Posting palaeo papers on arXiv

September 28, 2012

Over on Facebook, where Darren posted a note about our new paper, most of the discussion has not been about its content but about where it was published. We’re not too surprised by that, even though we’d love to be talking about the science. We did choose arXiv with our eyes open, knowing that there’s no tradition of palaeontology being published there, and wanting to start a new tradition of palaeontology being routinely published there. Having now made the step for the first time, I see no reason ever to not post a paper on arXiv, as soon as it’s ready, before — or maybe even instead of — submitting it to a journal.

(Instead of? Maybe. We’ll discuss that below.)

The key issue is this: science isn’t really science until it’s out there where it can be used. We wrote the bulk of the neck-anatomy paper back in 2008 — the year that we first submitted it to a journal. In the four years since then, all the observations and deductions that it contains have been unavailable to the world. And that is stupid. The work might just as well never have been done. Now that it’s on arXiv, that’s over. I was delighted to get an email less than 24 hours after the paper was published, from an author working on a related issue, thanking us for posting the paper, saying that he will now revise his own in-prep manucript in light of its findings, and cite our paper. Which of course is the whole point: to get our science out there where it can do some damage.

Because the alternative is horrible, really. Horribly wasteful, horribly dispiriting, horribly retarding for science. For example, a couple of weeks ago in his SVPCA talk, David Norman was lamenting again that he never got around to publishing the iguanodont systematic work that was in his dissertation, I-don’t-know-how-many-years-ago. The result of that interminable delay is that others have done other, conflicting iguanodont systematic work, and Norman is now trying belatedly to undo that and bring his own perspective. A terrible an unnecessary slowing of ornithopod science, and a waste of duplicated effort. (Thankfully it’s only ornithopods.)

And of course David Norman is very far from being alone. Pretty much any palaeontologist you talk to will tell you of a handful of papers — many more in some cases — that were finished many years previously but have never seen the light of day. (I still have a couple myself, but there is no point in resurrecting them now because progress has overtaken them.) I wonder what proportion of all Ph.D work ever sees the light of day? Half? Less? It’s crazy.

Figure 8. Sauropod cervical vertebrae showing anteriorly and posteriorly directed spurs projecting from neurapophyses. 1, cervical 5 of Sauroposeidon holotype OMNH 53062 in right lateral view, photograph by MJW. 2, cervical 9 of Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis holotype CCG V 20401 in left lateral view, reversed, from photograph by MPT. 3, cervical 7 or 8 of Omeisaurus junghsiensisYoung, 1939 holotype in right lateral view, after Young (1939, figure 2). (No specimen number was assigned to this material, which has since been lost. D. W. E. Hone personal communication, 2008.)

Publish now, publish later

So, please folks: we all need to be posting our work on preprint servers as soon as we consider it finished. It doesn’t mean that the posted versions can’t subsequently be obsoleted by improved versions that have gone through peer-review and been published in conventional journals. But it does mean that the world can know about the work, and build on it, and get the benefit of it, as soon as it’s done.

You see, we have a very fundamental problem in academia: publishing fulfils two completely separate roles. Its primary role (or at least the role that should be primary) is to make work available to the community; the secondary role is to provide a means of keeping score — something that can be used when making decisions about who to appoint to jobs, when to promote, who gets grants, who gets tenure and so on. I am not going to argue that the latter shouldn’t happen at all — clearly a functioning community needs some way to infer the standing of its participants. But I do think it’s ridiculous when the bean-counting function of publication trumps the actual publication role of publication. Yet we’ve all been in a position where we have essentially complete work that could easily go on a blog, or in the PalAss newsletter, or in a minor journal, or somewhere — but we hang onto it because we want to get it into a Big Journal.

Let me say again that I do realise how unusual and privileged my own position is: that a lot of my colleagues do need to play the Publication Prestige game for career reasons (though it terrifies my how much time some colleagues waste squeezing their papers into two-and-a-half-page format in the futile hope of rolling three sixes on the Science ‘n’ Nature 3D6). Let’s admit right now that most palaeontologists do need to try to get their work into Proc B, or Paleobiology, or what have you. Fair enough. They should feel free. But the crucial point is this: that is no reason not to post pre-prints so we can all get on with actually benefitting from your work in the mean time.

