03 Copy Editing Proofreading & Copyright

Copy Editing, Proofreading & Copyright

Prof. Norman MacLeod School of Earth Sciences & Engineering, Nanjing University Copy Editing, Proofreading & Copyright The Publishing Process Like all complex human activities Manuscript Acceptance the process of taking an accepted Prepress manuscript and turning it into a Copy Editing Typesetting finished, printed publication is Proof-reading broken down into stages with dif- Revision ferent activities performed, usually Proof Approval by different people, at each stage. Indexing Final Proof Authors are involved directly in Press only some of these stages, but Printing their work is effected by them all. Delivery Direct Author Involvement Copy-editing Proof-reading Proof approval The Publishing Process Copy Editing Reviewers are supposed to focus Copy Editor Tasks on the content of a manuscript and Style conformity Clarity acceptance of a work by the Editor Standard English refers primarily to the content. In the Grammar & usage past, accepted manuscripts were Spelling given to a copy editor who checked Punctuation Capitalization and corrected the manuscript for Cross referencing non-content-related issues prior to Typographic errors the text being type-set into a proof. Fact checking Unfortunately, this part of the pub- Copyright infringement Reference checking lication process as been scaled back drastically in many journals which now rely on authors to do much (most?) of their own copy editing when the revised manuscript is returned for Editor acceptance. The Publishing Process Copy Editing Marks When copy editing was done by hand and on paper, copy-editors dev- eloped a set of marks that could be made quick- ly and easily on the text to signify various adjust- ments and corrections. These marks are still em- ployed today by many people who hand-correct manuscripts (e.g., supervisors correcting student papers), but in the publishing business they have been superseded largely by software tools used to edit, correct and comment on electronic manuscripts. The Publishing Process Electronic Copy Editing The Publishing Process Electronic Copy Editing The Publishing Process Electronic Copy Editing The Publishing Process Electronic Copy Editing The Publishing Process Copy Editing If you are contacted by a copy editor Count yourself lucky. Work with them, they are trying to help you. Focus on preserving the content, let them guide you in matters of style. Learn from them. If you are not contacted by a copy editor Resolve to do the copy-editors job yourself. Go through the manuscript separately for each task. Conform to the house style instructions where those are given, in all other matters strive for consistency. In future, try to fold copy editing into your writing as much as you can. The Publishing Process Copy Editing Guides The Publishing Process Copy Editing Software

AutoCrit (https://www.autocrit.com)

Consistency Checker (https://intelligentediting.com)*

Grammarly (https://www.grammarly.com)

Hemingway (http://hemingwayapp.com)*

CreativeWriter (https://masterwriter.com/creative_writers/)

* Free app or online system. The Publishing Process Copy Editing Software

ProWritingAid (https://prowritingaid.com)

SmartEdit (https://www.smart-edit.com)

After the Deadline (http://www.afterthedeadline.com)*

* Free app or online system. Copy Editing, Proofreading & Copyright Proofs & Proofreading Proofs & Proofreading What is a Galley Proof?

Published by Associazione Teriologica Italiana Online ﬁrst – 2013 Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy A galley proof is a preliminary, unbound

Available online at: http://www.italian-journal-of-mammalogy.it/article/view/6299/pdf doi:10.4404/hystrix-24.1-6299 version of a publication (journal article,

Research Article Geometric Morphometric Approaches to Acoustic Signal Analysis in Mammalian Biology book section or book) meant to indicate Norman M!"L#$%a,∗, Jonathan K&'#(#&b, Kate E. J$)#*c

aPalaeontology Department, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, UK bHerbarium, Library, Art & Archives Directorate, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3AB, UK cInstitute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regents Park, London NW1 4RY, UK the final format of the typeset work. This is

