I think you are right in a way - sharing copyrighted (non-free) documents in RG or other places may be wrong. However, publishers agree that authors reserve the right to "share" their own publications with their peers as long as it is not systematic distribution in the public domain. A good example is when one gets an email requesting for your own published paper, then i think its okay to give it (via email or other personal means). However, placing the same copyrighted paper in the "public domain" may not be the best - I stand to be corrected though

Dear Emmanuel

Yes, I think you are right.

If we consider Research gate a social network with peers and friends, I think it will not be a problem. Unless the publisher refuses explicitly.

Anyway, this makes life easier and allow more citations.

NB: Most of the publishers depend on the associations subscriptions, so they will not be affected by sharing such papers.

I think it really depends on the license. If when publishing an article you signed a document that you lose all rights to it then you shouldn't make it available for download (Yet I believe it is okay to send it on request).

But in most cases all that journals want you to sign is that you haven't published the article in another journal and a statement that you are its author. In such case I don't see a reason not to make it available for download on Research Gate.

Just found an answer to your question:

https://feedback.researchgate.net/responses/how-do-i-know-if-i-can-upload-a-full-text-of-my-publication-to-researchgate-without-breaching-copyright

Dear Boris

Thanks. Very useful information it was.

I would tend to agree with Emanuel since the case he is describing can be considered fair use. Nonetheless, I would suggest you read the fair use doctrine in your specific jurisdiction, that of the publisher, and that of RG. For example, you can find US fair use information at: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

(disclaimer: I am not a lawyer :-)

I publish my papers for all of you interested, not for the publishing company. So, I want you to have access to all of them as smoothly as possible. As Martin suggested above (10 days ago), I upload all papers to RG, and some of them are full text. The others are present at least as abstracts. Researchers can request the full text by email, and I'll send it right away w/o claiming money. Letting you have a read of my papers is part of my professional work not commerce.

Caveat: Some predatory publishing 'companies' specialize in harvesting articles to compile books for selling without telling the authors. That's not fair use, nor is it legal. Let's fight this, where we see it.

I think comments like science should not be traded or every body should be able to read my papers, are correct in general sense but over looking one of the important aspects of the problem. Publishers are first of all companies that are doing business and generally their survival is dependent on their income and profitability. As it is obvious membership fee is one of the most important income sources for publishers. We can not assume one publisher can survive and continue publishing scientific ideas without proper profit in a tight competing market of publishers. Therefore I believe scientists should follow copy right regulations seriously, because that is the only way that helps us to be able to continue publishing papers in scientific journals in the first place.

I think its important for all of us to be on the lookout for the "academic piracy" noted earlier by Michael Bruckner on so-called companies which practically steal others work and sell it. And I completely follow the logic of Babak Maghbooli on the fact that we should not underestimate the importance of copyright in sustaining these large publishing companies. If we are able to publish for free, then i think the publishing companies also deserve some income - and if we make our copyrighted published papers freely available on the premise that "its my research", then its not fair to the companies.

Dear Emmanuel

Thanks a lot for your nice comment about the importance of "academic piracy" vis. "copyright law".

Sound OK! Also, I involved in a moral paradox. When we sign or click on "I Agree" in paper submission procedures, actually, we absolutely transfer the copyright to publisher. I prefer to join a copyleft movement instead breaking copyright law!

I think if the science seniors show a tangible trend to publish in open access journals, it could be possible without legal problematic.

BTW, thanks you so much for such valuable question.

I think that the dilemma we face is that peer reviewed recognized journals that have a long history are closed in nature (thankfully this is changing, but at too slow a pace)and are there for some profit.

The questions I would ask are: is this the model that science should have ? does it bring any advantage? or are open access better?

I think that scientists are going through the same phases as artist in the music industry are going through. In the music industry the record companies are the ones making the most profit and giving little to the music creator. I think this is the rationale for artist publishing on their own.and the excessive profits gathered by those companies is what starts piracy. should it be the same for scientists?

My opinion is that: if the publishers make profit, then why not share it with authors so that they can fund their own research. If scientist have to also find their own funding sources then why have the publishers get all the benefit. At least have publishers give the reviewers the reward they deserve for the time taken to review the work(which some do but most do not).

If the current status is for them to get all the profit, then it is preferable to have open access for all.

Publishing companies have held a monopolistic racket for some time. What other business model survives with products paid for by government funding (Nearly all published research is publicly funded), employees that provide their services free of charge and are themselves often funded through public dollars, only to then provide their publicly funded product to their employees (academics) for a subscription fee (also paid with tax dollars).

Finally to add insult to injury, the taxpaying individual who funded the entire process is effectively excluded from access to the product due to the exorbitant cost of individual publications that could otherwise be freely available through the internet.

This last aspect of restricted access to the very people who paid for the product is the most egregious and arrogant aspect of the whole process.

As an independent researcher, even a simple literature search is un-affordable!!

Did you notice I'm in favor of open access?

