeps Mickey Mouse out of the public domain. So in the US, if the law is still as I remember reading it many years ago, completely moot.

Re:There are many journals (4, Informative)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#46631497)

Actually moral rights [wikipedia.org] are concerned with primarily three things, the first two of which are *very* relevant to academia, and the last of which is particularly important politically:
Attribution - no stripping of the author's credit, and
Integrity - no rewriting the article and leaving the original authors name on it
Anonymity - the right to publish a work anonymously or pseudonymously

Gap Between Super Rich 0.1% and Poor Grows (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46629745)

Not April fools joke. This is truth.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2014/03/31/1-on-percent-rich/7108767/

Gap Between Super Rich 0.1% and Poor Grows - thanks to Obama and the socialists YOU morons all voted for. YOU are making the rich richer at the expense of the poor. Nice.

How about that?

Re:Gap Between Super Rich 0.1% and Poor Grows (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 4 months ago | (#46629853)

I am no fan of Obama, but "income gap" is a useless and purely rhetorical metric.

If you are concerned with "the poor", you need to look at mass average measurements of wealth and health. These tend to skyrocket in economically free areas, and suffer in non-free ones, whether hat be because of a failed state, a dictatorship, a corrupt state with kickbacks everywhere, or a heavily-taced one.

Currently, said average wealth of poor ***is*** skyrocketting -- in China and India and similar.

Re:Gap Between Super Rich 0.1% and Poor Grows (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46629889)

Oh I agree, it's just that around here the constant and never ending meme is this bullshit about Republicans and the party of the rich evil capitalists tyrannizing the poor. It's false beyond a doubt, but it's what the media pushed, it's what the universities teach, it's what the Democrats accuse, it's what the misguided believe and it needs to be countered with facts.

Statists just hate facts. You'd think self described 'nerds' would favor facts and reason, but it's sorely lacking at least as it relates to social issues is seems.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Party-of-the-rich-In-Congress-it-s-the-Democrats-5363121.php

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans are the party of the rich, right? It's a label that has stuck for decades, and you're hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP opposition to raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits.

But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.

The richest: New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes Manhattan's Upper East Side, as well as parts of Queens and Brooklyn. Democrat Carolyn Maloney is in her 11th term representing the district.

Per capita income in Maloney's district is $75,479. That's more than $75,000 a year for every man, woman and child. The next highest income district, which runs along the southern California coast, comes in at $61,273. Democrat Henry Waxman is in his 20th term representing the Los Angeles-area district.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district comes in at No. 8.

Across the country, Democratic House districts have an average per capita income of $27,893. That's about $1,000 higher than the average income in Republican districts. The difference is relatively small because Democrats also represent a lot of poor districts, putting the average in the middle.

Democrats say the "party of the rich" label is more about policies than constituents."

Re:Gap Between Super Rich 0.1% and Poor Grows (1)

LihTox (754597) | about 4 months ago | (#46630095)

So what you're saying is, rich people don't want to live anywhere Republicans are in charge? Makes sense to me.

Re:Gap Between Super Rich 0.1% and Poor Grows (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46630211)

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Are you really this dense that you continue to assert, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that it is the Republicans that are the rich, corrupt and detestable forces financing the erosion of our civil liberties and individual rights? It's simply untrue and you cannot privide any evidence that it is.

Go on then, prove me wrong. You cannot.

Re:Gap Between Super Rich 0.1% and Poor Grows (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 4 months ago | (#46630617)

It's all about averages. A few mega-wealthy in the Republican party aren't enough to skew the numbers. They don't live in the same places that their willing dupes do.

On the other hand, the large number of relatively affluent people manage to average out large numbers of urban poor in more wealthy urban centers. The "rich" part of Democratic party is much larger than the "rich" part of the Republican party. The middle is far less likely to be taken in by "defend your Robber Baron" type rhetoric.

Your mega-wealthy GOP types are more likely to live in some bright blue high density urban center rather than out in the shire where it's more red.

Kinda like Michael Bloomberg? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46631123)

Go read up on him, he gives Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all a bad name, and he's been elected under all three, including doing such sleazy things as getting term limits extended so he could stay in office longer.

