Thanks Fran!

I would like to encourage everyone to check this out and also check:

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#6.5

for a thorough discussion of copyright issues and ways to expand the
access to your work. Section 6 goes into quite a bit of detail about
how you can archive preliminary copies of your work and then provide a
corrigenda to that work which furnishes all the corrections that have
been made. This page also addresses many of the questions that were
raised when we discussed the issue of putting Visions and other
material on line a couple of years ago.

I am going to paste two sections below that I think are particularly
enlightening but really encourage people to go to the fount...

On a related note - I have been looking for free version control
software for some time. I may be well behind some of you on this score
- i can barely deal with the Word track changes feature and it may
actually do a lot of what I wanted.

But I found a revision control system that works with text files and
Word documents and one of the things it does is allow you to have one
file and it tracks and retains all changes made and saved. You can go
back to any prior version or, you can generate a file that just has the
changes that were made - exactly what you would need to publish a
pre-accepted version of your published paper and the information needed
for a reader to know exactly what the final published paper would look
like...

You can get a free copy of this software at

www.componentsoftware.com

just click on the "Free Tools" section and be sure to pick up the free
version. I think this is a really neat program.

here are the sections from the FAQ for self-archiving etc

6. How to get around restrictive copyright legally
("Preprint+corrigenda strategy")
6.1. Self-archive the pre-refereeing preprint
Self-archiving the preprint is the critical first step. Before it has
even been submitted to a journal, your intellectual property is your
own, and not bound by any future copyright transfer agreement. So
archive the preprints (as physicists have done for 10 years now, with
over 150,000 papers, and cognitive scientists have done for 3 years
now, with over 1000 papers). This is a good way to establish priority,
elicit informal feedback, and keep a public record of the embryology of
knowledge.

[Note that some journals have, apart from copyright policies, which are
a legal matter,embargo policies," which are merely policy matters
(nonlegal). Invoking the "Ingelfinger (Embargo) Rule," some journals
state that they will not referee (let alone publish) papers that have
previously been "made public" in any way, whether through conferences,
press releases, or on-line self-archiving. The Ingelfinger Rule, apart
from being directly at odds with the interests of research and
researchers and having no intrinsic justification whatsoever -- other
than as a way of protecting journals' current revenue streams -- is not
a legal matter, and unenforceable. So researchers are best advised to
ignore it completely (Harnad 2000a, 2000b), exactly as the authors of
the 150,000 papers in the Physics Archive have been doing for 10 years
now. The "Ingelfinger Rule" is under review by journals in any case;
Nature has already dropped it, and there are indications that Science
may soon follow suit too.]
6.2. Submit the preprint for refereeing (revise etc.)
Nothing changes in author publication practises; nothing needs to be
given up. Submit your preprint to the refereed journal of your choice,
and revise it as usual in accordance with the directive of the Editor
and the advice of the referees.
6.3. At acceptance, try to fix the copyright transfer agreement to
allow self-archiving
Copyright transfer agreements take many forms. Whatever the wording is,
if it does not explicitly permit online self-archiving, modify it so
that it does. Here is a sample way to word it
(http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/copyright.html):

I hereby transfer to [publisher or journal] all rights to sell or lease
the text (on-paper and on-line) of my paper [paper-title]. I retain
only the right to distribute it for free for scholarly/scientific
purposes, in particular, the right to self-archive it publicly online
on the Web.


Some publishers (about 10-30%) already explicitly allow self-archiving
of the refereed postprint (e.g., the American Physical Society:
http://forms.aps.org/author/copytrnsfr.pdf ). Most other publishers
(perhaps 70%) also accept this clause, but only if you explicitly
propose it yourself (they will not formulate it on their own
initiative).
6.4. If 6.3 is successful, self-archive the refereed postprint
Hence, for about 80% of journals, once you have done the above, you can
go ahead and self-archive your paper.

Some journals (about 20%), however, will respond that they decline to
publish your paper unless you sign their copyright transfer agreement
verbatim. In such cases, sign their agreement and proceed to the next
step:
6.5. If 6.3 is unsuccessful, archive the"corrigenda"
Your pre-refereeing preprint has already been self-archived since prior
to submission, and is not covered by the copyright agreement, which
pertains to the revised final ("value-added") draft. Hence all you need
to do is to self-archive a further file, linked to the archived
preprint, which simply lists the corrections that the reader may wish
to make in order to conform the preprint to the refereed, accepted
version.

Everyone chuckles at this point, but the reason it is so easy is that
this is the author give-away literature. No non-give-away author would
ever dream of doing such a thing (archiving the prepublication draft
for free, along with the corrigenda). And copyright agreements (and
copyright law) are designed and conceived to meet the much more
representative interests of non-give-away authors and their much larger
body of royalty/fee-based work. Hence this simple and legal expedient
for the special, tiny, anomalous, give-away literature has no
constituency anywhere else.

Yet this simple, risible strategy is also feasible, and legal
(Oppenheim 2001) -- and sufficient to free the entire current refereed
corpus of all access/impact barriers immediately!




--- Francis Biley <sys812000@...> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Further to an earlier thread that discussed authors rights to publish
> their own
> papers on their own pages/intranet and etc, I thought you might like
> to know
> that I found a list of publishers that identified whether they allow
> it or not,
> at:
>
> http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php
>
> In addition, I am becoming aware of self-archive repositories such
> as:
>
> http://arxiv.org/ which is for physics and
>
> http://cogprints.org/ for psychology and philosophy etc
>
> http://www.math.fsu.edu/~aluffi/eprint.archive.html
>
> for maths.
>
> I am not aware of a current big rep for nursing, but there are a few
> smaller
> ones about.
>
> I am also aware that some major grant awarding bodies, at least in
> the UK, are
> making it a requirement of the grant that papers should be deposited
> in an
> open-access form.
>
> Seems like this might be a distinct future trend.
>
> Hope this might be useful to some, Fran
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
>