TITLE: Copyright F.A.Q.
> What about the copyright issues associated with CogPrints? e.g. If I
> want to publish a paper in a "normal" journal: do I have to ask the
> journal's editor for permission to submit the paper (non-refereed and
> refereed) to CogPrints?

CogPrints is an author's archive; as such, it has the same relation to an author's work as the author's home institution does, when that work is archived on the home server (as all CogPrints authors are strongly advised to do, in addition to archiving it in CogPrints).

It is accordingly the author who must adopt a policy about copyright. We can only offer some generic advice:

  1. A distinction should be made between the unrefereed preprint and the refereed, edited, published reprint. No copyright agreement has any bearing on the unrefereed preprint, which can be publicly archived online before the refereeing even takes place.

    Hence the rest of the points below pertain only to the refereed, edited, published reprint. Preprints can be archived without reference to any copyright agreement or publisher.

    (Note, however, that a minority of journals have indicated that they will not referee papers that have been publicly archived online. It is not clear whether any attempt has been made to enforce such a policy -- or indeed whether it would be possible to enforce it at all -- as so many authors are archiving their papers publicly on their home servers. See http://www.chronicle.com/colloquy/98/copyright/11.htm)

  2. If you have not signed a copyright transfer statement that cedes your right to publicly archive your own paper online for free, it is not clear that there is any problem, but if you wish to confirm this, you should inform your publisher that you wish to do so, and request confirmation that there is no legal obstacle. Some journals (such as all those published by the American Physical Society) explicitly permit public online archiving of the final published draft by the author; others attempt to specifically forbid it in their copyright agreements.

    Note that any copyright agreement pertains only to the final, refereed, edited draft that appeared or will appear in print. It does not and cannot cover pre-refereeing preprints or indeed any penultimate draft that preceded the final one. (The nature and size of the requisite difference between the two is to all intents and purposes arbitrary.)

  3. If you have signed a copyright transfer agreement ceding your right to publicly archive your own paper online for free, you should contact your publisher indicating that you wish to do so; matters are evolving rapidly in this area and publishers may well be coming around to more justifiable and enforceable policies.

  4. You should not sign any more such agreements. They are completely unjustified, and energetic steps are being taken to put an end to them as soon as possible. See the current copyright discussions and proposals in Science, Nature, American Scientist, and Chronicle of Higher Education, respectively:

a more detailed discussion about the copyright issues involved follows.

> Can I ask a journal to change their copyright policy?

Stefano Ghirlanda of Stockholms Universitet offers the following advice.

If you would like to ask a journal to modify their copyright policy so that you and possibly others can post your articles on the web, you might find the following suggestions helpful.

Take the initiative

Some journals will accept a copyright agreement different from their standard one if asked to, but will not offer a liberal agreement from the beginning. We know of several journals that will leave non-commerical distribution of a paper unrestricted if the author asks for it.

Thus, when you get the copyright-transfer form from a journal, just send back a different, already signed one with a science-friendly policy. You can model your requests after the American Physical Society's (APS) policy, which can be found at:


A possible sample text is:

    I hereby transfer to [publisher or journal] all rights to sell or
    lease the text (paper and online) of [paper-title]. I retain only
    the right to distribute it for free for scholarly/scientific or
    educational purposes, in particular, the right to self-archive it
    publicly online on the Web.

More precise wording (legally speaking) can be found in the APS policy above. It should be clear that only non-commerical distribution will be unrestricted, and that the publisher would retain all commerical rights.

In case of a "no"

If your agreement is declined by the journal, it may prove effective to express concern that a too restrictive copyright policy may hinder the free circulation of scientific ideas. Say also that people's willingness to submit to this or that journal may in the future be influenced by their copyright policies.

Some journals are owned by scientific associations, but the copyright is often managed by a commercial publisher. Try to go through the association first, especially if you are or have been a member.


You can consider your time well spent even when the publisher fails to accept your conditions. It is important that the journals know what an author considers an important precondition for submission.

Stefano Ghirlanda Stockholms Universitet stefano@zool.su.se
Campaign for the Freedom of Distribution of Scientific Work:

Bachrach S. et al. (1998) Intellectual Property: Who Should Own Scientific Papers? Science 281 (5382): 1459-1460. September 4 1998. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/281/5382/1459 http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/science.html

> Any further advice?

First I will tell you the correct answers, and then I will describe the potential complications, and how they are likely to be sorted out.

