This weakens the purpose Prof Al-Taey !!!

When one publishes in a private access then they are looking for come patenting/IP/$$ some reason that fits their idea of VALUE , so why would you put on RG as an open access ??

This weakens the purpose Prof Al-Taey !!!

When one publishes in a private access then they are looking for come patenting/IP/$$ some reason that fits their idea of VALUE , so why would you put on RG as an open access ??

He/She can share in RG to make more access to the work. So that it may get cited in other researcher paper.

It may happen to be very interesting.

It need to cites the publier haus,

but the permit is also very appreciated

Best regards,

MTT

I think no, it is prohibited if the journal is peer reviewed and has a rank in Scopus or Clarivate. Good luck

YOU dont like RG Artur Braun

BEST REGARDS

Artur Braun may "assume that the authors get paid by their employers for writing the papers", but it is not always (I dare to say: perhaps not even usually...) so: not all scientists are employed in scientific institutions, and even those who are, are paid, in fact, mostly for various administrative or bureaucratic duties) [“a U.S. government study found that university faculty members spend about 40 percent of their research time navigating the bureaucratic labyrinth, and the situation is no better in Europe. An experimental physicist at Columbia University says he once calculated that some grants he was seeking had a net negative value: they would not even pay for the time that applicants and peer reviewers spent on them” – Anonym (Sci. Am. editors) 2011; "rampant formalities in publication process, and especially grotesquely infated bureaucracy leaving but a tiny fraction of the “research time” to actual research (a professor in the Warsaw Institute of Zoology, asked what he was just working on, answered: “I will work after 4pm, now I am a clerk, not scientist”); unfortunately arranging any problem of everyday life is also plagued by ubiquitous bureaucracy, robbing also a great part of the “home time” (“after 4pm”) when he, like most taxonomists, could have been “scientists not clerks”… - both citations from my paper (Hołyński R.B. 2013. Have most species already been, or will they never be discovered? (are optimists or pessimists realists)? Genus 24, 3-4: 261-273), and ultimately from my comment (in Polish) on "What are scientists really paid for?" in another discussion]. This, of course, is but one of minor aspects of the major general problem: the fundamental catastrophe of present-day "managing" of research is the concept of science as a kind of business: where the business thinking starts, honest scientific work is in serious trouble (of course I am speaking of truly basic - not "applied" - sciences)! This - among others - results in most papers appearing in "copy-righted" journals, what is, in fact, negation of the very sense of scientific publication: papers are published to be read and used by other scientists so they should be easily accessible to all those who may be interested, not only to few richest (or well positioned in rich institutions) ones!

During more than 60 years of my research activity (>100 published papers) I have never been paid for my scientific work, and am by very far not alone!

(I am not professor - only a simple PhD in biology)

Very interesting discussion@A Braun

May be no.

This depends on the individual Journal's Policy. If the particular Journal detests free circulation of articles published, it is ethically wrong to share it freely save the Abstract. Otherwise, you are at liberty.

Good question. You can see the comments in the link below:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/From_the_copyright_viewpoint_is_it_legally_permitted_for_the_researcher_to_add_the_full_text_of_the_published_paper_on_the_research_gate_platform

I think, it's a matter of ethical commitment between him and the journal.

Adeleke: "If the particular Journal detests free circulation of articles published, it is ethically wrong to share it freely save the Abstract" - what is truly "ethically wrong" is to prevent free circulation of papers: publication, as its very name says, should be published, i.e. made publicly accessible, not reserved to the richest people and/or institutions! Biologists use to say that specimens not available to interested specialists for study, are not scientific collection but only a private "cabinet of curiosities"; the same is true of papers: if they are not freely available they are, in fact, not scientific publications but only private "bed-time stories" or internal circulations of some guild or profit-oriented business-syndicate! Of course, I am "living in this world" and know that most scientists must publish in such journals - what is difficult for me to understand, is that some of those authors consider this situation good and "ethically correct"!

Artur: "y/our name is not part of the product. We go by anonymous" - and that is OK, as long as my paper is one of hundreds, thousands or millions used to improve their product: it is evidently impossible to "acknowledge" all of them by names! If, on the other hand, my paper was just that (or one of just few) which proved decisive in their success, then it is the ethical problem of that "pharmaceutical and chemical industry" whether and how they acknowledge me - not my problem! And, by the way, what if publications are not freely available? Will the industry acknowledge my role? No - I only must (if I am sufficiently rich) additionally pay for the access to my "working tool" (papers of my colleagues) or (if I am not so rich) resign of them (making my work less reliable or, sometimes, even worthless)! Is it better???

All the best!

Roman

Thanks Roman Bohdan Hołyński about your explanation

This is interesting, it would make more access to the work.

Following

Ning Han: "This is interesting, it would make more access to the work" - what would make more access??? Please explain!

It depends on journals copy rights policy, some journals are allowed to share full text but numbers of journals are not allowed to share as a free access. Therefore, be care full before share full text publicly.

I think so Shamji D Parmar about journals policy

“…I also do support that the people who do the publishing get paid for their work. I assume that the authors get paid by their employers for writing the papers.” (Artur Braun - 1st comment). While I totally agree with Prof. Hołyński’s comments on the second sentence, what about the first one? A very important and time consuming part of the publishing process consists in reviewing manuscripts. This task is normally performed not by the publishers but by scientists. Publishers don’t use to pay them for this work, while some publishing companies make very comfortable profits on selling access right to the papers accepted for publication in their journals. Of course, they deserve the right of claiming money for the work they actually do (typesetting, layout, etc.), however the preprints are not something the publishers have been working on so should the authors therefore not be free of disposing of them even after acceptance for publication?

Iam agreed with you Jean-Claude Grivel

Jean-Claude: "they [publishers] deserve the right of claiming money for the work they actually do (typesetting, layout, etc.)". Imagine a situation like the following: a farmer brings his, say, potatoes to sell them to the distributor, but the distributor says: "we deserve the right of claiming money for the work - storing, packing, &c. - we do, so you should give us your potatoes for free, we will sell them, and if you need some you can buy them from us; you should also transfer the "selling-right" to us, so that if you (or anybody else) sell some potatoes directly yourself you can be sentenced for crime" - ridiculous, isn't it? But just this is now the situation of many (most?) scientists specializing in basic (non-"applied") sciences!

I APPRECIATED Roman Bohdan Hołyński

Good question

Unfortunatly, it is so hard but give it try by CHECKING THE JOURNAL POLICY or contacting the person who in charge in that journal and you may get a permission to share preprint version with your followers.

This is interesting, i think so its depend on journals policy about copy rights.

In addition, the license should be highlighted on the website of each journal...