Print

Print
Hi Jackie,
 
In practice, I'd just follow whatever Sherpa/ROMEO recommends for the journal, unless I had on record the actual agreement signed by the author and believed it to allow anything different. That makes procedures easier to set up and follow.
 
It's basically down to interpretation with this particular policy that you quote. Interestingly, we would have to lock any final version held on our "secure external website" against harvesting by any other "electronic public server" though. To me, that is what would prevent me from putting the final version into our repository. The "pre-print" described in this agreement as being the accepted one, is in fact what we might call the post-print, I believe. I would not replace it with the final version, because a post-print that does not have to be locked against other repositories harvesting it is far more valuable, I believe.
 
ROMEO's interpretation of Blackwell's policy does seem to hold true, in this case. But I do find it interesting that this is the policy as claimed by the publisher, but the actual agreement text, as quoted by Les, seems to imply that the final version can be deposited in a repository. In my opinion, this is just another reason for our authors to pay attention to what they are signing and to keep us informed.
 
Jen
 

Jenny Delasalle

E-Repositories Manager

Research & Innovation Unit
University of Warwick Library
Gibbet Hill Road
Coventry CV4 7AL
United Kingdom

Tel: (+44) (0) 24 765 75793

http://go.warwick.ac.uk/repositories

 

 

From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Proven, Jackie
Sent: 17 February 2009 14:17
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: John Wiley on RoMEO

Having followed this discussion I thought it best to investigate the policy for a specific Blackwell journal and found subtly different wording to that in the other examples -
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/pdf/bjir_caf.pdf
"Prior to publication, the author may share with colleagues print or electronic 'preprints' of the unpublished Article, in form and
content as accepted by Blackwell Publishing for publication in the Journal. Such preprints may be posted as electronic files on
the author's own website for personal or professional use, or on the author's internal university, college or corporate
networks/intranet, or secure external website at the author's institution, but not for commercial sale or for any systematic
external distribution by a third party (e.g. a listserve or database connected to a public access server). Prior to publication, the
author must include the following notice on the preprint. 'This is a preprint of an Article accepted for publication in [Journal
Title] © [year] [copyright owner as specified in the Journal]’.
(c) After publication of the Article by Blackwell Publishing, the preprint notice shall be amended to read as follows: 'This is an
electronic version of an Article published in [include the complete citation information for the final version of the Article as
published in the print edition of the Journal]’. The preprint can be replaced with the published version of the Article. Posting of
the published Article on any other electronic public server can only be done with written permission from Blackwell Publishing."

I'm trying to figure out from this, if there was no preprint posted whether the published version could be used as its not replacing anything... as well as whether the description allows a repository. Are they being deliberately vague? I'm inclined to clear this up by contacting Blackwell, but from previous posts it sounds like I'd be none the wiser.

Jackie

**********************************************************
Jackie Proven
Senior Information Officer
Information Services, University of Abertay Dundee
Tel: 01382 308867
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
 
The University of Abertay Dundee is a charity registered in Scotland, No: SC016040

 

From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Delasalle, Jenny
Sent: 17, February, 2009 10:31
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: John Wiley on RoMEO

Is it just me, or does the sample ELF quoted by Les seem to allow repository deposit of the final version after six months?
 
"6 months after publication you may post an electronic version of the Article on your own personal website, on your employer's website repository and on free public servers in your subject area."
 
This seems to be better than the previous Blackwell policy as well as better than Wiley's policy.
 
Jen 
 

Jenny Delasalle

E-Repositories Manager

Research & Innovation Unit
University of Warwick Library
Gibbet Hill Road
Coventry CV4 7AL
United Kingdom

Tel: (+44) (0) 24 765 75793

http://go.warwick.ac.uk/repositories

 

 

From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jane H Smith
Sent: 17 February 2009 10:08
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: John Wiley on RoMEO

Thank you for finding this information. The last communication I had with Wiley-Blackwell, left me more confused than before I contacted them.

 

On one side there appears to be a clear policy, on the other it is down to the agreements for individual journal titles. I think this simply as a result of the merger. We are still working on merging all their documents/ policies into something that is easy to read, when that is done Wiley-Blackwell will appear on RoMEO at last!

 

Regarding why the John Wiley entry is Green, simply when RoMEO was set up the emphasis was on deposit of the articles online in an open manner, I understand that there was not many repositories available at the time, so the minimum became ‘on a website’. We are in the process of revamping RoMEO in several ways and whether to change this minimum requirement will be discussed as part of that process.

