3 ms·
"A pre-print of an article typeset using LaTeX on the academic's own machine is not under their copyright, and yet they're demanding take-down notices of such p
by roel_v 13y ago
"A pre-print of an article typeset using LaTeX on the academic's own machine is not under their copyright, and yet they're demanding take-down notices of such pre-prints hosted on 3rd party machines."
I have no position in this battle, but misinformation is misinformation: who has copyright on pre-prints is entirely immaterial. Authors, in order to get published in an Elsevier journal, 1) promise they didn't publish it before (with exceptions) and 2) promise not to redistribute the final paper or its preparatory versions after it has been published. They also agree to not allow anyone else to redistribute any of that in case, through whatever channel, it gets out. So this is purely a matter of Elsevier holding the author to their end of the bargain. Said author is entirely free to not enter into it in the first place, of course.
- danieldk 13y agoSaid author is entirely free to not enter into it in the first place, of course. In some fields it's not that free. The choice between publishing in a high-impact Elsevier journal or a low-impact journal with acceptable terms is not really a choice if you want to have a career in science.
- LambdaAlmighty 13y agoWrong, the authors do have a choice. Many choices, in fact. Including & not limited to: raising awareness of Elsevier's reprehensible practices, writing blogs, commenting on online forums. Lobbying various institutions. Not signing an explicit contract with Elsevier? Definitely a choice. "Society made me do it" is always a pathetic excuse.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- camelite 13y agoYou must have missed the second part of his sentence. It begins with "if".
- Kliment 13y agoIt is not a contractual issue when Elsevier attacks the INSTITUTIONS that they have no contract with, for hosting the papers that the authors are explicitly allowed to host on their personal websites (which happen to be hosted by the university). It's just plain extortion. Your point 2) is explicitly allowed in the contract for the preparatory versions and the "author copy" which is identical to the published version save for a notice.