开放获取与作者权利:质疑哈佛大学的开放获取政策

IF 1.1 Q3 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Patrick H. Alexander
{"title":"开放获取与作者权利:质疑哈佛大学的开放获取政策","authors":"Patrick H. Alexander","doi":"10.1629/uksg.525","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Harvard’s open access (OA) policy, which has become a template for many institutional OA policies, intrinsically undermines the rights of scholars, researchers, authors and university staff, and it adulterates a principal tenet of open access, namely, that authors should control the intellectual property rights to their material. Assessing the implications of Harvard’s open access policy in the light of Peter Suber’s landmark book, Open Access, as well as resources from the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) and Title 17 of the United States Code (USC), this article uncovers an intellectual ‘landgrab’ by universities that may at times not work in the interest of the author or creator of research and weakens the appeal of open access.","PeriodicalId":44531,"journal":{"name":"Insights-The UKSG Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Open access and author rights: questioning Harvard’s open access policy\",\"authors\":\"Patrick H. Alexander\",\"doi\":\"10.1629/uksg.525\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Harvard’s open access (OA) policy, which has become a template for many institutional OA policies, intrinsically undermines the rights of scholars, researchers, authors and university staff, and it adulterates a principal tenet of open access, namely, that authors should control the intellectual property rights to their material. Assessing the implications of Harvard’s open access policy in the light of Peter Suber’s landmark book, Open Access, as well as resources from the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) and Title 17 of the United States Code (USC), this article uncovers an intellectual ‘landgrab’ by universities that may at times not work in the interest of the author or creator of research and weakens the appeal of open access.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44531,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Insights-The UKSG Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Insights-The UKSG Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.525\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Insights-The UKSG Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.525","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

哈佛大学的开放获取政策已成为许多机构开放获取政策的模板,它从本质上损害了学者、研究人员、作者和大学工作人员的权利,并违背了开放获取的一个主要原则,即作者应控制其材料的知识产权。根据Peter Suber的里程碑式著作《开放获取》,以及学术出版和学术资源联盟(SPARC)和《美国法典》第17章的资源,评估哈佛大学开放获取政策的影响,这篇文章揭示了大学在知识上的“土地掠夺”,这种掠夺有时可能不符合研究作者或创作者的利益,并削弱了开放获取的吸引力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Open access and author rights: questioning Harvard’s open access policy
Harvard’s open access (OA) policy, which has become a template for many institutional OA policies, intrinsically undermines the rights of scholars, researchers, authors and university staff, and it adulterates a principal tenet of open access, namely, that authors should control the intellectual property rights to their material. Assessing the implications of Harvard’s open access policy in the light of Peter Suber’s landmark book, Open Access, as well as resources from the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) and Title 17 of the United States Code (USC), this article uncovers an intellectual ‘landgrab’ by universities that may at times not work in the interest of the author or creator of research and weakens the appeal of open access.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Insights-The UKSG Journal
Insights-The UKSG Journal INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信