4 ms·

If a scientific article has been funded by at least 50% by the state, public establishments, local collectivities or the european union and is published in a re

by pikzen 10y ago

If a scientific article has been funded by at least 50% by the state, public establishments, local collectivities or the european union and is published in a review coming out at least once a year, the author (or authors, provided they all agree) have a right to put up, for free and in an open format, the final version of this article on the Internet. So, not just a preprint, and yes, journal licenses forbidding such publication have now no legal value. It does not require the author to do so. EDIT: see answer below for a few more precisions.

p4bl0 10y ago
Well, that's not exactly right. It's a bit less cool. The author's right to put their articles in open access is not immediate, it happens at the soonest of: — when the publisher make the article freely available itself, or — 6 months after initial publication in sciences, or 12 months in humanities.
- mlinksva 10y ago
  Oh, the humanities
  - igravious 10y ago
    Why, the difference? I'd like that legally challenged.
    - p4bl0 10y ago
      The difference exists because in the humanities the situation is very different from science. Publishers are a lot smaller and more locals, they often have a real added value (the vast majority of humanities academics do not produce camera ready PDFs themselves), and are thus a lot less predatory.
      - jnicholasp 10y ago
        Turning an article into a clean PDF is a sufficient value addition to deserve an extra six months of exclusive license? As a humanities type who nevertheless despises the academic uselessness of the realm, let me suggest that the extra six months is given to humanities papers because nothing that happens in them matters, and any value that anyone can contrive to get from them, they deserve to keep. But maybe that's a little too harsh. Is anything valuable coming out of the humanities these days?
        igravious 10y ago
        No, it's because of the narrative that nothing that happens in the humanities matters. > Is anything valuable coming out of the humanities these days? You know, back in the late 19th century things were the other way around. The sciences had to argue for their value while the humanities held sway over the mind-share in academia. Google the debates of Huxley and Arnold -- many people think the culture clash only goes back to the C.P.Snow era, as if. A part of the problem with the humanities is its amnesia. The humanities sprang from humanism. The humanities is academic humanism. Secular humanism is what has given us the idea of the separation of Church and State, among many other society-altering changes. Academic humanism has been a great moderating influence on the world, and continues to be. The smartest people I meet in academia are in the humanities, not the sciences. It is only relatively recently the the notion that the sciences are pre-eminent came to be. Since the time of their birth in the Renaissance the humanities grew in the shadow of the theological scholastics, and then brought about the Enlightenment. Which was nice. You've bought into a narrative. The humanities teaches us about how narratives and ideologies shape our minds, so your comment dismays me. edit: I don't blame you though. I was in the humanities for nearly 10 years before I bothered to look into the history and philosophy of humanism and the humanities.
        jnicholasp 10y ago
        I made my comment because I wholly agree with you about the importance and the past contributions of the humanities, and because I'm so disappointed in how deeply they've lost their way. The biggest problems in the world today are humanities problems (although tech and science may be able to indirectly end-run around them if we survive long enough), and the humanities are completely failing to make any useful progress. I'm bitter about it, because there are so many smart people wasting themselves in trivial cleverness-competitions rather than solving meaningful problems, and because they're my tribe and they're betraying their potential. (And, bias disclosure: at least partly because I can't find anyone to date who's interested in the things I'm interested in, whose work I don't think is ultimately useless and unimportant.)
    - mlinksva 10y ago
      I don't have a brief answer, but recommend https://www.martineve.com/2014/11/27/book-open-access-and-the-humanities/ https://www.martineve.com/2014/11/27/book-open-access-and-th... if you'd like to read a book about it. The book is OA.
      - igravious 10y ago
        Thanks for the link! How did you happen upon it? Out of curiosity, do you think you could venture a semi-brief response? :)
- untilHellbanned 10y ago
  Wait in the US this already happens, so is this law just France catching up to the US?
  - Loic 10y ago
    Yes, but you know, France is within the EU, this means you have a precedent in the EU which is very good to have other countries within the EU joining the party. Once you have 3 big countries doing so, because papers have usually authors from many institutions around the EU, nearly all the papers will have a way to get freed. And this is good.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

by pikzen 10y ago

p4bl0 10y ago

Well, that's not exactly right. It's a bit less cool. The author's right to put their articles in open access is not immediate, it happens at the soonest of: — when the publisher make the article freely available itself, or — 6 months after initial publication in sciences, or 12 months in humanities.

mlinksva 10y ago
Oh, the humanities
- igravious 10y ago
  Why, the difference? I'd like that legally challenged.
  - p4bl0 10y ago
    The difference exists because in the humanities the situation is very different from science. Publishers are a lot smaller and more locals, they often have a real added value (the vast majority of humanities academics do not produce camera ready PDFs themselves), and are thus a lot less predatory.
    - jnicholasp 10y ago
      Turning an article into a clean PDF is a sufficient value addition to deserve an extra six months of exclusive license? As a humanities type who nevertheless despises the academic uselessness of the realm, let me suggest that the extra six months is given to humanities papers because nothing that happens in them matters, and any value that anyone can contrive to get from them, they deserve to keep. But maybe that's a little too harsh. Is anything valuable coming out of the humanities these days?
      - igravious 10y ago
        No, it's because of the narrative that nothing that happens in the humanities matters. > Is anything valuable coming out of the humanities these days? You know, back in the late 19th century things were the other way around. The sciences had to argue for their value while the humanities held sway over the mind-share in academia. Google the debates of Huxley and Arnold -- many people think the culture clash only goes back to the C.P.Snow era, as if. A part of the problem with the humanities is its amnesia. The humanities sprang from humanism. The humanities is academic humanism. Secular humanism is what has given us the idea of the separation of Church and State, among many other society-altering changes. Academic humanism has been a great moderating influence on the world, and continues to be. The smartest people I meet in academia are in the humanities, not the sciences. It is only relatively recently the the notion that the sciences are pre-eminent came to be. Since the time of their birth in the Renaissance the humanities grew in the shadow of the theological scholastics, and then brought about the Enlightenment. Which was nice. You've bought into a narrative. The humanities teaches us about how narratives and ideologies shape our minds, so your comment dismays me. edit: I don't blame you though. I was in the humanities for nearly 10 years before I bothered to look into the history and philosophy of humanism and the humanities.
        jnicholasp 10y ago
        I made my comment because I wholly agree with you about the importance and the past contributions of the humanities, and because I'm so disappointed in how deeply they've lost their way. The biggest problems in the world today are humanities problems (although tech and science may be able to indirectly end-run around them if we survive long enough), and the humanities are completely failing to make any useful progress. I'm bitter about it, because there are so many smart people wasting themselves in trivial cleverness-competitions rather than solving meaningful problems, and because they're my tribe and they're betraying their potential. (And, bias disclosure: at least partly because I can't find anyone to date who's interested in the things I'm interested in, whose work I don't think is ultimately useless and unimportant.)
  - mlinksva 10y ago
    I don't have a brief answer, but recommend https://www.martineve.com/2014/11/27/book-open-access-and-the-humanities/ https://www.martineve.com/2014/11/27/book-open-access-and-th... if you'd like to read a book about it. The book is OA.
    - igravious 10y ago
      Thanks for the link! How did you happen upon it? Out of curiosity, do you think you could venture a semi-brief response? :)
untilHellbanned 10y ago
Wait in the US this already happens, so is this law just France catching up to the US?
- Loic 10y ago
  Yes, but you know, France is within the EU, this means you have a precedent in the EU which is very good to have other countries within the EU joining the party. Once you have 3 big countries doing so, because papers have usually authors from many institutions around the EU, nearly all the papers will have a way to get freed. And this is good.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]