#COAR (@coar_repositories) is exactly right about what's wrong with the #ACS and #IEEE demands that their authors pay them a fee for the right to deposit their accepted author manuscripts (#AAMs) in #OpenAccess #repositories.
https://coar-repositories.org/news-updates/unfair-publisher-fees-for-deposit-into-repositories-highlight-the-need-for-authors-to-exercise-their-rights/
<blockquote>
* The charges applied are completely arbitrary and not based on any real service provision (for example, IEEE applies a fee to authors who want to apply a CC-BY licence to their AAM; and ACM applies a fee for removing the embargo period). They are just another funding stream for publishers that are already making huge profits.
* Deposit fees disadvantage authors who do not have funding to pay
* These fees amount to #DoubleDipping since the final published version of the AAM is made available behind a paywall with no discount
* This practice prevents universities and research organisations from creating an accessible record of their scholarly output.
</blockquote>
And COAR is exactly right about the solution: author #RightsRetention. When authors retain key rights, they don't need publisher permission to deposit their works in OA repositories -- or to use and reuse them in other important ways as well.
PS: See my similar argument on a related ACS move last year.
https://fediscience.org/@petersuber/112688754504974477
#Publishers #Copyright #ScholComm
