Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Discussion Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to Math2.0
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2012
    • (edited Feb 15th 2012)
    Elsevier journals, in allowing you to place a preprint copy online, contractually oblige you to add a block of text

    >NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in <Journal title>. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in PUBLICATION, [VOL#, ISSUE#, (DATE)] DOI#

    one easy thing that authors can do is add a line at the end of the abstract

    >This is the published version of the preprint arXiv:yymm.nnnn, [only minor changes in formatting have been made.] <--- or something similar.

    Initially I thought of something more provocative, but something innocuous like this tells people without a subscription how to get a free copy without raising too much trouble with the journal.
    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2012

    I understand Elsevier not to allow their fonts, their editing, and their cuts in content to be reflected in a preprintg or reprint. BUT, the request that peer review advice can not be reflected in the preprint changes is outrageously wrong ! This part is per excellence not done/paid by Elsevier, how will one not be allowed to use it ? Moreover, the peer review may result in REJECTION. Are they saying one can not improve the rejected paper on the basis of review when the Elsevier was related to the editorial board who served them for free ?? This would be implied by heir logic that they own the refereeing results, though they can not enforce it as only those who get published actually sign the contract. It is a good practice that if one resubmits a paper to another journal that one will rework it taking into account the refereeing services. How can any editor accept such nonsense ?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMark Meckes
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2012

    Since that is the text which appears in the preprint as a caution to readers, I interpret “may not be reflected in this document” to mean “might possibly not be reflected”, not that the author is prohibited from updating the preprint to reflect the results of peer review.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorScott Morrison
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2012

    I include in all my submitted articles a link to the arxiv version. (Usually as a footnote or endnote.) Mostly the editorial process insists on removing it, and I don’t fight too hard.

    But it would be nice if everyone started doing this; more would slip through, or they’d just start losing enthusiasm for weeding them out.

    I really like the idea of putting this in the abstract, though (so non-subscribers who land at the journal website can find a free version), and will certainly escalate to this strategy from now on.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorScott Morrison
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2012

    One situation where I’ve prevailed in preserving a self arXiv reference in the face of opposition from the journal has been when I have associated computer code with the article.

    I upload this to the archive with my sources (in an “anc” subdirectory), then refer to these from within the paper.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2012
    • (edited Feb 15th 2012)
    @Zoran - Elsevier allows people to place their 'submitted' version in general preprint repositories (i.e. arXiv), university repositories and own web page(s). They allow people to place the 'accepted' version on own web pages, but not general preprint repositories (these are the ones with corrections/additions suggested by referee). Then the 'official' version (with copyright marks and logos etc) may be used internal to university for teaching purposes and personal use. So it is a sliding scale of restriction. But Mark is correct - it _may_ not have those things.

    My argument against the 'we need to have a single official version' line is that Elsevier and other editors cannot add substantive value to a document, they don't upgrade images to make them clearer, they can't add new content (and sometimes introduce typos!), so that we and our readers lose nothing at all in redirecting people to the arxiv. (EDIT - but see Yemon's comment below)
    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorJohn Baez
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2012

    Scott wrote:

    I include in all my submitted articles a link to the arxiv version. (Usually as a footnote or endnote.) Mostly the editorial process insists on removing it, and I don’t fight too hard.

    Ditto. Now I’ll start to fight.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorYemon Choi
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2012
    • (edited Feb 15th 2012)

    To go momentarily off-topic: something I have been meaning to say about the “no substantive value added” slogan - given the poor LaTeX and poor English of some things I get to referee, which are still probably publishable in the particular journals I am doing this for, whose job should it be to fix this? I tend to do a detailed list of corrections because of a past life as a junior copy-editing monkey, but I appreciate not every referee would want to, nor should they necessarily.

    Or, to use an allusion, “what do you mean ‘we’, Paleface?”

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2012

    @Yemon - well, that is true. Who does fix an article’s atrocious latex at a big publisher? That’s an interesting question. This is a very different skill to polishing the language (be it French, English, whatever).