Keywords: Abstract morphometrics meant to be reviewed by the author, editor bats In the quarter century since the development of geometric morphometrics the community of prac- echolocation titioners has largely been occupied with training issues and anatomy-based applications research in systematics the biological sciences. However, just as the scope of geometry transcends comparative anatomy, acoustics the potential scope of morphometric analysis transcends investigations of the form and shape of or- geometry ganismal bodies. An important area of opportunity for morphometricians lies in the application of shape analysis geometric methods to non-traditional form/shape analysis problems. To illustrate the potential of and publisher’s proofreaders (if any) for morphometric data analysis approaches to contribute to investigations outside its traditional base Article history: in (physical) morphology we report here results of an investigation into the morphometrics of bat Received: 27 May 2012 echolocation calls. By treating Hanning windowed spectrograms of bat search echolocation calls Accepted: 9 July 2012 as complex 3D surfaces, and by using a variant of eigensurface analysis to sample and compare these surfaces, it is possible to identify bat species to very high levels of accuracy (> 90% for raw errors and then returned to the publisher cross-validated training set identifications, > 80% for jackknifed training set identifications), even Acknowledgements The order of authorship reflects the relative contribution of individuals for species (e.g., Myotis) whose spectrograms have resisted separation into species-specific clusters to the writing of this article. We would like to thank the following using traditional spectrogram descriptors. Moreover, the shape modeling capabilities of geometric have provided support and/or encouragement for the bat echolocation morphometrics render the complex mathematical subspaces within which these spectrogram shape research reported herein: Charlotte Walters, Lucinda Kirkpatrick, Stuart Parsons, and Alanna Collen. This investigation depended critically on data reside – along with the discriminant functions used to separate training-set clusters – inter- the EchoBank bat echolocation call archive. All contributors to this pretable in a simple, intuitive, and biologically informative manner. These results demonstrate the for correction. archive are acknowledged here and thanked for their e!orts. rich source of species-specific information bioacoustic signal structures represent. They also illustrate the type of advances that can be made when morphometricians venture beyond the traditional confines of their field to address wider questions of significance in the biological and the physical sciences.

Introduction atical manifolds – unified by the fact that each point in the space cor- It is commonplace to read that a revolution has taken place in morpho- responds to a possible configuration of n landmark or semilandmark points, usually after the canonical “nuisance” factors of position, size Galley proofs represent the last metrics. When making such statements most authors refer to the development of what has come to be called “geometric morphometrics” and rotation of have been eliminated from consideration. There are an (GM), a term that usually goes undefined even in review articles about infinite number of such shape spaces. These geometric spaces make no it (e.g., Adams et al. 2004). A systematic evaluation of the morphomet- assumptions regarding the size of the landmark/semilandmark sets that ric literature reveals the presence of at least two competing definitions fall into their domain (n can be any integer), the rules used to specify opportunity authors will have to catch and of GM. The larger proportion of articles, either explicitly or implicitly, locations of the landmarks/semilandmarks, the nature of the objects on identify it with a specific set of data-analysis procedures (e.g., Pro- which these landmarks/semilandmarks are located, or the range of pro- crustes superposition, relative warps analysis, principal warps analysis) cedures used to analyze such shape coordinate data. that were formulated originally to operate on these Cartesian coordinate While this “strong” definition of GM has the advantage of enfor- data directly, as multivariable data sets, without transforming them first cing conceptual consistency, it is perhaps too restrictive if it is under- correct any errors that have been made in into scalar distances angles, areas, form factors, etc. as was commonly stood to apply only to the subset of GM methods that operate in the the case prior to the 1990s. In our view this is the “weak” definition of Kendall shape space sensu stricto (e.g., principal warps analysis, rel- GM; inadequate insofar as the technique lists offered are always exem- ative warps analysis). For example, the outline data analysis methods plary rather than definitive and deficient in that no attempt is made to of elliptical Fourier analysis (Kuhl and Giardina, 1982; Ferson et al., the copy-editing and/or typesetting explain what unites these (and other) data analysis approaches together 1985) and eigenshape analysis (Lohmann, 1983; MacLeod, 1999) are Author’semployed routinely Galley by geometric morphometricians, but neither oper- either mathematically or conceptually. This definition leads to confus- ing ambiguities and inconsistencies over what is, and what is not, a GM ates in the Kendall shape space (see Bookstein 1991). However, if the method. concept of GM is extended to apply to all methods used to analyse data The alternative “strong” definition of GM understands this to include in which point in the space corresponds to a possible configuration of process. And errors missed will remain in only those aspects of shape analysis that are undertaken in a Kendall n landmark points however determined, elliptical Fourier analysis, ei- (or a mathematically similar) shape space (Kendall, 1984; Bookstein, genshape analysis, and a host of other data formulations can be used by 1991) or some lower dimensional derivative thereof. This is a set of GM practitioners to test form and shape-based hypotheses rigorously. hypothetical mathematical spaces – actually the surfaces of mathem- The conceptual synthesis responsible for geometric morphometrics can accommodate this ecumenical approach to shape space definition the final, printed text. Also, this this is one easily and, indeed, can reap substantial benefits from its employment. ∗ Corresponding author This synthesis took place some time ago now – between 1984 and Email address: [email protected] (Norman M!"L#$%) 1989 – and involved three individuals primarily: Fred Bookstein, Colin

Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy ISSN 1825-5272 24th April 2013 © !CC 2013 Associazione Teriologica Italiana of the last steps in the process, authors doi:10.4404/hystrix-24.1-6299 must work to a tight deadline. Proofs & Proofreading What is a Galley Proof?