> Will inclusion of a paper in CogPrints count as "publication"
> and hence render the paper no longer publishable in paper journals? 

You must specify for/to WHOM it will "count"!

CogPrints is certainly not a journal, and I am certainly not a publisher. All authors retain the copyright for their papers and will (I hope), in parallel, go on to submit any unrefereed preprint that they Archive in CogPrints to a refereed journal, as usual.

Appearing in CogPrints is merely like appearing in a University Department's Tech Report Series (more and more of which are now electronically available too). For Preprints, CogPrints is just a global, collective Tech Report Archive for the Cognitive Sciences (eventually to be integrated with the Archives of other disciplines, such as Physics).

After the paper is refereed, revised and accepted by the (paper) journal, the question arises about what to do with the PREprint then: (1) Leave it in the archive, (2) withdraw it, or (3) replace it with the final refereed, accepted REprint?

I assume that authors would overwhelmingly prefer (3), while paper journal publishers may well prefer it otherwise. Indeed, they may prefer it otherwise even for the preprint, not just for the published reprint... I will return to this.

The natural thing to do, and certainly the optimal thing for authors (if they overcome the restrictions of their paper publishers) when their article is accepted in this electronic age is to make the validated, peer-reviewed version as widely available as possible to everyone for free.

In the paper days we mailed reprints (for free); in the electronic age the natural thing to do is post Eprints. And there is no longer any need to go through the tedious reprint-requesting and reprint-sending phases; the reprint can simply be made universally available on the Net, both at the Author's Home Institution (as a Departmental Electronic Reprint Series) and in a centralised Archive such as CogPrints (I am advocating both).

> ...who retains copyright of the material? does inclusion in CogPrints
> imply implicit relinquishing of copyright by the author?

The author retains the copyright. Nothing is relinquished, and authors will be expected to submit their papers to refereed journals in the usual way.

Where copyright issues WILL come up is on the question of whether authors should continue assigning full copyright to the publishers of the refereed journals, thereby in effect authorising the publisher to restrict access to their papers only to those who pay to see them.

This is a HUGE conflict of interest, and it will be in this arena that the critical events will occur, not in the question of assigning copyright to electronic Archives: Unlike publishers, CogPrints has no financial interest in blocking access to the papers it archives, whether refereed or not. Indeed, CogPrints has no financial interests at all! The Archives are relatively cheap to maintain, and as their enormous potential contribution to learned inquiry is demonstrated, they will continue to be subsidised, as they are now (by NSF in the US and JISC in the UK).

I will come back to this when I discuss the APA's (American Psychological Association's) provisional policy on these issues.

> What kinds of papers would be included? whose papers would be
> included?

CogPrints is not, and is not intended to be, a refereed journal. Archiving of unrefereed preprints will be entirely under the author's control (although we will do some filtering to flush out the crazies). So anyone can archive anything, in principle.

But the reason I am launching it this way -- first approaching the most important researchers in the cognitive sciences directly, and archiving their papers "by hand" for them -- is to make sure that the Archive is launched in the right direction. If I opened it to everyone immediately, it would quickly become the kind of Global Graffiti Board that most of the Net (especially Usenet) still is.

Once the quality of the initial archive has been assured by a critical mass of invited contributions that can serve as a model for its continuation, I will open it up for public Archiving.

But don't be too worried about what happens when CogPrints goes public: We have the precedent already of the Physics Archive, which has now been public for 6 years and is already the locus classicus for more than half the research in physics worldwide, and still growing rapidly. There are as many crazies in Physics as in any other discipline, but they have a negligible effect on the Archive.

Researchers searching the Cognitive Science Literature will continue to seek the work of the authors they know and trust; moreover, there will eventually (sooner, I hope, rather than later) be TWO categories of papers in CogPrints: unrefereed preprints and, first, author-authenticated reprints of refereed, accepted papers (in the first phase it will be the author who "marks" them as such), and not long after, I hope, there will be journal-authenticated reprints, once paper publishers realise that cooperation is needed, rather than out-dated and counterproductive access constraints, when the authors' interests are at stake.

Now, I promised to return to those questions that concern what existing journal publishers will do:

Before I start, let me say that again the Physics Archive is the herald of what will happen in all disciplines sooner or later. I strongly believe that the outcome that is both inevitable and optimal for authors is that refereed scientific journals will abandon the trade model on which they are produced now. The trade model was unavoidable in the paper era, no matter how badly it served research and researchers: There was no choice but to treat refereed research reports in the same way trade books and trade magazine articles were treated: The publisher charged readers for access to the "product," because that was the only way to recover the substantial cost of publishing in paper.