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorTom Leinster
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2012

    I think Yemon’s hit on something that we shouldn’t ignore. Many of us participating on this forum are native English speakers and/or perfectionists, so we probably experience copy-editing as nothing but an irritant. But fixing bad English is a valuable service that journals can perform.

    I mention this because it’s unwise to overstate the case about how little value journals add. Of course, some journals add more than others (and some subtract, heavy-handed copy-editing being a case in point).

    It may also be that in the brave new publishing world, it’s not the journal’s job to fix linguistic problems.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeFeb 16th 2012
    • (edited Feb 16th 2012)

    But fixing bad English is a valuable service that journals can perform.

    The big part of that is done by the referees and editors (e.g. I have several hundred emails of correspondence between Andrew Ranicki and me, during the preparation, refereeing and publication phases of my localization article in the LMS LNS 330 pdf; the referee suplied a two page list of required changes, many of which deal with proper and precise mathematical language, some errors and typoses still survived); moreover, when the editor is based on a university with a secretary of his own, (s)he often helps with the publication fixes a bit. For some commercial editors, LaTeX fixing is done by outsourced TeXperts from India and alike who are paid pretty low and hence could be affordable for society journals and even low financed overlay journals.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorNoah Snyder
    • CommentTimeFeb 16th 2012
    Haven't journals stopped correcting english themselves and started charging additional fees for doing that?
    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorBen Webster
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2012
    • (edited Feb 17th 2012)
    I'm sure it's leaky, but I've definitely had grammar/usage corrected in copyediting for articles in Springer journals, most of which was harmless prescriptivism (policing comma usage, which/that, etc.). The charging was for getting proof-reading on articles that hadn't yet been accepted for publication (likely not even submitted).
    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorTom Leinster
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2012

    Last time I had an article processed by Elsevier, a year or so ago, they did (entirely irritating) copy-editing of the type Ben mentions. Although it was a net negative, it’s clearly something they were spending money on.

    Zoran (11) wrote:

    The big part of that is done by the referees and editors

    I don’t think that’s uniformly true. Referees are very variable in how much they correct typos and English errors.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorYemon Choi
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2012
    • (edited Feb 18th 2012)

    This is getting off-topic, but I just wanted to respond to Zoran’s description at (11) of his experience with CUP. I don’t know the default way in which the LMS handles editors for volumes of the Lecture Notes Series, but I was under the impression that the editors usually get the assistance of copy-editors, who then are paid for their time. Cambridge University Press would argue that they have to find the money somewhere…

    Certainly, when I was LaTeX-monkey and assistant editor for Lecture Notes 347, I was hired on a short-term contract to assist the main editor. It’s hopefully not breaking any confidentiality to say that, between us, we did a lot of correction of English; and I ended up doing a huge amount of LaTeX surgery. (This was not really the authors’ fault, but without going into details I had to take eight articles prepared with completely arbitrary personal choice and conventions of (La)TeX and put them into a uniform format.)

    It may be argued that the LaTeXing was negative value, after all each author knows that their choice was clearly the best - I know I still do ;) - but I like to think that the typo-weeding and <sarcasm>harmless prescriptivism</sarcasm> has made the book a better experience for the reader.

    Anyway: the procedures for refereeing and copy-editing books are surely different from those used for “day-to-day articles”, and it is probably the latter that we need to sort out and are hoping to change.

    As for outsourced copy-editing, I had an annoying experience with Springer where I asked very specifically for a comment to be added in proof as a footnote, or in the acknowledgments, and the request was completely misunderstood so that the comment went in the wrong place. The mis-corrected PDF went up on the journal’s website and I had to email the editor to get this fixed. So while it would probably help to keep costs manageable for society-run journals, I’m not sure I want that to be the default model. In contrast, the copy-editing from (Proc) AMS has been very good the one time I published there.

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorTom Leinster
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2012
    • (edited Feb 18th 2012)

    I don’t buy this talk of “harmless prescriptivism”. To be clear on what I think we’re talking about: it’s copy-editors applying rules like “no Oxford commas” or “all list items end with a semicolon” or “all journal names must be abbreviated in the reference list”. For native English speakers who are careful authors, these make up the vast majority of copy-editors’ actions.