Published by Associazione Teriologica Italiana Online ﬁrst – 2013 Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy After copy editing the manuscript goes to

Available online at: http://www.italian-journal-of-mammalogy.it/article/view/6299/pdf doi:10.4404/hystrix-24.1-6299 layout to be placed into the journal’s font

Research Article Geometric Morphometric Approaches to Acoustic Signal Analysis in Mammalian Biology and page format. Here provisional Norman M!"L#$%a,∗, Jonathan K&'#(#&b, Kate E. J$)#*c

Keywords: Abstract morphometrics arrangement of the text on the page, bats In the quarter century since the development of geometric morphometrics the community of prac- echolocation titioners has largely been occupied with training issues and anatomy-based applications research in systematics the biological sciences. However, just as the scope of geometry transcends comparative anatomy, acoustics the potential scope of morphometric analysis transcends investigations of the form and shape of or- geometry ganismal bodies. An important area of opportunity for morphometricians lies in the application of shape analysis geometric methods to non-traditional form/shape analysis problems. To illustrate the potential of headings, placement of figures & tables, morphometric data analysis approaches to contribute to investigations outside its traditional base Article history: in (physical) morphology we report here results of an investigation into the morphometrics of bat Received: 27 May 2012 echolocation calls. By treating Hanning windowed spectrograms of bat search echolocation calls Accepted: 9 July 2012 as complex 3D surfaces, and by using a variant of eigensurface analysis to sample and compare these surfaces, it is possible to identify bat species to very high levels of accuracy (> 90% for raw etc. After layout the text used to go to the cross-validated training set identifications, > 80% for jackknifed training set identifications), even Acknowledgements The order of authorship reflects the relative contribution of individuals for species (e.g., Myotis) whose spectrograms have resisted separation into species-specific clusters to the writing of this article. We would like to thank the following using traditional spectrogram descriptors. Moreover, the shape modeling capabilities of geometric have provided support and/or encouragement for the bat echolocation morphometrics render the complex mathematical subspaces within which these spectrogram shape research reported herein: Charlotte Walters, Lucinda Kirkpatrick, Stuart Parsons, and Alanna Collen. This investigation depended critically on data reside – along with the discriminant functions used to separate training-set clusters – inter- the EchoBank bat echolocation call archive. All contributors to this pretable in a simple, intuitive, and biologically informative manner. These results demonstrate the typesetter who set the layout in type and archive are acknowledged here and thanked for their e!orts. rich source of species-specific information bioacoustic signal structures represent. They also illustrate the type of advances that can be made when morphometricians venture beyond the traditional confines of their field to address wider questions of significance in the biological and the physical sciences. printed off a few galley proof copies for Introduction atical manifolds – unified by the fact that each point in the space cor- It is commonplace to read that a revolution has taken place in morpho- responds to a possible configuration of n landmark or semilandmark metrics. When making such statements most authors refer to the de- points, usually after the canonical “nuisance” factors of position, size velopment of what has come to be called “geometric morphometrics” and rotation of have been eliminated from consideration. There are an checking by the Editor and Correspond- (GM), a term that usually goes undefined even in review articles about infinite number of such shape spaces. These geometric spaces make no it (e.g., Adams et al. 2004). A systematic evaluation of the morphomet- assumptions regarding the size of the landmark/semilandmark sets that ric literature reveals the presence of at least two competing definitions fall into their domain (n can be any integer), the rules used to specify of GM. The larger proportion of articles, either explicitly or implicitly, locations of the landmarks/semilandmarks, the nature of the objects on which these landmarks/semilandmarks are located, or the range of pro- ing Author. However, these days there is identify it with a specific set of data-analysis procedures (e.g., Pro- crustes superposition, relative warps analysis, principal warps analysis) cedures used to analyze such shape coordinate data. that were formulated originally to operate on these Cartesian coordinate While this “strong” definition of GM has the advantage of enfor- data directly, as multivariable data sets, without transforming them first cing conceptual consistency, it is perhaps too restrictive if it is under- into scalar distances angles, areas, form factors, etc. as was commonly stood to apply only to the subset of GM methods that operate in the no typesetting involved as it’s all done by the case prior to the 1990s. In our view this is the “weak” definition of Kendall shape space sensu stricto (e.g., principal warps analysis, rel- GM; inadequate insofar as the technique lists offered are always exem- ative warps analysis). For example, the outline data analysis methods plary rather than definitive and deficient in that no attempt is made to of elliptical Fourier analysis (Kuhl and Giardina, 1982; Ferson et al., explain what unites these (and other) data analysis approaches together 1985) and eigenshape analysis (Lohmann, 1983; MacLeod, 1999) are Author’semployed routinely Galley by geometric morphometricians, but neither oper- either mathematically or conceptually. This definition leads to confus- computer. ing ambiguities and inconsistencies over what is, and what is not, a GM ates in the Kendall shape space (see Bookstein 1991). However, if the method. concept of GM is extended to apply to all methods used to analyse data The alternative “strong” definition of GM understands this to include in which point in the space corresponds to a possible configuration of only those aspects of shape analysis that are undertaken in a Kendall n landmark points however determined, elliptical Fourier analysis, ei- (or a mathematically similar) shape space (Kendall, 1984; Bookstein, genshape analysis, and a host of other data formulations can be used by 1991) or some lower dimensional derivative thereof. This is a set of GM practitioners to test form and shape-based hypotheses rigorously. hypothetical mathematical spaces – actually the surfaces of mathem- The conceptual synthesis responsible for geometric morphometrics can accommodate this ecumenical approach to shape space definition easily and, indeed, can reap substantial benefits from its employment. ∗ Corresponding author This synthesis took place some time ago now – between 1984 and Email address: [email protected] (Norman M!"L#$%) 1989 – and involved three individuals primarily: Fred Bookstein, Colin

Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy ISSN 1825-5272 24th April 2013 © !CC 2013 Associazione Teriologica Italiana doi:10.4404/hystrix-24.1-6299 Proofs & Proofreading What is Involved in Galley Proof Review? Corrections must be made on a PDF copy of the article. Only deviations from the accepted manuscript text are eligible for correction.* Checks should be made of the following. Title Text (esp. widows & orphans) Tables (size, spacing, clarity) Figures (size, clarity) Any publisher’s queries will also be marked on the galley proof. These must be answered.

* Technically, rewrites at this point are subject to the payment of correction fees. Proofs & Proofreading What is Involved in Galley Proof Review? Any errors found should be marked and the correction indicated. The publisher will make the corrections. The error-finding, marking, revision process continues until the Corresponding Author certifies the proof error-free. Total turn-around time for a galley- proof receipt, review and return cycle is 72 hours (typically). Any errors that remain after the Corresponding Author’s certification are deemed the Corresponding Author’s fault and will not be corrected by the Publisher. Reprints How Do I Get Reprints of my Article?

Quaternary Science Reviews 201 (2018) 319e348 At the time the article pages are being Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Quaternary Science Reviews printed to make up journals copies for journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quascirev subscribes the printer can make additional The quantitative assessment of archaeological artifact groups: Beyond geometric morphometrics copies of the article from the master file. Norman MacLeod a, b, c, * a The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, UK b Department of Earth Sciences, University College, London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK c Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 39 Beijing, Donglu, Nanjing, China Publishers will, for a fee, arrange for this article info abstract

