Pre-print, Post-print, Publisher’s Version: Who Cares and What Does It Mean for Open Access?

CC-BY-SA Jonathan McIntosh
CC-BY-SA Jonathan McIntosh

Doing research online on an everyday basis, more often than not I come across newspaper and magazine articles, blog posts, online CVs, postings on Academia and ResearchGate, tweets etc. that link to direct downloads to PDFs of very recent articles that do look like publisher’s versions of otherwise paywalled journal articles. Often they are indeed the publisher’s versions. (More on what ‘publisher’s version’ means below).

The reader clicks on a link and the joy of a free PDF download pops up on the reader’s screen. No questions asked.

This would require a much longer discussion, so this is just an initial contribution. The culture of direct links to PDF downloads irrespective of licensing within academia and to a more limited extent within journalism is troublesome for more than one reason.

I am not only refering here to so-called ‘dark social’ (Madrigal 2012) but to public sharing of deep links to PDF files that have often been re-hosted not on the publisher’s sites but on users’ personal cloud folders such as Dropbox folders and Google Drive. Enabling direct downloads to publisher’s versions of academic articles originally published online as paywalled articles circumvents the paywall, and renders said paywall (by definition a barrier) invisible to users. The direct link disconnects the PDF from the online record or full text HTML version on the journal’s web site. The article simply downloads onto our computers. Some think that if one is an Open Access advocate then one should be happy that research is being made available at all. To me it demonstrates a lack of understanding or willingness to be honest about the very restrictions that slow down the dissemination of scholarly work. Circumventing paywalls does not help to communicate why open access and therefore open licenses are so urgent in the first place.

It seems to me that in academic publishing it is indeed easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission, therefore there is widespread sharing of direct links to publisher’s version PDFs. Open Access seeks to legally create a culture of fairer, faster dissemination, exchange and reuse of academic publications, and I’ll argue here that the widespread tolerance of the circumvention of paywalls makes the case for Open Access much harder.If articles still circulate ‘freely’ amongst scholars and some members of the public through these direct links, it will not be clear to users what the problem with paywalled outputs is. As long as one is not in charge of a library budget, that is.

As journals and publishers seen as ‘reputable’ offer very expensive Open Access ‘options’ via article processing charges, many academics do not think twice about sticking to publishing their work as paywalled articles. Institutions, research officers and some (but not all) funders are happy for authors to paywall their outputs. In spite of being paywalled, these articles seem to continue being freely shared amongst those interested. (Grey areas around what is ‘fair dealing’ in educational networks do contribute to encourage the inter-academic sharing, at no cost nor friction to the receiver, of otherwise-paywalled PDFs). As a result many don’t wink at the fact there is a paywall somewhere on the main output online. Win-win, right? I think not.

In the 21st century, awareness of academic publishers’ copyright and self-archiving policies should be a key academic literacy. The publishing process is today, perhaps more than ever before, an integral component of the research life cycle. Publishing is not the work that strangers perform for authors; authors are directly embedded in the process and do take important decisions throughout that determine the ways in which research is produced, disseminated, consumed and potentially adopted or reused.

My view is that we need wider awareness of publishers’ and journals’ self-archiving and licensing policies. It is easy to find out what we as authors and readers can do online with published academic outputs.  SHERPA/RoMEO should be bookmarked on every academic’s browser’s tool bar; the user can simply search by journal title or ISSN. Below, as an example, you can see a screenshot of the information I got after searching for a journal’s ISSN:


This is faster than trying to find out this information directly on the journal’s web site, but if there’s doubt it’s always a good idea to double check. The article that got me to check the journal policies above is paywalled, and I came across it as a direct PDF download via a newspaper article. Because of its formatting and layout characteristics and download watermark, the file that I obtained freely via a newspaper article appears to be a ‘Publisher’s Version/PDF’. According to SHERPA/RoMEO,  that particular journal requires that the ‘Publisher’s Version/PDF’ is embargoed for 12 months. (Alternatively, it is also also possible this particular journal asks authors to use the publisher-generated .pdf as Post-print, but I would have to check).

The ‘Pre-print’, ‘Post-print’ and even ‘Publisher’s Version/PDF’ terminology can be confusing. Luckily, SHERPA/RoMEO recognised this and has useful information that seeks to clarify what is meant by them (link):

To try to clarify the situation, this listing characterises pre-prints as being the version of the paper before peer review and post-prints as being the version of the paper after peer-review, with revisions having been made.