Actually, I feel pretty stupid that it’s taken me this long to realise that all my work should go up on arXiv.

Figure 11. Archosaur cervical vertebrae in posterior view, Showing muscle attachment points in phylogenetic context. Blue arrows indicate epaxial muscles attaching to neural spines, red arrows indicate epaxial muscles attaching to epipophyses, and green arrows indicate hypaxial muscles attaching to cervical ribs. While hypaxial musculature anchors consistently on the cervical ribs, the principle epaxial muscle migrate from the neural spine in crocodilians to the epipophyses in non-avial theropods and modern birds, with either or both sets of muscles being significant in sauropods. 1, fifth cervical vertebra of Alligator mississippiensis, MCZ 81457, traced from 3D scans by Leon Claessens, courtesy of MCZ. Epipophyses are absent. 2, eighth cervical vertebra ofGiraffatitan brancai paralectotype HMN SII, traced from Janensch (1950, figures 43 and 46). 3, eleventh cervical vertebra of Camarasaurus supremus, reconstruction within AMNH 5761/X, “cervical series I”, modified from Osborn and Mook (1921, plate LXVII). 4, fifth cervical vertebra of the abelisaurid theropod Majungasaurus crenatissimus,UA 8678, traced from O’Connor (2007, figures 8 and 20). 5, seventh cervical vertebra of a turkey, Meleagris gallopavo, traced from photographs by MPT.

Exceptions?

So are there any special cases? Any kinds of papers that we should keep dry until they make it into actual journals? I can think of two classes that you could argue for — one of them convincingly, the other not.

First, the unconvincing one. When I discussed this with Matt (and half the fun of doing that is that usually neither of us really knows what we think about this stuff until we’re done arguing it through), he suggested to me that we couldn’t have put the Brontomerus paper on arXiv, because that would have leaked the name, creating a nomen nudum. My initial reaction was to agree with him that this is an exception. But when I thought about it a bit more, I realised there’s actually no compelling reason not to post such a paper on arXiv. So you create a nomen nudum? So what? Really: what is the negative consequence of that? I can’t think of one. OK, the name will appear on Wikipedia and mailing lists before the ICZN recognises it — but who does that hurt? No-one that I can think of. The only real argument against posting is that it could invite scooping. But is that a real threat? I doubt it. I can’t think of anyone who would be barefaced enough to scoop a taxon that had already been published on arXiv — and if they did, the whole world would know unambiguously exactly what had happened.

So what is the one real reason not to post a preprint? I think that might be a legitimate choice when publicity needs to be co-ordinated. So while nomenclatural issues should not have stopped us from arXiving the Brontomerus paper, publicity should. In preparation for that paper’s publication day, we did a lot of careful work with the UCL publicity team: writing non-specialist summaries, press-releases and FAQs, soliciting and preparing illustrations and videos, circulating materials under embargo, and so on. In general, mainsteam media are only interested in a story if it’s news, and that means you need to make sure it’s new when they first hear about it. Posting the article in advance on a publicly accessible archive would mess that up, and probably damage the work’s coverage in the press, TV and radio.

Publication venues are a continuum

It’s become apparent to us only gradually that there’s really no clear cut-off where a paper becomes “properly published”. There’s a continuum that runs from least to most formal and exclusive:

SV-POW! — arXiv — PLOS ONE — JVP — Nature

1. On SV-POW!, we write what we want and publish it when we want. We can promise you that it won’t go away, but you only have our word for it. But some of what we write here is still science, and has been cited in papers published in more formal venues — though, as far as I know, only by Matt and me so far.

2. On arXiv, there is a bit more of a barrier to clear: you have to get an existing arXiv user to endorse your membership application, and each article you submit is given a cursory check by staff to ensure that it really is a piece of scientific research rather than a diary entry, movie review or spam. Once it’s posted, the paper is guaranteed to remain at the same URL, unchanged, so long as arXiv endures (and it’s supported by Cornell). Crucially, the maths, physics and computer science communities that use arXiv uncontroversially consider this degree of filtering and permanence sufficient to constitute a published, citeable source.

3. At PLOS ONE, your paper only gets published if it’s been through peer-review — but the reviewing criteria pertain only to scientific soundness and do not attempt to evaluate likely impact or importance.