Score one for the Demublidents!

Look at **policy** shows GOP's evil clearly (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 4 months ago | (#46631697)

want to talk politics? want to engage in productive discussion?

don't troll and blast out rhetoric...it's a shell game

look at **policy**

look at how each party votes...**virtually every policy** the GOP supports is a gift to Oligarchs...ex: Net Neutrality

democrats are the only party trying to be a competent, functioning polity...

if you disagree, **list a specific policy we can check**

Re:Look at **policy** shows GOP's evil clearly (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 4 months ago | (#46633193)

How about being anti-gun and then being arrested by the FBI for being an illegal gun-runner? Hypocrisy, thy name is liberal.

logical fallacy, they name is DNS-and-BIND (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 4 months ago | (#46636611)

How about being anti-gun and then being arrested by the FBI for being an illegal gun-runner? Hypocrisy, thy name is liberal.

I have no clue what FBI "gun runner" you're referring to. You should have linked to some info if you expect discussion.

Do you want to talk about "gun control"? because we certainly can...but we have to set out what we're discussing b/c "gun control" draws the trolls hard

Re:Gap Between Super Rich 0.1% and Poor Grows (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 4 months ago | (#46631193)

If you are concerned with "the poor", you need to look at mass average measurements of wealth and health

I think the term you're looking for is median, which will swiftly prove his point.

Re:Gap Between Super Rich 0.1% and Poor Grows (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 4 months ago | (#46631205)

(the wealth part, not the partisan politics part)

Publish or Perish, Bitches! (4, Insightful)

Rob Riggs (6418) | about 4 months ago | (#46629799)

You want that tenured position? Suck it up.

Re:Publish or Perish, Bitches! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46630969)

Too bad Nature Publishing Group decided to also publish your scholarly works as "Anonymous Coward" :)

'suck it up' (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 4 months ago | (#46631719)

hey Rob, are you being sarcastic?

I tend to think you are, because the attitude of "just suck it up" in the face of corruption and mismanagement...or just bad business...it's ruining our industry.

We absolutely should not "Suck it up"...I think you'd agree but I'm wondering...

A better april fools joke would be good summaries (1, Funny)

schneidafunk (795759) | about 4 months ago | (#46629809)

How about for once we get some posts on time & edited well, wouldn't that be hilarious!

The publisher's response (5, Informative)

davide marney (231845) | about 4 months ago | (#46629811)

From http://blogs.nature.com/ofsche... [nature.com]

"...NPG’s commitment to open access has been questioned, following our request that authors provide a formal waiver of Duke University’s open access policy. NPG is supportive of open access. We encourage self-archiving, and have done so since we implemented our policy in 2005:

'When a manuscript is accepted for publication in an NPG journal, authors are encouraged to submit the author’s version of the accepted paper (the unedited manuscript) to PubMedCentral or other appropriate funding body’s archive, for public release six months after publication. In addition, authors are encouraged to archive this version of the manuscript in their institution’s repositories and, if they wish, on their personal websites, also six months after the original publication. ' ...
We are requesting waivers from Duke University authors, because of the grant of rights asserted in its open access policy: 'In legal terms, each Faculty member grants to Duke University a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free, worldwide license to exercise any and all rights under copyright relating to each of his or her scholarly articles, in any medium, and to authorize others to do so, provided that the articles are not sold. The Duke faculty author remains the copyright owner unless that author chooses to transfer the copyright to a publisher.'

If we do not request a waiver, the general language of this policy means that Duke University has the rights not only to archive the manuscript in Dukespace, but also to distribute and publish to the world at large the final version of a subscription article freely, in any medium, immediately on publication. We started requesting waivers recently, following an enquiry from a Duke University author." [emphasis added]

Since the issue seems to be about publishing in the open immediately vs. waiting 6 months, asking for a waiver of all moral rights seems like using a cannon to swat a fly.

Re:The publisher's response (2)

Idarubicin (579475) | about 4 months ago | (#46629987)

Since the issue seems to be about publishing in the open immediately vs. waiting 6 months, asking for a waiver of all moral rights seems like using a cannon to swat a fly.