    There are two reasons why it’s not harmless.

    First, we pay for it.

    Second, it wastes authors’ time. The kind of over-confident copy-editors who apply “harmless prescriptivism” also insert errors. (I don’t know when I last had a copy-editor who didn’t insert more errors than they fixed.) Careful authors have to spend hours going over page proofs line by line, undoing damage.

    We’re looking to change the way journals are run. One positive change, I suggest, would be to concentrate copy-editing services where they’re needed. Helping authors with poor English is one valuable service. But too much unnecessary editing is done in the name of house style.

    People don’t read journals. They read papers. House style is not important.

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorYemon Choi
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2012

    For native English speakers who are careful authors, these make up the vast majority of copy-editors’ actions… Careful authors have to spend hours going over page proofs line by line, undoing damage.

    Probably so. (I have recently had this from one journal, published by a Learned Society, which made a valiant effort to hunt down and exterminate all my semi-colons.)

    On the other hand, I wonder how many papers fall in to this category (namely, native English speakers who are careful authors)? This is a genuine not a snide question, by the way; one might be able to extrapolate this by comparing decent journals which aren’t so finicky over ones which are. It’s also not clear if, when I sign an agreement to publish in an august British institution’s journal, I need to declare my country of birth; how are they to know that I am a native English speaker who is usually a careful author?

    But too much unnecessary editing is done in the name of house style.

    Agreed, on balance. (I personally think books are a different matter, but that could just be my own irrational preferences coming through.) On the other hand, I think there is more to copy-editing than enforcing house-style. The job of an editor (broadly conceived) of a piece of writing is to make a piece better, while ideally not changing what is meant. It’s not clear if that’s what journals actually do in practice, but I am reluctant to give up on it as an ideal of what they should do. Though, as has been pointed out here and elsewhere on the forum, that may be something one should give up on, as a counterproductive ideal.

    (Now, quickly rereading what I have written, I can see many places a sub would get out the red pen. Ah well, I gave it my best shot.)

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorAlexander Woo
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2012
    Let me say that I am a more easily annoyed reader than most, and I am very careful but not perfect with my own papers.

    Most papers written in English by someone who is a native speaker of German have enough errors in comma usage for me to be annoyed. (Those papers written by a native speaker of Russian or Japanese usually have enough other minor errors in the English for me not to be annoyed by the commas anymore. French is not as bad because the comma rules in French are closer to those in English.)

    Yes, this annoyance is merely aesthetic and not a significant barrier to my understanding the paper, but it is an annoyance.

    I should say I am NOT willing to do the donkey work in a study to go through hundreds of pages of text and count comma errors, especially since distinguishing between parenthetical and non-parenthetical phrases or clauses requires some judgement and understanding.
    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorAlexander Woo
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2012
    Just out of curiosity, I picked up the paper I just printed out a couple hours ago, co-authored by one native speaker of English and one of German. Reading carefully for comma errors, I found two on the first page. (Unfortunately, the published version is sufficiently different from the ArXiv version that I can't tell if the errors were introduced by a copy editor.)
    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorDavid Speyer
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2012
    • (edited Feb 20th 2012)
    This is purely anecdotal, but so are most of the other comments on the proofreading discussion, and I might as well contribute an experience in the opposite direction: I am a native English speaker. I consider myself a good writer, but not a good proofreader. I have generally found my copyeditors mildly helpful. I personally dislike the house style rule that all journal names must be abbreviated, but other than that the only error I can remember a copyeditor introducing was changing C. P. Ramanujam's last name to RamanujaN. (And I had no difficulty catching this in the proof stage and changing it back.)
    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2012

    I once had a copyeditor “correct” my statement that a certain 3-functor was “locally locally an equivalence (i.e. an equivalence on hom-categories of hom-bicategories)” to incorrectly say “locally an equivalence”. I bring this up because repeated words often are a mistake, and the only way to know that in this case it is correct is to know the specific category-theoretic meaning of “locally” being used. In other words, just as only a fluent English speaker should copyedit English prose, only a mathematician can really be trusted to copyedit mathematics. The placement of commas can perhaps be safely entrusted to a non-mathematician, but I have my doubts about the placement of dashes and hyphens, and my experience above proves that once they go beyond this they may be making things worse.