4. At JVP and other conventional journals, your paper has to make it through a two-pronged peer-review process: it has to be judged both sound scientifically (as at PLOS ONE) and also sufficiently on-topic and important to merit appearing in the journal.

5. Finally, at Nature and Science, your paper has to be sound and be judged sexy — someone has to guess that it’s going to prove important and popular.

Where along this continuum does the formal scientific record begin? We could make a case that all of it counts, provided that measures are taken to make the SV-POW! posts permanent and immutable. (This can be done submitting them to WebCite or to a service such as Nature Precedings used to provide.) But whether or not you accept that, it seems clear that arXiv and upwards is permanent, scientific and citeable.

This raises an interesting question: do we actually need to go ahead and publish our neck-anatomy paper in a more conventional venue? I’m honestly not sure at the moment, and I’d be interested to hear arguments in either direction. In terms of the progress of science, probably not: our actual work is out there, now, for the world to use as it sees fit. But from a career perspective, it’s probably still worth our while to get it into a journal, just so it can sit more neatly on our publication lists and help Matt’s tenure case more. And yet I don’t honestly expect any eventual journal-published version to be better in any meaningful way than the one on arXiv. After all, it’s already benefitted from two rounds of peer-review, three if you count the comments of my dissertation examiners. More likely, a journal will be less useful, as we have to cut length, eliminate illustrations, and so on.

So it seems to me that we have a hard choice ahead of us now. Call that paper done and more onto making more science? Or spend more time and effort on re-publishing it in exchange for prestige? I really don’t know.

For what it’s worth, it seems that standard practice in maths, physics and computer science is to republish arXiv articles in journals. But there are some scientists who routinely do not do this, instead allowing the arXiv version to stand as the only version of record. Perhaps that is a route best left to tenured greybeards rather than bright young things like Matt.

Figure 5. Simplified myology of that sauropod neck, in left lateral view, based primarily on homology with birds, modified from Wedel and Sanders (2002, figure 2). Dashed arrows indicate muscle passing medially behind bone. A, B. Muscles inserting on the epipophyses, shown in red. C, D, E. Muscles inserting on the cervical ribs, shown in green. F, G. Muscles inserting on the neural spine, shown in blue. H. Muscles inserting on the ansa costotransversaria (“cervical rib loop”), shown in brown. Specifically: A. M. longus colli dorsalis. B. M. cervicalis ascendens. C. M. flexor colli lateralis. D. M. flexor colli medialis. E. M. longus colli ventralis. In birds, this muscle originates from the processes carotici, which are absent in the vertebrae of sauropods. F. Mm. intercristales. G. Mm. interspinales. H. Mm. intertransversarii. Vertebrae modified from Gilmore (1936, plate 24).

Citing papers in arXiv

Finally, a practicality: since it’ll likely be a year or more before any journal-published version of our neck-anatomy paper comes out, people wanting to use it in their own work will need to know how to cite a paper in arXiv. Standard procedure seems to be just to use authors, year, title and arXiv ID. But in a conventional-journal citation, I like the way that the page-range gives you a sense of how long the paper is. So I think it’s worth appending page-count to the citations. And while you’re at it, you may as well throw in the figure and table counts, too, yielding the version that we’ve been using:

  • Taylor, Michael P., and Mathew J. Wedel. 2012. Why sauropods had long necks; and why giraffes have short necks. arXiv:1209.5439. 39 pages, 11 figures, 3 tables.
About these ads

38 Responses to “Posting palaeo papers on arXiv”


  1. [...] « Hyperossified megafrogs of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History Posting palaeo papers on arXiv » [...]

  2. rossmounce Says:

    Brilliant! Congratulations on possibly (are there any paleo papers on Nature Precedings?) pioneering the usage of pre-print servers for palaeontological works AND explaining a lot of the reasoning behind it. I’m sure you’ll have to weather a lot of knee-jerk criticism for this but it’ll be worth it in the long run.

    My only quibble is that you’re inadvertently upholding the traditional journal ranking hierarchy by listing
    “SV-POW! — arXiv — PLOS ONE — JVP — Nature”

    Articles published in PLoS ONE can of course be *better* than articles published in JVP or Nature. The way it’s written looks too much like a chain-of-being style ranking with Nature at the top (yet, I realise that’s not the point you were intending to make, but it’s one that a reader could mistakenly infer).