I believe that the waiver of open access and the waiver of moral rights are actually separate clauses within the NPG contract, separately obnoxious and objectionable in their own independent ways.

Re:The publisher's response (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46632955)

waving of moral rights is needed to maintain journalistic integrity.
It sounds bad, but it isn't. It's how you combat people playing games with articles and data in order to give weight to a politcal or theological opinion.

And, yes 6 moth waiting period. Since the moral rights have been removed, its not a biog deal.

Re:The publisher's response (2)

Idarubicin (579475) | about 4 months ago | (#46634641)

waving of moral rights is needed to maintain journalistic integrity. It sounds bad, but it isn't. It's how you combat people playing games with articles and data in order to give weight to a politcal or theological opinion.

I can't help but interpret your comment to mean that you don't quite understand what moral rights are, nor how they might apply in this context. Among other things, 'moral rights' include the right of a creator to attribution (that is, to be credited as an author when their work is published), and the right of a creator not to have their published work distorted, mutilated, or otherwise substantially modified without their permission. Waiving all moral rights means that a journal is free to modify the text of a scientist's article as they see fit, and to publish a scientist's work without that scientist's name on it. It's rather the opposite of journalistic integrity.

What Nature asserts is that they require authors to cede all moral rights so that the journal can withdraw or retract papers (involving serious errors, omissions, or misconduct) even without the authors' consent. The problem is not that Nature has a mechanism for involuntary retraction of findings; that's a necessary and useful thing. The problem is that Nature demands the whole grab bag of all moral rights, when all they really need is a specific exception to deal with a relatively narrow set of unfortunate circumstances: [Author] grants [journal] the right to withdraw or retract from publication this article, at the discretion of [editorial board], following [some process].

The publisher's response == B.S. (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 4 months ago | (#46631743)

Duke is a GOP-run money machine....going back 100+ years....Duke Energy has the monopoly in the region....Duke family made their money in slave-labor tobacco farming originally

It touches *every part of their organization*

Look at Duke's basketball team...

It's all about **Duke** getting more money.

Re:The publisher's response == B.S. (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about 4 months ago | (#46635743)

Randolph and Mortimer are truly bastards.

Re:The publisher's response == B.S. (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 4 months ago | (#46636589)

trading places!

Re:The publisher's response == B.S. (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about 4 months ago | (#46636655)

Is there a problem, officers?

Re:The publisher's response == B.S. (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 4 months ago | (#46639575)

from Sveeden!

Re:The publisher's response == B.S. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46700279)

Typical 1 line fart reply from gmhowell!

Re:The publisher's response == B.S. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46700287)

Another 1 line fart from gmhowell!

Does waiving their moral rights... (4, Funny)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about 4 months ago | (#46629821)

also waive their moral responsibilities?

Welcome (1)

The Cat (19816) | about 4 months ago | (#46629825)

It's April 1, also known as "worthless day" on the Internet. Every dumbfuck on the web will trot out their particularly unfunny brand of pranks in an attempt to impress Reddit, and fail.

Meanwhile, if you planned to do anything useful today, either go back to bed or fire up a marathon Civilization game. The web is absolutely worthless until midnight.

Re:Welcome (1)

HiThere (15173) | about 4 months ago | (#46636305)

Unfortunately, this story is true. I have decided that this policy means I will not be renewing my subscriptions to their magazines. (Well, not Nature, as I am not currently a subscripter, but to others of their magazines.) Their response is not an acceptable explanation.

Best solution (1)

Improv (2467) | about 4 months ago | (#46629847)

A bit of contract law that would:
1) Mark these rights as unwaivable
2) Mark as unenforcable or nonactionable any part of any contract that would bar or establish consequences for asserting these rights

Re:Best solution (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46630219)

Yeah, yeah, and I bet when you find a bug in the GIMP you file a change request in the kernel to work around it.

Illegality? (5, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#46629893)

What about contributors from countries where waiving moral rights is prohibited by law?