This means that in terms of content, post-prints are the article as published. However, in terms of appearance this might not be the same as the published article, as publishers often reserve for themselves their own arrangement of type-setting and formatting. Typically, this means that the author cannot use the publisher-generated .pdf file, but must make their own .pdf version for submission to a repository.

Having said that, some publishers insist that authors use the publisher-generated .pdf – seemingly because the publishers want their material to be seen as a professionally produced .pdf that fits with their own house-style.”

That apparently “some publishers insist that authors use the publisher-generated .pdf” contributes to the opacity of publishers’ licensing information and to authors’ and readers’ confusion whether we are legally allowed to share the publisher’s version at all (i.e. a ‘version of record’ that features the type-setting, layout and design of the professionally produced publication. For CrossRef’s definition of ‘Version of Record’, see their Glossary).

Some publishers have been known to send take-down notices to some authors, but it seems that publishers either don’t have the capacity to ensure license enforcement or intentionally tolerate the practice. As in other forms of piracy, in the end the sharing of publisher’s versions when the journal’s self-archiving policy does not allow it perpetuates the culture of brand reputation and the wider dissemination helps promote the brand. When good citation practice is followed, the published version’s DOI and or URL gets clicked on and cited without having been the location that enabled access to the full version of the article in the first place. The paywall remains, and the libraries (some libraries) keep paying the subscriptions. Meanwhile, many within academic networks get the papers without ever having to log in to their libraries.

Recently, so-called ‘hybrid’ journals (essentially paywalled journals that also offer Open Access options) have confused things further by making some articles ‘free’ (but not Open Access due to non-open licensing and temporary nature of the free access allowed). The journal may be enabling free downloads of an article, but that does not necessarily mean an author or anyone else is allowed to share the PDF freely for indefinite time too. The small print must be read at all times.

If we want more colleagues and students to understand the reasons behind Open Access we need to communicate better what the effects of restrictive policies such as embargoes are. If authors are not respecting the licensing terms they have signed, and therefore fail to see the disadvantages, it is hard to demonstrate why open licensing is needed.

This will sound prescriptive and it is likely to be an unpopular opinion, but if authors decide to publish their work as a paywalled article, then they need to be aware that links to direct downloads of the publisher’s version PDF are most likely not to be allowed by the journal’s policy -otherwise what is the point of the paywall and in reserving all rights?

If authors want to share freely not pre-prints nor post-prints but the publisher’s versions of their newly published articles, they can seek funding to pay (or seek waivers for) the Article Processing Charges (APCs) for Open Access options. Even better, authors could choose to submit to non-APC, fully-fledged Open Access journals. In other words, if authors want to share their shiny, professionally-produced PDF of their article, they should ensure they  have submitted to a journal with a copyright and self-archiving policy that allows such sharing.

Perhaps one of the main myths to debunk around Open Access is that it is an anti-copyright stance. It is quite the opposite. Precisely, it is because of an acute awareness of copyright and self-archiving policies why Open Access seeks to ensure there are legal and technological frameworks to enable academics to publish under more flexible paradigms. As long as the real, pragmatic obstacles to accessing and reusing academic research are avoided by most academics, it does feel like Open Access has a long, long road ahead.

On Reading the Small Print When It’s Too Late- Access and Licensing Type in CFPs

Calvin and Hobbes: Susie signs a contrat© Bill Watterson
© Bill Watterson


  • In the social sciences, art and humanities calls for papers for collected editions remain a major form of dissemination of scholarship.
  • Scholars get very excited about the prospect of getting their work published in collected editions. Often, the conditions of publication are unknown to them until the work has been created, submitted and reviewed.
  • It is still rare for calls for papers to detail whether the final publication will be softcover or hardback,  paywalled or open access, and what type of licensing will be applied to the published work.
  •  It can no longer be assumed that certain publishing conditions are non-negotiable, always-already the default ones. It can no longer be assumed they will be the appropriate ones for all scholars either.
  • To reflect the current scholarly landscape accurately, and in the spirit of transparency and fairness, complete information about the intended format, licensing conditions and access type should be clearly and prominently included  at call for papers stage.

