Dear Dr Bhargava: Here is a news story from Peter Suber's blog on MIT, Cambridge, talking to 30 major journal publishers about allowing MIT scientists and students who publish in their journals to retain the copyright and to have the right to self-archive the papers. You might wish to write to MIT and get more details so we can follow a similar approach in India. The National Knowledge Commission can negotiate with the leading publishers of the world on behalf of all our higher educational and research institutions. That would be easier than each institutions negotiating independently with all the publishers. Regards. Arun --- More on the MIT publishing amendment Hemai Parthasarathy, Instituting Change, PLoS Biology, June 2006. An editorial. Ann Wolpert, Director of Libraries at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT),,...and the Vice President for Research and Associate Provost, Alice Gast, are asking publishers to allow MIT researchers to publish their work using a copyright amendment of MIT's design. The amendment allows the author and institution non-exclusive rights to reuse, reproduce, and archive their published research articles in digital repositories. Although this amendment is now available on the MIT Web site and has been distributed to the MIT faculty, Wolpert is taking the extra step of directly contacting the 30 major publishers with whom MIT faculty publish to finalize appropriate language that will best "accommodate the interests of the academy and those of the publishers," while supporting the implementation of the NIH policy. According to Wolpert, the MIT copyright amendment grew out of the faculty's double-edged response to the NIH policy recommendation: despite "a philosophical groundswell of agreement," researchers found the demands of work too overwhelming to overcome the logistical obstacles of acting on their beliefs. Focus groups with faculty and researchers generated a series of recommendations to make compliance easier. One important recommendation was to resolve any conflict between copyright agreements and archiving.... At the stage when a manuscript is (finally!) accepted for publication, the last thing a researcher wants to do is to fight over a copyright agreement, especially when this might cause a publication delay. The purpose of creating this amendment and the subsequent direct discussions with publishers is to bring the institution into the negotiations on the side of the author. Faculty, of course, are pleased to have this potential burden lifted. Although its use is not required, the recommended copyright amendment has the endorsement of several academic groups at MIT, including the Faculty Policy Committee, department heads, and Academic Council.... Dear Dr Bhargava:   Here is a news story from Peter Suber's blog on MIT, Cambridge, talking to 30 major journal publishers about allowing MIT scientists and students who publish in their journals to retain the copyright and to have the right to self-archive the papers. You might wish to write to MIT and get more details so we can follow a similar approach in India. The National Knowledge Commission can negotiate with the leading publishers of the world on behalf of all our higher educational and research institutions. That would be easier than each institutions negotiating independently with all the publishers.   Regards.   Arun   ---     More on the MIT publishing amendment Hemai Parthasarathy, http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040224 Instituting Change , PLoS Biology , June 2006. An editorial. Ann Wolpert, Director of Libraries at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT),,...and the Vice President for Research and Associate Provost, Alice Gast, are asking publishers to allow MIT researchers to publish their work using a http://libraries.mit.edu/about/scholarly/amendment.pdf copyright amendment of MIT’s design. The amendment allows the author and institution non-exclusive rights to reuse, reproduce, and archive their published research articles in digital repositories. Although this amendment is now available on the MIT Web site and has been distributed to the MIT faculty, Wolpert is taking the extra step of directly contacting the 30 major publishers with whom MIT faculty publish to finalize appropriate language that will best “accommodate the interests of the academy and those of the publishers,” while supporting the implementation of the NIH policy. According to Wolpert, the MIT copyright amendment grew out of the faculty’s double-edged response to the NIH policy recommendation: despite “a philosophical groundswell of agreement,” researchers found the demands of work too overwhelming to overcome the logistical obstacles of acting on their beliefs. Focus groups with faculty and researchers generated a series of recommendations to make compliance easier. One important recommendation was to resolve any conflict between copyright agreements and archiving.... At the stage when a manuscript is (finally!) accepted for publication, the last thing a researcher wants to do is to fight over a copyright agreement, especially when this might cause a publication delay. The purpose of creating this amendment and the subsequent direct discussions with publishers is to bring the institution into the negotiations on the side of the author. Faculty, of course, are pleased to have this potential burden lifted. Although its use is not required, the recommended copyright amendment has the endorsement of several academic groups at MIT, including the Faculty Policy Committee, department heads, and Academic Council....