    I do hear the point that non–native-English-speaking authors can benefit from a copyeditor’s help. Whether this is worth the time that others of us waste fixing the errors that copyeditors introduced, and the cost of supporting journals that can pay copyeditors, is a judgment call. In my ideal world, the referee (who is already, we hope, a mathematician who is reading the entire paper carefully) would do copyediting at the same time. But obviously some referees may not be willing to do that, and many referees will not themselves be fluent English speakers.

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2012

    Perhaps an even better solution would be for journal articles to be published as a wiki, so that the reader who is annoyed by misplaced commas could just fix them.

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorYemon Choi
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2012

    Mike: edit wars are pointless enough without comma skirmishes as well…

    Since there seems to be a consensus here that “we” don’t need those interfering copy-editors, trampling over our field’s specialist language with heavy boots that have “FOWLER’S” embossed in the steel caps, is the feeling that the referee should do this? The handling editor? The journal editor? No one? It seems that the latter is what the majority of people here really want; for some journals I read, it seems to be exactly what happens. FWIW, my own reading preferences seem more in line with Alexander’s, but I’ll accept I’m in a minority here.

    Copy-editing is always a pain, because it’s never you who needs it, just like you are never the one who needs to watch out while driving. (English really needs an impersonal pronoun, doesn’t it?) I find myself uneasy with the turn this discussion has appeared to take, towards a POV of “us, the Native English Speakers What Know Our Language Well” as distinct from “them, the non-native English speakers, for whom we shall feel a bit sorry”. Yes, copy-editing done at the journal by non-mathematicians can subtract value. But I personally think we should try to keep some layer of proofreading there, beyond that done by the author as he or she submits.

    [I started to write a rant defending copy-editors, but on rereading and getting out the metaphorical red pen, decided it was intemperate. Google “Giles Coren” and “sub-editors” if you want to get some idea of my views.]

    • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 19th 2012

    Yemon: I wasn’t talking about editing for “house style” on a wiki but fixing commas that are actually misplaced. I don’t recognize myself in your description of this “consensus”, and I have nothing against copyeditors in general; I agree with Tom’s sentiment that we should “concentrate copy-editing where it is needed”. I am also a person who gets annoyed by grammatical errors when reading, and when I referee a paper I almost invariably do proofreading/copyediting as well (I’m noticing all that stuff anyway, so I may as well write it down) — I agree strongly that someone needs to do that. Maybe we could move the discussion back to the question you originally asked in #8, or a related one: if we assume as given that we’re going to move away from big publishers who have money to pay professional copyeditors, then who is going to do the copyediting?

    By the way, a belated reply to #6: I have been told in writing by someone at Elsevier that their copyright agreement is not intended to forbid putting the “accepted” version of a paper on the arXiv, but that they were unwilling to change the text of the copyright agreement to make that intent more clear. Make of that what you will.

    • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthorYemon Choi
    • CommentTimeFeb 19th 2012

    Mike: it looks like I misunderstood; sorry about that. I should know better than to write with a sore head on a Friday night…

    So yes, back to point (8). I wonder if mathematicians running a journal and doing some editing at that end could claim any recompense from e.g. university grants, as professional allowance? Just a naive idea.

    As for what you were told by this person at Elsevier - it sounds similar to a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, which has not exactly proved sustainable or desirable in other areas of life… Anyone here have lawyers among their friends?

  1. I was going to answer on copy editing when it occurred to me that it was not really the official subject of the discussion, so I started a new one there.

