I omitted something from my prior posting. Added here as the last
paragraph:
> --If faculty succeed, then they should deposit their postprint in the
> university archive alongside the preprint.
> --If the journal refuses, then faculty should ask for permission to deposit
> the postprint in the university archive. If it refuses, then they should
> ask for permission to put it on their personal web site. If it refuses,
> then they should post the corrigenda (differences between the preprint and
> postprint) to the archive.
Or, better, they should post their postprint (final revised, refereed
draft, not the publisher's PDF) without asking anyone anything (as the
physicists did and do) and wait to decide what if anything to do if they
are ever asked to remove it by the publisher. (Not a single one of the
250,000 physics eprints has been removed at the publisher's request in
12 years -- nor, so far as I know, has there been a single publisher
request to do so.)
By the way, the distinction between the author's "university archive"
and the author's "personal website" is a completely incoherent hence
empty and untenable one and should not be dignified with a second thought
(let alone a formal strategic distinction!) And I have to point out
also that the preprint-plus-corrigenda strategy is really intended as
a reductio ad absurdum rather than an actual implemented strategy!