Re:Illegality? (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 4 months ago | (#46630309)

What about contributors from countries where waiving moral rights is prohibited by law?

For example, in Germany it isn't illegal, but it's void. I can waive these rights as much as I like, sell them to you, whatever, it makes no difference. The right to say "I wrote this" just cannot be transferred to anyone else.

Re:Illegality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46631685)

And which is the applicable law? The country of residence of the author or the country where the publisher reside? As far as I know, IANAL, it is the country of first publication. Which is great if preprints count. Not so much if they don't. IANAL.

Re:Illegality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46634931)

Moral Rights are a type of Copyright. So they're created at the point where copyright is created, and that is the point of the creation of the work, not its publication.

NATURE exploits native chimps .... er pimps (1)

noshellswill (598066) | about 4 months ago | (#46629897)

Doesn't NATURE  historically pimp warmist, TOE and String-theory  moral hazzards?  Pimp publically funded just-so stories & puzzles ,  then thieve from behind the paywall !  NATURE being so practiced,  why not hazzard sci-fi authors too ?  It just makes cent$. If  readers  wanted to stop the foolishness   they could seize & supply ROMAN JUSTICE to a few-dozen owners/investors/oracles. PUBCO hired thugs would shoot-a-few republicans, but then run for Tennessee homelike scrub.  Younger editors would surely step-for'ard to do-their duty ... and boff the interns.  Sanity returns. Moral hazzard removed, the story-telling may continue without threat of ... distorsion.

This is only legal in the US (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46629911)

This highlights a key difference between IP laws in the US and in Europe: in the US, the law only recognizes economic rights, while in (continental) Europe, the law explicitly defines what moral and economic (aka. "patrimonial") rights are, and especially, it considers moral rights as a basic /human right/: such rights are inalienable, and thus, waiving moral rights is not possible under EU law.

Perhaps some people in Nature Publishing Group think that this kind of pseudo agreement will make their life easier, but the fact remains that in fact, what they ask from authors is simply illegal in continental Europe (thus: null and void, with regards to the law).

April Fools!!!!! (1)

LVSlushdat (854194) | about 4 months ago | (#46630117)

America's been the brunt of an epic April Fools prank for the last 15 years or so.. A prank that is not the least bit funny..And its gotten a LOT worse in the last five years.. I, for one, am NOT laughing nor pleased....

That isn't a surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46630355)

Moral rights can cause some really, really weird situations. For example, Canada has strong moral rights. This meant the Eaton Centre (a large mall in Toronto) was in serious hot water because they added some red ribbons to some geese they had commissioned. The artists didn't like the Christmas decorations. Lawsuitarity ensued. These were not rented geese, they had been specifically requested to be made by the artist by the Eaton Centre, and then purchased to keep there forever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_v._The_Eaton_Centre_Ltd.

It is unsurprising anyone would want to buy ANY author's work and leave their moral rights intact when you know about this.

Yes, in Canada, if you are bored and draw mustaches on the picture of the couple that came with the picture frame that you just bought, you've committed a felony.

Fuck Moral Rights.

Re:That isn't a surprise (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#46633451)

It is unsurprising anyone would want to buy ANY author's work and leave their moral rights intact when you know about this.

As a European, I find it surprising that anyone would want to buy ANY author's work with a premeditated intent to violate their moral rights, especially in the US which is ever so loud about "the rights of the creators". It just feels so rude.

Autoplay Audio? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46630435)

Why is there autoplay bullshit on this story?

CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46630439)

Moral rights is a copyright concept. Moral rights include the right of attribution, the right to deny modification, and so on. Generally these rights are NOT a part of the US copyright system. Moral rights arise under EU law, however, and that is probably where this provision is targeted.

I doubt this is an April Fool's joke.

no more "right to the integrity of the work" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46630619)

nice

crazy - i'm officially done w/ nature/SA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46630763)

They are insane,

everyone should simply stop publishing to nature/sci.american completely.
Honestly, this is crap of the first order.

If everyone stops, they'll change the draco-policy or go under, I could care less which.