Academia might be the only creative industry where authors do submit work for publication without being fully aware of publisher licensing conditions and access type (we could learn a lot from Morrissey’s Autobiography! Moz seems to have never read a recording deal in advance…). Scholars get so excited about the prospect of getting their work finally published, that, traditionally, the conditions of publication (the conditions detailed in a publication contract, that will determine when, where and how the work will be published, what the author and the publisher will be able to do with the output, etc.) are unknown to them until the work has been created, submitted and reviewed, i.e. once it is rather late to do much about it. Understandably, a final contract cannot be signed until something has been accepted for publication and often it won’t be officially accepted until it’s finished. However, the case I’ll try to make here is for clearly informing authors interested in submitting to a call for papers about the intended conditions of publication (format, access type, licensing type) for the content accepted in response to said call.

This creates a situation of virtual intellectual and creative kidnapping, where the author has lost the freedom to negotiate conditions of publication.  The output (journal article, book chapter, monograph, editorial for collected editions, edited collection) has already been created, it has passed peer review, revisions have been made; lots of work by several people went into it and valuable time has spent waiting for it to get finally published. Often the accepted publication will have been already listed in appraisal forms and academic CVs before the output in question has been actually published and a contract has been signed. The author is often disempowered to have a say about what they will be able to do with their own work (for example where and how to share it, translate it, adapt it, etc.) or about who will be able to access it and how.

In the social sciences, art and humanities calls for papers for collected editions remain a major form of dissemination of scholarship. Though some journals in these fields do include clear information about licensing and access type prominently, calls for papers in general still tend not to include information about how the content, if accepted, will be licensed and how and where (in which formats, at what price, open access, paywalled) it will be published.  I invite you to take a look at the calls for papers published here. How many calls for papers detail whether the final publication will be softcover or hardback,  paywalled or open access, and what type of licensing will be applied to the published work?

The issue of publisher takedown notices (e.g. Elsevier’s) highlights how scholars are keen to share their own published work (including any features added by publishers) on their blogs or social networking sites, but do so seemingly ignoring the licensing conditions they signed or agreed to. Publisher’s policies should be clear to  authors before the submission of work, not once they have been broken. If authors wish to disseminate their work in ways publisher policies do not allow, they should be free to either negotiate them in advance or choose a different publisher.

Our disciplines however seem to have somehow relegated licensing and access type to an after thought. As open access mandates from governments, funding bodies and institutions become the rule and not the exception, it is time we start changing this practice and start including licensing and access type information at call for papers stage. Now, it is of course understandable that some editors will not know yet if there will be interest from a range of publishers they might have in consideration, and often what happens is that they wait until they have a body of work so they can make their full proposal. This workflow places academic editors at a disadvantage as well, as they will have already worked hard on compiling and editing a collection (or on ensuring contributions) way before a publisher’s offer detailing conditions has been made.

These positions assume that scholars (editors and authors/contributors) are at the service of publishers and not the other way around. For authors, particularly early career researchers hoping to develop a publications portfolio, the power lies on editors and peer reviewers, themselves dependent on publishers, who most of the times are free to impose conditions that may seem to authors and editors to be ‘the way things are’, i.e. as non-negotiable conditions. In practice, it should be perfectly possible to negotiate these conditions (many authors have done it), if one knows how and one is interested. Luckily for publishers, the conditions are rarely interrogated and even less negotiated. Editors and authors are simply happy to get their work published, and see no option but to sign any standard conditions imposed by the publisher.

Open Access is not only about bringing down the barriers to access and reuse of scholarly publications. Behind it lies the desire to re-connect scholars with the fruits of their own work and to empower them to choose how they want their work to be published (and this implies choosing the conditions for their distribution, accessibility, and reuse).

To reiterate: what has been an after thought, the small print many authors discover once it is too late, should be detailed first thing at call for submissions stage. There is no content without form, and there is no content without the conditions of access and dissemination. I know I am not alone in hoping that more and more colleagues will take into consideration not just editorial reputations and  thematic and disciplinary approaches outlined in calls for papers, but how a submission will see the light of day in the end (if it does at all!).