    Perhaps a three-way polytomy from arXiv -> JVP/P1/Nature might be a more accurate way to represent it (and less upholding of outdated, unhelpful views influenced by nebulous statistics like the Journal Impact Factor)

    Best

    Ross

  3. Mike Taylor Says:

    Thanks, Ross. Yes, there is at least one palaeo paper on Nature Precedings, and I linked to it in the article you just commented on! But the use of NP never took off, and of course it’s moot now because, just like Bristol’s institutional repository, it’s closed to new submissions. I think arXiv is a much better long-term prospect because it’s proven itself over a long period and so obviously a core component of many fields.

    As for the “SV-POW! — arXiv — PLOS ONE — JVP — Nature” sequence: I tried to be clear that the continuum “runs from least to most formal and exclusive” rather than from worst to best. The reason I separated PLOS ONE, JVP and Nature into three points instead of a single one is that they use qualitatively different degrees of arbitrariness in evaluating submissions.

    For what it’s worth, that sequence does not correlate with impact-factor: PLOS ONE has a significantly better IF than JVP. But we don’t care about that.


  4. Well that’s a surprise…

    Turns out, there are many fossiliferous papers on the (now closed) Nature Precedings pre-print server including ones from some pretty big name respectable authors including this posted in 2008: http://precedings.nature.com/documents/2088/version/1
    (Selden & Shear), and this posted in 2010 by Peter Roopnarine http://precedings.nature.com/documents/4433/version/1
    and this from Xing Xu et al in 2011 http://precedings.nature.com/documents/6433/version/1

    WOW! I never knew…

    So… posting to a pre-print server is actually deemed a-okay it would seem (and probably quite a good thing to do, at worst it’s unlikely to cause harm).


  5. This might be helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_journals_by_preprint_policy

    May I suggest we crowdsource an effort (I’ve seen this done by ecologists http://jabberwocky.weecology.org/2012/09/05/esa-journals-will-now-allow-papers-with-preprints/ ) to ask all paleo journals to explicitly & publicly confirm they’ll accept manuscripts that have been first placed on recognised pre-print servers like arXiv? This will no doubt aid adoption…

  6. sabre23t Says:

    Mmm … Darren’s FB post is not found …
    https://www.facebook.com/darren.naish.5/posts/348353925257160
    The page you requested was not found.

  7. Mike Taylor Says:

    The Facebook link is working for me. Maybe you need to be logged in for it to be valid? I don’t really use Facebook so I don’t know how it works.

    Ross, I’m not inclined to bother with contacting journals. No reputable journal refuses to publish articles that have been on preprint servers — Science, for example, published the previously arXiv’d Arsenic Life rebuttal — and I’d rather just assume that palaeo journal are similarly rational.


  8. One of the main things that’s nice about arXiv is that it’s like a curator of all the science that’s being published. Physicists I know just check it occasionally to see if anything in their field is published, and never bother ever going through the journals themselves except when they’re writing up. Whereas for paleo, journals are all we have. Personally, I hate trawling through the RSS of every blasted journal, esp things like Science or PNAS where I have to wade through reams and reams of biomedical stuff to get to the occasional buried pale paper.


  9. @Oliver

    You might like my post on RSS feed filtering then… no need to wade through loads of irrelevant stuff if you can define a set up keyword filters for the content you want:

    http://rossmounce.co.uk/2011/10/11/research-tips-tricks-creating-rss-feeds-and-filters/


  10. Mike, You might be interested on some research we did with arXiv a decade ago:

    Mining the social life of an eprint archive
    http://opcit.eprints.org/tdb198/opcit/

    Some interesting findings on citation latency (i.e. stuff cited before it even gets in arXiv)
    http://opcit.eprints.org/tdb198/opcit/citationage/
    You can also see from the chart that through the 90s citation peaks were getting higher and earlier for papers in arXiv.

    arXiv is not just a repository but a vibrant hub of scholarly activity.


  11. @Ross Awesomeness! That’s exactly what I wanted to do. I’ve used Yahoo pipes before, but I hadn’t thought of using it for filtering.

    Now, what we really need is to have this feed hosted online somewhere so that everyone can view it. You could have paleo, with subdivisions for different areas. Then: hey presto! It’s hardly arXiv but it would be definitely better than atm.