 

Regards

 

Jane H Smith
SHERPA Services Development Officer
University of Nottingham

Phone: 0115 951 4341
Fax: 0115 823 0549

SHERPA - www.sherpa.ac.uk

 

From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leslie Carr
Sent: 16 February 2009 17:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: John Wiley on RoMEO

 

I have just chased through the latest version of the Wiley-Blackwell online authors' guidelines (on which ROMEO is based) to find the following:

 

Wiley-Blackwell Publication Ethics

http://www.wiley.com/bw/publicationethics/

8.14 Best Practice: Protecting intellectual property
Wiley-Blackwell is legally required to have explicit authority to publish any article. The societies we partner with decide which copyright arrangement they require from the options we provide, a brief and abridged description of which is provided in the bullets below. Wiley-Blackwell recommends the Exclusive License Form (ELF) system (for a sample form click here). For more information visit the Wiley-Blackwell Copyright FAQs page: click here .

·         The Wiley-Blackwell Exclusive License Form (ELF). This form of copyright agreement, among other things, enables the owners of intellectual property (be they authors or named organizations) to retain copyright in their journal articles; Wiley-Blackwell or the journal owner retains the commercial publishing and journal compilation rights.

·         The Wiley-Blackwell OnlineOpen Exclusive License Form (OOF). While allowing articles to be published and made freely available for all to access online, this form of copyright agreement (among other things and like the ELF) enables the owners of intellectual property (be they authors or named organizations) to retain copyright in their journal articles; the OOF adheres to Creative Commons 2.5 and Wiley-Blackwell or the journal owner retains the commercial publishing and journal compilation rights.

·         The Copyright Assignment Form (CAF) is also still in use.       

 

Note that? Recommends! Wiley-Blackwell recommends the use of the Exclusive License form

 

Extract from the Sample ELF:  http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/pdf/IJCP_ELF.pdf

Prior to acceptance: We ask that as part of the publishing process you acknowledge that the Article has been 

submitted to the Journal. You will not prejudice acceptance if you use the unpublished Article, in form and 

content as submitted for publication in the Journal, in the following ways: 

o sharing print or electronic copies of the Article with colleagues; 

o posting an electronic version of the Article on your own personal website, on your employer’s 

website/repository and on free public servers in your subject area.  

• After acceptance: Provided that you give appropriate acknowledgement to the Journal and Blackwell 

Publishing, and full bibliographic reference for the Article when it is published, you may use the accepted version 

of the Article as originally submitted for publication in the Journal, and updated to include any amendments 

made after peer review, in the following ways: 

o you may share print or electronic copies of the Article with colleagues; 

o you may use all or part of the Article and abstract, without revision or modification, in personal 

compilations or other publications of your own work; 

o you may use the Article within your employer’s institution or company for educational or research 

purposes, including use in course packs; 

o 6 months after publication you may post an electronic version of the Article on your own personal 

website, on your employer’s website/repository and on free public servers in your subject area. 

Electronic versions of the accepted Article must include a link to the published version of the Article 

together with the following text: ‘The definitive version is available at www.blackwell-synergy.com’. 

 

So you *can* deposit in a repository - preprint and postprint!

 

HOWEVER one step away (literally) from the W-B "Best Practice document" is the W-B "Copyright FAQ" in which they elaborate that although the ELF is used for societies, the wholly owned journals still retain the practice of Copyright Assignment. The sample Copyright Assignment document (for the aptly chosen International Headache Society) contains the following text:

Such preprints may be posted as electronic files on the author's own website for personal or professional use, or on the author's internal university, college or 

corporate networks/intranet, or secure external website at the author's institution, but not for commercial sale or for any 

systematic external distribution by a third party (e.g. a listserve or database connected to a public access server).

 

I *think* that an institutional repository is OK by that definition. After all, it is a secre external website at the author's institution which is not offering the item for sale nor run by a third party.

----

Les

 

 

 

 

On 13 Feb 2009, at 13:55, Sheppard, Nick wrote:



Hi

 

Already confused trying to steer a path through the labyrinthine copyright policies of assorted publishers I was even more so when I put John Wiley & Sons into RoMEO to discover that it is apparently a green publisher that does not allow deposit in an institutional repository (apart from JASIST authors).  Isn’t this a rather unusual condition for a ‘green’ publisher?

 

Nick Sheppard

Repository Development Officer

The Headingley Library

James Graham Building

Leeds Metropolitan University

Beckett Park

Leeds

LS6 3QS

Tel: 0113 812 4731

email: [log in to unmask]

blog: http://repositorynews.wordpress.com/

 

 

To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm

 

 

 


This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.