Comments

  1. Report this comment

    Mike Taylor said:

    Thanks, for this, Grace. If nothing else, NPG’s swiftness of response is commendable.

    But really, a blog-post is not the correct fix for this. If NPG supports authors’ rights to be identified as the authors of their work, then the correct thing to do is simply to remove from your publication agreement the language that strips them of this right.

    If you need the right to retract articles in the case of fraud, then just say that in the agreement instead.

  2. Report this comment

    Mike Taylor said:

    [On another note, please do not pre-moderate comments on your blogs. Doing so slows things down, prevents any actual discussion from taking place, and makes it impossible to tweet a link to my comment. You already know who I am — I’m registered — and that I have a history of comments that you have judged acceptable, and I’ve correctly filled in a CAPCHA. Let the conversation flow.]

    1. Report this comment

      Jo Stichbury said:

      Hi Mike
      Thanks for your feedback. Just to let you know that we don’t pre moderate all comments on the editorial blogs at blogs.nature.com. We do catch the first comment from each registrant, so we can stop any incoming spam from new accounts, but once you’ve had your first comment accepted, any following comments are posted directly to the site.
      Best wishes,
      Jo

      1. Report this comment

        Mike Taylor said:

        Thanks, Jo. That policy is eminently sensible. But I don’t think it’s what I’m seeing: I’ve commented on Nature before, but my comments on this post were held. If this one goes straight through I’ll know that it generally works right, though!

        1. Report this comment

          Mike Taylor said:

          Confirmation: that comment went straight through. So I’m not sure what happened with my first two comments on this thread, but it’s great to see that in general the policy works as you describe.

  3. Report this comment

    Charles Oppenheim said:

    I understand why NPG wants the freedom to make changes under certain circumstances, but it misses the legal point. In many countries one CANNOT waive or refuse to assert Moral Rights, and in the one country where Moral Rights can be waived (UK), there are no Moral Rights in journal articles anyway. So why ask for these things at all? Surely it’s better to get authors to simply agree to negotiate with NPG should there be an issue over the content of a contribution?

  4. Report this comment

    Charles Oppenheim said:

    To re-iterate both Mike and my points: why alarm and upset your authors by requiring a waiver of Moral Rights when (a) Moral Rights do not apply to journal articles in USA or UK, and (b) in continental Europe Moral Rights cannot be waived? Change your wording so that should, in the reasonable opinion of NPG, a published article require retraction or amendment, the parties enter into good faith negotiations to resolve the problem, but if the problem cannot be resolved, NPG reserves the right to make the final decision.

Comments are closed.