322,827 research outputs found
RoMEO Studies 6: Rights metadata for open-archiving
No full textThis is the final study in a series of six emanating from the UK JISC-funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open-archiving) which investigated the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) issues relating to academic author self-archiving of research papers. It reports the results of a survey of 542 academic authors showing the level of protection required for their open-access research papers. It then describes the selection of an appropriate means of expressing those rights through metadata and the resulting choice of Creative Commons licences. Finally it outlines proposals for communicating rights metadata via the Open Archives Initiative’s Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)
RoMEO Studies 5: IPR issues for OAI Data and Service Providers
No full textThis paper is the fifth in a series of studies emanating from the UK JISC-funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open-archiving). It reports the results of two surveys of OAI Data Providers (DPs) and Service Providers (SPs) with regards to the rights issues they face. It finds that very few DPs have rights agreements with depositing authors and that there is no standard approach to the creation of rights metadata. The paper considers the rights protection afforded individual and collections of metadata records under UK Law and contrasts this with DP and SP’s views on the rights status of metadata and how they wish to protect it. The majority of DP and SPs believe that a standard way of describing both the rights status of documents and of metadata would be usefu
RoMEO Studies 2: How academics wish to protect their open-access research paper
No full textThis paper is the second in a series of studies (see Gadd, E., C. Oppenheim, and S. Probets. RoMEO Studies 1: The impact of copyright ownership on author-self-archiving. Journal of Documentation. 59(3) 243-277) emanating from the UK JISC-funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open-archiving). It considers the protection for research papers afforded by UK copyright law, and by e-journal licences. It compares this with the protection required by academic authors for open-access research papers as discovered by the RoMEO academic author survey. The survey used the Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL) as a framework for collecting views from 542 academics as to the permissions, restrictions, and conditions they wanted to assert over their works. Responses from self-archivers and non-archivers are compared. Concludes that most academic authors are primarily interested in preserving their moral rights, and that the protection offered research papers by copyright law is way in excess of that required by most academics. It also raises concerns about the level of protection enforced by e-journal licence agreement
RoMEO Studies 4: An analysis of Journal publishers' Copyright Agreements
No full textThis article is the fourth in a series of six emanating from the UK JISC-funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open archiving). It describes an analysis of 80 scholarly journal publishers’ copyright agreements with a particular view to their effect on author self-archiving. 90% of agreements asked for copyright transfer and 69% asked for it prior to refereeing the paper. 75% asked authors to warrant that their work had not been previously published although only two explicitly stated that they viewed self-archiving as prior publication. 28.5% of agreements provided authors with no usage rights over their own paper. Although 42.5% allowed self-archiving in some format, there was no consensus on the conditions under which self-archiving could take place. The article concludes that author-publisher copyright agreements should be reconsidered by a working party representing the needs of both partie
RoMEO Studies 3: How academics expect to use open-access research papers
No full textThis paper is the third in a series of studies emanating from the UK JISC-funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open-archiving). It considers previous studies of the usage of electronic journal articles through a literature survey. It then reports on the results of a survey of 542 academic authors as to how they expected to use open-access research papers. This data is compared with results from the second of the RoMEO Studies series as to how academics wished to protect their open-access research papers. The ways in which academics expect to use open-access works (including activities, restrictions and conditions) are described. It concludes that academics-as-users do not expect to perform all the activities with open-access research papers that academics-as-authors would allow. Thus the rights metadata proposed by the RoMEO Project would appear to meet the usage requirements of most academics
Dynamic Link Inclusion in Online PDF Journals
No full textTwo complementary de facto standards for the publication of electronic documents are HTML on theWorldWideWeb and Adobe s PDF (Portable Document Format) language for use with Acrobat viewers. Both these formats provide support for hypertext features to be embedded within documents. We present a method, which allows links and other hypertext material to be kept in an abstract form in separate link databases. The links can then be interpreted or compiled at any stage and applied, in the correct format to some specific representation such as HTML or PDF. This approach is of great value in keeping hyperlinks relevant, up-to-date and in a form which is independent of the finally delivered electronic document format. Four models are discussed for allowing publishers to insert links into documents at a late stage. The techniques discussed have been implemented using a combination of Acrobat plug-ins, Web servers and Web browsers