    • CommentRowNumber27.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeFeb 19th 2012
    • (edited Feb 19th 2012)

    Mike, could you make a copy of that letter/email available, even if somewhat redacted? Because the way the page on the Elsevier website that details what you can and can’t do with various versions of the paper is written in a very legal style and definitely states no general repositories for accepted versions. Here’s a link so people can compare : www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/postingpolicy

    • CommentRowNumber28.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 28th 2012

    Here’s the relevant portion:

    … we will not bar you personally from keeping your existing pre-posted article on the arXiv or any form of updating of that article. The only restriction will be that you cannot post the publishers’ final typeset and branded version of the article…

    I replied:

    …I would also like to know how this applies to future articles written by myself and other mathematicians, many of whom I know would also like to put the AAM on the arXiv.

    My correspondent replied:

    I completely understand and indeed what you are describe is the common practice of many mathematicians and physicists. We don’t want to interfere with that.

    As I said, make of that what you will. I do agree that the text of their agreement does clearly seem to forbid posting the AAM on the arXiv (which is how I got into the discussion in the first place). On the other hand, I also think that as a practical matter, regardless of the intent of the written agreement, they are very unlikely to actually take legal action against anyone who posts an AAM on the arXiv, especially now that they already seem to be trying to recapture the good will of the community.

    • CommentRowNumber29.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeFeb 28th 2012

    Thanks, Mike.

    • CommentRowNumber30.
    • CommentAuthorTom Leinster
    • CommentTimeFeb 28th 2012

    Very interesting, Mike. But what does AAM mean? I sought, but did not find.

    • CommentRowNumber31.
    • CommentAuthornarayana
    • CommentTimeFeb 28th 2012
    I still think it is important to get this statement off from the agreement. Just now they will not take legal action in order to save their skin is no guarantee that they will not do it some other time against some particular person. Business enterprises of this nature cannot be trusted with such a stand. If they have no problems in us doing it, then why add such a statement at all? If we insist for such changes when the movement is happenning, we have better chances.
    • CommentRowNumber32.
    • CommentAuthorHenry Cohn
    • CommentTimeFeb 28th 2012
    AAM = "author accepted manuscript". It's Elsevier's term for the revised manuscript after refereeing. In their policies they use the term "preprint" to refer only to the pre-refereeing version. This is highly confusing, since they say they allow posting preprints on the arXiv, and it's only if you read the policy pretty carefully that you discover that there's a "systematic distribution" exception for AAMs and that posting them to the arXiv falls under this exception and is not allowed.
    • CommentRowNumber33.
    • CommentAuthorTom Leinster
    • CommentTimeFeb 28th 2012

    Thanks, Henry. Strange terminology…

    • CommentRowNumber34.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 29th 2012

    @narayana: I agree that we should endeavor to remove such language from any publishing agreement. I think my main purpose in bringing this up is to tell people who have in the past, or still are currently, publishing with Elsevier: don’t be scared, you should still put your papers on the arXiv!

    • CommentRowNumber35.
    • CommentAuthorMatt Fayers
    • CommentTimeFeb 29th 2012
    I'm no lawyer, but I can't see why the following is not a valid strategy: my paper gets accepted after I've taken into account the referee's comments; I update the arXiv version to the AAM; *then* I sign the copyright agreement (which surely only prohibits me from putting an AAM on the arXiv thereafter?). Of course, this means that later updates to the arXiv version (if I want to correct typos I find later, or update references) are illegal, but this is not so important.

    Does anyone know enough copyright law to be able to comment?
    • CommentRowNumber36.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeFeb 29th 2012

    Hmm, would the arxiv like getting take-down notices? What would they do about it? Of course, as we all know, the arxiv keeps all old versions of a paper, so you could even ’update’ it again, back to the pre-aam stage, but comment that people should use the previous version. But maybe this is getting a bit silly. See Mike’s post 28.

    • CommentRowNumber37.
    • CommentAuthorKevin Walker
    • CommentTimeFeb 29th 2012

    When you return the copyright agreement, just include an addendum explicitly reserving your right to put the post-refereed version on the arXiv (and reserving whatever additional rights you want to retain). See my answer to this MO question. The sample addendum there has been used quite a bit, and I’m not aware of any push-back from publishers.