Article history: Archaeologists often wish to distinguish between groups of cultural artifacts using information collected limited print run to be made, but usually Received 1 April 2018 from descriptions or measurements of their morphological forms. Morphometric methods have played an Received in revised form increasingly large role in such quantitative assessments. However, standard approaches to morphometric 6 August 2018 analyses are often poorly suited to many artifact types as much variation of interest to archeologists cannot Accepted 21 August 2018 be quantified adequately by sparse sets of landmarks or semilandmarks. Use of measurement conventions also requires that investigators know which aspects of the artifacts under consideration are important to only for set a number of copies (e.g., 200, include at the outset of an investigation. In this review results obtained from landmark-semilandmark- Keywords: fl Quaternary based, and image pixel-based assessments of a common set of Paleoindian uted projectile points are fi Paleogeography compared. Results con rm that, by itself, PCA is unsuited for the assessment of between-group differences North America irrespective of data type, but can be useful as a transformation to reduce the dimensionality of a Data analysis morphological dataset while retaining its effective information content. Landmark-semilandmark data 250, 500). Some journals will provide a Projectile points analysed using geometric morphometric methods delivered the lowest-quality results whereas image pixel Paleoindian data analysed by the Naïve Bayes machine-learning classifier delivered the highest. Direct analyses of Typology artifact images using geometric morphometric methods delivered very good results. These findings suggest Morphometrics that the direct analyses of digital images and 3D scans, using either geometric morphometric data-analysis Discriminant analysis methods or machine-learning procedures, can provide archaeologists with tools that improve and extend Machine learning the scope of their assessments of a wide range of artifact types. small number of reprints (10–20) to the © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Corresponding Author free-of-change, but

Quaternary Science Reviews 201 (2018) 319e348 If you have been given, or purchased Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Quaternary Science Reviews printed copies of your article by the journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quascirev Publisher you may give these copies away The quantitative assessment of archaeological artifact groups: Beyond geometric morphometrics to colleagues, family and friends without Norman MacLeod a, b, c, * a The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, UK b Department of Earth Sciences, University College, London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK c Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 39 Beijing, Donglu, Nanjing, China penalty. You may not, however, make new article info abstract

Article history: Archaeologists often wish to distinguish between groups of cultural artifacts using information collected copies of these reprints and either give Received 1 April 2018 from descriptions or measurements of their morphological forms. Morphometric methods have played an Received in revised form increasingly large role in such quantitative assessments. However, standard approaches to morphometric 6 August 2018 analyses are often poorly suited to many artifact types as much variation of interest to archeologists cannot Accepted 21 August 2018 be quantified adequately by sparse sets of landmarks or semilandmarks. Use of measurement conventions also requires that investigators know which aspects of the artifacts under consideration are important to those away or sell them as this would include at the outset of an investigation. In this review results obtained from landmark-semilandmark- Keywords: fl Quaternary based, and image pixel-based assessments of a common set of Paleoindian uted projectile points are fi Paleogeography compared. Results con rm that, by itself, PCA is unsuited for the assessment of between-group differences North America irrespective of data type, but can be useful as a transformation to reduce the dimensionality of a Data analysis morphological dataset while retaining its effective information content. Landmark-semilandmark data constitute republishing the work any be a Projectile points analysed using geometric morphometric methods delivered the lowest-quality results whereas image pixel Paleoindian data analysed by the Naïve Bayes machine-learning classifier delivered the highest. Direct analyses of Typology artifact images using geometric morphometric methods delivered very good results. These findings suggest Morphometrics that the direct analyses of digital images and 3D scans, using either geometric morphometric data-analysis Discriminant analysis methods or machine-learning procedures, can provide archaeologists with tools that improve and extend Machine learning the scope of their assessments of a wide range of artifact types. violation of the Publisher’s (formatting) © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd. copyright.