    Oh, if only I wasn’t too busy as it stands ;)

  12. Mike Taylor Says:

    arXiv is not just a repository but a vibrant hub of scholarly activity.

    Exactly. I’d not managed to articulate it, but this is what I was groping towards as the reason why am I excited about using arXiv in a way that I never have been about Nature Precedings or (even more so) my institutional repository. Thanks for summing it up so pithily.


  13. @Oliver thanks, and no probs!

    I don’t think we should host / advertise a set ‘proscribed’ feed though – the benefits to this technique are the ultimate customizability of it. Some may want just fossil arthropods plus CT research, others may just want eurypterids + phylogenetic papers. Teaching people how to filter is the important bit IMO.

  14. Mike Taylor Says:

    I don’t think we should host / advertise a set ‘proscribed’ feeds

    No, indeed! But hosting prEscribed feeds might be a useful idea. (“PrOscribed” means “forbidden”!)

    I agree that if you teach a man to make his own custom RSS feeds, he eats every day. But the brutal fact is that many people simply won’t do this. Hosting feeds that give people pretty much what they want would still be a useful service.


  15. I am curious whether palaeontological journal would like to publish an article that is already available on arXiv (or other such medium) – I know physics or maths journals do but it is something new in palaeontology (I hope it will never be a problem).

    On a side note: a SV-POW! post has been cited also by Cirasella (2012) in an article in Psychological Inquiry (“The obscene profits of commercial scholarly publishers” – not a strictly scientific post, though).

  16. Mike Taylor Says:

    Well, the Ingelfinger rule has been dead for some time. But like too many dead things, it does from time to time shamble zombie-like from its unquiet grave to wreak havoc on the living. The bottom line for me is that I’m done dealing with Idiot Journals, and any journal that would refuse to publish an arXiv’d manuscript would qualify under that heading. I suspect there are very few of them, if any, out there.

    Ironic that I can’t see Cirasella’s citation of our CC BY article about exploitative publishing practices becaue it’s behind a paywall.

  17. sabre23t Says:

    I’ve double checked the FB link https://www.facebook.com/darren.naish.5/posts/348353925257160
    (1) When logged in it gives … The page you requested was not found.
    (2) When not logged in it gives … You must log in to see this page.

  18. Mike Taylor Says:

    Sorry, sbre23t. I don’t understand why the link isn’t working for you, but all I can tell you is it’s working for me. Maybe you need to friend Darren or something? As I say, I have no real model of how Facebook works.


  19. Shalom & Boker tov…your work on sauropod necks was a fascinating paper. Unless I am mistaken, David Norman’s iguanodont systematics were written in 1977 (?)…and, at the time, he had catalogued all of the known specimens, photographed them…hopefully, he will update the work, and distribute the knowledge at arXiv…STEPHAN BOROWSKI PICKERING / Chofetz Chayim benAvraham

  20. sabre23t Says:

    Hi Mike. Quite likely Darren shared that FB post https://www.facebook.com/darren.naish.5/posts/348353925257160with “Friends” not the public. Darren can change that post sharing status to public, if he wants.

    (1) My FB post here https://www.facebook.com/sabre23t/posts/416258051772764 is shared with “Public”. Anyone can read, without logging into FB.
    (2) My FB post here https://www.facebook.com/sabre23t/posts/10151102169622993 is shared with “Friends”. Only those logged into FB and my friends can read.

    To be sure the public can read an FB post, you can use Chrome’s incognito window (or Firefox private browsing mode) to open the publilc FB url. Easier to do that than logging in and logging out from FB.


  21. [...] taken time to discuss at length why we posted our neck-anatomy paper on arXiv, let’s now return to the actual content of the paper. You may remember from the initial post, [...]

  22. Mike Taylor Says:

    Thanks, sabre23t. Darren’s made an effort to open the thread up for non-friends to read, but hasn’t been able to do so. He only sees options to open up the short post itself (without the more interesting comments) or his whole account.