    • CommentRowNumber38.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMar 1st 2012
    • (edited Mar 1st 2012)

    @Kevin - I know Elsevier allow most if not all of this, except the last clause, which they limit to posting on the author’s (or authors’) websites/employer websites. They forbid ’systematic distribution’ which looks like it includes the arxiv. I would amend your template to explicitly mention the arxiv - by name! - such as

    The right to post this article on the internet repository arxiv.org [and other relevant places, including in particular the personal web page of the authors and the web pages of their institutions/employers].

    The parenthetical is for publishers who don’t allow institutional/personal page archiving.

    • CommentRowNumber39.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMar 1st 2012

    And when we say ’article’, I guess that most publishers would let you get away with an ’unbranded’ accepted manuscript, but not the version stamped with all the logos, names, bibliographic information and so on (logos and names are trademarked I presume, so using them willy-nilly is not generally acceptable)

    • CommentRowNumber40.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMar 1st 2012
    • (edited Mar 1st 2012)

    39: yes, you get away in practice, but not in the official statements. How do you know if the relations of publishers with the community further severe, that the restrictions will be used in far wider sense than officially logod version, that is any version influenced by the editorial/reviewing process as some statements say.

    • CommentRowNumber41.
    • CommentAuthorScott Morrison
    • CommentTimeMar 4th 2012

    Something I want to remind everyone of here:

    When you’re arguing over a copyright agreement, your paper has already been accepted. They simply don’t have a leg to stand on, and you should fight as hard as you have energy for to get what you want. If there is an irreconciliable difference, make sure the final adjudication goes to the managing editor. (Sorry, managing editors, to increase your workload like this.) Of course many of them will side with you.

    Recently, after submitting a paper to a Springer journal, I received an email which in part said: “The copyright line will read ’Copyright Springer 2012’”. I replied saying “Of course this is absurd, it should read ’Copyright the authors, 2012’”. A few days later they had agreed.

    If you can’t actually reach agreement with the journal, just refuse to sign the copyright agreement. List on your website “Accepted March 3 2012”, and be done with it. It counts for all practical purposes, you have the email from the editor confirming that the paper really was accepted, and the publisher can go to hell. I only realized recently that after you receive acceptance from the editor there is no reason whatsoever to compromise. To the extent that coauthors will allow me, I intend to “take no prisoners” in the regard from now on.

    • CommentRowNumber42.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMar 4th 2012
    • (edited Mar 5th 2012)

    +1 Scott, and +1 again. I mentioned something similar to this but was, while tongue-in-cheek, a bit more extreme, saying people should say ’Accepted on [date]’ and then pull the article from publication. Eugene Lerman refused to sign a copyright agreement once (link) and it was published anyway (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2011.10.013, if I am not mistaken) with the publisher’s copyright notice. Someone else had a similar experience, but I can’t remember where they mentioned it or who it was. Can we issue a DMCA takedown notice to publishers for publishing our intellectual property without transfer of copyright? (I’m only half serious, but it would be interesting to see if it would work)

    Alternatively, going back to my original idea above, if the arxiv version of the paper is licensed under a CC-BY then doesn’t the derivative work (the published version) have to mention the original work? Or what if one uses the BY-NC-SA license? (attribution+no commercial derivatives+share alike) As an author one doesn’t make any money from the article, but the journal does, and they certainly don’t follow SA! ArXiv say that authors should be careful to choose a license that won’t conflict with future journal copyright transfer agreements, but as we’ve seen, these can be a bit mutable, so by having a CC license up one’s sleeve when negotiating as Scott says, one should have more weight.

    Note that arXiv licenses are irrevocable. See http://arxiv.org/help/license for more information and fine print.

    EDIT: what if someone puts an article on the arXiv and places it in the public domain? That would put the wind up a journal.

    • CommentRowNumber43.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2012

    What if no agreement can be reached between a publisher and an author? I found the withdrawal policy for Elsevier here: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/intro.cws_home/article_withdrawal, but withdrawal seems to be limited to cases when the article is actually wrong.