BibSonomy publications for /user/a_olympia/papersSat Aug 18 13:22:24 CEST 2007Journal of Librarianship and Information ScienceSeptember3171--187Romeo Studies 3: How Academics Expect to Use Openaccess Research Papers352003research papers openaccess This paper is the third in a series of studies emanating from the UK JISC- funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open-archiving). It considers previous studies of the usage of electronic journal articles through a literature survey. It then reports on the results of a survey of 542 academic authors as to how they expected to use open-access research papers. This data is compared with results from the second of the RoMEO Studies series as to how academics wished to protect their open-access research papers. The ways in which academics expect to use open-access works (including activities, restrictions and conditions) are described. It concludes that academics-as-users do not expect to perform all the activities with openaccess research papers that academics-as-authors would allow. Thus the rights metadata proposed by the RoMEO Project would appear to meet the usage requirements of most academics.Sat Aug 18 13:22:24 CEST 2007Journal of Information Science5333--356RoMEO Studies 2: How Academics Want to Protect their Open-Access Research Papers292003research protect papers open-access This paper is the second in a series of studies (see E. Gadd, C. Oppenheim and S. Probets. RoMEO studies 1: the impact of copyright ownership on author-self-archiving, Journal of Documentation 59(3) (2003) 243-277) emanating from the UK JISC-funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open-archiving). It considers the protection for research papers afforded by UK copyright law, and by e-journal licences. It compares this with the protection required by academic authors for open-access research papers as discovered by the RoMEO academic author survey. The survey used the Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL) as a framework for collecting views from 542 academics as to the permissions, restrictions and conditions they wanted to assert over their works. Responses from self-archivers and non-archivers are compared. The paper concludes that most academic authors are primarily interested in preserving their moral rights, and that the protection offered research papers by copyright law is way in excess of that required by most academics. It also raises concerns about the level of protection enforced by e-journal licence agreements.