Some of my university colleagues deposit the first page only of the Version of Record of their articles in our institution’s repository. Only the first page is deposited because the license agreements with the publishers do not allow the Version of Record (the final published version) to be deposited. Instead, they only allow depositing the Accepted Version (before proofing and typesetting). My colleagues prefer to post the first page of the Version of Record instead of the full Accepted Version. Any thoughts on whether the posting of the first page only of the Version of Record is a violation of the license agreement? The agreements are silent on this matter.
I am at the late stage of a PhD program. For some personal reasons, I have decided to quit this program and apply for a new PhD program in a different country.
I have presented one part of my research in an international conference, and I am about to submit it to a journal. Beside this paper, I have prepared 3 other papers but I have not presented them anywhere. I am the sole author of these three un-published works.
Now my question is whether it is possible to bring these researches to the next university and publish them afterwards? I am the legal owner of these researches? copyright-wise I mean.
I would be more than glad if anyone helps me in this tough situation.
PS: I would have no problem for getting recommendation letters.
I have 400 words of quoted and lightly paraphrased material from a scientific journal article. Would it be infringing copyright to share this on the internet? Note: most of the material is also cited by the one article I am citing.
Maybe I should go back to the original sources and quote them individually so as to avoid such a large amount coming seemingly from the same article? Would that matter? What are the rules?
A colleague wishes to publish a pre-print as a “working paper” after the revised manuscript has gone through the peer review process and accepted for publication.
The rationale is that firstly, there is a long wait (over a year) until the manuscript is published by the journal; and, secondly, the publisher allows the author to deposit the pre-print at any time in an institutional repository.
My question is: Is a working paper series an “institutional repository”? Shouldn’t the pre-print be submitted to the working paper series prior to peer review and journal acceptance?
I have been considering making an online course and have had difficulty finding clear information regarding what is permissible to use as course materials, particularly from a textbook.
This question was partially answered here, but the question is ambiguous whether it is referring to an online course through a school or strictly for profit. I am considering making an independent course for profit, so I assume fair use does not apply.
I assume assigning a textbook, but not providing any portion of it and expecting students to obtain the textbook on their own is legitimate. Is that correct?
I also assume I cannot copy any figures or lengthy text in lectures, but are brief excerpts acceptable? Like a definition, theorem, or exercise?
My university apparently requires Ph.D. students to transfer copyright of their thesis completely to the university. The copyright agreement, as written, seems to prevent them from publishing the work elsewhere after the work is submitted, as it only permits the author to reproduce sections of the thesis for “personal use.”
I want to prepare an argument for my university that copyright to a Ph.D. thesis should stay with author, (but that the university should be granted unlimited permission to reprint or distribute the thesis, etc., as may be the norm in international universities.)
In most US and Canadian universities, how common is it for a university to require Ph.D. Students to transfer the copyright of their thesis to the University? Can anyone give me a partial list of any universities with this policy.
Considering that proper reference is provided (journal, author name, date etc.), is copying exact numbers from published scientific articles could be considered plagiarism or copyright infringement?
For example, there is a research called “Dancing can reverse the signs of aging in the brain”. I need to cite in my own research some data from it, including how many there were participants, their gender (how many men/women), age and BMI. There are some tables as well, from which I intend to take some baseline numbers. As a result, I’m making my own conclusions (words or sentences are not copied, only numbers).
We are writing a research paper and for our experiments using a model/architecture that was created by other researchers for a specific task. We are using the same model in a modified way for a different task, but the model at its core is the same.
Is it okay for us to directly lift the image/drawing/diagram of the model/architecture and post it in ours? We would give due credits of course. We thought about drawing it on our own again and posting it but we did not want it to seem as if we are hiding the fact that we are using someone else’s model and trying to pass it off as ours.
The paper in question is available in the open domain, so I doubt there will be any copyright issues.
I have been following the review process of a replication journal
In particular, it has an open review which can be seen.
On a particular submission they are having a debate about whether copying equations and their explanation in a paper counts as copyright infringement.
I would like to ask this question here, since the answer seems non-obvious.
Equations, by themselves, since they are ideas, should be free from copyright infringement. But to have equations, explanations, replica of figures, and discussion, would basically be a copy of the paper, and I imagine that would be copyright infringement. Where exactly can a line be drawn?
Note: There are questions on stack exchange which ask similar questions, but often in context of building up on previous research. Since the point of such a journal is just to replicate, it would seems that the aim is to build a freely available copy of the existing (perhaps paywalled, copyrighted) material, that can be freely accessed, and this is different intent than regular articles.
Also, answers regarding plagiarism aren’t much help in this case as the point is to do “explicit plagiarism” with proper attribution.