Scholars today know better than ever before that publishing can no longer be the end of the road but the beginning of a conversation. There is a plethora of both legacy and pioneering publishing platforms and scholarly methods of assessment and review available to scholars today. Paywalls and hardbacks are not the only venues for publication anymore. Access and licensing type are not synonyms of research quality: and no single access type has the domain over quality. Scholars should be free to decide where they submit their work for consideration, and should be able to negotiate licensing conditions whenever possible. Scholars should be free to submit their work for consideration wherever they please as long as they have been made aware of the access and licensing type well in advance before submission. Licensing and access type is a factor many authors today have in mind before submitting work, and yet this information remains largely absent from calls for submissions. If the known or tentative publisher(s) are detailed in the call for papers authors can locate their policies via SHERPA/RoMEO, but informing potential contributors of the policies should also be the publishers’ and the editors’ responsibility. If the author ends up having to do detective work to find out something as important as this then something is wrong.

Indeed, the current model of academic publication still remains strongly aligned with paywalled access models, but calls for papers that will paywall accepted submissions (or publish them in expensive hardback editions only) should not take for granted that paywalls and hardbacks are the only available model. Authors today must be informed of complete information and assess, in advance, before even considering making a submission, how and where, under which conditions, their work will be published if accepted.  This implies interrogating the current power structure: it should be authors who have the agency to decide. Declaring licensing and access type as small print well after authors have had their work accepted for publication removes authorial agency, and quietly, falsely positions traditional publishing methods as the default.

Colleagues interested in knowing more about negotiating licensing and access conditions may be interested in the following two guides:

Collins, E., Milloy, C., Stone, G., Baker, J., Eve, M. & Priego, E. (2015). Guide to open access monograph publishing for arts, humanities and social science researchers. OAPEN-UK project. Available at

Collins, H., Milloy, C., Stone, G., Baker, J., Eve, M. & Priego, E. (2013). Guide to Creative Commons for Humanities and Social Science Monograph Authors. 0OpenUK, JISC Collections. Available at


I am not a publishing lawyer nor copyright officer. Needless to say, the information in this post is not legal advice. If you need more details on your  author rights or legal advice about what action to take, please contact your  publisher, librarian, copyright officer, an adviser or solicitor.

Notes on Sci-Hub

Due to different reasons (including health reasons!) I have been quite unactive on this blog. It does not mean I have been unactive everywhere though! Actually the opposite. I’d still like to continue using this blog whenever I can to document some of the work I do. Maybe this post helps me to re-start a bit of rapid blogging activity here!

Yesterday I published the following on The Winnower:

Signal, Not Solution: Notes on Why Sci-Hub Is Not Opening Access, The Winnower 3:e145624.49417 (2016). DOI: 10.15200/winn.145624.49417 

You can also download the PDF which is handy for some. Please apologise the remaining typos etc.

The article is leading to significant discussion online. There was this response from Sci-Hub’s Alexandra Elbakyan on her blog. Read the comments (!) for the conversation that ensued.

I remain thankful to everyone reading and commenting, sharing, etc. I may not always be able to acknowledge directly, but all engagement is appreciated.




Conferencia magistral: El académico digital: acceso abierto, licencias y derechos de autor

June 2014 Update: Slides now also on figshare:

Priego, Ernesto (2014): [2013] El académico digital: acceso abierto, licencias y derechos de autor (Conferencia magistral, Biblioteca Nacional, UNAM, México, 11 de Junio de 2013). figshare.

[Slides on Slideshare].

[I have also announced this at my my Día de las Humanidades Digitales 2013 blog].

[También publiqué este anuncio en mi blog del Día de las Humanidades Digitales 2013].

[También publiqué esto en mi blog en / I also posted this at my HASTAC /blog].

I am honoured to announce I am giving a lecture at my alma mater on open access, Creative Commons licenses and copyright. It will take place at 12 PM on Tuesday 11 June 2013, at the National Library, Institute of Library Studies, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM).

Es un honor para mí anunciar que daré una conferencia magistral en mi alma mater sobre acceso abierto, licencias de Creative Commons y derechos de autor. Tendrá lugar a las doce del día martes 11 de junio de 2013, en la Biblioteca/Hemeretoca Nacional, Instituto de Investigaciones Bibliográficas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

El académico digital: acceso abierto, licencias abiertas y derechos de autor, póster, Ernesto Priego, UNAM 11 de junio de 2013

¡Espero ver a algunos de ustedes por allá!

Sharing Research Images in a Networked World

Version 1.14. Written and published quickly… editing is ongoing… comments had been accidentally disabled, now enabled. If you are re-visiting this post, please refresh/reload your browser to ensure you see the latest version.

