Re: New Report: Publishers allow more than authors think

[Phil Davis <pmd8@cornell.edu>]

As was covered today in the Scholarly Kitchen [1], I think the 
main contribution of this report is the synthesis of several 
prior studies and the analysis of why there is a disjoint between 
publisher contracts and what authors believe they can do.

Morris offers some practical suggestions, such as detailing what 
the author can do with the PDF *directly* on a PDF copy and not 
on a separate author instruction document.

The term 'postprint' which Harnad and others define as any form 
of the document that has been accepted for publication is also 
confusing (especially when dealing with digital documents) and 
should be tossed for less ambiguous terminology like "Accepted 
Manuscript" and "Version of Record."

see: Publisher Rights, Author Perceptions

http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/03/19/publisher-rights-author-perceptions/

--Phil Davis



Publishing Research Consortium wrote:
> Publishers' agreements are more liberal than journal authors
> think, but do not allow self-archiving of the published PDF.
>
> The Publishing Research Consortium has published another in its
> series of reports:  Journal Authors' Rights:  perception and
> reality (Summary Paper 5)...