Reply from the Nature Group (4, Informative)

hubie (108345) | about 4 months ago | (#46631465)

Kevin, I’m posting this as a comment here to provide clarity for all, given the interest this has generated. I’ve also written to you to suggest a conversation. I am sorry that we didn’t talk with you before we started requesting waivers from authors at Duke University, that would have been better all round. You raise two concerns: about our requesting that authors provide formal waivers of Duke University open access policy; and the ‘moral rights’ statement in our license to publish. I’ll start with the second. We take seriously our responsibility for the integrity of the scientific record. The “moral rights” language included in the license to publish is there to ensure that the journal and its publisher are free to publish formal corrections or retractions of articles where the integrity of the scientific record may be compromised by the disagreement of authors. This is not our preferred approach to dealing with corrections and retractions, and we work with authors and institutions to seek consensus first. We always attribute articles to authors, we have clear contribution policies. See: http://www.nature.com/nature/j... [nature.com] and http://www.nature.com/authors/... [nature.com] We believe researchers should be credited for their work, and as a founding member of ORCID, we have implemented ORCID integration on nature.com to foster disambiguated accreditation. We are requesting waivers from Duke University authors, because of the wide grant of rights as per your open access policy. If we do not request a waiver, Duke University has the rights not only to archive in Dukespace, but to publish and distribute the final version of a subscription article freely to the world at large, in any medium, immediately on publication. We started requesting waivers recently, following an enquiry from a Duke University author. NPG is supportive of open access. We have no problem with you archiving accepted manuscripts in DukeSpace, for public access six months after publication. We encourage self-archiving, and have done so since we implemented our policy in 2005: http://www.nature.com/authors/... [nature.com] This is in addition to open access publication options available on many journals we publish. We are happy to try to answer further questions, and would welcome a discussion with you. We have worked constructively with PubMed Central and institutional repositories for many years, and do not want our intentions and commitment to academic integrity and open access to be misunderstood. Grace Baynes Head of Communications, Nature Publishing Group

Re:Reply from the Nature Group (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46631771)

If you want the scientific record to have integrity you'll need to first refuse to publish dynamite plots and disproving a strawman null hypothesis. There simply is no integrity as long as that stuff is around.

Re:Reply from the Nature Group (1)

mdmkolbe (944892) | about 4 months ago | (#46633055)

The “moral rights” language ... is there to ensure that the journal and its publisher are free to publish formal corrections or retractions of articles

In that case, the language should limit the waiver of moral rights to such cases. Something along the lines of "The Author grants NPG permission to publish corrections to or retractions of the Work". See, no broad waver of moral rights necessary.

Re:Reply from the Nature Group (1)

hubie (108345) | about 4 months ago | (#46634443)

Sorry all, I copy/pasted this in haste. I should have blockquoted it and I should have mentioned that this was the reply posted on the Duke U. blog (just so it is obvious these aren't my comments and where it came from).

laws (2)

Tom (822) | about 4 months ago | (#46631681)

This is why in many countries the law says you cannot give up, sell or otherwise lose certain rights. Even if you signed a contract saying you're giving it away, the law trumps the contract and it's still yours, so you can't be pressured into doing it (well you can, but it's meaningless).

Re:laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46635271)

Doesn't really matter, you still cannot sue the company publishing your work in a country where the contract is valid. Moral rights are created at the same time the copyright is created (so when you write it) but sadly the law is not uniform wether or not you can give them to somebody else. This leads to publications that are legal in some parts of the world and not in others :(

Re:laws (1)

Tom (822) | about 4 months ago | (#46643537)

This leads to publications that are legal in some parts of the world and not in others :(

Why the :( ?

Drugs are legal in some countries and illegal in others. So is driving on the left side of the road, or carrying a firearm, are calling someone a fucking idiot, or marrying your sister or pretty much everything except a few basics like murder and theft.

Variety is good.

Welcome to the Information Age, fear is irrelevant (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 4 months ago | (#46632465)

CC0 [creativecommons.org] :

sing CC0, you can waive all copyrights and related or neighboring rights that you have over your work, such as your moral rights (to the extent waivable), your publicity or privacy rights, rights you have protecting against unfair competition, and database rights and rights protecting the extraction, dissemination and reuse of data.

