Comments on: Precedings http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/precedings/ falling indelibly into the past Fri, 16 May 2008 20:09:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Nature Precedings [A Blog Around The Clock] · New York Articles http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/precedings/#comment-2632 Nature Precedings [A Blog Around The Clock] · New York Articles Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:05:39 +0000 http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/precedings/#comment-2632 [...] mrees, Sally Wyman, Michael Jubb, Alex Palazzo, Marie, Corie Lok, Attila Csordas, Ben Vershbow, Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Andrea Gawrylewski, Lukasz Cwiklik, Yeastbeast, Kevin Gamble, Andy Powell, lvowell, John Timmer, [...] [...] mrees, Sally Wyman, Michael Jubb, Alex Palazzo, Marie, Corie Lok, Attila Csordas, Ben Vershbow, Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Andrea Gawrylewski, Lukasz Cwiklik, Yeastbeast, Kevin Gamble, Andy Powell, lvowell, John Timmer, [...]

]]> By: KF http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/precedings/#comment-2615 KF Mon, 25 Jun 2007 08:34:36 +0000 http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/precedings/#comment-2615 Hi, Timo. Thanks for popping by. I wasn't aware of the mirroring set-up you've arranged, which is certainly an important means of ensuring continued open access to the material that is posted in Precedings. And while you're absolutely right that (as I noted in my if:book comment, but left out here) copyright does stay with authors, via Creative Commons licensing, what I'm mostly watching is to see what the relationship will be between Nature and the material that develops (to use T. Ehling's word) "downstream" of Precedings. For instance, will Nature develop a sort of right-of-first-refusal on papers that develop out of conference presentations posted to Precedings? Will Nature need to be credited on such papers published in other venues? How will other publishers respond to publishing material that has been "pre-published" in Precedings? I'm not necessarily imagining that Precedings/Nature/Macmillan will directly prevent scholars from do what they want with their work by claiming copyright (doing so would create enormous ill-will, which would be counterproductive), but I am curious what the potential impact on scholarly publishing more broadly will be, and what the unintended consequences of introducing a for-profit publisher into the authoring process that much further "upstream" might be. Hi, Timo. Thanks for popping by. I wasn’t aware of the mirroring set-up you’ve arranged, which is certainly an important means of ensuring continued open access to the material that is posted in Precedings. And while you’re absolutely right that (as I noted in my if:book comment, but left out here) copyright does stay with authors, via Creative Commons licensing, what I’m mostly watching is to see what the relationship will be between Nature and the material that develops (to use T. Ehling’s word) “downstream” of Precedings. For instance, will Nature develop a sort of right-of-first-refusal on papers that develop out of conference presentations posted to Precedings? Will Nature need to be credited on such papers published in other venues? How will other publishers respond to publishing material that has been “pre-published” in Precedings? I’m not necessarily imagining that Precedings/Nature/Macmillan will directly prevent scholars from do what they want with their work by claiming copyright (doing so would create enormous ill-will, which would be counterproductive), but I am curious what the potential impact on scholarly publishing more broadly will be, and what the unintended consequences of introducing a for-profit publisher into the authoring process that much further “upstream” might be.

]]> By: Timo Hannay http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/precedings/#comment-2589 Timo Hannay Sat, 23 Jun 2007 14:17:18 +0000 http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/precedings/#comment-2589 What kind of ownership can Nature claim? Copyright stays with the authors, and the content is issued under a Creative Commons Attribution Licence. This means that anyone else can make use of the content in exactly the same ways that Nature can. You may have in mind a kind of de facto ownership that comes from hosting the content. I agree that this is a concern, which is why we've teamed up with organisations, like the British Library and the European Bioinformatics Institute, that intend to mirror the content to ensure it's long-term free availability. We expect to be able to announce other similar partners in due course. (Disclosure: I am the director of web publishing at Nature and responsible for Nature Precedings.) What kind of ownership can Nature claim? Copyright stays with the authors, and the content is issued under a Creative Commons Attribution Licence. This means that anyone else can make use of the content in exactly the same ways that Nature can.

You may have in mind a kind of de facto ownership that comes from hosting the content. I agree that this is a concern, which is why we’ve teamed up with organisations, like the British Library and the European Bioinformatics Institute, that intend to mirror the content to ensure it’s long-term free availability. We expect to be able to announce other similar partners in due course.

(Disclosure: I am the director of web publishing at Nature and responsible for Nature Precedings.)

]]>