  23. FABRE Alexandre Says:

    Thanks for share this interesting paper. I’ve a question: what is the main driving cause (I mean in a Darwinism perspective ;-)) to have a long neck for animals? Is there a unique causes (fo example to be high-browsing) or is there severals causes? In this case could this can explain some of the difference between species. Another question is what the aim of the long neck of plesiosaur, as far as I know whereas we have several convergent evolution of form for ichthyosaur, dolphin or others, long necked aquatic vertebrate seems pretty rare.
    Alexandre

  24. Mike Taylor Says:

    We don’t yet have consensus on what was the main driver for selection of long necks in sauropods. The default assumption has been increasing the feeding envelope through increased vertical feeding range, and I think that is still the strongest candidate. Martin (1987) proposed the its main value was in increasing horizontal sweep, and Senter (2006) proposed sexual selection as the main driver, but I think those options are less persuasive. As it happens the most recent published work on this problem was our own 2011 paper, which you may find interesting.

  25. LeeB Says:

    Fabre I am not sure if anyone really knows the reason for the evolution of long necks in plesiosaurs.

    Long necked aquatic animals are rare, and elasmosaurs pushed it to the extreme.
    All plesiosaurs also use all four limbs to swim with, which is also uncommon.
    It has been suggested that the long neck would allow them to sneak up on schools of fish, with the fish not being startled by the head which was of a similar size to them while not noticing the body which was metres away.
    However stomach contents show they also fed on benthic organisms so that isn’t the whole story.

    Certainly, given the apparent disadvantages of a long neck relatively stiff neck (a lot of dead air space making breathing less efficient, vulnerability to being bitten in the neck by predators especially when at the surface breathing, vulnerability of the body to surprise attacks from behind because the sense organs on the head are metres away, and a long neck making the animal less manoeuvrable) there must have been some strong selective pressures to bring about the evolution of an elasmosaur.

    Interestingly early plesiosaurs had a range of neck lengths but over time the intermediate length necks vanished until eventually there were only the very long necked elasmosaurs and the very short necked polycotylids.

    And these were both surviving alongside mosasaurs, so the elasmosaurs must have had some means of protecting themselves from predation.

    LeeB.


  26. [...] to communicate. Now that I know that there are other and in some ways demonstrably better ways (arXiv, etc.), my enthusiasm for sending stuff to journals is flagging. Whereas before I was happy to do [...]

  27. FABRE Alexandre Says:

    Thanks for the paper and information about plesiosaurs. Another question is there good recent books about plesiosaurs (like the complete dinosaur for example) for pterosaur I wait for MArk Witton’one.
    Alexandre

  28. LeeB Says:

    Fabre,

    unfortunately there are no really comprehensive recent books on plesiosaurs; and there is lots of ongoing research on them (and on mosasaurs and metriorhynchids and ichthyosaurs.

    However there are a number of websites with good information available such as the marine reptiles forum, oceans of Kansas, the plesiosaur site and the plesiosaur directory.
    They are not quite as specialised as this forum, covering more than just the vertebrae despite Elasmosaurs having long necks with even more vertebrae than sauropods ;-).

    LeeB.


  29. [...] Posting palaeo papers on arXiv (svpow.com) [...]


  30. [...] which the best known is arXiv — the vast preprint archive for maths, physics and astronomy, and occasionally palaeontology. Another (rather weak) form of Green OA is individual researcher collections on web-pages, such as [...]


  31. [...] there are a few journals whose PDFs just contain references formatted as in the manuscript — as we did for our arXiv PDF — nearly all mainstream publishers go through a more elaborate process that yields more [...]


  32. [...] about the paper, since we posted it to arXiv last year and told the world about it then (post 1, post 2, post 3). Although a lot more attractive in form, this version is almost identical in content, [...]


  33. [...] possibly some outlet will let you cite arXived works but not “unpublished” ones. It was fast, easy, and free, and you should do the same with your (completed!) thesis or dissertation. Matt Cobley just posted [...]


  34. [...] is “all of them”). We’ve already talked about it taking business from arXiv (at least ours, although there is the large non-overlap in their respective subject domains–for now, [...]


  35. […] of course, during that year, I went right ahead and submitted a preprint to arXiv anyway (and then blogged about it, naturally). Which is the very thing I’d assumed I wasn’t able to […]


  36. […] typesetting. So that is your moment to make sure the world sees it. Release it now. Put it it up on arXiv or on PeerJ Preprints or on FigShare or on your institutional repository or on your own web page. […]


  37. […] Addendum, the fourth approach is to dedicate your manuscript to the public domain (for example by posting it on arXiv with the CC Public Domain Declaration). Then return the copyright transfer form to the publisher, […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 347 other followers

%d bloggers like this: