[TOS] Quick update on "make scholarly copyright suck less" project

[Jason Aubrey]

Turns out Princeton's faculty has adopted an open-access policy:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/princeton-u-adopts-open-access-policy

Not sure how this would affect submissions to journals with restrictive
copyright policies.  Maybe it would mean no submissions from Princeton
faculty. :-)

Jason


On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Mel Chua <mel at purdue.edu> wrote:

> On 09/30/2011 11:21 AM, Don Davis wrote:
>
>> Having to assign copyright to someone else recently felt like a sort
>> awkward uncomfortable rite of passage in the academic world.
>>
>
> But it *doesn't* have to be a rite of passage. I mean, yeah, the situation
> sucks and we *do* have to deal with it now, but just "putting up with it" or
> quietly avoiding the medium of peer-reviewed journals entirely won't make it
> change. I'd like to make things so that someday my own PhD students won't
> have to go through that at all. (It may be a very far-off someday. That's
> okay. We have time.)
>
>
>  What's a list of the better 'open' journals?
>>
>
> So I've looked at this some, and sadly in our field the "good" journals and
> the OA journals overlap in... zero places, as best as I can tell. (Actually,
> I couldn't find any OA journals I would want to submit my scholarly work to,
> but my subfield is engineering education so others may have more pointers.)
>
>
>  The copyright agreements often seem very overwhelming. (I'm thinking of
>> ACM.)
>>
>
> ACM is actually pretty standard. IEEE is worse, they'll ask for copyright
> assignment upon *submission* -- not even acceptance! One of the other major
> publishers in my field, ASEE, has even weirder and loopier and fuzzier
> copyright stuff... it *is* overwhelming. It also seems like we tend to deal
> with the overwhelmingness by signing the papers so we can move on with our
> lives/research instead of getting mired in legal stuff which isn't
> interesting to us. So major props for taking the time to look at this, Don
> -- and thank you.
>
>
>  "You're not giving ACM the copyright to the dataset -- just the paper
>> itself. Research hypotheses are, in general, second order – that is,
>> they're not simple descriptions of the data (i.e., sample size, gender
>> distribution). On a public dataset, descriptions (first-order analyses)
>> are assumed to be public, as well."
>>
>
>  It seems to me then (with my limited knowledge and limited copyright
>> finesse), that making the dataset public before submission may be a way
>> to guarantee(?) that you and others may continue to evaluate the data.
>>
>
> I think so! Seb Benthall sent me a link to a blogpost from one of his
> colleagues from Berkeley on exactly this strategy, and then I think I lost
> the link (or at least can't find it now). Seb, do you remember what I'm
> talking about?
>
>
> --Mel
> ______________________________**_________________
> tos mailing list
> tos at teachingopensource.org
> http://lists.**teachingopensource.org/**mailman/listinfo/tos<http://lists.teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.teachingopensource.org/pipermail/tos/attachments/20110930/fd44dd04/attachment.html>