Update: Via Twitter Amber Thomas recommends Into the wild – Technology for open educational resources (December 2012) edited by  Lorna M. Campbell, Phil Barker, Martin Hawksey and herself (open access). Thank you Amber!


I should perhaps clarify that in this post I am thinking of “research images” in the case of charts, cartoons, doodles, infographics, posters etc. created by researchers/teachers/artists etc. and which are shared online. These images allow the inclusion of contextual text in the form of non-intrusive captions. I appreciate photographs shared online, particularly when published on line immediately after being taken, pose different problems.

I’ve also been thinking that researchers could be encouraged to share any research images we create on repositories of Open Educational Resources, which could contribute to creating awareness of licensing issues.

Attribution seems to me to be a key currency in scholarship (since direct financial reward for the creation/publishing of open content is rare). Therefore embedded licenses and self-archiving in repositories that offer a clear open licensing framework could be positive developments in the fostering of an academic culture that a) encourages sharing, b) recognises the work involved in sharing open resources, and c) attributes online sources.

Recently I’ve been thinking a lot about attribution in the scholarly context of our days. Having done research for Altmetric, for example, made me very sensitive to the differences in the way different disciplines and cultures behave online in relation to sharing, commenting and attributing research online.

When I conceived The Comics Grid I was primarly concerned with establishing innovative mechanisms for addressing the need for online comics scholarship where original and annotated comics pages where shown without being deterred by copyright. Part of the project included helping develop critical awareness of how we cite different sources, including ‘non-traditional’ sources like comic books, cartoons, blog posts, online videos…

As I mentioned in my Forms of Innovation workshop session last Saturday in Durham, the World Wide Web is not the Wild Wild West, even if sometimes it definitely feels like that, a kind of no-man’s land where everyone takes whatever they want, even, perhaps surprisingly, in scholarly circles. I believe that Creative Commons licenses are an ideal way to develop a culture of ethical sharing and attribution.

Licenses by themselves cannot stop people from using content created by others in ways the licenses themselves preclude, but can be used in a court of law if there is evidence of misuse. This means that Open Licenses cannot by themselves make people act ethically: even when there is due licensing, where attribution and granted or reserved rights are clearly stipulated, people can always potentially act wrongly. Same happens with the law. So using and promoting Creative Commons Licenses is only the beginning of helping create a different culture where the World Wide Web is no longer the Wild Wild West, but we need this culture to become gradually pervasive to be really effective.

In the UK, a new Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act known as “The Instagram Act” has just been passed. Images found online that do not contain clear attribution can be considered ‘orphan works’ and therefore fall in the Public Domain (so anything goes with that content). Read about it here.

Earlier today, Amber Thomas from the University of Warwick tweeted a concern about infographics: “my problem with infographic practice is lack of provenance. hard to cite, lacking in publication date, rarely a clear copyright statement.” (Tweet, 1 May 2013; 11:29am GMT ).

A.J. Cann replied that “publishing on  would fix all that” (Tweet, 1 May 2013: 11:34am GMT). He is right (I also talked about Figshare as a means to ensure content is properly attributed, cited and licensed  in my presentation at Durham), but later I thought that perhaps that was not enough: files made to be shared online should include the attribution, citation and licensing information in the file itself.

Indeed, figshare helps providing a digital object identifier, citation and licensing information, but once the file is downloaded this can be shared further, separated from this context. Once downloaded the file can be endlessly shared, and if clear attribution and licensing is not included in the file, how many will actually trace back the file to the site it was originally made available from, where the attribution and licensing information appears? Thus the need for this information to be included in the file itself, not only on the figshare location from which people are downloading it from.

In the case of images this does not have to be a horrible watermark that compromises the artistic integrity of the image and renders it practically useless, and I’m not talking about some kind of digital rights management thing or restrictive permissions. Simply a clear legend explaining who is the author and in what terms the file is being shared, as a caption at the bottom of the image, in small but legible print. This information can/should be ideally included in the file’s properties too as metadata.

