petersuber<p><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/COAR" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>COAR</span></a> (<span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@coar_repositories" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>coar_repositories</span></a></span>) is exactly right about what's wrong with the <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ACS" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ACS</span></a> and <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/IEEE" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>IEEE</span></a> demands that their authors pay them a fee for the right to deposit their accepted author manuscripts (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/AAMs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>AAMs</span></a>) in <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OpenAccess</span></a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/repositories" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>repositories</span></a>. <br><a href="https://coar-repositories.org/news-updates/unfair-publisher-fees-for-deposit-into-repositories-highlight-the-need-for-authors-to-exercise-their-rights/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">coar-repositories.org/news-upd</span><span class="invisible">ates/unfair-publisher-fees-for-deposit-into-repositories-highlight-the-need-for-authors-to-exercise-their-rights/</span></a> </p><p><blockquote><br>* 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.<br>* Deposit fees disadvantage authors who do not have funding to pay<br>* These fees amount to <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/DoubleDipping" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>DoubleDipping</span></a> since the final published version of the AAM is made available behind a paywall with no discount<br>* This practice prevents universities and research organisations from creating an accessible record of their scholarly output.<br></blockquote> </p><p>And COAR is exactly right about the solution: author <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/RightsRetention" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>RightsRetention</span></a>. 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.</p><p>PS: See my similar argument on a related ACS move last year.<br><a href="https://fediscience.org/@petersuber/112688754504974477" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">fediscience.org/@petersuber/11</span><span class="invisible">2688754504974477</span></a></p><p><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Publishers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Publishers</span></a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Copyright" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Copyright</span></a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ScholComm" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ScholComm</span></a></p>