If you want to quote mine and manipulate my CC0 works and misrepresent me as saying something I didn't mean, then go right ahead. The Internet may bite bullshit hard at first, but it is a cybernetic system of self correction, and it is my friend. I am not afraid.

Perhaps instead of signing over the copyright directly the author can post it as (cc0) or (cc by), etc, or if not, retain a license to publish the original text on their blog. Shouldn't state funded research be public domain by federal law? Not that it all is but I paid for lots of research via taxes, including many that don't come to fruition, yet I can't access a lot of research papers without paying again? That's asinine, In fact, I don't accept that -- such backwards concepts are not allowed to exist in my reality.

This shouldn't even be a problem in the Age of Information. Research should be posted free for all to see, the work to complete it has already been paid for. Peer review and/or verification of the work should be included in the grant / subsidy contingent upon success or crowd-funded. It is a conflict of interest to fund the vetting of science in any journal that benefits by its publication. Instead, I ask: Where the hell is my Scientific Hitchhiker's Guide? [h2g2.com] -- It is ridiculous that this world doesn't have an open wiki of research simply because journals leverage the economically untenable sale of artificially scarce information. [reddit.com]

If such a Digital Alexandrian Library did exist, then we'd be able to look up the first version posted without said corrections ala wayback machine or a research repo SCM, so waiving your "moral rights" wouldn't matter. Corrections and validation would require citations from other research, it would be easier to reference a paper, and if it were like the Hitchhiker's Guide: Earth Edition [h2g2.com] , then one could filter by verified research approved by editors, or go with the unfiltered firehose of information. You could then point people to the part where their defaming statements about you were created, by whom, and contest the information in a neutral way.

If you're worried about folks saying bad things about you then GTFO THE INTERNET FAST, MORON! (oops, too late) There is no objective test for offending remarks! I could say, "$PERSON loves kitties!" and you could sue me for defamation claiming I made offensive remarks about you participating in bestiality. It's these laws that are the problem.

There are no such things as rights. There is only freedom, or restriction. In absence of all freedom there is no restriction of action. We make laws to help prevent your actions from limiting the freedoms of others. The problem is that laws can be made that limit freedom for no good reason. We should always seek to reduce the number of laws restricting us to achieve maximum freedom and peace. Speech isn't violence, and thus should never be restricted, not even when Nature has to show how much of an idiot you were when printing a correction. You can not prove that something someone presented is offensive or derogatory because that is a matter of the observer's opinion. Things can only be true or false objectively, not subjectively. Get over it. If your lawmakers had any sense, it wouldn't be an issue in the first place, you litigious prick.

Re:Welcome to the Information Age, fear is irrelev (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 4 months ago | (#46632687)

In absence of all freedom there is no restriction of action.

Meant: In absence of all freedom there is only restriction of action.
and conversely: In absence of all restriction there is freedom of action.

What is a moral right? (1)

Ranger (1783) | about 4 months ago | (#46632745)

It's been months since I've read commented on a /. post. I picked a bad day to come back to look at /. I don't know what's real or fake any more. I have no idea (nor do I really care) what a 'moral right' is. Should I be outraged for being fooled by an April Fool's joke or outraged at Nature?

Re:What is a moral right? (1)

Pfhorrest (545131) | about 4 months ago | (#46635993)

"Moral rights" in this context are a badly-named subset of authors' rights, juxtaposed against "economic rights" which are the more familiar copyright laws we know here in America. Blame the French for the confusing terminology.

moral rights? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46633529)

Is signing over your "moral rights" another legal term for "signing your soul over to Satan"? That shouldn't be too hard for Duke University, I suppose,. . .

Time for Nature to die... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46634031)

Just start a new group to replace Nature Publishing...

Hmmm Publish du Au Natural :)

where authors retain their rights, all of them, and we only skim a lil off the top, less than half of what Apple would steal.

Nature Group = slashdot beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46634499)

...as both should die a horrible fiery death!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>