I would like one example of an instance where the Journal's copyright in any way advanced the state of science or protected an authors ability to conduct original research. The Copyright only provides cover for the publishers business model, not the research, not the author and least of all the individuals paying the bills!!

Babak Maghbooli---Why do you believe you need a publisher to publish....You need peers and a web site....nothing more...The publishers are just leaches taking a cut of the real game that we as researchers should be controlling ---openly.

Interesting analyses there John Kern, I get your point about the publishing companies seemingly taking advantage of the author as well as tax payers. The ideal situation will be to have open access (which does not have page charges). But that is often non-existent. Recently, I have come across a lot of bogus so-called "open access" journals with poor peer reviewing and editing - promising fast publication of results and charging 400-500 USD per paper - they are making their money at the source. I consider these worse than the large publishing companies, who at least make sure the peer review process works (to an extent).

Maybe a time will come where we do not need a publisher to publish, but at the moment, it is still in the distant future - Science has unfortunately taken the turn to the age of "impact factor", "number of publications" and "which journal did u publish in". Until that trend is reversed, we will still need these companies as an outlet. Its not the best option, but its the most viable i see now - especially for authors with no money to publish in open access journals.

Dear John Kern, as much as I do support your ideology about open access journals or in general term open access research, I think we should not forget the important points that Mr. Emmanuel Arthur has outlined in his comment. I am not an economist or even a market analyst, but I do know that money plays and had played a vital role in scientific research development. We should not forget that important scientific and technological break troughs like APOLLO Program were suspended because of budget cut. Unfortunately the same rule applies to journals. Large publishing companies are well funded institutions (both by governmental support and open market sales) therefor they can arrange organizations that can do the complicated process of peer review, editorials and finally proper distribution of scientific research results. Unfortunately open access journals can not provide such funds. I do not believe in a conspiracy theory that assumes these companies are responsible for the paradigm of "impact factor", "number of publications" and "which journal did u publish in", but instead I think this is the scientific community itself that has created such rules for evaluating scientific value of various research works. Eventually this had led to creation of giant publishing companies.

In short terms, till the time that open access journals find their real place among the researchers and could compete in quality with current journals, yes I do believe that we should sustain and support publishers by following copy right regulations, in order to be able to get our research message to the real readers and audiences.

Besides we should not look only to the negative side of publishing industry. We should not forget that one day they were the only messengers of scientific community and they were the reason why today we have a well connected scientific community.

I am supporting the Open access policy.

Open Access with all the content freely available without charge to the users is a noble idea. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of my articles without asking prior permission from me as the author. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution should be to give control over the integrity of my work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.

Open access articles have high publicity and availability. It has been demonstrated that open access publications are more frequently cited!

Dr Velibor SPALEVIC

Editor-in-Chief of the Journal “Agriculture and Forestry”

E-mail: [email protected]

Web: www.agricultforest.ac.me

I think that there is a place for both closed and freely available journals, but closed journals should be fair with the scientific community if they want to thrive in an open environment. Most of the infringement on copyright is due to peoples rationalization that they are being mistreated. This is what usually leads people to break one law or another. As long as people feel they are being treated fairly they will abide by the rules.

Take for example the CD(it is the same as a publication) The CD packaged 10-15 songs which 2 or 3 were good songs, the other songs were mostly unknown to most CD owners. The same could be said of publications. Most of them are simple incremental developments that could be compressed in a single publication and the user should only buy what he needs. That's were the similarity ends and the difference starts. Most unit pricing for individual articles are still too costly for students and professors who are struggling with low paying positions. What this will bring is a feeling of unfairness when a comparison is made with top university professors who are well paid and top corporations with big pockets that get grants and can afford the articles. The feeling will be of uneasiness and unfairness.

High quality research in the remotely located third world countries became increasingly difficult in the last two decades ever since the open market policy of liberalization was introduced. University libraries stopped procuring essential international journals. The general prescription given was in favor of individual projects and procurement of resources from the project money. If a few choicest institutes were showcased to project the prestige of these countries, majority of the institutes degenerated to an alarming level. Public sharing of research articles through Research gate and similar means has definitely come as a healthy alternative to liberate knowledge seeking minds. Moreover, it acts as a pleasant relief from the encirclement of one dimensional project driven scientific managers and provide a means to connect oneself with a wide spectrum of curious minds in different subjects and corners of the world. Anybody and everybody who support the fundamental rights of every curious minds to pursue their fields of interest, open access to published scientific documents should be treated as a minimum prerequisite to promote science and scientific temperament even if this act is termed as 'unlawful' from some corners. Any law or regulation prohibiting 'free access to knowledge' is against the spirit of natural justice.

Dear All

Thank you very much for your contributions.

I agree that articles originally not free ought not to be in the public dormain. Authors must always make sure that they are not restricted when ever they are publishing their work. Personally, i prefer to publish my articles with open access and they share my articles online as i wish.