But whereas in trade publishing there is no conflict of interest between author and publisher -- both wish to receive payment for access to their product -- in refereed learned journals the author never sought (or received!) payment for his "product" (the report of his research). He merely went along, reluctantly, with the only viable economic model there was (namely, the trade model) if he wished to be published at all.

But what is happening in Physics: The American Physical Society, the most prestigious publisher of refereed journals in physics, is working out with the Physics Archives a cooperative arrangement in which articles in the Archive that have been accepted for publication by an APS journal will be separately "authenticated" by the APS as an overlay on the archive. What this means, effectively, is that there will be the same partitioning of the electronic literature as of the paper literature, into unauthenticated preprints and peer-reviewed, authenticated reprints.

The devil is in the details, of course, because although the APS (like the APA, and the other APS -- the American Psychological Society) are learned society publishers rather than trade publishers, they must take steps to assure that they are not ruined!

What I believe these steps will be (and now I am trying to foretell what the actual path to the inevitable and the optimal will be, so my steps are a bit shaky) are the following:

The much-reduced cost of publishing ONLY in electronic form (and I guesstimate that this will be at most 30% of the cost of publishing in paper, but probably even less than that) will no longer be recovered from the subscriber (which means the sorely taxed budgets of University serials collections) but from the author's research grant: WE will pay for the cost of implementing peer review and editing, which will proceed exactly as it always has, for, as you know, the authors, the readers, and the referees are, and always have been: US.

That's what I (and an increasing number of others) think will be the inevitable and optimal solution. But what do publishers think, now? I append here, with comments, the APA's provisional policy on this. Let me note that they are not alone. The New England Journal of Medicine formulated a similar policy a few years ago.

Let me add, though, that the APA, too, is us. It is up to us whether we comply with this provisional policy for the time being, for it is certainly a policy that is against our interests -- and one that could not be implemented if we chose not to comply.

I am not advocating a course of conflict with the APA. I am an advocate of quiet, sustained subversion rather than aggressive confrontation (for which there is no need, as the APS story is demonstrating). I think, therefore, that the best course of action is simply to ignore the following three "rules" that the APA has provisionally formulated (supposedly on our behalf, as we are they -- the editors, referees and authors -- and they are us):

> From:
> http://www.apa.org/journals/posting.html
> American Psychological Association:
> Posting Information on the Internet
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> So you want to put your article on the Internet on your own home page or
> that of your university. What's the problem? There can be a few, especially
> if you want to later publish the article or if it has already been
> published.
> At their Spring 1996 meetings, the APA journal editors and the Publications
> and Communications (P&C) Board took a long look at the implications of the
> Internet for publishing.
> * Notices in such journals as Neuroscience and the New England Journal of
> Medicine alert authors that papers posted on the Internet are
> considered already "published" and will not be considered for print
> publication.

Now WHO is considering them as published, and will not consider them for print publication? Is it the readers of the APA journals? the authors? the referees? the editors?

No, for all four communities I have named are still perfectly capable of distinguishing unrefereed preprints from refereed articles, whether the distinction occurs in the paper or the electronic medium. The distinction is medium-independent and we all know exactly what it is.

Now in certain special cases, medical journals may have a real justification for warning their authors not to circulate unrefereed preprints, whether in paper or electronic form: Publicising results that have not yet undergone peer review could be dangerous to public health.

But that concern is likewise medium-independent. Journals are free to set policies that are really intended to protect public health. But how much of the scientific -- or even the biomedical -- literature falls into that category? Cold fusion, for example, which was an instance of results that should not have passed peer review (although they did) was set aright much more quickly and effectively through the open unrefereed discussion and scrutiny it underwent on the Net!

Never mind: Let us concede that there are special areas in which it is justified to refuse publication if authors have self-publicised unrefereed findings that put public health at risk.

But what is at issue here is that vast preponderance of the research literature that does NOT fall in that category (and this includes the vast majority of the papers that appear in APA journals).

For that literature, the APA edict against archiving unrefereed preprints on the Net is unjustifiable and completely at odds with the psychological research community's interests: Would such a rule have been accepted if it forbade us to circulate our paper preprints [the ones we send around "for comments only, not for quotation or citation"], as we have been doing all along?