Take this fantastic image for example. I came across it through a retweet by Melonie Fullick.  I loved the image, and I retweeted Melonie’s tweet. I thought this is awsome! Who did it? Can we do t-shirts? Go on, click on the link again, it’s at

We notice from the URL the image file is hosted at which happens to be a site made with Tumblr. On that URL, the image file is orphaned from any context outside ‘Tumblr’ the name of the blog ‘annfriedman’ and the URL itself. I suspect many users will get there, see the image there and stop there: they won’t necessarily go and make an effort to find who did it or under what kind of license it has been shared online.

Because the image file has its own URL at Tumblr, I argue it is possible not to realise that the image is actually part of a blog post (and linked to it), with permalink On that blog post, Ann Friedman explains she “created The Disapproval Matrix**. (With a deep bow to its inspiration.)” (So please note that strictly speaking, as the author recognises, the image in question could be considered a “derivative” of another concept or series of images).

Granted, the image file URL, on its own, shows us the name of a person and the name of the Tumblr log (“annfriedman”) but what is crucial here is that the image file itself does not contain a caption indicating any authorship, attribution or licensing information, nor descriptive metadata, in human readable form, of what it is. One has to do “dilligent search” to find the actual blog post with the contextual information, and even then there is no indication whatsoever about how we as readers/visitors/users are allowed to use the image file in question (which has everything to go viral if you ask me).  If one scrolls down though, one finds the legend “Copyright 2012 Ann Friedman” at the bottom right corner of the Web site’s footer, but not in the post itself, and as I’ve said, not in the image file itself.

Copying “The Disapproval Matrix” is as easy as dragging and dropping. Folk are already sharing the link to the image file, not the link to the blog post that contains the image file and which explains Ann Friedman created it basing herself in the “Approval Matrix” series from New York Magazine.

Now, this post is not about this particular image or its author. It is not a personal critique. I have also shared lots of images online which do not contain attribution and licensing information on the files themselves. I am making use of an example to make a point, about how images are easily reproduced online and about what authors can do about it, regardless if they care or not if they are attributed for their work.

This is what the Web does: it makes decontextualising extremely easy, and it demands an effort from users to locate source, authorship, ownership and/or licensing. As authors of content, we cannot assume that people surfing the Web will all do “dilligent research” to find to whom does an image or any other file (say, an academic paper in PDF or PowerPoint presentation) belong to and how they can use it. The image file and the blog post providing context are very easily separable; the name in a Web resource’s title or URL are no clear indication of authorship, and we cannot just assume that people will make the effort to do “dilligent research.”

The context we live in online is one of attention deficit and speed. Social media platforms allow, encourage and maximise decontextualisation and recontextualisation. Tumblr, Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest: a file that does not indicate source and other information required for citation in itself (as a caption in the case of an image file, which is not in HTML of the resource hosting the file but as part of the image itself and in the file’s metadata) will always run the danger of becoming orphaned.

Needless to say, images can be edited using very basic software, and PDFs can be annotated, slides containing attribution and license deleted, etc. People wanting to steal content will do so no matter what. But we have to stop acting alarmed if our content ends up being shared and reused endlessly without our name if we don’t take some basic measures to ensure everyone and anyone will know easily and directly and very much obviously who created what, and in which ways others are allowed to use it.

Forms of Innovation Deck of Slides

I have done an edit of the deck of slides I showed at the Forms of Innovation workshop at the University of Durham last Saturday 27th April 2013 to share online.

You can download it as a .pptx file, and use it under a CC BY license, from Figshare.

Forms of Innovation: Collaboration, Attribution, Access. Ernesto Priego. figshare.

Retrieved 10:57, Apr 29, 2013 (GMT)

At the University of Durham: Humanities, Copyright and New Technologies (Workshop)

 Forms of Innovation, University of Durham I am looking forward to participating in Forms of Innovation: Humanities, Copyright and New Technologies, a workshop at the University of Durham this Saturday 27 April 2013.

I am honoured to be co-leading this workshop along my much-admired colleagues Dr Martin Eve and Dr Caroline Edwards (Lincoln University/Open Library of Humanities) and Professor Ronan Deazley (University of Glasgow Law School/AHRC CREATe).

The title of my seminar is “Humanities research, new media and issues of authorship and attribution”, and I hope to facilitate a discussion around how ‘new’ technologies and the corresponding cultures they are embedded in and interact with are challenging previous assumptions about authority, originality and derivation, attribution and citation.

I am most grateful to my colleague Kaja Marczewska (University of Durham) for organising this event and for the kind invitation. Hopefully I’ll see some of you there?