 
| Subject: | |
| From: | |
| Reply To: | |
| Date: | Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:24:40 -0400 |
| Content-Type: | text/plain |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
From: Danny Kingsley <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 23:29:01 +0000
Forgive me if Iım missing something Jim, but as a former institutional
repository manager, that CTA seems lenient compared to many.
You can make the Version of Record immediately available when it is
published on your personal website and after 12 months in your
institutional repository, and the Accepted Manuscript can go up in the
repository once it has been accepted (before publication).
By commercial publisher standards that is very, very pro-open access.
But as I said I might be misinterpreting what you are finding over the top.
Danny
Dr Danny Kingsley
Executive Officer
Australian Open Access Support Group
e: [log in to unmask]
On 31/03/2014 10:00 am, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>From: Jim O'Donnell <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 08:36:00 -0400
>
>Invited to write a book review for a distinguished journal that I'm
>proud to be able to work with, I'm asked to sign this copyright form
>provided by Cambridge University Press (who actually publish the
>journal):
>
>http://journals.cambridge.org/images/fileUpload/documents/SPC_ctf.pdf
>
>That's way over the top for a 1000 word book review, but still very
>aggressive for a learned article. (The third page, after the 'page
>left blank', offers a rationale and explanation.) I won't be going
>forward with this review and am surprised that at this point a
>publisher of such eminence as CUP is still making sweeping
>requests like this.
>
>Jim O'Donnell
>Georgetown
|
|
|