If the policy would have been seen as clearly unjustified (and unenforceable) in the paper medium, then exactly the same is true on the Net.

> * Papers posted on the Internet may be considered in the "public domain"
> and downloaded, incorporated into someone else's work and copyrighted
> by them (i.e., authors can "lose" their own copyrights and their own
> right to print publication).

I will not dwell on this statement. It is completely false, and by now I expect that there are many people in the APA who are embarrassed by it.

Statements like this have been made by the big commercial publishers like Elsevier, in an effort to intimidate their authors about posting their preprints on the Net. APA should be ashamed for doing likewise.

What underlies the effectiveness of this completely false statement is a confusion (in the minds of AUTHORS) between copyright as protection from:

(C1) theft of TEXT, which, for the research community, is simply a victimless crime! every reprint-requester I send my paper to is not only "stealing" my text -- by not paying for it -- but I am actually paying [the offprint and postage costs] to aid and abet him in his crime! In short, this kind of theft is NOT what the nontrade author wants copyright protection from;

versus copyright as protection from:

(C2) theft of AUTHORSHIP, in which someone else publishes my work as his own. This IS something that authors very much want to be protected from (perhaps worrying more about it than is really necessary, but let's skip over that), but this is not at all what is at issue in archiving one's preprints on the Net!

The scare-tactic is to imply that posting on the Net is a threat to C2 (which authors certainly do not want) but in reality it is to prevent C1, which authors DO want!

Nontrade authors must start to think more clearly about copyright.

> * Posting a published paper on the Internet may violate the copyright
> transfer agreement related to the print publication.

It may indeed. And hence authors are well-advised not to sign such copyright transfer agreements. If there is a specific clause in a copyright agreement that implies that I cannot archive my paper on the Net, I strike that clause. If there is no such clause, I archive my articles on the Net just as I used to distribute reprints of my article.

But this is why I said that the copyright issue is not concerned with our archiving of our preprints on the Net -- we definitely retain copyright there -- but with assigning copyright to our publisher! Many people are now working out limited copyright arrangements with their publishers.

> Many of the legal issues surrounding the Internet, online services, service
> providers, and copyright and privacy in the electronic world are murky,
> confused, in the courts or soon to be there, and, of course, rapidly
> changing.

They are certainly murky and confused; and some parties are benefiting from keeping them that way: The nontrade author, who seeks and gets no royalties for his articles, has nothing to protect in court! He is not selling his texts, so he does not worry about, but rather applauds, their "theft"!

Copyright protection of AUTHORSHIP is, if anything, more enforceable on the Net than in paper. For although, to be sure, it is easier for me to pick up your text from the Net and pass it off as my own than it is to do it in paper, duplication of text is also much easier to DETECT in digital texts. So there's a trade-off: If I want to steal your paper text and publish it as my own, I have to scan it in with OCR, which is more labour-intensive than stealing bytes that have already been digitised, but it is probably also safer for me, because then I can publish it as my own in some other journal, and it is unlikely to be detected. Whereas on the Net, where gremlins are already scouring the entire world of digital texts as search engines 24 hours a day, my crime is much more likely to be found out.

Besides, this is nonsense anyway: Priority can be established much more rigorously and universally on the Net than in any other medium -- using encryption and date-coding.

So the legal issues referred to above concern only the TRADE literature, where it is the TEXT that one wants to protect from theft; for us, nontrade authors (or at least when we are wearing our nontrade hats, for of course sometimes we do trade publishing too!) it is only the AUTHORSHIP that we wish to protect from theft, and that is not at issue in any of this.

> The APA P&C Board has, therefore, adopted an "interim" policy:
> Authors are instructed not to put their manuscripts on the
> Internet at any stage (draft, submitted for publication, in press,
> or published). Authors should be aware that they run a risk of
> having (a) their papers stolen, altered, or distributed without
> their permission and, very importantly, (b) an editor regard such
> papers as previously "published" and not eligible as a
> submission a position taken by most APA journal editors.

This slightly garbled text is reproduced here verbatim. It calls to mind the sort of mumbling and stammering and coughing with which this sentence must have been uttered, because of course the editors, being us, have NOT taken this position, and certainly not on their own initiative. They have been drawn into it by the kinds of self-interested smoke-screen I have been trying here to dispel.