Developing a model for e-prints and open access journal content in UK further and higher education
No full textA study carried out for the UK Joint
Information Systems Committee examined models for the
provision of access to material in institutional and
subject-based archives and in open access journals. Their
relative merits were considered, addressing not only
technical concerns but also how e-print provision (by
authors) can be achieved – an essential factor for an
effective e-print delivery service (for users). A "harvesting" model is recommended, where the metadata of articles deposited in distributed archives are harvested, stored and enhanced by a national service. This model has major advantages over the alternatives of a national centralized service or a completely decentralized one. Options for the implementation of a service based on the harvesting model are presented
Open access self-archiving: An author study
No full textThis, our second author international, cross-disciplinary study on open access had 1296 respondents. Its focus was on self-archiving. Almost half (49%) of the respondent population have self-archived at least one article during the last three years. Use of institutional repositories for this purpose has doubled and usage has increased by almost 60% for subject-based repositories. Self-archiving activity is greatest amongst those who publish the largest number of papers. There is still a substantial proportion of authors unaware of the possibility of providing open access to their work by self-archiving. Of the authors who have not yet self-archived any articles, 71% remain unaware of the option. With 49% of the author population having self-archived in some way, this means that 36% of the total author population (71% of the remaining 51%), has not yet been appraised of this way of providing open access. Authors have frequently expressed reluctance to self-archive because of the perceived time required and possible technical difficulties in carrying out this activity, yet findings here show that only 20% of authors found some degree of difficulty with the first act of depositing an article in a repository, and that this dropped to 9% for subsequent deposits. Another author worry is about infringing agreed copyright agreements with publishers, yet only 10% of authors currently know of the SHERPA/RoMEO list of publisher permissions policies with respect to self-archiving, where clear guidance as to what a publisher permits is provided. Where it is not known if permission is required, however, authors are not seeking it and are self-archiving without it. Communicating their results to peers remains the primary reason for scholars publishing their work; in other words,
researchers publish to have an impact on their field. The vast majority of authors (81%) would willingly comply with a mandate from their employer or research funder to deposit copies of their articles in an institutional or subject-based repository. A further 13% would comply reluctantly; 5% would not comply with such a mandate
RoMEO Studies 2: How academics want to protect their open-access research papers
No full textThis paper is the second in a series of studies (see Gadd, E., C. Oppenheim, and S. Probets. RoMEO Studies 1: The impact of copyright ownership on author-self-archiving, Journal of Documentation 59 (3) 243-277) emanating from the UK JISC-funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open-archiving). It considers the protection for research papers afforded by UK copyright law, and by e-journal licenses. It compares this with the protection required by academic authors for open-access research papers as discovered by the RoMEO academic author survey. The survey used the Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL) as a framework for collecting views from 542 academics as to the permissions, restrictions, and conditions they wanted to assert over their works. Responses from self-archivers and non-archivers are compared. Concludes that most academic authors are primarily interested in preserving their moral rights, and that the protection offered research papers by copyright law is way in excess of that required by most academics. It also raises concerns about the level of protection enforced by e-journal license agreements
Journal Copyright Transfer Agreements: Their Effect on Author Self-Archiving
No full textThis paper reports on the results of an analysis of 80 copyright transfer agreements (CTAs) with particular regard to their effect on author self-archiving. It shows the number of CTAs asking for copyright assignment, the time of assignment and what happens when copyright cannot be assigned. It outlines the warranties required of the author, and the exceptions granted back to the author by which they may use their own work. In particular it focuses on the number of CTAs allowing self-archiving and the conditions under which they may do so. It concludes that whether an author can safely self-archive or not depends on a complex matrix of the following factors: i) whether copyright assignment or a non-exclusive licence is required; ii) the time of copyright assignment; iii) if (and when) CTA’s actually allow self-archiving; iv) if publishers do not allow self-archiving, but do not see it as ‘prior publication’; v) whether the preprint is legally a separate copyright work to the refereed postprint; and vi) whether the author wishes to self-archive a pre-print, postprint or both
- …
