I know this might sound a bit odd, and I admit it beforehand : -} But it sends to me that "us" researchers are the ones who are really losing in this trend, beyond the discussion of open research. 1. We do the research 2. We review the research 3. The research gets published by Elsevier and other publishers, or Academia.edu 4. We make no money. 5. They do. I agree the system should be open. But if it's not, why shouldn't be the case that at least a decent part of the financial benefits revert back to the authors, departments, research units, schools, etc... Saludos, HGZ Homero Gil de Zúñiga Associate Professor Director, Digital Media Research Program (DMRP) communication.utexas.edu/strauss/dmrp Annette Strauss Institute for Civic Life College of Communication University of Texas - Austin utexas.edu Voice (512) 471 6323 Fax (512) 471 7979 www.homerogdz.com Google Scholar Profile @_HGZ_ -------- Original message -------- From: "Robert W. Gehl" Date:12/07/2013 11:08 (GMT-06:00) To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-L] Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu Setting aside individual publishers' rules about posting pre-prints to a /personal/ site, I've wondered for some time why publishers have not yet gone after Academia.edu, which is not a personal site, but a centralized social network built in part on top of a lot of copyright violations. It's YouTube all over again. - Rob Robert W. Gehl Assistant Professor, Department of Communication Affiliated Faculty, University Writing Program The University of Utah www.robertwgehl.org<http://www.robertwgehl.org> | @robertwgehl Sent from our OS on our Internet Watch for my book, Reverse Engineering Social Media, from Temple in 2014 On 12/07/2013 08:28 AM, Jen Jack Gieseking wrote:
To determine exactly what versions of papers you are allowed to post publicly per contracts, you can use the Sherpa Romeo database to search copyright policies of most journals in a clear, easy to understand format: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/. JJG
-- Jen Jack Gieseking, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Fellow in New Media and Data Visualization Digital and Computational Studies Initiative, Bowdoin College jgieseking@gmail.com www.jgieseking.org<http://www.jgieseking.org> www.spatiallyinclined.org<http://www.spatiallyinclined.org> @jgieseking <https://twitter.com/jgieseking>
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Michael Zimmer <zimmerm@uwm.edu> wrote:
Precisely.
-- Michael Zimmer, PhD Assistant Professor, School of Information Studies Director, Center for Information Policy Research University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee e: zimmerm@uwm.edu w: www.michaelzimmer.org<http://www.michaelzimmer.org>
On Dec 7, 2013, at 6:21 AM, Joseph Reagle <joseph.2011@reagle.org> wrote:
On 12/06/2013 10:41 PM, Michael Zimmer wrote:
Whoever wrote this isn't very familiar with publisher copyright transfer agreements. Some publishers often distinguish between the author's draft and the final peer reviewed and paginated version. That is, posting a draft on your site (or to SSRN, say) is permissible, copying the final version is not. Hence I'm curious as to which these removed versions were?
The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/