But I repeat that I prefer subversion to confrontation and conflict. I am sufficiently adept in this medium to be able to alert the vast preponderance of research psychologists, including, of course, those that are serving their terms as editors and associate editors (and referees, and authors and readers) of the APA journals. I could tell them all exactly what I have told you, and it would certainly make the scales fall from the eyes of many of them -- for very few of us have really given all this much thought: We are so accustomed to seeing the refereed journals as the disinterested arbiters of the quality of our research (as they certainly are) that we forget that there is also a trade side to learned journal publishing that has only an accidental relation to the invaluable service the journals perform for us.

So if an author who knows that his job, his salary, his tenure, his likelihood of receiving research funds, prizes etc. all depend on the refereed journals, he will be easily persuaded that the "journals" are being as wise and disinterested when they formulate "interim policies" like the above one for us as they are in weighing the quality of our research.

But the source of this interim policy is not, and could not be, US (contrary to the case of peer review itself, where it IS us). WE are not saying that we regard preprints archived on the Web as publications, ineligible for refereeing; WE are not the ones who say that upon acceptance for PUBLICation, we must not make our findings public in the most powerful and ubiquitous medium that our species has ever created!

So you see that if I chose the polemical path, I would not be at a loss for words that would gird the research community into action.

But I prefer to take the peaceful path that Physics has taken: to just go ahead and DO it, and then let nature take its course.

Moreover, I hope that although what I've called "the inevitable and the optimal" solution for the learned research community will necessarily entail some downsizing by the big learned serials publishers -- especially the commercial ones -- I am still not among the most radical reformers in this area, who advocate that the peers should simply bolt from the existing journals and and re-establish their editorial boards, referees, and authors with new electronic-only publishers who are not already committed to the trade model that is at the heart of the profound conflict of interest that separates us from learned serials publishers at this critical juncture in the history of learned inquiry.

> In addition, after acceptance for publication, the publisher is the > copyright holder. APA does not permit authors to post the full > text of their APA-published papers on the Internet at this time, > as developments in the online world cannot be predicted. The APA > will, however, closely follow such Internet developments. The P&C > Board will establish a task force in June 1997 to investigate > developments and recommend a longer term APA policy.

No doubt. But while there will no doubt be many developments for the task force to worry about, there is no reason for us to accept this arbitrary and unjustifiable stricture while the task force sorts things out! On the contrary, we should move vigorously toward the optimal and the inevitable, rather than allowing it to be needlessly delayed by those whose interests are so clearly in conflict with our own.

I recommend this because I really believe that it is our proceeding quietly but firmly along the path of subversion that will eventually bring publishers to their senses, and persuade them to restructure themselves in such a way as to continue to provide a service that is CONSONANT with our interests, rather than contrary to them. For if an explicit confrontation is forced, I am afraid the traditional publishers are bound to be the losers.

I hope this reply -- rather longer than I had expected it to be -- answers the questions you raised. I would be especially interested to hear YOUR reaction in light of this information? Do you now feel comfortable archiving your preprints on the Net, or not?

Best wishes,


Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 15:41:40 +0000 (GMT)
From: Jay McClelland <jlm@CNBC.CMU.EDU>

> Thanks for the lengthy treatise on these maters. However, I still do
> not feel that you have addressed the following question: Do you really
> think that editors of virtual journals are likely to be able to
> maintain the high standards of quality and moderate standards of
> succinctness that characterizes our journals, when there are no
> cost-enforced controls on the number and length articles in each
> journal?


Actually, I think it will be the opposite: The very best journals will accept only the very best of articles, because not only will their page quota be unlimited in the positive direction (they will be able to accept as many articles as they like), but it will not be unconstrained in the negative direction either: paper journals need to fill their full annual page quotas or they lose those pages, which are budgeted and paid for. So on the Net they will be able to afford to accept more or less on the basis of quality alone, with no consideration of space.

Do you really think it is space constraints that decide which articles go into JEP rather than QJEP? It's peer review; the referees do the evaluation and the editors set the threshold.

The reason the quality/prestige hierarchy among journals with different levels of refereeing rigor exists is not because the best journals have page quotas: it is because they have higher refereeing thresholds. There is no reason that Nature or Science (with their impact factors of 27.1 and 21.9) should lower their standards in the electronic medium; by the same token, why would we expect BBS (15.7) Psych Review (5.1) JEP:G (3.5), or QJEP (1.4) to lower theirs? In what sense is devaluing their quality-currency advantageous for learned journals, whose gold standard is quality, not quantity? Freed from page constraints and costs, what incentive is there to accept more than the best? Indeed, the Net will provide much more sensitive and informative ways of measuring the impact of authors and journals, which will always be there as feedback for journals should they inadvertently drop their guard.