1. Introduction in their efforts to understand the various dimensions of artifact similarities. Those interested in tracing cultural development in Classification e also known as typology e is fundamental to the ancient, pre-literate societies, however, must often rely a much practice of science in that all natural sciences focus on the issue of reduced subset of such data. identifying the constituents of the natural world as a necessary step One prominent area of archaeology in which the challenges toward understanding its structure, organization and the genera- associated with the practice of typology are evident involves efforts tive processes responsible for its existence (Levit and Meister, to understand human cultural development in the Paleoindian This would be especially problematic if 2006; Winsor, 2006). In archaeology, the process of interpreting chronostratigraphic interval. During this time not only are written human artifacts is especially complex owing to the complications of records absent, but the manner in which the artifacts in question human creativity and cultural influence that overlay the physical, have been assessed has varied widely. Analysis of the nominal ar- historical, psychological, ecological, and environmental differences tifacts that define fluted projectile points, such as those charac- that exist within and between human populations (Schiffer and teristic of the North American Clovis culture (ca. 11,600e10,800 you had given your (content) copyright to Skibo, 1997). In many cases archaeologists are able to consult a radiocarbon yrs BP, 13,550e12,850 calibrated yrs B.P., see Waters wide variety of written, pictorial and even audio and video records and Stafford, 2007; Miller et al., 2014), represents an interesting case in point. Identified primarily by their production of a distinc- tively shaped bladed tool, the PaleoIndian cultures that created the Publisher as this would mean the these artifacts spread across North America in the interval between * The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, UK E-mail address: [email protected]. the retreat of the northern glaciers at the end of the Pleistocene and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2018.08.024 0277-3791/© 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Publisher owns the content and format of the work. Copyright (©) An Author’s Guide to Copyright Copyright is a form of intellectual property that cedes to the owner of a creative work the exclusive right to make copies of the work usually for a limited time (e.g., 50– 100 years after the owner’s death). The owner of a creative work is, in the first instance, the creator(s) of that work, except in cases where the creator(s) is/are (an) employee(s) of a company and the work is created in the course of their employment. Then the copyright is owned by the employer. In the case where more than one person was involved in the work’s creation the copyright is held jointly by all creators or their employers. Copyright may not be transferred legally to any other person or business except by action of the work’s owner(s). Copyright (©) How Does This Affect Authors? No work currently under copyright may be copied and/or distributed except by permission of the work’s owner(s). A work does not have to be registered in order to be considered under copyright. The owner(s) of the work, while alive, enjoy(s) full copyright protection as a con- sequence of having caused the work to be created, irrespective of whether the work is registered. If copyright is transferred to anyone other that the original owner(s) the new owner must be able to prove the transfer was legal and agreed to by each owner in order to exercise their rights. Mere possession of a work (either original or in copy) does not constitute sufficient proof of ownership. Copyright (©) How Does This Affect Authors?

Before any publisher can legally publish a work they do not own they must either secure (1) ownership of the work or (2) permission to publish the work from the owner(s).

At the time the galley proofs are sent to the corresponding author the editor will also send a legal contract whose purpose is to secure the necessary legal right to publish the work. This form is sent to the corresponding author as either (1) the/a owner of the work or (2) a legitimate legal representative of the work’s owner in the case of corporate ownership.

This is a legally binding contract with the potential for legal sanctions to be applied to any signatories who misrepresent themselves or their authority with regard to the work in question. Copyright (©) The Copyright Assignment Form Copyright (©) The Copyright Assignment Form Copyright (©) The Copyright Assignment Form Copyright (©) The Copyright Assignment Form Copyright (©) The Copyright Assignment Form Copyright (©) The Copyright Assignment Form Copyright (©) Other Example Copyright Transfer Agreements

Springer Taylor & Francis Wiley Copyright (©) Criticisms of Copyright Transfer Agreements Standard agreements transfer right to exploit a potentially valuable asset in perpetuity under duress caused by the threat of withholding agreed services. Standard agreements grant favor to one party (the Publisher) in a way that does not obviously benefit the other party (the Author’s or authors’ institution[s]). Standard agreements are worded vaguely such that the grantee may claim rights and privileges not stated explicitly in the transfer agreement. In the case of an academic employee or student it is by no means clear that the Corresponding Author has the authority to transfer such assets to the Publisher. In the case of multiple authors it is by no means clear the Corresponding Author has the authority to transfer such assets to the Publisher on behalf of all authors and/or their institutions. Copyright (©) Criticisms of Copyright Transfer Agreements There is no need in law for ownership/copyright of any work to be wholly transferred to any publisher in order for the publisher to be allowed, legally, to reproduce and distribute the work. Copyright (©) Recommendations Academic employees should seek clarification regarding the copyright status of their work, the institution’s policy on copyright transfer agreements, and their own levels of authority pertaining to the execution of such agreements, and then act in accordance with these policies. In the absence of a specific policy authors should seek to retain copyright of their work, but grant the Publisher permission to publish the work. Most publishers possess alternative agreement forms that can be used to enact this option. Under no circumstances should a Corresponding Author transfer copyright of a multi-authored work to a publisher until and unless he/ she has sought and received written permission to do so from all authors and/or their employers. Copyright (©) Resources Wikipedia: Copyright Transfer Agreements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_transfer_ agreement)

Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) of the UK (https://www.jisc.ac.uk)

Fishman, Stephen. 2020. The copyright handbook: what every writer needs to know, 14th edition. Nolo Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 448 p. (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Copyright-Handbook-Every-Writer- Needs/dp/1413327834/ref=sr_1_2? dchild=1&keywords=the+copyright+handbook&qid=1595329778&sr= 8-2) Copy Editing, Proofreading & Copyright

Prof. Norman MacLeod School of Earth Sciences & Engineering, Nanjing University