In short, I think that, medium-independently, it is the level of rigor of peer review rather than space pressures that safeguard the quality of learned journals.

But for CogPrints, these questions are not even at issue, because CogPrints is not to be a journal but a preprint and reprint archive...

Best wishes,


Below is the American Physical Society's Copyright form. As you will see, it does not rule out public archiving of the unrefereed preprint or the refereed reprint.

Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:52:47 -0700 (MST)
From: Paul Ginsparg  505-667-7353 <ginsparg@qfwfq.lanl.gov>
Subject: aps copyright

                         THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY

Under U.S. copyright law, the transfer of copyright from the author(s)
should be explicitly stated to enable the publisher to disseminate the work 
to the fullest extent.  The following transfer agreement must be signed and 
returned to the APS Editorial Office, 1 Research Road, Box 9000, Ridge, NY 
11961-9000 before the manuscript can be published.  Send requests for further 
information to the Administrative Editor at the above address.


Copyright to the unpublished and original article and subsequent, if necessary,
errata, including copyright to the abstract forming part thereof, entitled


submitted by the following author(s) (names of all authors)___________________


is hereby transferred to The American Physical Society (APS) for the full
term thereof throughout the world, subject to the following rights that 
the author(s) may freely exercise and to acceptance of the article for 
publication in a journal of APS.  APS shall have the right to register 
copyright to the article and the accompanying abstract in its name as 
claimant, whether separately or as part of the journal issue or other medium 
in which such work is included.

The author(s) shall have the following rights:
(1) All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
(2) The right, after publication by APS, to refuse permission to third parties 
    to republish an article or a translation thereof.  Those seeking reprint 
    permission must seek the author(s)' permission directly, in addition to 
    obtaining APS' permission.  However, it is not necessary to obtain 
    permission from APS [only from the author(s)] to quote excerpts from an 
    article or to reprint figures or tables therefrom, as long as no more than 
    25 figures and/or tables from the totality of APS journals are to be 
    reprinted in a single publication.
(3) The right, after publication by APS, to use all or part of the article and 
    abstract, without revision or modification, in personal compilations or 
    other publications of the author's own works, including the author's 
    personal web home page, and to make copies of all or part of such materials
    for the author's use for lecture or classroom purposes, provided that the 
    first page of such use or copy prominently displays the bibliographic data 
    and the following copyright notice: ``Copyright 19XX by The American 
    Physical Society.''
(4) The right to post and update the article on e-print servers as long as 
    files prepared and/or formatted by APS or its vendors are not used for that
    purpose, and as long as access to the server does not depend on payment of 
    access, subscription, or membership fees.  Any such posting made or updated
    after acceptance of the article for publication shall include a copyright 
    notice as in (3).
(5) If the article has been prepared by an employee within the scope of his or 
    her employment, the employer shall have the right to make copies of the 
    work for his own internal use.  If the article was prepared under a U.S.  
    Government contract, the government shall have the rights under the 
    copyright to the extent required by the contract.

The author(s) agree that all copies of the whole article or abstract made
under any of the above rights shall include notice of the APS copyright. 

By signing this agreement, the author(s) warrant that this manuscript has not 
been published elsewhere, and is not being considered for publication 
elsewhere.  If each author's signature does not appear below, the signing
author(s) represent that they sign this agreement as authorized agents for 
and on behalf of all the authors, and that this agreement and authorization 
is made on behalf of all the authors.

Author's Signature                                            Date

Name (print)                          

If the manuscript has been prepared as a Work Made For Hire, the transfer
should be signed by both the employee (above) and the employer (below):

                             Name of Employer (print)

Employer's Signature     Name (print)           Title          Date

A work prepared by a U.S. Government officer or employee* as part of his or 
her official duties is not eligible for U.S. copyright.  If at least one of 
the authors is not in this category, that author should sign above.  If all 
the authors are in this category, one of the authors should sign below, and 
indicate his or her affiliation.

Author's Signature            Institution (e.g., NRL, NIST)    Date

*  Employees of national laboratories, e.g., BNL, are not U.S. Government